Back to Top

Category: Resource Recycling Magazine

Goodwill sets its sights on recycling

Published: October 15, 2024
Updated:

by

Zsolt Biczo/Shutterstock.

This article appeared in the October 2024 issue of Resource Recycling. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

While Goodwill Industries International has long been associated with the reuse portion of the waste management hierarchy, the nonprofit secondhand store giant is making inroads to being a national heavyweight in recycling textiles, glass and other materials, several of its leaders recently said.

“Today, our positioning to drive change in circularity is unmatched,” Steve Preston, president and CEO of Goodwill Industries International, said during the Rockville, Maryland-based organization’s first Sustainability Summit, held in mid-August in Washington, D.C.

Goodwill as a brand is recognized by over 90% of the U.S. population, Preston explained, and more than 80% of Americans live within 10 miles of one of its 3,300 stores. In 2023, Goodwill diverted 4.3 billion pounds of products from disposal.

“We have over 135,000 employees, massive logistical networks with warehousing, transportation and technology to support it,” Preston added. “As a result, when we look at what could be, we know that we have the ability to be the most consequential player in our lane, to drive circularity in North America.”

Doing that requires not only collaboration across Goodwill stores but also “increasingly with formidable partners outside of Goodwill,” he said. Those include stakeholders in technology, automation and other fields.

Many of the nonprofit’s recent moves have been the result of a simple fact that much of what’s donated for resale often can only be thrown away — in huge volumes. Nick Carlson, business development director for Goodwill of West Michigan and board chair for the Michigan Recycling Coalition, said his Goodwill organization sees about 30% of the material that comes in head to a landfill because it’s not in a condition to be resold.

“We’re trying to think of ourselves as material managers,” Carlson said.

Other regional leaders shared similar sentiments. Colleen Morrone, president and CEO of Goodwill of Delaware and Delaware County, said three regional Goodwill organizations receive 113 million pounds of donations per year, equivalent to the weight about 25 fully-assembled space shuttles.

“That’s a lot of donations, and when we look around the room and add up everybody else’s donations, we’ve got a lot of space shuttles,” she said.

Besides running a regional Goodwill, Morrone leads Goodwill’s international sustainability committee, and she and her fellow D.C.-area directors over the last few years had a series of conversations about how to increase diversion from their locations.

“I also knew that in order for us to build a successful recycling solution, Goodwill of Delaware and Delaware County could not do it alone,” she said. “Businesses that are interested in using our non-saleable products as feedstock need them at scale.”

Lisa Rusyniak, president and CEO of Goodwill Industries of the Chesapeake, noted that boosting diversion also brings a financial benefit for Goodwill stores in reduced disposal costs. And she emphasized it fits squarely within Goodwill’s mission, both environmentally and fiscally.

“With our commitment to maximize the value of every item donated to us, combined with the pricing volatility of the salvage market, it’s imperative that we find markets for all of our non-sellable donations,” Rusyniak said.

How stores are approaching diversion

Goodwills around the country have embarked on a number of region-specific projects. Morrone described a partnership with Trex, the recycled-plastic composite decking producer that is a major end user of LDPE and LLDPE. The Greater Washington, Delaware and Chesapeake Goodwills have sent Trex nearly 20 million bags, “an important ingredient in the creation of their sustainable decking boards that are used by many of us in our homes across the country,” she said.

She added those Goodwills are also working on a partnership to send glass products to a processor that will pulverize them into sand. The resulting material has “the potential to be used in concrete abrasives, cleaning supplies and maybe even beach restoration,” Morrone said.

At Carlson’s Goodwill organization in Michigan, a project with plastics processor HydroBlox Technologies turns polypropylene and polyethylene into stormwater drainage management systems. Pittsburgh-based HydroBlox uses the plastics to produce 100% recycled-content products of porous plastic that’s used in construction to increase drainage.

In Phoenix, a regional Goodwill organization earlier this year launched a rigid plastics recycling project targeting HDPE and PP. And that pilot effort is gearing up to grow into a self-sustaining commercial operation. Beth Forsberg, senior vice president of sustainability for Goodwill of Central and Northern Arizona, said her regional Goodwill is recovering plastics No. 2 and No. 5 — not only from its own waste stream but from other partnering groups as well.

“We are actually putting them through everything from the shredding process to creating pellets,” Forsberg said.

Housed in a 10,000-square-foot facility, in its pilot stage the project involved installing a wet wash system, drying drum, an extruder, a pelletizer, a sheet press and a molding machine, stakeholders told Resource Recycling earlier this year. At the time, the pilot project anticipated having a capacity to process 500 to 600 tons of scrap plastic per year.

Forsberg announced that the project is scaling up beyond the pilot stage. Within the next four to six months, “there will actually be a product,” she told the summit.

The facility is processing a variety of inbound product types, including materials that are rarely recycled like yard signs.

“All the political signs are clean plastics that can be shredded and made into other materials,” Forsberg said.

Market potential

Goodwill partnering with recycling firms and expanding the types of diversion it does has the potential to rebrand the organization to consumers, Steve Alexander, CEO of the Association of Plastic Recyclers, said at the summit. APR owns Resource Recycling, Inc., publisher of this magazine.

He made a case to attendees that Goodwill has “an opportunity to expand your reclamation footprint, that will reposition you along with what you’re doing on textiles, as the consumer sustainability organization.”

Alexander pointed to extended producer responsibility laws that are increasingly passing in U.S. states. Some of those laws, such as Oregon’s, include a mechanism to provide funding to collection depots for the materials covered.

In Oregon, nine Goodwill locations are on the approved depot list, meaning they’ll receive funding from Circular Action Alliance, the producer responsibility organization managing Oregon’s system. And Alexander noted there is also the material commodity value on the back end.

“Essentially, you can double-dip: You get paid to be a repository, and then you get paid when you sell and market the material,” Alexander said.

Additionally, while only a handful of states have currently passed EPR for packaging — California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota and Oregon — Alexander said it’s only a matter of time before it’s a “de facto standard,” albeit likely not through federal legislation. That means more opportunities on the horizon to take advantage of Goodwill’s sizable footprint.

Alexander said he sees a particularly strong opportunity for Goodwill to become a leader in film and flexible packaging recovery, a stream that has had significant challenges in collection of late.

“Industry has spent millions, hundreds of millions of dollars trying to force film and flexible material into existing collection programs, curbside programs,” he said. “It doesn’t work, because it doesn’t go through the sorting process.”

Having dedicated drop-off locations, and an organization like Goodwill that is deepening its involvement in sorting and grading inbound materials, could be a significant opportunity for film recovery, he said.

In pilot, hub model shows promise

Widely known for its secondhand clothing, Goodwill has taken a particular interest in boosting textile recycling.
For the past two years, Goodwill’s national organization carried out a $1.3 million textile recycling pilot project funded by the Walmart Foundation. The organization released some of the takeaways from that project during the summit.

The goal was to “transform usable textile donations into feedstock for textile recycling,” said Preston, the Goodwill Industries International CEO, and it focused on developing an infrastructure to aggregate and sort textiles in preparation for either reuse or recycling at scale.

“As part of the research, we analyzed fiber composition of post-retail textiles and learned that approximately 60% of the material was found to be suitable for existing recycling technologies,” he said. “That finding reinforces our position as a key player and a feedstock supplier in the emerging textile recycling ecosystem.”

The grant also went towards testing a system of four regional textile hubs in Canada, Michigan, the Northeast U.S. and Southeast U.S. At each hub, Goodwill tested methods of sorting and grading textiles to identify what could be reused or recycled.

“As part of the grant, each of the four regional hubs developed business plans and advanced sortation models that can be replicated across the Goodwill network and adopted by other social enterprises for the advancement of textile circularity,” Goodwill added in a statement.

On the heels of that project, the Walmart Foundation granted Goodwill another $2 million for a project “to follow the global journey of secondhand textiles,” the organization stated.

The focus on textile recycling comes against a landscape of daunting statistics. By 2015, there were an estimated 92 million tons of textile waste generated globally each year, according to Boston Consulting Firm, which produced a widely cited Pulse of the Fashion Industry report in 2017. The consulting firm projected that number would expand to 148 million tons per year by 2030.

According to the most recent U.S. EPA figures, in 2018 the U.S. produced 17 million tons of textile waste. Of that amount, 2.5 million tons were recycled, for a diversion rate of 14.7%. Globally, the number is lower than 1%, said Patrik Frisk, formerly CEO of Under Armour and current CEO of emerging textile recycling firm ReJu, during a summit panel discussion.

And the bulk of that material is PET — polyester — which makes up about 56% of all fibers produced globally each year, Frisk said. One factor complicating recovery is that clothing is made from a combination of different materials.

“The reason we’re not recycling more is because the technology to be able to separate the chemistry that exists when you combine things, is so difficult that it’s taken a long time for somebody to innovate their way there,” Frisk said. That technical challenge comes alongside a lack of regulation requiring such a system to develop, of collection networks and of scaled sortation technology specific to textiles.

ReJu launched in 2023 and began planning what it calls a “regeneration center,” which it anticipates will take three years to complete. The company, which has been closely following Goodwill’s efforts in textile grading and preparation for recycling, also launched a demonstration plant in Germany at the end of August.

“Can you imagine, we’re going to space, we’re driving electric cars, but we’re not sorting apparel even in a semi-automatic way anywhere in the world today?” Frisk said. He noted that textile sorting is traditionally done by product type, not by the type of base fiber material. While sorting by product type can be done manually, sorting by fiber composition requires additional equipment.

