2. 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

3. 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)

4. INTRODUTION TO SUSTAINABILITY

5. 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.

6. REDUCE - REUSE - RECYCLE

7. 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

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

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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