Innovation Academy 2022

Environmental issues and those concerning recycling have recently returned to the fore, especially following the recent Coronavirus pandemic. According to the opinion of many geologists, including Mario Tozzi, zoonoses are the consequence of a type of exploitation of resources that damages biodiversity through the destruction of ecosystems. In this sense, the greater frequency of contact between domestic and wild fauna is the cause of the transmission of viruses between different animal species, which in some cases involves a further leap of species to humans. Changing production cycles in the name of the circular economy can partially solve the problem of environmental pollution. Awareness raising actions by government bodies are also fundamental, as is individual initiative through the limitation of waste, sustainable consumption, recycling and active participation. Caring for the environment: an essential necessity When we talk about care and respect for the environment, we can no longer afford to pursue an abstract concept, but we must act on the basis of concrete actions that have proven effectiveness. Rethinking production with a view to circularity is a strategy that aims not only to undertake virtuous production cycles, but which at the same time tends to implement a supply chain made up of production, use, recycling and reuse of raw materials. If the objectives imposed by the European Union regarding recycling have seen our country in advance in most cases (link to previous articles), on the other hand not only industries, but also local authorities and the individual they can do a lot to implement the recycling chain. Local authorities and schools: what the role of recycling should be Even today, along the edges of the provincial or city roads we cannot notice rubbish abandoned without any restraint. Separate collection is more effective if every single individual is committed, fighting what are the wrong and sometimes illegal behaviors. A lot of help can also come from schools. Through dedicated projects, it is possible to raise awareness of environmental issues and the importance of recycling. Inserting diversified containers, but also activating creative recycling projects, as well as promoting works that help to understand the importance of recycling, can be a winning strategy to make young citizens more respectful of the environment and able to promote actions, both in the workplace, both in private life, aimed adolescent to eco-sustainability. Likewise, it is important that in public places, clubs and entertainment venues, stations are distributed to eliminate waste in a differentiated manner, following the instructions generally shown on the packs. The separate waste collection containers must bear clear and intuitive indications that can facilitate the delivery of waste in the most appropriate way. Activities can be promoted that further motivate recycling, such as rewarding virtuous condominiums through tax relief or by setting up machines that return tickets for public transport in exchange for the recycling of some materials, as happens in other countries, in particular with plastic bottles, so as to make the recovery chain more efficient. The promotion of activities that allow reflection on environmental issues is also very useful: neighborhood committees and associations could monitor the state of the places and involve the community in cleaning and recycling actions, so as to offer awareness raising opportunities that turn into concrete actions of surveillance and improvement of the territory. The world of arts and the environment: how culture can motivate recycling Environmental issues have inspired many artists and screenwriters. There is no shortage of exponents of environmental art, who with their ideas have framed natural phenomena by reproducing them in paintings and sculptures: their activity also focuses on the fragility of nature up to the most extreme forms, which aim to prevent deterioration and the environmental situation. The world of culture also offers us numerous examples through cinematography, whether with a documentary and investigative slant, or through historical or fantastic narration, has repeatedly brought to the fore the issues of environmental degradation, pollution and uncontrolled exploitation of the resources. From the sci-fi Avatar to Erin Brockovich, to then move on to animated cinema, each director has brought their own vision on the topic hoping to have a strong impact not only on adults, but also on the younger generations. If in 2008 it was the turn of Disney, with its robot WALL-E speaks to us of a wasteland in which man has exploited resources to the limit, reducing the landscape to an uninhabitable landfill, in 2020 it is the turn of an all-Italian film. We are talking about TRASH: The Legend of the Magic Pyramid, the film that arrived in cinemas on October 16 and presented for the first time as an opening title as part of the Alice nella Città event as part of the Roma Festival. The feature film is directed by Luca della Grotta and Francesco Dafano, produced by AL ONE and distributed by Notorius. The film was supported by the Italian consortia for the recycling of packaging. In this sense, the Made in Italy work has received the applause of CONAI and the supply chain consortia CIAL, COMIECO, COREPLA, COREVE and RICREA, which have decided to support Trash thanks to its environmental message and in support of the circular economy. The film, in fact, emphasizes and makes young and old alike reflect on the importance of recycling as a way to give waste a new purpose. As we have seen, global action is important to safeguard the planet. If many industries, such as CART-ONE for example, are adapting their procedures with a view to a circular economy, the consumer becomes an active part of this supply chain through actions that involve active participation in the differentiation of waste. At the same time, the stimula proposed by the cultural world can also contribute to spreading more food for thought, for an approach to the planet's resources that takes place in a more conscious and sustainable way. In this sense, CART-ONE has adopted a supply chain that favors the production and minimization of waste through processes that minimize the environmental impact and that adopt solutions for the recycling of production waste.