Frisk dismissed the idea of moving away from polyester in favor of natural materials for textile production, saying it’s simply “not possible.” Its attributes like water resistance, light weight, machine washability and durability are just too useful.

“We can’t live without it, unfortunately, for the foreseeable future,” Frisk said. “It’s an amazing product that we need to understand how to live with in a much smarter way.”

Building and reaching: EPA opens grant applications

Published: October 15, 2024
Updated:

by

Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock.

This article appeared in the October 2024 issue of Resource Recycling. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

If you missed the chance to grab a slice of the $198 million federal recycling grant pie last year, your second chance has arrived.

More than $100 million is available to local governments, Native tribes and other organizations for either recycling infrastructure on one hand or public education around the topics of food waste and composting on the other, the U.S. EPA announced in September. The announcement came as recipients of the first round in 2023 began hiring staff, collecting data, buying equipment and launching local outreach campaigns.

All of those millions came courtesy of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to transportation, energy and other sectors.

“Thanks to President Biden’s Investing in America agenda, EPA is deploying unprecedented resources to improve recycling services and increase educational outreach to communities,” EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan said in a written statement. “When we work together to prevent waste that contributes to climate change, we support local economies, create jobs that pay well, and better protect the health of everyone in the community.”

As in the first round, the new grant program prioritizes proposals that would benefit “communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution” while bolstering a more circular economy nationwide, according to the announcement. It’s available in three buckets:

  • Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling grants for federally recognized tribes and intertribal consortia: $20 million total for individual grants ranging from $100,000 to $1.5 million, to establish, grow or otherwise improve recycling collection and management systems. As of this writing, applications are due March 14, 2025.
  • SWIFR grants for political subdivisions of states and territories, such as cities and counties: $58 million total for individual grants from $500,000 to $5 million, for the same purposes as the tribal grants. Applications are due Dec. 20.
  • Recycling education and outreach: a single $39 million grant for a coalition project that would implement a national consumer food waste reduction campaign, increase the market for compost and boost education and outreach about composting. Applications are due Dec. 20.

Applying for federal grants can be an intimidating process, requiring meticulous documentation and detailed planning. But it’s also an arena where even small organizations that have never received a federal grant before can succeed, said Jill Buck, founder and board member of the Go Green Initiative. The California-based nonprofit received $1.1 million last year, its first EPA grant ever, to work with school district staff and high school students in Camden, New Jersey, to spread understanding and participation in recycling programs.

“It’s not for the weak of heart, I will tell you that,” Buck said of the application process, adding that applicants should start early and take advantage of EPA’s informational sessions and other technical assistance. “This is the ultimate reading comprehension exercise; you really have to be fastidious and have tremendous attention to detail when it comes to the instructions.”

Fitting all of the needed information within the page limit can feel “like squeezing a watermelon into a Coke bottle,” she said. “Then you need to demonstrate that you can handle the money.”

A clear and compelling purpose also helps, said Susan Caswell, sustainability director for Florida’s Osceola County. The county received about $750,000 for an education and demonstration effort with a particular focus on glass, which the county had to give up in its bids for county-wide recycling and trash pickup service in 2019 — “every single potential vendor asked us to remove glass,” Caswell said. Yet why the county doesn’t recycle glass is still one of the most frequent questions she hears, and some residents pay a private service to collect it.

The education campaign will work with local schools and feature a mobile glass pulverizer, not only to process the material right in front of residents’ own eyes but also to harness the latent interest in glass to inspire recycling initiatives in the area, Caswell said. The area is full of hotels and restaurants, for example, which generate “just a tremendous amount of glass.”

“We went for the education and outreach kind of as the first step in rethinking glass recycling for the county,” Caswell said. “It allowed us to tell that story in an effective way.”

Projects such as these also highlight how the EPA grants can have ripple effects, both in their targeted communities and in others that might follow their example. Buck said the New Jersey plan — particularly environmental clubs, internships and leadership development for high school students — already proved itself in Pleasanton, California. Since the Go Green Initiative launched a similar project almost a decade ago, the city has seen recycling rates and collections rise while contamination fell by 27%, according to a letter from the city to the EPA.

“They were getting out to businesses and church groups and civic organizations,” Buck said of the Pleasanton students. And as Caswell put it, when it comes to the youth, “if you get them engaged in it, then they start getting on their parents’ case to do better.”

First-person Perspective: Video monitoring is a catalyst for efficiency

Published: October 15, 2024
Updated:

by

Putida Supakarn/Shutterstock.

This article appeared in the October 2024 issue of Resource Recycling. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

Recycling facilities are the unsung heroes of our waste management system. These complex operations process vast quantities of materials, facing immense pressure to optimize efficiency while maintaining environmental and safety standards. Video monitoring technology has emerged as a powerful tool to address these challenges.

The Power of Sight

At the heart of successful recycling lies visibility. Video surveillance provides a comprehensive view of operations, from incoming materials to the final sorted products. By strategically placing cameras throughout the facility, managers gain real-time insights into every stage of the process.

  • Identifying Bottlenecks: Video analysis helps pinpoint areas where materials accumulate or processes slow down. This knowledge empowers facility managers to make data-driven decisions to streamline operations.
  • Enhancing Quality Control: Cameras enable real-time monitoring of material quality, ensuring only pure materials proceed to the next stage. This reduces contamination and improves overall product quality.
  • Prioritizing Worker Safety: Recycling facilities are inherently hazardous. Video surveillance acts as a vigilant eye, detecting unsafe practices and enabling prompt intervention. Additionally, footage can be used for safety training, fostering a culture of prevention.

Compliance and Cost Savings

Regulatory compliance is a top priority for recycling facilities. Video evidence can be invaluable in demonstrating adherence to environmental and safety standards. Beyond compliance, surveillance systems contribute to cost-reduction.

  • Preventing Downtime: By monitoring equipment performance, potential issues can be identified early, minimizing downtime and associated costs.
  • Optimizing Resource Allocation: Video analysis can reveal inefficiencies in labor and energy usage, leading to optimized resource allocation.

Choosing the Right Equipment

The harsh conditions of a recycling facility demand specialized equipment. Ruggedized cameras designed for industrial environments are essential for reliable performance. While the initial investment in robust cameras might be higher, the long-term benefits in terms of durability and reduced maintenance costs often outweigh the upfront expense.

Investing in video surveillance is not just about security; it’s about transforming recycling operations. By harnessing the power of visual data, facilities can enhance efficiency, improve safety, and contribute to a more sustainable future.

Heidi Schmidt has worked in the video technology space for almost 20 years, building expertise in CCTV, industrial video applications, new product development, video network solutions, and more. As global sales manager at Opticom Tech, she helps customers implement robust video monitoring solutions for unique and harsh industrial environments and can be reached at [email protected] or 269-719-5889.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not imply endorsement by Resource Recycling, Inc. If you have a subject you wish to cover in an op-ed, please send a short proposal to [email protected] for consideration.

First-person Perspective: The case for national data reporting

Published: October 15, 2024
Updated:

by

Joyseulay/Shutterstock.

This article appeared in the October 2024 issue of Resource Recycling. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

With negative mainstream media coverage eroding public trust in recycling, now is the time to make changes. An important piece of those improvements is accurate, standardized data collection.

The State of Recycling

In recent years, recycling has been hit with a wave of negative press, casting a shadow over the industry’s future. The most troubling aspect is that some critics advocate for dismantling the system rather than offering solutions to overcome known challenges and create a system that works for everyone. No matter how you cut it, recycling is an important service that plays a key role in reducing waste, lowering greenhouse gas emissions and protecting virgin resources. It also creates thousands of jobs and generates billions in revenue each year, thereby contributing to a strong economy.

Fortunately, the majority of Americans still believe in recycling. According to The Recycling Partnership’s Recycling Confidence Index, nearly 80% of people believe that recycling has a positive impact on waste reduction and is worth the effort. Despite that, less than half of those surveyed were confident their recyclables are being transformed into new products.

The data appears to validate this attitude, too. According to The Recycling Partnership’s State of Recycling report, only 21% of residential recyclables are being recycled and 76% of recyclables are lost at the household level.
This presents an opportunity to rebuild public trust in recycling through investment, policy and education. To transition to a circular economy, we must invest in the future by modernizing recycling systems and rigorously measuring efficiency at every stage.

The good news is that recycling is finally undergoing a much-needed revitalization. The U.S. EPA has committed $275 million in Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling grants and $75 million in Consumer Recycling Education and Outreach grants. The funding is already helping states and communities invest in infrastructure, research and data collection.

Another great sign of recycling revitalization is the emergence of extended producer responsibility programs for packaging. California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota and Oregon have all adopted printed paper and packaging EPR legislation. Although these programs are at different stages of implementation, The Recycling Partnership estimates that EPR in these states will lead to a 35% increase in materials recycled and a 24% boost in the national recycling rate.

Why Accurate Data is Essential

The importance of reliable, high-quality data cannot be overstated. It gives policymakers, investors and program managers the information they need to make informed decisions about where investments will have the greatest impact and direct resources to where they are needed most. What’s more, robust data systems promote accountability and transparency, ensuring that all stakeholders — from producers to consumers — are contributing to waste-reduction efforts and sharing the responsibility of managing waste.

Eunomia’s groundbreaking report, The 50 States of Recycling, demonstrates the power of large-scale data analysis in its state-by-state assessment of recycling rates for containers and packaging. It emphasizes the importance of quality data, writing that “reliable and verifiable data is critical to making effective policy and programming
decisions,” and observes that “states that have more comprehensive and current data, along with a state managed reporting system, achieve higher recycling rates.”

