In a plastic world where things continuously evolve, sustainability has also moved with the times. So much so that it might not mean what you think, or not entirely. Isy Ferguson, Managing Director at Hardie Polymers, explores the topic more in depth.
hardie polymers
Like most people in this industry, I genuinely want to do the right thing for the environment and protect the world for future generations. However, the question I keep coming back to is not, “what’s the overall goal?” because I think we’re all broadly aligned on that. It’s actually, “what is the customer’s goal?”
As I celebrate my 34th year in the plastics industry, I’ve realised the uncomfortable truth that I’ve been providing “sustainable” solutions for over three decades! When I started out, we were looking at reprocessed polystyrene made from yoghurt tubs, sometimes with the foil still in there, creating a unique and entirely unwelcome effect. That same contamination might now be marketed as an intentional aesthetic and sold at twice the price of prime material. It’s funny how things change.
Today, we’re even being asked to create grades with deliberate contamination to offer them a more eco look. If only there were enough foil-topped yoghurt pots to go around! But sustainability has moved on. It’s no longer enough to show you have an eco-polymer. Now it’s about carbon footprint, sustainable manufacturing, net zero targets, recycled content percentages, ISCC certification, traceability… and the list keeps growing.
Which is why I think the first question anyone should ask when requesting a “sustainable polymer” is simple: what do you mean by sustainable? Recyclable? Reprocessed? Compostable? Bio-based? Carbon neutral? Polymer selection is no longer a straightforward choice between PP and ABS. It’s about understanding the customer’s environmental objectives and then working backwards through the supply chain to find the most appropriate solution.
High-quality recycled polymers are now available for everything, from food-approved polypropylene to high-performance PEEK. That’s a huge achievement. But most of these solutions come at a cost - and I don’t just mean the price per kilo. There are hidden costs associated with sustainability, including paperwork, certification, educating end-users, staying up-to-date with constantly evolving regulations and additional manufacturing inputs. All of that takes time, and time, as we know, costs money.
The considerations go even further. Where does the feedstock come from? Is supply secure not just today, but throughout the lifetime of the product? What happens when demand increases, and competition for that same feedstock intensifies? Then there’s end-of-life. Do we actually have the infrastructure to deal with the waste streams created by these new sustainable materials? There also remain many unanswered questions surrounding mass balance claims, green credentials and bold sustainability statements. Transparency from producer to consumer is essential; otherwise, genuine efforts risk being undermined by accusations of greenwashing.
Ultimately, if sustainability goals are misunderstood or if the true costs remain hidden, there won’t be any sustainable manufacturing at all, because manufacturers won’t survive. So, we must decide what value to place on delivering sustainable solutions, and indeed, if that additional effort can realistically be charged for. Beyond manufacturing costs, do customers truly appreciate that sustainability itself has a cost that must be paid somewhere in the chain? To ignore that isn’t sustainable.
As I said at the start, more questions than answers, and if anyone has a brilliant solution to all of this, I’m genuinely all ears.