The upward trend in prices shows no signs of slowing down, now reaching 70% for cellulose; and while we have been witnessing unprecedented increases in raw materials (such as steel, wood, and gas) for six months, we are forced once again to question the future of production supply chains, put to a severe test by prices that are now skyrocketing. Italian companies are further burdened by increases regarding energy costs, making it necessary to find solutions to avoid halting entire production chains. In particular, the companies facing the greatest difficulties are micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, upon which falls a double sword of Damocles represented by the cost of raw materials and energy. Data from Confartigianato shows that the most "expensive" effect is evident in the North-East of our country, home to numerous companies and businesses, including family-run ones. In this area, the rise in raw material prices weighs on micro and small enterprises by 3.3% of GDP.  The impact has also swept through the North-West, affecting it by 2.8%, while for micro and small enterprises in Central Italy, the impact drops to 2.3%; the lowest impact is recorded in the Mezzogiorno, standing at 1.8%. The issue of the unavailability of raw materials puts the very existence of companies to a severe test, forcing them to turn down orders both due to the difficulty of sourcing raw materials and the impossibility of honoring quotes made months ago.  Confartigianato announced that the percentage of companies operating in the construction sector reporting materials shortages as an obstacle to production rose to 9.5% in September 2021. Raw materials: how they affect economic recovery The high cost of raw materials and their unavailability represent an obstacle to recovery. Despite increasing orders, we are witnessing a slowdown in investments as well as innovation processes, and the demand for labor is falling. Some are even attempting to access social safety nets.  There is a growing need to monitor speculative maneuvers; therefore, the introduction of price control mechanisms, as in the case of the energy sector, would be appropriate. How the packaging sector is facing the crisis  The restart within the packaging sector brought about an increase in requests, but successive lockdowns and restrictions had previously forced businesses to slow down. In doing so, a gap was created between market demands and actual response capacity. Currently, the packaging sector is weighed down by price increases in cellulose, in addition to the costs of waste paper and gas costs, which have now skyrocketed. Some paper mills are thinking of countering the situation by temporarily suspending operations, all to avoid producing below cost. The overall picture of increases puts production to a severe test: for instance, long-fiber NBSK has seen increases of 60%, while it amounts to 70% for short-fiber eucalyptus. These increases translate into a price per ton of 1,350 dollars for long-fiber and 1,150 dollars for short-fiber, according to Assocarta data. Paper and cardboard for recycling have risen by 138% and 143% respectively, marking prices from 155 up to 170 euros per ton. Therefore, anyone wishing to purchase raw materials for recycling pays much more for them. What are the reasons for the price increases in paper and cardboard for recycling? The advent of the pandemic changed our purchasing habits. On one hand, there was a greater demand for packaging due to the explosion of e-commerce and the creation of packaging destined for takeout. Furthermore, the increased demand for sustainable containers led to paper and cardboard being identified as the primary candidate for replacing single-use packaging. It must also be considered that the paper sector is among the most energy-intensive. The increase in the cost of gas, as also reported by Assocarta, has been rising since the summer of 2020 and unfortunately tends to grow without showing signs of slowing down. This has significantly impacted the finished product. At times, price increases are equal to 5%, and even up to 10%. For this reason, according to some paper mills, it will be necessary to halt production, at least until more affordable gas costs can be accessed. How much does the cost of energy impact the cost of packaging? According to estimates reported by Il Sole 24Ore, energy represents 30% of the total costs incurred, and therefore, even if turnover tends to increase precisely because of a greater demand for paper and cardboard packaging, profit margins tend to narrow due to high energy costs. Among the most affected sectors is tissue: we are talking about sanitary and household paper, because this