Beyond its practical applications, data also plays a crucial role in restoring public trust in the recycling system. When the public sees evidence that recycling programs are effective and that their efforts are making a difference, they are more likely to participate actively.

National Data Reporting as the North Star

As one would expect, in states that require regular reporting, local governments and waste management districts tend to collect data that aligns with the state reporting obligations. It’s the most efficient way to measure local program performance while streamlining state-mandated reporting requirements. If a national data reporting standard were to be introduced today, it stands to reason that states would also be motivated to adapt their reporting programs to align with the national standard, thereby simplifying their reporting responsibilities.

The lack of uniformity in how states and local governments measure waste diversion reflects the country’s unique tapestry of political boundaries, jurisdictions and authorities, state regulations, local ordinances, service models, funding mechanisms, population density, wealth distribution, access to recycling and more. What’s more, there seems to be an exception to every rule. Consequently, the dream of having an end-to-end reporting system that neatly rolls up data by jurisdiction, sector or industry can sometimes feel out of reach. But the dream lives on! Imagine a national data tracking system that collects standardized data from key players across all sectors and aggregates the results into insightful summaries that can be shared with all relevant stakeholders.

Many attempts at data standardization have been made over the years, and we’re no strangers to the game, either. Working in concert with The Recycling Partnership and BioCycle, we deliver the Municipal Measurement Program, a program designed to standardize municipal residential collection program data. It was created to facilitate peer-to-peer and national benchmark comparisons.

Another example worthy of mention is the EPA’s State Measurement Program, which was designed to encourage collaboration among state agencies and facilitate data-sharing. The program is no longer in operation, but it was on the right track.

Establishing a national data standard and reporting framework would act as a rallying call for all stakeholders to harmonize language and align methodologies to establish consistent measurement across the entire system.

The Path Forward

In addition to maintaining funding for infrastructure upgrades, program support and research, the EPA needs to continue collaborating with industry stakeholders to make sustained progress toward achieving all five strategic objectives outlined in its National Recycling Strategy.

One of the five strategic objectives, standardize measurement and increase data collection, will create a more resilient and cost-effective national recycling system. The strategy correctly explains that “different definitions and measurement practices create challenges to setting goals and tracking progress. Stakeholders across the recycling system agree that more consistent measurement methodologies are needed to measure recycling system performance.”

Achieving this objective will depend on the effective execution of these key activities:

  • Develop and implement national recycling system definitions, measures, targets and performance indicators.
  • Create a tracking and reporting plan.
  • Create recycled content measures.
  • Coordinate domestic and international measurement efforts.
  • Increase data availability and transparency about recyclable materials generated and the materials manufacturers need by:
    • Gathering data.
    • Improving data availability and transparency.
    • Improving the accessibility of data for product design and procurement.

In addition, the emergence of EPR in states across the country offers hope and good reason to be optimistic about recycling’s future. These policies are likely to bring significant changes to the recycling landscape including:

  • Producers now share the responsibility of material collection and recovery.
  • Reduction of the financial burden placed on local governments in the collection and processing of materials.
  • Incentivization of producers to improve the recyclability of their products and packaging.
  • Motivation of the private sector to promote recycling in support of a circular economy.
  • Encouragement of industry collaboration to reduce costs and increase recycling.

As EPR programs are developed, it’ll be important for producer responsibility organizations to explore opportunities to connect to existing local government programs to streamline data reporting and facilitate data-sharing.

The implementation of national data reporting policies is not just a bureaucratic exercise, it is a necessary step toward creating a more efficient, transparent and effective recycling system in the U.S. With reliable data, policymakers can make better decisions, the public can regain trust in the recycling process and the nation can move closer to its national recycling goals.

Josh Reid is the CEO of Re-TRAC and parent company Emerge Knowledge Design Inc. This article first appeared in Policy Now.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not imply endorsement by Resource Recycling, Inc. If you have a subject you wish to cover in an op-ed, please send a short proposal to [email protected] for consideration.

First-person perspective: Market-driven solutions to precious-metals supply

Published: September 26, 2024
Updated:

by

Joaquin Corbalan P/Shutterstock.

This article appeared in the September 2024 issue of Resource Recycling. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

Global growth in uptake of electric vehicles, semiconductors, fuel cells, battery panels, medical devices and other products and components is fueling heightened demand for precious metals. Manufacturers of a diverse range of products favor these metals for their superior electrical conductivity, corrosion resistance, hardness and a range of other valuable qualities.

At the same time, precious metals are a limited natural resource. It is not uncommon for mines in South Africa, for example, to plunge 2 or 3 kilometers into the ground to reach their deposits. Many major mining operations around the world are advanced in their life cycles. While exploration for new sources is ongoing, the price of such efforts is very high.

Of course, the approaching shortage of precious metals is problematic not only from the perspective of simple industrial supply and demand; there also is the devastating impact on our environment and human well-being to be taken into account. According to a February 2022 research briefing to the U.K. Parliament, “Mining and mineral processing consume large volumes of water, including in arid regions. The discharge of water from mine sites can result in serious contamination of waterways. The industry uses over 8% of the world’s total energy each year to produce metals, and contributes to 10% of the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Improper storage of mine waste has resulted in humanitarian and ecological disasters.”

The mining of precious metals in particular involves long-established and well-understood methods and high safety standards, making it a much smaller contributor to environmental issues than some base metal or rare-earth mining operations. However, according to a study published by the International Platinum Association in 2023, the carbon footprint of recycled precious metals is still more than 90% less than primary mining.

Recovering Vs. Mining Precious Metals

There are so many recoverable precious metals — gold, iridium, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhodium, ruthenium and silver — that are being wasted today.

The World Health Organization has referred to e-scrap — computers, household appliances, medical devices, mobile phones, etc. — as “the fastest growing solid waste stream in the world,” of which only 17.4% was documented as formally collected and recycled. E-scrap typically contains precious metals such as gold and silver as well as platinum group metals, depending on the kind of material.

By contrast, the majority of waste and spent catalysts from industrial production worldwide is a ready source of recoverable metals that is already being recycled.

Even slightly improving the ratio of the precious metals that are recovered in various ways relative to those that are mined would offer tremendous, varied and widely shared benefits. To date, the relative complexities associated with recovering precious metals have made the process only a limited player in industry’s plans for attaining the resources that it needs. Market-driven trends, however, are changing the equation.

Changing Business Models

Primary among those trends is that the math of recovering versus mining precious metals is evolving.

As we see the various in-demand precious metals grow more scarce, we also are seeing those metals grow more expensive. Ironically, the trend toward scarcity will improve the business models for processes such as refurbishing and repurposing of components that utilize precious metals, and for more efficiently and effectively recycling recoverable metals from production scrap.

Many smartphones, for example, currently end up in landfills and/or incineration plants around the world; however, as the metals that mobile phones require grow more expensive to mine and procure, it will fuel a greater economic incentive to spur reuse of the devices. The potential impact on sustainability of a large-scale and global shift from discarding to reusing phones would be profound.

Furthermore, mining is inefficient and expensive relative to recycling. There are variables to be factored around the vein of the ore, but, in most cases, 1 ton of mined gold ore can be expected to yield about 5 grams of gold, while 1 ton of cell phones, about 10,000 units, could offer up to 280 grams of gold.

Changing Customer Demands

In many cases, manufacturers of products that rely on precious metals have new demands that are forcing change in the ways that they are sourced. Buyers in multiple industries are becoming more demanding of “conflict-free” resources via mineral sourcing programs that take into account human rights, environmental impact and ethics — as well as supplies that are sourced by less environmentally damaging means.

Plus, supply-chain disruptions in recent years have crystallized manufacturers’ attention on sourcing precious metals and other supplies geographically from nearer to where they will be processed. In this way, operations are rendered less vulnerable to geopolitical issues, and manufacturers potentially gain greater control over and visibility into their supply.

Consequently, recycling is moving closer to recovering and refining bases, enabling, for example, precious metals to be reclaimed from metal fragments and other waste generated during a manufacturing process. Integrating recovery and refining of precious metals with the manufacture of industrial precious metals products in this way can greatly contribute to sustainability and help ensure a steady supply of pure resources.

Indeed, decentralization in the recycling industry is key to reducing global reliance on mining. Increasingly, the precious metals industry is moving away from the traditional, CapEx-intensive solutions such as electric and plasma arc furnaces, which depend on very high utilization to turn a profit, and toward more environmentally friendly technologies. Relying on, for example, hydrometallurgical solutions that utilize chemical or microbial techniques facilitates the deployment of recycling operations next to where scrap is being generated and where the recovered precious metals are going to be used.

Ultimately, it’s likely to be these sorts of market-driven reforms that will drive real, lasting solutions to the world’s precious metals supply issues.

If properly recycled, there are significant amounts of valuable and finite resources to be reaped from e-scrap. Precious metal raw materials that are 100% recycled today are challenging to achieve without substantially more recovery, so it is crucial to grow understanding of precious metal recovery across manufacturers and general consumers alike.

Bodo Albrecht is president of Tanaka Precious Metals (Americas), responsible for all operations in North, Central, and South America, including sales, distribution and support for all Tanaka products in close cooperation with manufacturing, marketing, technical, research and development and related operations in Asia. He is a precious metals executive with deep roots in the industry, as well as in rare earth elements and strategic metals, with 20 years of international management positions with Degussa AG and 15 years running a consulting firm, BASIQ Corporation, before joining Tanaka.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not imply endorsement by Resource Recycling, Inc. If you have a subject you wish to cover in an op-ed, please send a short proposal to [email protected] for consideration.

