The Spiral Path Towards Circularity: When innovation and infrastructure are at odds
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of Regenerative Waste Labs and are not endorsed by any other organisations referred to herein.
As someone who considers myself a fairly eco-conscious individual - actively seeking products advertised as ‘sustainable’- my purchasing decisions are largely motivated by the environmental credentials stated on the packaging of the product I am buying. A mere glimpse of the words ‘recyclable’, ‘compostable’, or ‘made with 100% post consumer waste’, and my hand instinctively reaches for the box, and without paying much heed, off I go.
I understand that buying a product advertised as recyclable or compostable only has an impact if disposed of properly based on the guidelines outlined by the manufacturer. So everyday, before heading to work, I would make my morning cup of coffee using Keurig’s recyclable K-cups, and exactly as illustrated on the box, I would peel the lid, empty the coffee grounds in my compost bin, and finally toss the empty pod in my blue bin.
Calvin Sandborn, the legal director at the Environmental Law Center, at the University of Victoria along with the Ecojustice team, compiled evidence against Keurig’s recyclability claims that they argue classify as misleading to the public. The Ecojustice legal team showed that Keurig violated two of the 18 requirements for environmental claims that apply to businesses in Canada. Specifically that a claim must not be misleading and must be unlikely to result in misinterpretation.
At Regenerative Waste Labs, we advocate for a whole-systems approach which relies on leveraging synergies amongst different members of the supply chain. We strongly believe that in order for innovation to happen in the circular products and packaging sector, manufacturers should be supported and empowered in their efforts to keep up with the consumer and planetary demands for more responsible products. While at the same time, it is vital that the government sector enable and incentivise these innovations by investing in the waste management infrastructure and developing regulations that promote the transition from a “one and done” economy to a more regenerative, restorative, and circular one. When the Keurig case transpired, the RWL team and I decided to explore some of the nuances and implications of this case and identify key lessons to share with other businesses who are producing and marketing sustainable alternatives.
What Keurig did is problematic. It was noted that Keurig had serious lapses in their marketing campaigns. The recyclability claims were vague and lacked specificity regarding where in Canada these materials could be disposed of in order to reap the environmental benefits of the product. However, the consequences of these lapses were compounded by the lack of reverse logistics, absence of uniformity in waste management services and infrastructure offered to different portions of the population in different areas, and insufficient consumer education. The case surrounding Keurig’s K-cups shows the importance of wider stakeholder engagement and dialogue to understand the limitations and requirements that need to be met in order to foster an ecosystem that enables the transition from a linear to a circular economy. Things could have been different, and they still can. Let’s dissect the evidence from the case.
Advertisements on Keurig’s Youtube channel, now removed, disseminated incomplete information about how to prepare the K-cups for recycling. The ‘dump and toss’ messaging encouraged the “average-not-so-fully” informed consumers to toss the K-cup without properly cleaning the coffee pods enough to make them recyclable. Upon an audit of the coffee pods that entered the recycling system of Toronto, 97% of pods were improperly cleaned and contained coffee ground remnants that contribute to the contamination problem.2
Upon further investigation into the eco-system for producing and marketing sustainable products, it was revealed that the problem is bigger than just Keurig’s messaging. Adequately cleaning the coffee pod and ensuring no residues are left behind did not actually impact the recyclability of the K-cup, which varies across Canada. The same K-cup that is accepted in the recycling stream of the City of Vancouver, is prohibited by the City of Toronto. The lack of acceptance by municipalities, renders the theoretically recyclable K-cup to be practically non-recyclable.
Without the appropriate reverse logistics for a product to be recycled where it is consumed, there is no practical way for an end-user to recycle a product that can “in theory” be recycled, but not necessarily “in practice”. Even as an eco-conscious consumer, there is no way that if I were living in Toronto, I would be accumulating all my K-cups and shipping them to Vancouver in the hopes that they get recycled!
So what exactly is preventing municipalities from accepting polypropylene (PP, resin code 5) in their recycling stream? Quite simply, recycling was developed as a business opportunity where plastic waste is collected and recovered into a global plastic market. However, in 2019 the global market share for recycled polypropylene was a meager 6%.3 This reflects why PP is not often collected as there is no guarantee of a viable recycling market and therefore reasonable return on investment. Despite this widely available information, were these end-of-life considerations kept in mind by Keurig's design team before landing on the decision to use polypropylene? Well, these questions can only be accurately answered by Keurig Dr. Pepper Canada who did not respond to our repeated interview requests.
