A BRIEF HISTORY OF PLASTICS 1860’s-1907: John Wesley Hyatt patented a substitute for natural ivory called Celluloid, Leo Hendrik Baekeland developed first completely synthetic plastic used as a substitute for shellac sold as “Bakelite” 1926: Waldo Semon/B.F. Goodrich Company developed method to plasticize polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 1931: Dupont launched the first petroleum based polymer- neoprene 1930’s: Imperial Chemical Industries Research discovered a practical polyethylene (PE) (LDPE) synthesis and patents it by 1936; BASF produces polystyrene (PS). Synthetic alternative for Silk/Nylon, glass alternative/Methylmethacrylate (Lucite/Plexiglas) and Teflon also developed. 1941: British Chemist John Rex Whinfield discovered polyethylene tetraphthalate (PET) 1953: German Chemist Karl Ziegler developed high density polyethylene (HDPE), Herman Shnell/Bayer develop polycarbonate (PC) 1954: Italian Chemist Giulio Natta developed crystalline isotactic polypropylene (PP) 1957: Italian firm Montecatini begins large scale commercial production of isotactic polypropylene (PP) 1960: HDPE bottles introduced, 1970’s PET bottles introduced drastically reducing the use of glass 1970’s: Curbside recycling begins in USA- most waste shipped to China as a low cost method of disposal

INTRODUTION TO SUSTAINABILITY Introduced and defined in the United Nations 1987 report titled “Our Common Future” … “sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” Efforts towards sustainable development must take 3 key factors into account: Social impact (people) Environmental impact (planet, ecosystem) Economic impact (profit)

INTRODUTION TO SUSTAINABILITY

ROUGH WASTE STATS STATISTICS 6.3 billion metric tons of plastic have been thrown away since 1950. 12 % incinerated, (only way to permanently dispose of plastic) 9 % recycled, (which only delays final disposal) 60 % or approximately 4.9 billion metric tons is in landfills or scattered in the environment.

REDUCE - REUSE - RECYCLE

THE THREE PILLARS OF SUSTAINABILITY REDUCE Reduce the amount of material used or material that enters the waste stream REUSE Develop packaging ready for re-usable/re-fillable components RECYCLE Provide packaging manufactured with mono-material options or materials readily recycled, where possible

THE THREE PILLARS OF SUSTAINABILITY REDUCE BIO-SOURCED MATERIALS P.C.R. LIGHTWEIGHTING REUSE REFILLABLE PACKAGING RECYCLE INCREASE RECYCABILITY OF PACKAGING

REDUCE - BIO-SOURCED MATERIALS Sugarcane based PE and PP Main benefits are ‘start or life’ reduction or elimination of fossil fuel based ingredients Braskem PE and PP resins Plant Fiber Polymer (PFP)

REDUCE - BIO-SOURCED MATERIALS Sugarcane based PE and PP Uses renewable, sustainable resources Pros No fossil fuel based ingredients used Grown on sustainable farms Grown on farms outside of licensed sugar cane regions No impact on food production Growth of sugarcane sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere Production of sugarcane resin done in factories powered by sugarcane bio fuel No change required to existing tools or production equipment Fully recyclable in existing recycling streams

REDUCE - BIO-SOURCED MATERIALS Sugarcane based PE and PP Uses renewable, sustainable resources Cons Some confusion between BIO sourced, and BIO-Degradable Both at supplier level, and at consumer level Needs to be shipped from Brazil to China

REDUCE - BIO-SOURCED MATERIALS Plant Fiber Polymer PFP Pros No fossil fuel based ingredients used Ingredients claimed from farm waste No impact on food production Organic and fully bio-degradable

REDUCE - BIO-SOURCED MATERIALS Plant Fiber Polymer PFP Cons Not to be used with water based formulas Cost is more than resin New tooling required for most parts Limited color options without affecting benefits Not recyclable, so could confuse customers Goes into landfills If not properly managed, will not bio-degrade

REDUCE - BIO-SOURCED MATERIALS P.C.R. resin Post consumer regrind Pros Uses reclaimed recycled resin that could be headed for a landfill Cons Tremendous water and power consumption used to recycle resin Only clean P.C.R. resin stream is in USA, means fuel and energy consumption to ship P.C.R. resin to China Very few packages use 100% P.C.R. resin Imperfections in surfaces due to impurities in P.C.R. resin stream

REDUCE - LIGHTWEIGHTING Reduction of the amount of raw ingredients used to make a package Pros Lower unit cost Less fuel to ship Potentially reduced box corrugate weight Cons NONE

REDUCE - LIGHTWEIGHTING Integrated tube closures (No Tube Heads) 15%+ reduction of total weight without closure Addition of Graphene Reduce wall thickness and maintain structural integrity/performance Graphene to replace EVOH barrier This will maintain recyclability of materials (EVOH is not recyclable) UNDER DEVELOPMENT

REDUCE - LIGHTWEIGHTING A frame of reference… If we switched to a lightweighted package (25mm tube), for a one million piece order we could save 1600 POUNDS OF RESIN That’s the same weight as a full grown Bison! This is not just less plastic in the package, this also requires less fuel to move these packages around the world

REFILLABLE COMPONENTS REUSE REFILLABLE COMPONENTS WWP is developing a refillable compact to avoid replacing the entire compact with every purchase This also allows for more high end / expensive packages since only purchased once WWP is developing a refillable lipstick to avoid replacing the entire compact with every purchase

Making tube sleeves, heads and caps of the same resin RECYCLE Making tube sleeves, heads and caps of the same resin No need for the customer to separate Avoid EVOH if not required EVOH is NOT recyclable Replace EVOH with Graphine Graphine does NOT effect recyclability UNDER DEVELOPMENT Decorate using WWP’s DFI technology Our DFI technology is full recyclable