Reaching for circularity

Published: September 26, 2024
Updated:

by

3rdtimeluckystudio/Shutterstock.

This article appeared in the September 2024 issue of Resource Recycling. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

Editor’s note: This is the second of a two-part series exploring the concept of circularity. Part 1 was published in the August issue.

“It’s circular. It’s like a carousel. You pay the quarter, you get on the horse, it goes up and down and around.” –Kevin Nealon as Gary Potter in “Happy Gilmore.”

In part 1 of this article, we explored the appeal of circularity and the circular economy as powerful principles of materials management, envisioning the endless cycling of package materials to reach the goal of conservation/containment of energy and material inputs — a materials management system that emulates natural stable systems, such as a mature forest, where carbon levels are balanced, and the amount of carbon naturally released in the form of gas is equal to the amount stored by the reservoir of tree and plant biomass. Everything falling to the forest floor becomes usable carbon food, which is cycled up into living trees, plants, bacteria and fungi in a closed, homeostatic system requiring the lowest productivity and inputs needed for forest resiliency and diversity.

The deep metaphorical power of circularity and the circular economy mimicking healthy natural systems led it to replace the old, more linear waste management hierarchy in the public sphere, providing a more inspiring path toward mitigating the unsustainable environmental impacts of resource consumption.

Recycling is a strategy often connected to circularity. They comparatively present an opportunity for further exploration. Recycling functions as a last resort that seems to accept the fact of mass consumption but works to mitigate it by capturing remaining value — whether monetary, energy, lower emissions or reduced carbon before disposal. Recycling and circularity can be seen as two related but separate goods, one a tactical method of salvage that aims for convenience, the other a framework for sustaining resources and lowering energy use. However, at the nexus of recycling and circularity are troubling real-world paradoxes.

However related, residential package recycling today meanders around but does not approach lofty circular tenets. Its approach to managing end-of-life materials stretches far back into human history to hunters and gatherers, when usefulness of an object diminished, lesser uses were found, or the material was consumed as fuel. In the present day, recycling of materials like paper and packaging is more of an open, linear system and business process, not a cycle of something valuable. It may be improved by using underlying principles of circularity, but circularity cannot be sustained for physical reasons through recycling — it can only get closer to that ideal. Implemented by free market actors, public programs, policymakers and other recycling supply chain players, recycling captures whatever it can for remanufacturing into beneficial products, with the uncollected or misprocessed materials being disposed of or lost.

RESIDENTIAL PACKAGE RECYCLING’S ROLE

For package recycling, the gold standard of circularity is arguably when materials are turned back into the same product. This is much less common than recognized and is found most often in materials with high captured energy and durability, like metals and paper fibers. Further, material consumption is not stopped by recycling, it is only slowed, and the residential recycling supply chain rarely closes the circle for any type of commonly recycled package. The powerful implication is that use of extracted virgin materials will continue on a massive scale for most packaging.

Yet we come not to bury recycling but to raise its absolute necessity, and with it, the need to finance and improve it for more material capture. We do, however, question the facile use of “circularity,” especially when recycling is pushed as a defining answer to a package’s circularity. Kristian Syberg, an environmental risk researcher at Roskilde University in Denmark, critiqued this tendency from across the globe, writing in Scientific American in 2023 that “attention has been primarily focused on recycling,” but the reality of recycling and the circular ideal is subject to scrutiny and misses the mark of reducing waste. This shows up graphically in some of the conditions recycling finds itself up against:

  • Household recycling rates have not materially improved for over 20 years despite more investment and the popularity of residential single stream recycling. As such, the base of any new potential cycle of materials is continually diminishing, a dwindling spiral that necessitates more virgin extraction.
  • Even with the high-value, energy-trapping aluminum can, 40% were still thrown away despite their value in 2020, according to The Aluminum Association, an industry group.
  • Persistent gaps in access and behavior, due to a fundamentally flawed system of properly financing material collection, result in almost 4 of every 5 generated tons being lost to disposal.
  • Extended producer responsibility laws are designed to address the system financing issue, but so far only five U.S. states have passed EPR for packaging.
  • According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, less than 20% of plastics enters the recycling stream and only 9% actually is recycled.

In addition to these overall system challenges, recycling circularity faces unavoidable physical limitations. Let’s examine one of the best cases of recycling circularity in the package recycling stream: aluminum cans. Other materials like glass and steel compare favorably with cans in the limited inherent loss of material in each remanufacturing cycle, but aluminum cans are much more likely to cycle back to their original form. Cardboard cycles well back to original form but material damage in each cycle limits the total cycles to around seven times, whereas can cyclability can be as high as 12-20 times.

The refining of pure aluminum requires distilling from bauxite ore, converting highly variable inputs into purified molecules of alumina, which are refined by chemical electrolysis requiring huge amounts of electricity. Newly formed pig aluminum then goes through a series of alloying and/or coatings through furnaces or chemical baths. Specific can sheet or top alloys are then painted and/or labeled to be used in the packaging process. When captured for recycling, the high energy concentration in the original product production is saved. However, if can material recyclability is limited to 20 times at best; by the end of the 20th cycle, the input of high energy concentrated virgin materials will have reached 100%. Thus, even in this best case, continued virgin material extraction is an unavoidable outcome.

The force that prevents true circularity is the same one that works against all structured systems in nature: entropy. The groundwork of entropic effects on circularity is laid even before collection in the design of packaging. From that point forward, through the entire recycling supply chain, including collection, processing and remanufacturing, entropy weighs heavily on package recyclability and its circularity. Let’s unpackage that further.

Today’s newer packaging formats have a complexity that inherently makes them less recyclable, while design trends seem to be working against recovery through recycling:

Downgauging. This umbrella concept encompasses using thinner gauge materials but also adjusting package size while maintaining functionality and quality until discard. Both trends have affected highly recyclable packaging. Steel cans and PET bottles have become at least 30% lighter, thinner or smaller over the last 20 years, and aluminum cans in the last 50 years have become lighter by half.

Downgauging is a very circular-economy practice, reducing material consumption and increasing efficiency through net savings on materials and energy. But it makes the return of materials to use harder and more expensive. Like reduce and reuse, recycling benefits from higher durability, which runs counter to common upstream sustainability and efficiency efforts. As McKinsey & Company wrote in 2020, brands and packagers “will have to face complicated trade-offs such as recyclability versus carbon footprint.” Some brands with lofty circularity goals seem to understand the dilemma and are now publicly announcing alternative carbon metrics over recyclability.

Multi-material packaging. Package system choices trend toward customization to increase benefits such as barrier and taste protection, structural efficiency and shopping aisle appeal. It is not surprising that for the most malleable material, up to 20% of plastic packaging is multi-material or multi-layered. The benefits of custom packaging are real and include safety, food preservation and longer shelf life — all these connecting to circular principles around efficient use of resources. However, multiple layers complicate recycling by adding variables to the primary targeted material to be captured through cross-contamination.

Packages utilizing materials with new chemistries and formats. Many new packages may be worth recycling (i.e., carbon capture or energy saving positive), but each new input into mixed recyclables for processing is marginal, and can result in increased contamination cost, scale inefficiency, and lack of local markets. Examples include complex forms of flexible packaging, the ever-changing cosmetic and home health package segment, ultra-convenient one-step delivery systems, and an array of food service packaging items, some having very good recycling characteristics, some of which do not.

The upshot is that conscious brand packaging design choices add entropy to the package recycling system. Although cardinal materials for packaging may still predominate in today’s packaging systems, the trends outlined above multiply against each other with deleterious effect. A key corollary of these trends is that the pace of packaging innovation has constantly outpaced the ability of residential recycling’s business and technological model to keep up. This may be the reason growing numbers of brands are now actively postponing or adjusting their recyclability and content goals downward.

AN IMPERFECT RECYCLING PROCESS

A natural part of the package recycling process from collection to remanufacturing is loss in material yield and purity from the inevitable entropy from each refinement process to reach the same package function. This system of collection and processing, through the complexity and impacts of sortation and separation to pure commodities, can be illustrated through some of the following examples:

  • After packaging serves its useful function, some of it is placed in ultra-convenient household recycling carts. But data indicates that homeowners don’t always recycle all their recyclables, perhaps in part due to the challenge of making them clean and dry.
  • Misleading labels and recycling messages cause “wish-cycling” of non-recyclable items. These contaminating materials erode the system’s ability to move material-sorted recyclables to remanufacturing due to chemistry, complexity or lack the scale for removal in the system.
  • Recycling collection’s efficiencies optimize material deliveries at low cost but also add entropy by mixing and densification. Compaction of materials en route flattens, crushes, deforms and pushes disparate materials into each other, degrading, decaying and cross-contaminating target materials.
  • Mixed-material recycling processes introduce more entropy as unloading and sortation misdirect or similarly degrade some materials.
  • Reclamation and manufacturing steps for reusing the material contribute further to the loss in packaging yield per cycle, i.e., everything from re-sorting to furnace losses, fines loss and the need to improve chemical properties through dilution and so on.

The final non-circular reality is that too many materials do not ever return to the same product due to things like costs, material color, chemical composition, contamination, lost durability or specialization. Most of what we consider to be recycling is actually downcycling. The reason that packages tend to downcycle is materials used lose their purity or other characteristics in each run through the cycle, and repairing to their original condition can be prohibitive. Examples abound, such as post-consumer food-contact PET made into carpet fiber; glass recycled into fiberglass or used as alternative landfill cover (especially where there is no glass bottle manufacturing), colored HDPE containers made into piping, and mixed aluminum container bales going into lower-quality ingots.

