Tag Archive for: packaging

Recycled vs Recyclable – What’s the Difference

/in /by

Recycled vs Recyclable – What’s the Difference

There is a continuing trend in the business world to tout environmental friendliness or how “green” your product or company is. The pallet industry is no different, and there certainly is no shortage of claims being made by wood pallet competitors. That is a major reason why NWPCA partnered with the USDA Forest Products Lab and why the Pallet Foundation supported the funding for the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for a wood pallet – to put substance behind environmental claims with certifiable, third-party verified calculations of environmental impacts. The development of communication tools like the EPD are a hopeful step in the right direction, however there are other environmental claims being made which may cause confusion in the marketplace.

One popular claim is to identify a product as 100% recyclable. This is a useful marketing device because it associates full circularity with recycling, and because recycling is so ubiquitous in our minds, we immediately disregard what that term actually means. When it comes down to it, most things are capable of being 100% recyclable. The real question is, how much is truly recycled? To answer that question a few industry conditions require exploration:

  1. Is there an infrastructure in place to collect the thing after use?
  2. How difficult is it to turn it into something useable?
  3. Is it economically sustainable to continue recycling (is there a market)?

If all three of these questions are not easily answered, then the likelihood of the thing being recycled is less, unless an outside force like the government intervenes to subsidize the effort.

A good example of this is the recycling of plastic water bottles. In general, plastic water bottles are recognized as highly recyclable, but the EPA estimates that only 29% of plastic bottles are recycled . How could this be?

There is a high level of familiarity with the practice of recycling, whether at home or in public. Society continues to trend in a favorable direction when it comes to the recycling of plastic bottles, with environmental consciousness becoming more mainstream, but there are still many municipalities that do not offer curbside recycling and there isn’t a recycling bin next to every trash can you see. The use of plastics as a combustible fuel for energy production is another option for using recycled plastic, but with limited benefits (there is no fossil fuel offset), the practice is not widespread.

The process of re-melting and molding a new plastic bottle from recycled plastic is relatively straightforward, but it is highly susceptible to contaminations, whether they be foreign substances or other plastics. Once the plastic bottles are collected, they must be separated from other plastics and thoroughly washed, adding equipment and time that ultimately increase costs.

Finally, the market for recycled plastic bottles has grown over time but is still much smaller in comparison to the virgin market. Estimates show the recycled market in the US is a small fraction compared to the virgin market. The recycled market is estimated in the $10s of millions , while the virgin market is approximately $12 billion . It is difficult to get recycled resins to perform as consistently as virgin ones, so they are often mixed at a much lower percentage (5-10%) to mitigate quality control issues. Instead, recycled resins are processed into certain applications that require lower performance, such as textiles.

All these sub-optimal industry conditions lead to this object that is 100% recyclable not being recycled to near its potential.

On the other hand, it has been estimated that approximately 95% of wood pallets are recycled. A deeper analysis of the wood pallet industry gives a clear picture as to why wood pallets are recycled at a much higher rate.

Over the past several decades, a vast recycling network has emerged in the United States. It has grown naturally around areas of distribution hubs where many pallets are needed to keep the supply chain moving. Independent companies work with pallet users to collect used pallets to be repaired, remanufactured, or recycled. The pallet rental model also exists, which obligates pallet users to return a pallet after it has been used. The pallet rental pools have developed their own networks that supplement the independent network.

There are several opportunities to utilize used pallets. Many undamaged pallets are simply reused “as is” or easily repaired so that their performance can match the transportation requirements of many pallet users. Wood pallets are mostly made from metal (steel) fasteners and solid wood that is free of other substances. An unusable pallet can be easily disassembled for salvaged components, or simply mechanically separated from the metal fasteners during grinding to make wood fiber for mulch, biomass, or animal bedding.

The most recent industry market survey revealed that in 2016, 326 million recycled pallets were produced versus 513 million new pallets, so that almost 40% of the wood pallets constructed were recycled pallets . Because recycled pallets can generally be produced less expensively compared to new pallets, they have become a valuable part of the overall pallet industry. Furthermore, as a renewable material that is non-fossil fuel based, ground wood fiber from solid wood pallets has inherent value to downstream users. Carbon offsets exist for biomass users, and mulch and animal bedding users can rest easy knowing that it will biodegrade with no negative impacts to the environment.

