For lightweighting, there are many envi- ronmental benefits. “First of all, using less material to produce the required type of packaging reduces the overall carbon footprint. There’s also less weight to be transported throughout the sup- ply chain. And finally, there’s less waste after the product use,” says Oksala. In these studies, Metsä Board’s folding boxboards’ lower carbon footprint is there- fore due to both the use of fossil-free energy in their production and their lighter weight. However, despite the lighter weight, Metsä Board’s folding boxboards retain the stiffness and functional properties of traditional heavier grades. RAISING AWARENESS Anne Uusitalo knows that Metsä Board’s customers are very responsive to news about more sustainable packaging materials – and it is the responsibility of forward-looking pack-
aging industry players such as Metsä Board to educate the customers about the options in the field. “We want to provide brand owners with transparent, unbiased information that helps them evaluate packaging materials. They can thus make better-informed, sustainable choices to reduce their carbon footprint,” Uusitalo says. The results of the three studies seem extraordinary: today, even single-digit cor- porate carbon reductions are often widely celebrated – let alone halving a packaging solution’s carbon footprint. Nevertheless, Oksala and Uusitalo say they were unsurprised by the findings. “We expected these results in each of the three cases, as we had done similar assess- ments before,” says Oksala. “However, this time around we wanted to get a third-party perspective on the matter. This is important in communicating the find- ings to the customers,” he adds.
Anne Uusitalo Product Safety and Sustainability Director, Metsä Board
Lari Oksala Sustainability Manager, Metsä Board
14
WANTED: A HARMONISED GHG ASSESSMENT FOR THE INDUSTRY
According to Uusitalo, many industry players are now producing carbon footprint assess- ments rooted in different principles, which is causing confusion among customers. “That’s why fact-based, third-party ver- ification is so crucial,” she says, adding that it’s good that the regulatory pressure is also steering the industry towards a more unified verification process. “The EU Green Claims Directive, currently in preparation, will certainly play a role here,” Uusitalo says. The reference board grades’ carbon footprint information used in the studies was derived from a widely adapted commercial database to achieve a level playing field. “The studies show that in the selected applications the choice of paperboard can make a notable difference from the climate impact perspective,” she says.
TARGETING SCOPE 3
• Scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions are greenhouse gases that are release in a company’s own operations and across the value chain of the company/organisation in question. Scope 3 emissions are the most complex, as they are released in the value chain before, during and after a product is delivered/ consumed. • “In manufacturing and retail businesses, Scope 3 emissions are often considerably higher than Scopes 1 and 2 emis- sions,” says Anne Uusitalo, adding that there is “a lot of work to do” to curb emissions in Scope 3. • Lari Oksala adds that as brand owners gain access to supplier’s emissions data, it becomes easier to locate the most sustainable options and construct value chains with minimum emissions. • “There is great potential for GHG reduction upstream of the value chain,” Oksala says.
BOARD MAGAZINE
Powered by FlippingBook