It’s not that downcycling is a bad thing — it still reduces virgin materials, saves energy, lowers emissions and captures carbon, but it begs questions around circularity, especially when the downcycled products are not typically recycled at scale. Carpet and textile recycling happen at a small scale nationally, and few programs exist to recycle fiberglass insulation or drainage pipe.

So recycling is not a closed loop, and the benefits of recycling material are not endless but only finite inputs that diminish with each cycle through the system so that total loss is achieved in a determinate number of cycles. Though the battle for better yield from the residential package recycling process is continually waged throughout the recycling supply chain, there is simply not yet enough energy or financial capability in the system to close the losses. Ironically, as capture and recycling of material increases, getting to a pure cycling of materials with little to no loss may have infinite costs and not be desirable due to the effort required.

This is clearly a pessimistic characterization, but every step in the recycling process — reaching all the way back to design — is improvable, and clear steps can be taken that will lead us closer to the circular chimera. Many of the tactics for circular strengthening are well-known but we still need new, broader and more robust approaches. Remembering that the battle against entropy in material circularity is a product of conscious business and political decision-making choices, to provide the proper motivation and sense of urgency, we remind readers that if we keep consuming increasingly complex materials at the same rate, the powerful forces of entropy will guarantee ongoing high-impact, high-energy of virgin material extraction and use, all of which will make it extremely difficult to sustain nature or help cool the planet.

There are some essential steps forward we can take.

First, bring back “reduce and reuse.” As observed by the World Economic Forum, “in a properly built circular economy, one should rather focus on avoiding the recycling stage at all costs. It may sound straightforward, but preventing waste from being created in the first place is the only realistic strategy.” Here we come full circle back to the old waste management hierarchy that prioritized reduce, reuse and recycle, with the first two being the only true circular methods for reducing waste that bring the highest benefits to the environment. It is high time to push these strategies to funded policy and into brand business models. The recent move to EPR is beginning to create a long-needed bridge to do just that. Along with deposit recycling systems, enforcement components and supply chains to reduce and reuse are taking hold, a highly welcome development. Finally, brands still have, and are constantly working on, the many opportunities to pursue waste reduction upstream by addressing the size of formats for product delivery and product/package ratios. Efforts downstream to make reusable or more durable package formats and minimization of materials that simply become waste traveling through the recycling process need similar attention.

Second, accountable circularity metrics throughout the package supply chain could help even the playing field where circularity features are more highly favored:

  • Create enforceable design metrics that measure and reward brands for packaging reductions, reuse potential and recyclability in a cumulative, hierarchical scoring format. This would drive them to do things like maximize material strength and durability for reuse and recycling while consistently moving toward less material complexity and more material uniformity.
  • Insist upon accountable recycled content metrics and clear labeling to both enhance market pull for clean recyclable materials and ensure cleanliness through consumer understanding.
  • Provide easy-to-understand, full greenhouse gas accounting and public incentives as requirements for residential, EPR and deposit recycling programs.

Third, properly finance recycling collection through a combination of EPR, DRS and mandatory recycling ordinances, providing the resourcing and legal motivations needed for universal recycling access and for the educational efforts required to expand clean recycled material stream yields. Meanwhile, properly cost disposal options for all of the externalities in their disposal fees, i.e., long-term emissions and impacts on downstream life systems, so that clear choices can be made.

Lastly, while eco-modulating packaging for recycling-oriented attributes is a tenet in EPR, virgin material eco-modulation could also be used to internalize upstream externalities, minimize material loss and mitigate the impacts of virgin material use. For instance, packaging fees and incentives could help identify and monetize the necessary capital to drive up regenerative conservation, use renewable energy in virgin material production and better control pollutants such as methane from oil and natural gas production.

This two-part article has sought to explicitly recognize the limitations of recycling to meet full circularity, and to challenge recycling professionals to think about the strategies that improve the ability of recycling to contribute to circularity as the final resort before household packaging is disposed of. Our hope is that it also helps build discretion in the current uses of the word circularity to make it become less superficial, i.e., tossing around the goal line of circularity through the method of recycling, which can only partially get us there.

In addition, package recycling supply chain stakeholders must consider making more fervent strides towards reduction in overall waste potential and more complete cycling of materials. They must bring forward real solutions to address the impacts of single-use packaging waste as soon as practicably possible, including mitigating the impacts of continued virgin material use. This will take the resources and further regulatory underpinnings that a circular economy will be based upon. It won’t happen by itself. We need to pay our quarter now for the speed of results to be meaningful.

Michael Timpane has been a partner and vice president with RRS since 2015 and specializes in the recycling supply chain. He has worked for each of the largest post-consumer recycling companies in their time – Reynolds Aluminum, BFI, and WM – for over a decade each in his half-century career.

Scott Mouw is senior advisor for strategy and research with The Recycling Partnership. He comes from a background of public recycling, including directing the state of North Carolina’s recycling program.

Bright spots in glass recycling

Published: September 26, 2024
Updated:

by

Courtesy of Glass Half Full.

This article appeared in the September 2024 issue of Resource Recycling. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

Glass Half Full, a Gulf Coast glass processor with an environmental focus, needed a bigger facility as soon as its first one opened, CEO Franziska Trautmann said in a recent interview. As the concrete slab for a new facility is poured on the coast of Louisiana, she’s already imagining the 3 acres filled with glass.

“We pretty much said go big,” Trautmann said. “Ever since we started, it’s always felt like there was more demand for glass recycling than we’ve been able to handle. It’s always felt like we were piling up glass and struggling to process it and satisfy everyone.”

The new facility, located on a capped landfill in Chalmette, Louisiana, is sited on 3 acres of land and will be indoor-outdoor, she said. It should be operational by early 2025, and at full capacity could handle up to 150 tons of glass per day.

That’s needed capacity, because Trautmann’s vision is to handle all the glass within a 200-mile radius of New Orleans.

“There’s always been a huge lack of glass recycling in the region, and so we’ve always felt like the only way to go is up,” she said. “Louisiana and Mississippi, especially, consistently are toward the bottom of the list in terms of recycling as a state, and so we’re trying to just reach out to these communities. We just launched in Mobile, Alabama. We’re starting to expand where we can collect from, so we can just fill this plant with glass and get as much recycled as possible.”

Glass is easy in theory to recycle, but it’s hard to transport, heavy and difficult to collect. If it runs through a MRF, contamination rates are high. And the domestic industry has been in flux lately, with several facility closures and bankruptcies. As Glass Half Full illustrates, there are nonetheless hopeful spots.

Bob Hippert, sustainability strategy leader for manufacturing at O-I Glass, said glass recycling as a whole is in an interesting place. O-I has a network of manufacturing facilities but also has two glass-to-glass facilities that recycle glass into cullet in Oregon and Colorado. He pointed to the April acquisition of Strategic Materials by European glass recycling powerhouse Sibelco as an event that will spark a lot of domestic change.

“I actually think we’re in a good position, because there’s been a lack of investment in the cullet and the glass recycling processing area in the U.S. for probably the last 10 to 15 years,,” Hippert said. “I believe that what Sibelco is going to bring to the table is some renewed investment in a way that’s going to help drive improved quality of the furnace-ready cullet that can be used by glass plants, but also at a time when we’ve really seen kind of a degradation in the amount of material available in the market.”

Growing out of modest roots

Glass Half Full started in a backyard in 2020, with Trautmann and co-founder Max Steitz looking to recycle glass bottles from their friends and themselves. Word got out, demand exploded, and soon the business was moving into a 40,000-square-foot facility. But in 2022, the founders saw a need to scale up.

“We started fundraising at least a year and half ago, seriously, trying to raise some funds,” Trautmann said. “It was definitely a long time coming, and finally in April or so, all of the pieces started fitting together.”

That included a seed funding round that raised $6.5 million, led by Benson Capital Partners and supported by Momentum Fund and Innovation Catalyst. The Meraux Foundation and AMCREF Community Capital also supported the expansion.

“We are thrilled to partner with Glass Half Full to help further the company’s mission towards sustainability,” Gayle Benson, BCP’s founder, said in a written statement. “Through our combined dedication to green jobs and coastal restoration, we are excited to propel access to glass recycling for the entire Gulf South region.”

Back in 2022, Glass Half Full had five employees and 1,000 volunteers collecting 100,000 pounds of glass a month through neighborhood pickup and drop-off programs, grinding it into sand to be used in sandbags and coastal restoration pilot projects.

Now there are more than 20 employees, as well as a fleet of trucks and vans to do commercial and residential collection. The new facility will have enough space to allow Glass Half Full to produce cullet as well as satisfy the growing demand from restoration projects and for sandbags.

A local environmental benefit

Glass Half Full’s work falls at the intersection of two major sustainability issues: the immense global demand for sand and the widespread loss of beaches and coastlines, including along the Gulf. Human usage of sand for concrete, glass and other applications exceeds its natural production, according to a 2019 UN report. And the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has reported that climate change and other forces have eroded coastal beaches and wetlands, making the region more vulnerable to severe storms and sea level rise.

The sand that Glass Half Full produces completed baseline safety testing for Louisiana marsh restoration and has now moved on to demonstration projects — one of which is right next door to the new facility, Trautmann said.

Two new islands have been built there and planted with marsh grass. One island is made of sand from Glass Half Full and the other from sediment dredged from the Mississippi River. Over the next five years, researchers will monitor both islands to see if there are any differences between the two.

The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and the Pointe au Chien Indian Tribe have also received sand for restoration projects. Next up are dune and beach restoration projects, in and out of the state, Trautmann added, and there is governmental interest from as far away as Delaware.