Context always matters, and in the case of recycling it is vital to understand the difference between what is recyclable and what is recycled. By knowing the difference between these two ideas, a pallet provider can help eliminate confusion as to why wood pallets are an environmentally superior product.

1. EPA. (2021, May 26). Plastics: Material-Specific Data. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/plastics-material-specific-data

2. Grand View Research. (2021, May). Report: Recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report. Retrieved from https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/recycled-polyethylene-terephthalate-pet-market

3. Ibis World. (2021, July 29). Plastic Bottle Manufacturing Industry in the US – Market Research Report. Retrieved from: https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/market-research-reports/plastic-bottle-manufacturing-industry/

4. Estimated combined municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction and demolition landfills. Data on MSW from: Shiner, Z., Horvath, L., Araman, P., and Gething, B. 2021. “An Investigation of Wood Pallets Landfilled and Recovered at US Municipal Solid Waste Facilities.” Bioresources 16 (1).

5. Gerber, Nathan, Laszlo Horvath, Phil Araman, and Brad Gething. 2020. “Investigation of New and Recovered Wood Shipping Platforms in the United States.” Bioresources 15 (2). Gerber, Nathan, Laszlo Horvath, Phil Araman, and Brad Gething. 2020. “Investigation of New and Recovered Wood Shipping Platforms in the United States.” Bioresources 15 (2).

Brad Gething, PhD, NWPCA Vice President of Science & Technology, is the staff lead on many research projects including landfill avoidance, pallet market surveys, the environmental product declaration and life cycle assessment. He may be reached by email or phone: 703.519.6104.

Wood vs. Plastic – A Quick Comparison

/in , , /by

As sustainability becomes an increasingly important factor for businesses, industry experts are continuously exploring the most eco-friendly packaging solutions. Two of the most widely used materials in packaging are wood and plastic.

In this exclusive Nature’s Packaging blog post, we will compare the environmental impact of wood vs plastic packaging, addressing factors such as production energy, recyclability, and biodegradability.

Production Energy: Wood Packaging Takes the Lead

When comparing the energy required to produce wood and plastic packaging materials, wood emerges as the more sustainable option. Wood packaging production typically consumes less energy and releases fewer greenhouse gas emissions than plastic production.

The lower energy demand can be attributed to the fact that wood is a naturally occurring material, whereas plastic is derived from non-renewable fossil fuels, like oil and natural gas. Moreover, wood acts as a carbon sink, storing carbon dioxide throughout its life cycle, which helps mitigate climate change.

Recyclability: A Mixed Bag of Results

Both wood and plastic packaging can be recycled, but the recycling rates and processes for these materials differ significantly.

Wood packaging, such as pallets and crates, can be easily repaired, reused, and eventually recycled into wood chips, mulch, or particleboard. While the recycling rate for wood packaging varies depending on local infrastructure and initiatives, its recyclability remains a strong point in its favor.

Plastic packaging, on the other hand, presents more challenges when it comes to recycling. While some types of plastic can be recycled multiple times, others can only be recycled once or not at all.

Additionally, plastic recycling rates are generally lower than those for wood, and the recycling process can be energy-intensive, reducing its overall sustainability advantage.

Biodegradability: Wood Packaging Shines

In terms of biodegradability, wood packaging stands out as the clear winner. Wood is a natural, organic material that decomposes over time, breaking down into harmless substances that can be absorbed back into the environment. This process not only reduces waste but also returns valuable nutrients to the soil.

Plastic packaging, however, does not share this advantage. Most plastics are not biodegradable and can persist in the environment for hundreds of years. Even biodegradable plastics, while an improvement, can take years to break down and often require specific conditions for proper decomposition.

Wood Packaging as a Sustainable Choice for Industry Experts

To achieve sustainability goals in the supply chain, we must weigh the environmental impacts of the materials we choose for packaging solutions. This comparison of wood and plastic packaging highlights that wood is generally a more sustainable option, given its lower production energy, recyclability, and biodegradability.

While plastic packaging may offer advantages in terms of weight and durability, it’s essential to consider the broader environmental implications. By prioritizing sustainable materials like wood and encouraging innovations in eco-friendly packaging, we can drive our industry toward a greener future, where the environmental footprint of packaging is minimized, and a circular economy becomes a reality.

