Choice of material from function and life-span

In the Report of the Inquiry on Centre for increased substitution of hazardous substances in chemical products and goods (SOU 2017:32),

“functional equivalence” is brought up as a key factor. Other impor-tant factors include:

6 www.postnord.se/information/om-postnord/en-foranderlig-varld/moms-pakinapaket/

A smarter use SOU 2018:84

44

• The availability of the alternative (i.e. it ought to have been devel-oped and tested to a sufficient extent)

• Availability of information regarding the alternative (e.g. health and environmental impacts, uncertainties and knowledge gaps)

• Awareness in the organisation regarding the problem with the sub-stance that is being used and a readiness to make a change.

• Investments and operating costs for the alternative

• Environmental performance of the alternative. It is also important that there exists a consideration for how the material should be circulated.

Substitution from plastic to other materials

Whether substitution from plastic to other materials are resource effective and sustainable from an environmental point of view, must be evaluated from case to case. However, multiple-use products are often preferable to disposables. It is also of importance that the pos-sibility of circulating the material is taken into consideration. Different types of substitutions occur in this context:

• Bio-composites with varying compositions of plastic (fossil or bio-based) and natural fibres (e.g. cellulose, wood, hemp).

• To replace parts of, for instance, the packaging with cellulose-based materials and keep an outer layer, or similar, of plastic.

• To completely replace the plastic with materials (often cellulose-based).

Obstacles and difficulties

In general, there exist several obstacles and difficulties for achieving a substitution of materials. Often, it is a matter of price, consumer habits and product design. The recyclability is also an important aspect to consider for the substitution to be resource effective.

Another obstacle may be that one is locked into an already built-up system. For instance, if the packaging solution is incorporated within the production a new packaging technique may be necessary, which

SOU 2018:84 A smarter use

would demand a change in the production line, and result in large additional costs.

Different problems and initiatives may result in lockdowns and counteracting purposes. Several of the actors, which the inquiry has been in contact with, state that there is a one-sided focus on recy-cling and reuse of plastic as well as bio-based plastic in many of the (plastic) initiatives that are in progress, both within the EU and on a national level. Instead, some actors highlight residual waste from Swedish forests as an alternative raw material for bio-based plastic, while others believe that one should switch to a bio-based material directly. Several actors believe that there is too little focus on the climate issue surrounding plastic.

Ongoing research and development

In June of 2017, Treesearch⁷ was launched. It is the largest venture so far in Sweden concerning knowledge and competence development within research on new materials and special chemicals from forest materials. In collaboration with academies and universities, indus-tries, private foundations and the government, Treesearch aims to create a world leading, open research environment that lays the foundation for future innovations from the forest and contributes to the bio-economy. Treesearch fits within the strategic innovation pro-gram New bio-based material, products and services, also called Bio-Innovation, that was launched in 2014 as part of the government’s Collaboration program for a Circular and bio-based economy.

Several institutes and companies such as Wallenberg Wood Science Centre and Stora Enso, among others, carry out research and innova-tion efforts surrounding nanocellulose and there are several potential applications for nanocellulose, e.g. as a barrier material in food pack-aging.

Replacing plastic with plastic

The report “Increased plastic recycling – potential for selected pro-duct groups” (Stenmarck et al, 2018) demonstrates that there is a potential climate benefit for replacing one plastic type with another

A smarter use SOU 2018:84

46

or by using recycled raw materials in products made from the plastic types LDPE, HDPE, PP, PET, PVC, PS and ABS. The environ-mental costs for different plastic types are also included. In the report, it is established that it is difficult to pinpoint when replacement of plastic with plastic can happen since the choice of plastic type often depends on the desired qualities of the product, e.g. life-span (usage) in a certain environment. Examples that are still highlighted are replace-ment of PS with PP for certain types of packaging (e.g. shampoo bottles and detergent packaging). Additionally, the environmental benefits of replacing ABS with PS, where possible, is also highlighted (Stenmark et al, 2018).

3.2.2 More effective use of plastic materials

The choice of material by function and life-span is governed to some extent by legal requirements, e.g. in the packaging directive and Ecodesign directive. The revised regulation (2018:1462) concerning producer responsibility for packaging contains, for instance, a clari-fication of the rules for package design with the purpose of reducing unnecessary material use and further improving recyclability. However, it is essentially up to the companies to make this type of assessment.

Previously, the focus of the Ecodesign directive was primarily the products’ use of energy during its usage phase. Still, it is becoming increasingly more common to consider the product’s complete life-cycle. The EU Commission highlights in their plastic strategy the possibility for the directive to also include requirements for circular design. This may entail demands for repairability and recycling. Several authorities, e.g. the Environmental Protection Agency, would then be affected and it is therefore important that these authorities also allo-cate resources to work with these questions.

It has previously (SOU 2017:22) been established that the demands for digital traceability of material content need to increase for in-creased recycling to occur. The inquiry shares this opinion and believes that such a requirement might take the form of a labelling require-ment on the product’s year of manufacture. If the year of manufacture is shown on the product, it would be safe to assume that the chemical content concerning that year’s chemical legislation is met. Since it is both practically and legally difficult for Sweden as a single country

SOU 2018:84 A smarter use

to decide about mandatory product rules, such an effort needs to be conducted on EU level. Thus, we propose that these requirements are included and clarified in the future effort with the Eco-design directive (2009/125/EG).

Other instruments Standards

An important support for companies’ assessments are shared standards.

Considering the requirements in the updated packaging directive, the Swedish Standards Institute (SIS) is establishing a working group within the European standards organisation (CEN) that will revise the harmonised standard SS-EN 13428 (Lindahl, 2018). SIS have also received support from the Environmental Protection Agency to estab-lish an ISO secretariat for the development of standards for plastic recycling.

3.3 Good examples for inspiration