Commercial recycling and drop-off bring in the most volume, Trautmann said, but the company is also expanding its services into Jefferson Parish, St. Bernard, Slidell, Mandeville, Covington and Baton Rouge in Louisiana, as well as Birmingham, Alabama, and Bay St. Louis, Mississippi.
In Jefferson Parish, close to New Orleans, Glass Half Full is experimenting with single-stream recycling collection, which goes to a local MRF. But glass is still the focus, Trautmann said.

“It feels like there’s a lot of glass out there just going straight to landfill,” Trautmann said — less than a third of glass containers were recycled in the U.S. in 2018, according to the U.S. EPA’s most recent estimate.

“There’s so much potential in how much we can grow glass recycling across the U.S. and especially for us, we’re pretty focused on the South and Southwest, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida,” she continued. “We want to ideally be in those states collecting millions and millions of bottles and turning them into a useful resource.”

The Glass Recycling Coalition and other glass recyclers have been supportive since the beginning, Trautmann added.

“SMI, Ripple, there are a lot of great people in the industry. We have a common goal of recycling more glass.”

Courtesy of Glass Half Full.

The wider industry picture

Looking to packaging extended producer responsibility laws, Hippert at O-I said he’s pushing for deposit return systems to be paired up with the incoming legislation in states where there’s not an existing bottle bill, such as Colorado.

“If you just have an EPR (program), you lose sight of a lot of potential glass and a lot of material streams, so to me it’s really important that you’re able to capture all that,” he said.

In addition, DRS programs tend to provide a much cleaner stream of material.

“They really protect quality and minimize contamination of the various streams, whether it be aluminum, plastics or glass, versus single-stream where everything gets commingled and you have to try to unscramble the egg,” Hippert said.

In EPR states that already have DRS, such as Oregon and California, Hippert is working with CAA, “making sure that they know that the glass has got a home in Oregon.”

California will also be a state to watch, Hippert noted. California used to be a net exporter of glass for recycling, Hippert said, but now in order to meet its longstanding minimum recycled content mandates, the state is importing glass – and there are some new players in the market, such as Gallo, which may have contributed to Strategic Materials filing for bankruptcy last year, before it was bought by Sibelco.

Looking ahead

What comes next in the industry? O-I is not planning to build any more glass-to-glass plants of its own, Hippert said, but the company is scaling up the amount of recycled content it uses.

Jim Woods, who is in corporate affair for O-I Glass, added that O-I has “ambitious sustainability goals to increase our cullet use,” which include increasing recycled content 50% by average by 2030.

“That is why Bob and everybody are doing this work in improving recycling,” he said. “We want more cullet.”

O-I is setting itself up for a future of more demand for glass and glass recycling, especially with incoming recycled content mandates and consumer desire to move to non-plastic packaging.

“People are looking back to glass,” Woods said. “It just makes sense from a business and an environmental perspective to use as much recycled glass as we can.”

In addition, Hippert said he is looking to improve efficiency at the Denver glass-to-glass facility, which O-I purchased from Momentum Denver in May 2022. The two companies had formerly worked together before Momentum ran into trouble.

Today, the Denver plant is running at 40% or 50% capacity “because they can’t get enough glass in the front door,” he added, and it’s largely MRF glass. While he anticipates more funding coming out of the EPR program for glass clean up systems, those are still years away.

“Everyone is kind of like, all right, let’s wait and see what happens. And so that’s the challenge where we’re butting up against right now,” he said.

Moving the goalposts

Published: September 26, 2024
Updated:

by

Sanya Kushak/Shutterstock.

This article appeared in the September 2024 issue of Resource Recycling. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

Unilever, Colgate-Palmolive, Keurig Dr Pepper, PepsiCo, Mars — one by one, many of the largest consumer goods companies in North America have said in recent months that they simply won’t meet their self-imposed deadlines for increasing recycled content and related goals.

The chorus of unmet expectations has also been consistent in pinning the blame on lagging recycling infrastructure.

“When we first set our goals, we used the best information available at the time to develop a credible but stretching plan,” wrote Pablo Costa, Unilever’s global head of packaging, in a statement this year outlining the company’s progress towards recycling targets. The company’s goals were intentionally ambitious, Costa noted, including an aim to reduce virgin plastic use by half.

“This has proved more challenging than any of us anticipated at the time,” Costa continued. “Assumptions made on the development of new technologies and infrastructure have simply not materialized as they are not fully in our control.”

Other industry watchdogs are less passive in identifying the reason for missed targets.

“Action is not keeping pace with ambition,” stated the Plastic Promises Scorecard, a report co-authored by shareholder activist group As You Sow and environmental consulting firm Ubuntoo.

In analyzing 225 companies for their work on plastic packaging and recyclability, the report found most companies had recyclability, reduction or recycled content goals and that an increasing number of companies supported policies like EPR. But most of those 225 companies “are not on track to meet the goals they have set.”

Companies vary in PCR targets

Brands are facing shortfalls in a variety of target areas. Unilever was one of the first to publicly acknowledge it would probably miss its goals for recyclability, reusability, or compostability, and its virgin plastic reduction goal, for example. On post-consumer resin use, the company is actually doing well: It used 22% recycled plastic in 2023, up from 21% in 2022 and 18% in 2021, and so is on track to meet its 2025 goal of 25%.

PepsiCo has also reported steady increases in PCR use, although it has a long way to go to meet its 50% goal for 2030. The company reported 10% PCR in its plastic packaging in 2023, up from 7% in 2022 and 6% in 2021.

Some companies have made less progress in PCR inclusion. Mars, for example, has a goal to use 30% PCR by 2025 but in 2023 used an average of only 1.5% across its packaging portfolio.

Part of the differing progress comes down to the types of packaging the companies use. Mars uses a great deal of flexible packaging, which doesn’t have the same infrastructure as PET bottles, the company noted, adding in its report, “We are working with governments and NGOs to address this, while also exploring redesign or alternative packaging formats.” Those redesigns could include moving from multilayer to monolayer material, or moving from plastic to paper and compostable packaging.

The U.S. Plastics Pact has taken these material nuances into account when outlining the goals signatory companies will strive for in the next five years.

The pact is one of about a dozen interconnected pacts around the world, which were formed to help plastics stakeholders meet pledges they’ve made under the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s New Plastics Economy initiative. In 2020, the U.S. pact released a list of four key goals its numerous stakeholders would work toward by 2025. This year, the pact reported on progress and outlined goals for 2030.

On the recycled content front, the pact’s initial 2025 goal was simple and standardized: “Achieve an average of 30% post-consumer recycled content or responsibly sourced biobased content across all plastic packaging.”

By the end of 2022, the average across the pact’s signatories was 9.4%, short of the goal, but the pact’s updated 2030 targets show significant variance by packaging type. The report indicated pact signatories had strategies in place to achieve 25% PCR inclusion in PET, HDPE and PP beverage bottles by 2026 and 60% by 2030. For household cleaning bottles and containers of the same materials, they said they’ll reach 25% by 2028 and 50% by 2030.

For PET and PP thermoforms, pact companies said they’ll hit 20% minimum by 2028 and 40% minimum by 2030. And for commercial secondary film, such as pallet wrap, they said they’ll hit 15% PCR by 2028 and 30% PCR by 2030.

For the flexible materials challenging companies like Mars, the pact did not yet set a goal or target date but instead noted that in the next year, it will develop guidance “for increasing PCR in food-contact packaging, including blow-molded products, injection-molded products, and film that contacts the product.”

Plastic use on the rise

Even as companies deepen their understanding of how to meet recycling goals, one notable trend is brand owners using more plastic even as their goals call for reduction.

Besides its PCR goal, when Mars signed onto the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Global Commitment the company set targets that 100% of its packaging would be reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025 and that it would reduce its use of virgin plastic by 25% by 2025 versus 2019.
The company has actually backslid on virgin reduction, according to its latest sustainability report published on July 24. But as of 2023, 61% of Mars packaging is designed to be recyclable, reusable or compostable, up from 57% in 2022.

“We are making good progress, and we would expect that to continue to accelerate,” the company wrote. “However, the design and infrastructure changes needed are taking longer than we anticipated when we signed the Ellen MacArthur Foundation Global Commitments, and we are unlikely to fully meet them by the end of 2025.”

On the third point, virgin plastic reduction, the company has moved in the other direction: Against a 2019 baseline of 180,000 metric tons of plastic packaging, Mars used 210,000 metric tons of plastic packaging in 2023, the company reported. And with recycled content totaling 1.5%, or 3,150 metric tons, that suggests Mars used 206,850 metric tons of virgin resin in 2023, which is 15% higher than the 2019 baseline.

Still, Mars reported in the latest sustainability update that it is “investing millions of dollars to improve the recyclability of our packaging, increase the amount of food-safe, recycled content and to reduce the use of virgin plastic.”

Mars is not alone in increasing its plastic use, even as it has targets in mind to reduce material consumption. For example, Amazon recently reported it used 88,698 metric tons of plastic packaging globally in 2023, higher by 3% from 2022. Amazon cited its business growth, reporting a 12% rise in full-year net sales for 2023. Globally, the company delivered nearly 6 billion packages, also higher by about 12% over 2022.

Similarly, despite PepsiCo pledging in 2021 to reduce virgin plastic use by 20% by 2030, the latest report indicates PepsiCo’s virgin resin use has increased by 6% since then.

As You Sow noted this trend in its report: “Despite setting a variety of plastics related goals, for many companies plastic use continues to increase as revenue increases,” the report stated. The report suggests using an alternative metric of “plastic intensity,” which it defines as plastic use per dollar of revenue.