U.S. Forest Products-Annual Market Review 2015-2021

/in , , , /by

The market for forest products in the U.S. is healthy, but for how long? Global macroeconomic pressures are inflicting inflationary pains on everything from wood pallets to essential household items, and the forest products business is no different. Since early 2020, the COVID pandemic’s lock down and public health and safety measures nearly ground the world’s economy to a standstill. Today, we’re still coming out of hibernation, so to speak, but there’s plenty of room for optimism too.

Forest products have weathered the pandemic and subsequent lock downs relatively well. That does not mean serious challenges remain, yet the overall outlook has a positive trajectory. With those considerations in mind, here’s a breakdown of the most critical takeaways from the latest report U.S. Forest Products Annual Market Review and Prospects, 2015-2021.

Purpose of the Annual Market Review

The annual market review aims to build a holistic analysis of the forest products industry, including a breakdown of each market segment, such as sawn softwood and sawn hardwood. The report also outlines the developments that are shaping forest product consumption. The booming housing market is a prime example, as demand for raw lumber and building supplies remains historically high.

There’s even a brief mention of how biomass energy dovetails with the federal government’s emphasis on sustainability and climate change. Altogether, each of these factors forms a comprehensive picture of the U.S. forest products industry. The author of the review, Delton Alderman, has included everything that may affect the business moving forward over the next five years or so.

Current State of the Forest Products Market

Interestingly, the report’s bottom line is this: The table end of the covid-19 pandemic is still influencing the U.S. economy at large, and the forest products market business is no different. Specifically, the review identifies the most significant contributors to the disruption as the waning global demand for wood products, geopolitical events, and the trade disputes that have been ongoing for several years.

But according to the report’s author, a healthy U.S. housing market should be a boon to the forest products industry as home prices continue to rise along with a lack of available homes for sale, including new home construction that simply can’t keep pace with consumer demand. That’s a high-level look at the report, so let’s drill down into little bits of information and data that go into the review.

Information and Data in Annual Market Review

The report’s author builds out the review by looking into information and stats that focus on forest products. The study delves into consumption, trade, prices, credit, production, and the aforementioned macroeconomic effects. The review categorizes each market segment. The downside is that the nomenclature used by the author may be different from the terminology you use internally within your company or industry. Additionally, there is also data on product prices, international trade, domestic markets, and policy initiatives.

When is the Annual Market Review released?

Published in conjunction with the United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Products Annual Market Review and Prospects, 2021-2025 comes out every year. The overriding difference this year is the depth and significance of the disruptions triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, the report looks at the market in its entirety instead of focusing on a single sub-sector.

The time frame in question may differ from report to report as economic conditions dictate how far into the future industry leaders should look for near-term trends. This time, the report outlines what the industry may soon face from 2021 to 2025. It’s the minimum amount of time necessary for a proper statistical analysis that seeks to forecast trends in juxtaposition with past data. From that point onward, the review breaks down the statistics and greatest influences for each category of forest products.

Forest product categories in the report

According to the report’s definition of forest products, the U.S. market can be broken down into several categories:

  • Timber products production, trade, and consumption
  • Sawn softwood
  • Softwood log trade
  • Sawn hardwood
  • Hardwood log trade
  • Pulpwood
  • Furniture
  • Structural panels
  • Engineered wood products
  • Hardwood plywood
  • Particle board and medium density fiberboard
  • Hardboard
  • Insulation board
  • Fuelwood

Additionally, the author explains the impact of economic conditions on each market segment. By taking this approach, the report can give a 360-degree view of the forest products industry and where it may turn in the future. Business leaders need an accurate portrayal of the industry to make investments and plan for successes – or further economic disruption due to factors beyond their control (i.e., rising inflation).

Currently, we are still in the nascent stages of a recovery from COVID-19, which most likely will affect the industry’s trajectory over the near term. And countries are facing headwinds from the invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent recessionary environment.

Some segments will feel the impact more than others. The purpose of the review is to provide a starting range on how these forces will affect those markets. Without these insights, industry-leading companies would have a much harder time getting a snapshot of the market and whether or not the exacerbating factors are beyond their control.

Take some time to review the report, which can be found at the link above, and see how the economic conditions may factor into your strategic decision making.