What we can learn from this is that products need to be consciously designed for recovery. They can either enter into the economic (technical) cycle, where they are disassembled or reduced to their raw materials and then remade into useful products, or the ecological (biological) cycle, where organic materials are circulated to extract high value materials and after a series of cascading uses, return to the environment as compost. Assigning a value to either process is not as straightforward as one might think and neither is choosing one over the other.
Would it have been better to opt for a K-cup that can be composted rather than recycled?
From the lens of an individual who navigates the complex landscape of circular and sustainable products and packaging in Canada, I can safely say that there are certain trade-offs that come with choosing either compostable or recyclable packaging. Keurig, certainly, was faced with the same dilemma.
According to the guidelines published by the Competition Bureau Canada and Canadian Standards Association in 2008, which is now archived, “at least 50% of the population should have access to the facilities that can process the collected material”. According to these standards, it is not adequate to state “where facilities exist”, rather any messaging must indicate exactly where these facilities are.4 A compostable coffee pod might also encounter a similar issue to the recyclable K-cup when it comes to claims regarding acceptance by municipalities. As of 2019, 73% of households in Canada have access to kitchen waste collection provided by either city or private facilities, but very few municipalities accept certified compostable plastics.5 This is often stated to be a result of the differences between the certification requirements and the operating conditions at industrial compost facilities. A product might pass the compostability test with flying colors when being tested for degradation in a controlled environment, but might not sufficiently biodegrade in existing commercial composting facilities - leading to potential contamination problems. However, when we reached out to a Canadian company that manufactures 100% compostable single serve pods, we learned that though compostable coffee are not explicitly accepted by municipalities, there are some key differences in the composting and recycling processes that make it likely for high performing compostables to reach their intended end-of-life. The screening process that occurs before organic waste enters the compost pile is not as rigorous as the sorting process that happens before a product is recycled. Compostable coffee pods may make it through their intended process, but polypropylene K-cups are likely to be screened out. What follows next is a trip to the landfill.
Undoubtedly navigating the landscape for producing, procuring, marketing, and managing the end-of-life phases of sustainable products is incredibly complex. Despite the growing demand for innovative products designed with circularity and sustainability in mind, manufacturers themselves can not create suitable end markets for waste and ensure municipalities have the infrastructure to effectively manage the intended end-of-life of a product. What they can still do is effectively label their products and packaging. Companies need to think deeply and understand whether their circular design innovation is motivated by the desire to do good for the planet or to simply attract new customers and retain the existing consumer base by jumping on the sustainability bandwagon.
Achieving complete sustainability and circularity does not happen overnight. Companies should reflect on the reality that circularity and sustainability need to be embedded in their core ethos and are not solely marketing tactics to garner attention. Only when all companies advertise their products truthfully - without exaggerating the environmental benefits, precisely and specifically stating in simple language where the product can be recycled or composted - will the marketplace recognize the lack of infrastructure and capacity, and act on the urgent need for investment in waste management infrastructure.
In the meantime, it is imperative that stakeholders in the supply chain communicate to answer some of the pressing questions that are inhibiting the transition to a circular economy. Those answers might not eradicate the problems associated with mismanagement of waste, but they will provide a holistic picture of the limitations that are impacting the system at this point in time. When there is a feedback loop in place, stakeholders in the supply chain can participate in creating a road map that is based on realistic deliverables. Once every member of the supply chain is aligned to actively work towards enabling innovation, cooperating to put reverse logistics systems in place, investing in waste management infrastructure capacity, educating the consumers on the do’s and don'ts of recycling and composting, and creating end markets for recycled products - circularity will become the reality!
References
Keurig’s 2015 Annual Report. https://www.annualreports.co.uk/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/k/NASDAQ_GMCR_2015.pdf. Accessed Jan 18, 2022.
Rider, David. “Grounds for a brouhaha? Keurig, Toronto spar over whether coffee pods belong in blue bin.” Toronto Star. April 22, 2018. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/04/20/grounds-for-a-brouhaha-keurig-toronto-spar-over-whether-coffee-pods-belong-in-blue-bin.html
Recycled Plastic Market Size, Share & COVID-19 Impact Analysis, By Type (Polyethylene Terephthalate, High-density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, Low-density Polyethylene, and Others), By Application (Non-Food Packaging, Food Packaging, Construction, Automotive, and Others), and Regional Forecast, 2021-2028. November 2021. https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/recycled-plastic-market-102568
Environmental Claims: A guide for industry and Advertisers. June 2008. https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02701.html#s4_6
Composting Practices of Canadian Households. June 2021 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3810012801