“A laudable number of companies (100) have a goal to reduce use of primary or virgin plastic, yet the focus on reducing virgin plastic, rather than on reducing overall plastic intensity, paints an inaccurate picture of action toward plastic pollution prevention,” the report stated.

Mars is also not alone in investing in the recycling system to improve the conditions that have led to the target shortfalls. Coca-Cola, Kraft Heinz and Procter & Gamble are among several steering committees and funders of the PET Recycling Coalition, an initiative of The Recycling Partnership that launched in 2022, for instance.

Over the past two years, the initiative has distributed more than $5 million in grants, resulting in the addition of 29 million pounds per year of recycled PET that previously had not been captured, according to the group’s first annual report. Keurig Dr Pepper and Procter & Gamble are also among the funders of TRP’s Polypropylene Recycling Coalition, which takes a similar approach to that material.

Antoinette Smith contributed to this report.

First-person Perspective: The power of partnerships

Published: August 26, 2024
Updated:

by

Cytonn Photography/Unsplash

This article appeared in the August 2024 issue of Resource Recycling. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

Through partnerships and collaborations, the plastics industry has the opportunity to amplify individual efforts and contributions, pool resources, leverage diverse expertise, channel creativity and drive innovation. All of these are critically important when looking to solve a complex issue such as mismanaged plastic waste and building a circular economy for plastic materials.

For many years, my career at Nova Chemicals has revolved around being a connector to create change, connecting through industry associations, coalitions, consortiums, initiatives, investments, with our customers and their customers, with nonprofits and with governments. I’ve seen firsthand that partnerships and collaborations can help accelerate progress by leveraging expertise and catalyzing investments and innovations to find solutions through private and private/public models. There are three ways partnerships and collaborations can make a difference: investing in recycling infrastructure, encouraging innovation and circular design, and impacting public policy.

Driving Investment

According to The Recycling Partnership, the U.S. alone needs $17 billion investment over five years to deliver the full benefits of recycling to the public, and the estimated return on that investment could be $20 billion over 10 years. Collective investment is an excellent way to deploy catalytic financing into sustainable technologies.

One investment collaboration is the Closed Loop Circular Plastics Fund within Closed Loop Partners’ Infrastructure Group. Established in 2021 by Nova Chemicals, LyondellBasell and Dow with Closed Loop Partners, the fund’s mission is to advance the recovery and recycling of polyethylene and polypropylene in the U.S. and Canada to meet growing demand for high-quality, recycled content in products and packaging from consumer brands. The strategy seeks to deploy $55 million and to recycle over 500 million pounds of plastic over the fund’s lifespan.

Since its launch, the strategy has made several catalytic debt and equity investments to both private companies and public organizations, financing post-pilot scale projects that advance collection infrastructure, sortation capabilities, enabling technologies and re-manufacturing of PE and PP. One investment has been in Greyparrot, a leading artificial intelligence waste analytics platform that improves transparency and automation for plastics sortation in recycling facilities. Supported by funding, Greyparrot has grown to now identify over 25 billion waste objects each year, with 100-plus of its Greyparrot Analyzer Units spread across 20 countries, and is working with three of the top eight global waste management companies to improve recycling efficiency and increase resource recovery.

There are several other investment funds focusing on eliminating plastic waste and building a plastic circular economy, including Infinity Recycling, Circulate Capital and The Alliance to End Plastic Waste and Lombard Odier Investment Managers’ circular plastic fund. Recently the U.S. State Department announced the launch of the End Plastic Pollution International Collaborative, an international public-private partnership created to catalyze governments, NGOs and businesses to support innovative solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. All of these are great examples of how we can work together to invest in solutions.

Inspiring Innovation and Circular Design

Designing for circularity has benefited greatly from cross-sector collaborations. The Association of Plastic Recyclers developed the APR Design Guide, a comprehensive design guidance and testing protocol that measure package design against industry-accepted criteria. And the Canada Plastic Pact led a collaborative effort to develop the Golden Design Rules, a guidance and standards framework for Canadian companies to adjust their plastic packaging designs and contribute to a circular plastics economy. Harmonized approaches like these strive to provide alignment and a common framework, ensuring consistency, reducing confusion and improving widespread acceptance while still allowing for flexibility, creativity and innovation.

Recently in Canada, Nova Chemicals launched a Centre of Excellence for Plastics Circularity, a hub for knowledge exchange and technology development for plastics circularity through a new network of industry peers and research institutions. The first call for expression of interest received nearly 50 proposal submissions from Canadian universities and research organizations.

Sharing progress is essential in building momentum and showcasing the innovative solutions that are underway. According to the Global Partners for Plastics Circularity, there are 116 recycling infrastructure projects planned, operational or under construction representing a $18 billion financial investment that plastic makers and the plastics value chain are making around the globe to create a more circular future. The Alliance to End Plastic Waste participated in the fourth session of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental
Negotiating Committee in Ottawa in May, hosting a Solutions Fair that showcased over 40 different solutions to make change and create a plastics circular economy. All happening now. All over the world. And they created a short video to highlight this circularity in action.

Partnerships to Impact Policy

Cross-sector partnerships also can play a crucial role in driving effective policy. Industry and trade associations, coalitions and initiatives can bridge gaps, foster dialogue and enable collective decision-making that finds creative solutions and shared goals by leveraging diverse knowledge and expertise. This can result in sustainable change at scale.

Guiding principles and model legislation are some of the ways these groups can help influence policy decisions and solutions that can transform post-consumer plastics into an ongoing resource. America’s plastic makers have proposed a national and comprehensive strategy toward a plastics circular economy, Five Actions for Sustainable Change, which highlights five critical public policies and actions that can help us achieve success. Innovations and new end market developments are other ways collaborations can stimulate business economics and create the necessary supply and demand for used plastics.

If you want to read more, there are several other long-term roadmaps and frameworks to take us from a linear take-make-waste/dispose economy towards a circular economy for plastics:

What do all of these have in common? They each show the complexity of the situation and the interconnectivity of the players, policies, innovations, infrastructure and supply-demand balance needed to make it all work. There are actions that individual entities can take to move the needle, but at the very heart of the solution is a need for partnerships and collaborations to accomplish this overwhelming but achievable task.

There are many ways partnerships and collaborations are helping us to get closer to a future with zero plastic waste. In my experience, the greatest ideas start with simple conversations. I am excited for the future because I see firsthand that there is a focus, intensity and passion that drives us all towards a common deliverable. It will take time, but I am confident that this collective impact will create lasting change.

Julianne Trichtinger is manager of industry affairs within the government relations team at Nova Chemicals. She works closely with key industry associations and strategic partnerships as an advisor to senior executives and is responsible for monitoring and providing insights into public policy, advocacy priorities and key activities that impact our business and industry, particularly as it relates to a plastics circular economy.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not imply endorsement by Resource Recycling, Inc. If you have a subject you wish to cover in an op-ed, please send a short proposal to [email protected] for consideration.

The ideals and realities of circularity

Published: August 26, 2024
Updated:

by

alybaba/Shutterstock

This article appeared in the August 2024 issue of Resource Recycling. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

Editor’s note: This is the first of a two-part series exploring the concept of circularity. Part 2 is expected to be published in September’s issue.

Circularity has become the predominant but still vague goal for reducing packaging’s impact on the environment, without any direct conversation on what the word means or its limitations. The vagueness actually acts like a protective shield that prevents acknowledging the reality of material utilization and loss, including the unavoidable and overwhelming dependence on virgin feedstocks to make new packaging and its environmental implications. Let’s take a deeper look at circularity and related, overused metaphors in the recycling industry.

Our respective careers allowed us to gain a wide view of the recycling supply chain — the processes from material manufacturer to package manufacturer to brands and finally to retail channels; then to consuming and discarding containers by the public; to separating and prepping those materials at households for collection; then at MRFs and deposit centers for purification into raw materials; and finally to re-manufacturing into products or disposal at landfills. Material captured and cycled back in this process is a complicated journey rarely seen in its totality but is often idealized using the term circularity.

The targeted materials for residential commingled recycling have fundamentally changed with time. For the first time since modern, municipally-funded residential recycling programs began nearly 60 years ago, in a trend starting and accelerating in this century, more packaging than free fiber is now present in commingled materials. Newspapers, mail, printed and mixed writing papers have all declined to a minor fraction of the stream and are still receding from the dual impacts of computer and smartphone technologies. Some outcomes of this change were unexpected and expensive, and mostly borne by local taxpayers.

Until the last 15 or so years, MRFs were still being built around paper processing because that was the primary recycling output. Now they are going through massive re-tooling to capture more packaging and smaller-format materials. China’s market disruptions were caused in part because of an unacceptable amount of post-consumer packaging in bales, creating challenges for processing and price volatility. At the same time, paper packaging such as OCC, boxboard, fiberboard and paperboard became a universal addition to single stream for their value. Recently three-dimensional small- and medium-format fiber packaging, which is gaining prevalence in the stream, is demanding a processing response for proper capture. Sophisticated optical sorters and air-density separators, rather than the older and larger cascading screens, now focus on all sizes of paper packaging. In the current round of the estimated $2 billion to $3 billion in investments in new and retrofitted MRFs that started in the last three years, some facilities have eliminated paper screens altogether. This proves again that owning and operating MRFs is not for the faint of heart.