 

wood pallets with shrink wrapped loads

Choosing the Best Amount of Packaging for Your Product

/in /by

Products need enough packaging to prevent damage, but no one wants to spend more on packaging than needed. Packaging and pallet decision-makers alike will benefit from having a better understanding of downstream supply chain costs.

Over the last several years, consumer products supply chains have trended towards more frequent deliveries and smaller order sizes. Such an approach has enabled retailers to minimize their pipeline inventory while promoting better product availability – having the products that customers are looking for, on the shelf. However, such a strategy poses different challenges.

Smaller orders may require product suppliers to build multiple SKU pallets for inbound delivery to retail distribution centers. Such an approach translates into extra handling during the assembly of the order, as well as at the distribution center when those same orders are sorted and received. Furthermore, smaller, more frequent retail store orders may result in more case touches for distribution center personnel as they are challenged to stack stable pallets for retail store delivery.

According to experts, around 90% of product damage in the CPG supply chain occurs at the DC or retail location. Further downstream in the supply chain there are more interactions between people and products, which increases the likelihood of damage.

So what exactly is the best amount of packaging for your product? Ultimately, it is the amount that delivers the lowest total packaging cost. Take the graph below.

Packaging cost and Product damage

The connection between packaging cost and the amount of packaging is shown in white, while the interaction between the cost of product damage and the amount of packaging is revealed in red. The total packaging cost per package (the sum of packaging cost and damage cost, is outlined in purple.

The lowest cost per package is located at the intersection point of cost and damage. At this point, an extra penny spent on a package would generate a saving of under a penny’s worth of product damage reduction. In the other direction, cutting the amount of packaging by a penny would result in more than a penny’s worth of incremental damage.

While this approach seems obvious, we are left to ponder why product damage is still an ongoing issue. One reason might be a lack of visibility into supply chain damage that happens further downstream.

If the package design does not reflect all product damage costs associated with a package, then the packaging decision will be suboptimal. A suboptimal package design leaves an unrealized opportunity for supply chain improvement.

By better accounting for actual costs, the product damage cost shifts upward, resulting in a new intersection point – one that dictates an additional investment in a package, as shown in Figure 2, below.

Optimal packaging costs graph

Another way to visualize packaging optimization is with the Innventia AB Model (formerly known as the Soras Curve), shown below.

Innventia AB Model

When a product is underpackaged, excessive damage results in a negative environmental impact. When a product is overpackaged, likewise there is a negative environmental impact resulting from excessive resource consumption and residuals.

When it comes to determining whether or not your package provides the perfect amount of product protection, a collaborative supply chain process is essential. With packaging as with pallets, more accurate supply chain feedback can make a positive difference.

Armed with better information designers and decision-makers can better identify costs downstream, enabling them to select the best package – or pallet – for the job.

Wood Pallets and ZIKA: Get the Facts

/in /by

How Mosquitos Cross Borders

The spread of the Zika virus within the United States has changed the protocol for exporting shipments to other countries. However, this hasn’t changed the way wood pallets are prepared for export. As described in our previous post, the ISPM 15 requirements exist to prevent the spread of wood-boring insects across international borders. Mosquitos are not wood boring insects. The types of mosquitos that spread the Zika virus breed in pools of water. To prevent the spread of Zika, cargo containers and airplanes are subject to special treatment.

Chinese Regulations

Photograph by Flickr, distributed under a CC-BY 2.0 license.

Photograph by Flickr, distributed under a CC-BY 2.0 license.

China, in particular, is strict on this rule. According to the American Journal of Transportation, China’s fumigation requirement is effective for all shipments from the US after August 5, 2016. On September 2nd, they modified the requirement to apply only to shipments originating from Florida. Products being shipped don’t have to be exposed to the fumigation process if certain conditions are met. For instance, fumigating the empty container prior to loading the cargo into it is considered acceptable. Another method it to keep the temperature at 15 degrees Celsius or less during transit. Passenger and cargo airplanes must also comply with these regulations. The space in commercial airlines for storing baggage and in the passenger seating areas should be fumigated prior to departure. Airlines must supply proof of fumigation to the Chinese government.