segment, due to its type of production, needs to secure agreements lasting at least six months, a timeframe too long to allow for the forecasting of final prices. How much do the new EU regulations on packaging influence price increases? As we have repeatedly explained in previous articles, packaging is at the center of a revolution. The need to reduce or eliminate plastic volumes within packaging has caused the demand for cardboard to soar. Faced with a stable production capacity, an increase in cardboard demand was generated, which in turn, in this delicate situation, caused a general price hike: Linerboard with corrugated medium → +65% Graphic paper → +15-20% Tube paper → +55% Paper and cardboard are among the most recyclable materials. In our country, we have achieved a good level of circularity regarding paper collection and recycling, giving life to a more sustainable production cycle. At the moment, a large volume of orders is being recorded, but it is impossible to fulfill them. As pointed out at the beginning, the e-commerce boom made manufacturers aware of the need to provide a massive amount of packaging.  How should packaging production be rethought? The crisis in the paper sector also asks us to rethink our relationship with packaging which, especially regarding primary packaging, carries aesthetic value, product recognition, and so on. At present, efforts are being made to review the concept of packaging, particularly based on functionality, so as to align production and optimize it solely and exclusively to meet specific needs. While we have already talked in the past about packaging design in terms of resource savings and waste reduction, this requirement has now become a true diktat to be followed.

The PPWR risks undermining the core success of a decade of measures aimed at limiting plastic in the EU and flooding the market with plastic packaging. No compromises in Europe on the packaging regulation: the Italian stance. The European packaging proposal presents numerous shortcomings, regarding which the Italian stance is clear, as highlighted by the opinion approved by the Chamber's Environment and Productive Activities Committees. Let's find out all the details in the rest of the article. Read also: “Reducing the environmental impact of packaging: what Europe mandates” What Europe states regarding packaging management The current draft of the European regulation imposes packaging management rules horizontally across all member states, without considering the history and current functioning of their respective systems. The Federation's position is clear: “It is a short-sighted choice that overlooks, in Italy's case, the excellence of paper recycling and beyond. All of this is done without a credible impact assessment on individual materials and their respective supply chains”. The Federation therefore appeals to all decision-makers “not to give in, under pressure dictated by the approaching end of the European legislative term, to the rush of closing such a significant dossier without reflecting on all the possible implications for the smooth operation of the circular economy”. The Italian stance on the packaging regulation The amendments recently presented to the PPWR risk undermining the core success of a decade of measures aimed at limiting plastic in the EU and flooding the market with plastic packaging. If implemented, they would completely contradict the goals of the Green Deal, the Circular Economy Action Plan, and the ongoing negotiations for an international plastics treaty: mandatory reuse targets for transport packaging will benefit plastic packaging and penalize the most recycled of all packaging materials: paper; mandatory reuse targets would ruin the European corrugated cardboard industry; mandatory reuse targets offer no guarantee of environmental benefits: reuse and recycling are complementary. A market of plastic packaging Italy supports the goals of the PPWR, but mandatory reuse targets for all packaging materials will inevitably authorize the creation of a massive amount of plastic trays at the expense of other more sustainable packaging materials. Cardboard and plastic cannot compete fairly when it comes to mandatory reuse. Plastic is a lightweight, durable material, yet difficult to recycle and hazardous to health and ecosystems, whereas cardboard is a fully renewable material, highly recycled, and biodegradable, making it less suited for continuous reuse. Including cardboard in all reuse targets completely contradicts EU efforts to restrict plastic waste, would increase the volume of circulating plastic packaging, and establish a “plastic monopoly” over certain market segments. A threat to the Green Deal