Similarly, plastic packaging proliferated in the marketplace due to its lower weight, high utility and usually lower cost. Though the pandemic temporarily slowed the amount of plastic in weight consumed by households, and despite some stiff regulations to reduce its use, plastic packaging is returning to pre-pandemic growth levels. The massive availability of cheap virgin petro-feedstocks certainly is an enabler of this process. In addition, this
increasing fraction of potentially recyclable material has become more customized in its various applications. And the fastest growing elements of this stream, film and flexible packaging, pose massive challenges to a recycling system that has not yet finished its last round of transformation. Will that force yet another mass transformation in MRF processing, and how will that be financed?

Plastics especially enjoy a flexibility (pun intended) that makes them more attractive than other more uniform and energy-trapping materials that are ideal for recycling and perhaps more naturally circular. The time from initial design of a new plastic package until it hits the retail environment can be as short as 16 weeks, as Polytainers reported earlier this year, for instance. Additionally, modern household plastic and multi-material packaging are made with an amazing array of increasing chemical, color and shape combinations, regularly achieving reductions in weight per unit. Today, each package’s physical characteristics are curated to provide the lowest cost, be attractive to buyers and provide specific functions, from food preservation to superior display capabilities in retail environments to ease of use.

The relationship between packages and consumers has continued to evolve as well. From a brand and packaging manufacturer point of view, it is easy to see the attractiveness of plastic packaging. Trending industry research has found techniques now common in modern package design that drive new purchases and repurchases at high levels. For instance, super lightweight packages, sometimes twice to three times the size of the delivered material, can extend the field of vision reception for better notice by passing eyes. In this and many other examples, packages catch the eye and present a retentive positive image. Consumer preferences to buy based on these types of packaging may hold sway, regardless of factors like brand loyalty or product satisfaction and overwhelming the rationality of caveat emptor. Packages have now become almost as important as the products they hold and are held up as part of the experience of buying goods or brand names. This increasingly important influence of home product package design has led to rapid shelf turnover and further customization as packages compete for demand.

These trends put more pressure on the entire material supply chain to respond, all the way to residential recycling programs and MRFs, who feel constant pressure to expand material acceptance, typically without any funding to facilitate acceptance or cover marginal costs for new packages. The most important implication is that packaging design innovates at a pace that outstrips the pace of recycling innovation and leaves little room or time to adequately explore trade-offs like package durability, such as for reuse, or like recyclability and yield — thus leaving open massive questions around how to get to circularity.

A brief history of circularity

The aspirations of circularity and the circular economy seem deployed in an uncountable number of published documents throughout most business ventures, often using complex language, ardent claims and untenable goals and focusing on recycled content and recycling levels. For simplicity, we use the terms circularity and circular economy interchangeably, noting the first is an encompassing principle and the second is an applied principle leading to a yet-to-be-realized economic system.

Circularity is metaphor for the endless cycling of the physical materials in packages after primary use with small to zero waste, by either reducing the need, reusing or recycling the material, or any combination, while conserving the most energy possible, with the fewest emissions, then bringing the material back to its cardinal intended use in packaging. Complete circularity is venerated as “closing the loop” — a closed system of material containment in a cycle.

The circular economy is a proposed economic system model, touted as regenerative and restorative and designed after stable natural systems, that uses circularity as its principle. The economic model provides wider umbrella strategies, inputs, outputs, feedback loops and methods to reduce, reuse and recycle materials endlessly to zero waste while conserving as much energy as possible. It’s meant to replace the still dominant and growing world linear take-make-waste model of extracting resources, producing virgin packages and disposing discarded package resources after use. It finally portends a perfect utility with the platonic justice of the multiple cycles used, each functioning as intended.

Circles, cycles and circularity have deep metaphorical attractions. Scholars have noted that cycles “are among the oldest ways of grasping human existence,” as a University of Cambridge Alumni Magazine article by Victoria James put it in 2022. To illustrate, in most major religions, the circle of life concept helps navigate emotional and perplexing processes in a closed cycle metaphor; human life and death are presented as part of a comforting cycle ending in either spiritual or physical rebirth, instead of the linear progression of birth to a physical death. For popular culture, a popular myth shared is that everything happens in cycles, which helps build hope or anxiety that the next point in time is predictably better or worse than the last. Sometimes a cycle concept is fully virtuous, where each point or condition along the circumference is a good result that gives rise to another that builds upon the first and so forth. Other times it is the opposite, or vicious.

These metaphorical cycles are what sociologists call umbrella concepts, used to enhance understanding of overarching concepts, feedback loops and actors relative to their impact on each other in a system over time. Psychologists have shown that this cycle thinking is valuable for assessing complex environmental, social, emotional and economic outcomes, and using them helps increase predictability when a predicate condition occurs. Cycles are useful in the sciences as well — for example, in the carbon cycle, the chemical process that was the gateway to higher life forms on Earth. In his classic “From Circular Economy to Circular Society,” M. Friant summarizes some of science’s most used cycle metaphors:

  1. Biogeochemical cycles of Earth.
  2. Ecosystem cycles.
  3. Resource cycles of materials and energy.
  4. Political cycles of power.
  5. Economic cycles of money and wealth.
  6. Knowledge cycles of technology, information, and education.
  7. Social cycles of care.

The concept of circularity for materials is a virtuous cycle. Like all beguiling metaphors, circularity can gloss over nuances and stark realities, including the powerful force of entropy, which is rampant in waste materials management, and external but ignored inputs (Is the carbon cycle possible without the sun?). In the world of materials, tools like life cycle assessments can help us pick apart nuances and apply analytics to the question, but they don’t change the overarching realities and their profound implications.

We could not leave this section without also addressing the word recycle, summarized by Merriam-Webster as to process materials or substances in order to regain material for human use. Unlike circularity, this definition conveys no inherent aspiration, and it does not promise endless cycling; rather, it is just the harvesting of some materials from waste to be used again. One can sense that inevitable material loss is just an accepted fact — we’ll grab what we can and plug it back into productive use. Luckily for us recyclers, though in circularity purgatory, recycling does provide a carbon-positive pathway away from current waste models.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

From the waste hierarchy to circularity for packages

Last century, both the European Union and the U.S. EPA formalized policies around a waste hierarchy, the conceptual predecessor to circularity. This linear hierarchy aspired to minimize energy use and emissions, reduce landfilling and combustion and maximize resource conservation. This model has been productive, allowing waste planners to envision a world where the prioritization takes place and steadily moves materials waste management to preferred methods through policy, programs and investment. It has also been effective for communicating the most virtuous set of choices, and it allows a quick summary of current choices using the common strategies of modern waste management.

However, after over 35 years, the hierarchy has proved inadequate to move actors or address system complexities for inverting the triangle in the U.S. Its limited success, and perhaps its linearity, drove us to consider other conceptualizations and to try to accommodate a dynamic, expanding economy and the compelling urge for profitability and return on investment. The hierarchy in its simplest form seems to unquestionably accept unrestrained material extraction and consumption. The hierarchy then presents no answer to environmental crises in our aquatic and terrestrial systems, including the plastic waste crisis, atmospheric heating and its consequences, extreme losses in biodiversity, issues like PFAS and landfills as methane super-emitters.

Inevitably, this led waste practitioners to search for a more inspirational model that almost by its very nature would mitigate the damage of material consumption — hence, circularity. Famous studies by Will McDonough in 2002 and McKinsey & Company for the Ellen MacArthur Foundation in 2013 were examples of the evolution of a new conceptual approach, introducing a paradigm for stakeholders along the entire value chain to consider. They argued compellingly that the cradle-to-grave model of human consumption is unsustainable. The linear take-make-waste system must give way to an alternative model where resource use is carefully designed, energy is conserved, and materials are endlessly cycled through an economy by reuse or recycling. McKinsey proposed a new economic model that mimics natural models of circularity, which is restorative and regenerative, rather than net-consumptive and hyper-productive. It is summarized neatly in the Palladian symmetry of the famous Butterfly Diagram. McKinsey and the foundation gave us the inspiring view that circularity would bring greater resiliency and security in an economy that will continue to grow because of the cycling of materials, much like natural forest grows and regenerates through natural cycles. It begs the question, though, whether economic expansion that humans value so much is possible under such a seemingly closed system.

Now, like the hierarchy, it’s time to question circularity before it becomes a hollow simplification that leads us to further inaction in the face of environmental crises. How exactly does this idealized view allow us to grapple with the physical nature of packaging and its rapid pace of innovation? How does it address, plan for and recognize the actual physical barriers for package capture from waste generation to MRF, loss in yield after capture from MRF to secondary processor to end market, and the inherent costs for providing enough of the stuff needed to fully cycle a package back to its original intended use?

In short, let’s really dig into packaging circularity’s limitations and the implications therein. Also, practical recycling might just be a long-term answer for some packages short of perfect circularity. Circularity promises big things, but to paraphrase Jimmy Buffet, God’s honest truth is it’s not that simple. If there are limits to packaging circularity, what are our options for addressing them? In Part 2, we will discuss how packaging is transformed in the recycling system, lay out some best practices to mitigate barriers and unstick recovery rates, and explore complementary strategies that could push beyond the boundaries of circularity. Circularity is a hopeful, essential and deeply inspiring concept. Let’s not make it a seat of self-congratulatory laurels to sit on while true growth in material recovery requires urgent action.

Michael Timpane has been a partner and vice president with RRS since 2015 and specializes in the recycling supply chain. He has worked for each of the largest post-consumer recycling companies in their time – Reynolds Aluminum, BFI, and WM – for over a decade each in his half-century career.

Scott Mouw is senior advisor for strategy and research with The Recycling Partnership. He comes from a background of public recycling, including directing the state of North Carolina’s recycling program.