Pallet Compliance

Wood pallet companies that supply pallets for export are not responsible for fumigating cargo containers. Pallet suppliers have no obligation beyond the ISPM 15 requirements to certify the lumber on their pallets has been heat treated. The ISPM 15 requirements pallet companies must follow are intended to prevent the spread of wood-boring insects that could harm forest sustainability. The National Wood Pallet and Container Association has been working closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on this subject and had determined:

The ZIKA virus is a human health issue and is related to mosquitos, not wood-boring insects. Therefore, the recognized heat treatment or fumigation of export wood pallets for ISPM 15 compliance is not applicable for ZIKA compliance of the shipment. The entire consignment and container must be anti-mosquito treated and certified pre-shipment. There is no action a wood pallet company can do to assure ZIKA compliance for their customer’s shipment. It is the shipper’s responsibility to ensure the entire shipment is ZIKA compliant.

Inbound shipments without proof of anti-mosquito treatment will be fumigated at the port of discharge in China by the authorities without prior notice. It is the Consignee’s responsibility to inform Shipper (at origin) to provide a certificate proof of treatment before loading the shipment.

These regulations are in place to prevent the spread of Zika virus by mosquitos. The Zika virus was discovered in Uganda in 1947 and is common in Africa and Asia. According to the CDC, as of September 14, 2016, in the United States there have been 43 cases of locally acquired Zika and all of them occurred in Florida. Thus, only outgoing shipments originating from Florida going to China are subject to fumigation; however, these requirements are subject to change. As of September 14, 2016, there are 3,132 cases of US citizens who have contracted Zika by means associated with travel.

Resources

ISPM 15 and Sustainability

/in /by

History of ISPM 15

The International Stands for Phytosanitary Measures No. 15, referred to in the industry as ISPM 15, is an International Phytosanitary Measure developed by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). According to its documentation, the primary goal is to “reduce the risk of introduction and spread of quarantine pests associated with the movement in international trade of wood packaging material made from raw wood.” The language is comprehensive, covering all forms of wood packaging that serve as pathways for pests that could pose a risk to living trees.

The IPPC is a multilateral treaty signed into effect on December 6, 1951. As of 2010, 74 countries participate in the program. According to the IPPC, the “ISPMs provide globally harmonized guidance for countries to minimize pest risk without creating unjustified barriers to trade, ultimately facilitating their exports and imports of plants and plant products.”

How Wood Packaging Companies Comply

In North America, if a wood products company wants to export lumber then they must comply with the program. The most common way for companies to comply with ISPM 15 standards is by heat treating lumber. In order for lumber to meet these standards, the internal temperature of the timber must reach 56 degrees Celsius or 132.8 degrees Fahrenheit for 30 minutes in a kiln. Certain types of lumber, such as plywood, oriented-strand board (OSB), and sawdust are exempt from these standards as they are exposed to the heat-treating requirements during the manufacturing process. The purpose of heat treating lumber to meet ISPM 15 standards is to reduce the risk of spreading wood boring insects.

Photograph by Wikimedia, distributed under a CC-BY 2.0 license

Photograph by Wikimedia, distributed under a CC-BY 2.0 license

Wood packaging companies that participate in the ISPM 15 program are assigned a stamp with a unique number and that stamp must be clearly applied to all products used in export. They must keep written logs of incoming heat treated lumber and any outgoing orders where the stamp was used. Compliance is monitored and enforced by third party companies that make unscheduled monthly visits to the wood products companies to ensure all rules and regulations are followed. Some of the largest North American inspection companies are Timber Products, Pacific Lumber Inspection Bureau, and West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau and they work closely with the United States and Canadian governments. If a wood product company doesn’t follow the rules of the program, they can get their stamp revoked and they won’t be allowed to certify lumber products for export.

ISPM 15 and Sustainability

Lumber and other wood packaging companies across North America have widely adopted the ISPM 15 standards and these standards are intended to help protect our forests from wood-boring pests. According to ISPM 15 language, “Pests associated with wood packaging material are known to have negative impacts on forest health and biodiversity. Implementation of this standard is considered to reduce significantly the spread of pests and subsequently their negative impacts.” By adopting ISPM-15 protocols into the manufacturing processes and by achieving the high levels of industry compliance, the wood packaging industry will enhance its role as stewards of the resource, reducing the risk of spreading wood-boring insects which results in elevating the sustainability of the products we produce.

Resources

LOCATION

225 Reinekers Lane, Suite 560
Alexandria, VA  22314  USA

© 2025 Nature's Packaging® is federally registered with the U.S. Copyright Office by the National Wooden Pallet & Container Association. All rights reserved.