This stands in total contradiction to the objectives of the Green Deal, the Circular Economy Action Plan, and the ongoing negotiations for an international plastics treaty. A resurgence of plastic would represent a threat to the Green Deal. It contradicts the EU Circular Economy Action Plan, which states that all packaging in the EU should be reused or recycled in an economically sustainable manner by 2030. It would jeopardize recent successes in reducing plastic waste, such as the Single-Use Plastics Directive. Boosting plastic packaging makes no sense at a time when the global community is negotiating a historic agreement to reduce plastic pollution. Paper will be penalized Mandatory reuse targets will favor plastic packaging and penalize the most recycled packaging material: paper. With a recycling rate exceeding 80%, corrugated cardboard is the most recycled packaging material, and the industry is committed to an ambitious decarbonization roadmap. The paper recycling market is effective and represents the model that the EU should encourage others to follow. Highly recycled and renewable materials like paper-based packaging are inherently unsuited for multi-rotation reuse. There would be a shift from the most recycled packaging material to plastic alternatives capable of meeting the rotation demands of reuse systems, with no overall environmental benefit. Thousands of fewer jobs Mandatory reuse targets would ruin the European cardboard industry. Replacing cardboard with plastic packaging through reuse systems would lead to the loss of thousands of jobs in local communities across Europe where cardboard manufacturers are based. We employ 100,000 people directly, create another 270,000 jobs indirectly, and generate 25 billion euros a year in sales to the benefit of local communities where most of our factories are located, often in underdeveloped areas. No guarantee for the environment Mandatory reuse targets offer no guarantee of environmental benefits: reuse and recycling are complementary. Recycling and reuse both have a role to play in packaging circularity and should complement each other. Reuse systems should be deployed where they benefit the environment, economy, and society. Corrugated cardboard packaging systems outperform reusable plastic crates in 10 out of 15 environmental impact categories, including CO2 emissions and water consumption (peer-reviewed LCA). Reusable plastic crates must be reused at least 63 times to be environmentally sustainable (peer-reviewed LCA). Corrugated cardboard is the most recycled in Europe With a recycling rate higher than 80%, corrugated cardboard is the most recycled packaging material in Europe. Forcing us to reuse our boxes instead of pulping them and making new ones will drive us out of the market despite our huge economic and social contribution. The ambitious commitments of the corrugated cardboard industry's decarbonization roadmap render such reuse mandates unnecessary: The gap will be filled by plastic, which is easier to reuse, though at a heavy cost to the planet due to the increased use of fuel, transport, and detergents. Plastic does not decompose easily, so when bottles, wraps, or crates reach the end of their lifecycle, they remain in our environment virtually forever; We all look forward to less waste. But among all packaging materials, cardboard is the model that the EU should make others follow. We want steps forward, not backward Over 80% of our cardboard is recycled, the highest figure among all packaging materials. We back the PPWR, but to sustain this level and go further, we need rules that do not force us to reuse our packaging instead of recycling it. Reuse and recycling are complementary for packaging circularity, and mandatory reuse targets make no sense for corrugated cardboard and cartonboard. The PPWR must respect these differences if it wishes to bring real improvements to the environment. Forcing us to apply mandatory reuse targets to cardboard instead of recycling it is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It will not work and would turn back the clock on Europe's environmental goals. It also contradicts the EU Circular Economy Action Plan, which requires packaging to be reusable or recyclable in an economically sustainable way by 2030. The PPWR's goals are laudable and we share them, but their unintended consequences could ruin our business. Mandatory reuse targets would inevitably benefit plastic packaging and wipe out the impressive strides we have made in cardboard recycling. This would result in a greater release of CO2 into the atmosphere, not the opposite. See also: “Recycled paper and recyclable paper: the differences between the two processes”