Sustainable Packaging
Industry Experts discuss all the new materials and ways that packaging can be more sustainable and how we can do our parts to help recycle and reuse. Sustainable Packaging is and will continue to affect us all in our daily lives. We have lots of fun and get down to the real data of what's working to help our planet!
Sustainable Packaging
Dr. Jon Smieja VP Circularity (Trellis Group)
https://trellis.net/
Sign up today for Circularity 25! https://trellis.net/events/circularity/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jsmieja/
What is the Trellis Group and what do they do to help companies be more sustainable?
What happened in Busan Korea at the latest Plastics negotiations?
How can you help today?
Check out our sponsor Orora Packaging Solutions
https://ororapackagingsolutions.com/
FREE TRIAL for Trayak
https://ecoimpact.trayak.com/trial-registration
https://www.linkedin.com/in/cory-connors/
I'm here to help you make your packaging more sustainable! Reach out today and I'll get back to you asap.
This podcast is an independent production and the podcast production is an original work of the author. All rights of ownership and reproduction are retained—copyright 2022.
Welcome to Sustainable Packaging with Cory Connors
Brodie Vander Dussen:and Brodie Vander Dussen. Cory Connors: We're John Smieja , the Vice President of Circularity at Trellis Group, on the show again. We have a recap from his trip to Korea, negotiations underway for a PASC treaty, and so much more to discuss. But welcome, John. Thanks for joining us today.
Dr. Jon Smieja:Yeah. Thanks for having me, Corey and Brody, welcome to the ranks of podcast.
Brodie Vander Dussen:Thank you. Thank you. I'm happy to be here. John, thanks for coming back to the show. We're really excited to have you for those who maybe didn't listen to the, your previous episodes where you were on with Corey. Can you share a little bit about, what you do about yourself, what you do at Trellis?
Dr. Jon Smieja:Yeah, well, shame on them. It was a great episode. No, I'm just kidding. let's see. when I think of myself, I usually describe myself as a recovering chemist. basically meaning that I have a PhD in chemistry that I never really used. and over the last 13 years, since I left graduate school, I've mostly just been trying to become a guy that talks at his own shoes less and talks to people. So before I got into this role at Green Biz, now Trellis, I spent 10 years in corporate sustainability. and since then I've been the vice president of circularity here for about three years. if folks don't know Green Biz or formerly Green Biz, now we're called Trellis. We rebranded over the summer. we have a mission to support companies and the professionals working to combat climate change. We do that through in person events like Circularity that I organize, as well as Green Biz, Verge, and Bloom, our other three major events. through our peer to peer learning network for corporate sustainability professionals, where we have, vertical communities in North American and European strategies, circular economy, nature and biodiversity, communications, et cetera. and finally, our editorial coverage that's really geared towards sharing actionable insights with the corporate sustainability community. Things like case studies, news that they can use, in their roles. So that's a little bit about me and a little bit about Trellis.
Brodie Vander Dussen:I've actually had an opportunity to go to Green Biz, be, and be part of, I'm a, an avid reader of the Trellis newsletter. it's been so helpful to, to, learn a lot, I've learned a lot, but also get plugged in and meeting other people who are struggling with the same things I'm struggling with. Or, yeah, I, the case studies themselves I think are really helpful. Even thinking outside the box, there's so many solutions out there, even though I think all of our problems feel unique, they rarely are. And so I think that the network like Trellis has been so helpful that, yeah, thank you for all the work you're doing. It's really valuable.
Dr. Jon Smieja:Yeah, I think the network's interesting. It started, man, 17 or 18 years ago now. And when it started, most companies, if they had a sustainability function, only have one person, right? So it was this method to make people feel less isolated in their day to day jobs. So they could learn people that were struggling with the same challenges. And since then, as we've seen, the corporate sustainability community grow, two things have happened. One, people still feel a little isolated because they're still often, teams of five to 10 in companies of thousands, but their jobs have become more, organized into specific functions. And so even if they are part of a five or 10 person sustainability team, they're still the only one doing circular economy work or sustainability communications, et cetera, et cetera. I think that the network model is held up even despite the sort of growth of the industry over time.
Cory Connors:Well said. And I think it's an interesting point to discuss how companies are evolving and changing constantly with these new additions of, sustainability related roles, circularity related roles. I think, like you said, it used to be maybe one person, maybe somebody from the marketing team was in charge of, Oh yeah, we should be sustainable too. Let's talk about that. That's a, that's an important part of what we're doing. let's have a sustainability function, but now it's like you said, it's a team. It's a group of people. And these are the kinds of people that we meet at your events like circularity, one of my favorite events every year. but your title on yours, LinkedIn says circular economy enthusiast. I'd love to know about that because more and more people are saying sustainability isn't a thing, but circularity is a thing. Like, well, what's a thing? tell us what does that mean to you, sir?
Dr. Jon Smieja:Yeah, it's a good question. I've had that up there for a long time. Nobody ever really asked me about what it actually means. I'm a firm believer that material use and waste are as big of a concern as global crisis is climate right now. And I believe the only way to address that problem is through a transition to a circular economy and that transition has to include, reduction of material use, reuse, refurbishing, remanufacturing, resale, and at least in my opinion, when all else fails, recycling. I think it should be a, Last resort. And, the side benefit to a circular economy is if we do it wisely and we do it well, it can also help us meet our climate goals. I think the challenge that we face right now with the linear economy is really best displayed in I don't know if you're familiar with the Stockholm Resilience Center and their Stockholm Resilience Center. planetary boundaries. So as of 2023, they have these they've defined these nine planetary boundaries, and we've actually crossed six of them per the data that they look at. And those six are novel entities. So think like, synthetic chemicals being introduced, radioactive materials, genetically modified organisms, things like that. So novel entities there that have now been released into the world. we've passed that we've passed our climate change, planetary boundary. We've passed what they call biosphere integrity. So decline in diversity and extent and health of living ecosystems. We've passed land systems change. So that's like transformation of natural landscapes through deforestation, urbanization, desertification, et cetera. Freshwater change is another one we've passed. So that's like the way we use the water in our rivers, lakes, and aquifers. and then the, one of my favorite terms, biogeochemical flows. So that's, it's like phosphorus and nitrogen and the way that we're using it on crops, and then it's ending up in our waterways and in our lands. Right. And so for all six of these places that we've crossed bonnet, planetary boundaries, The circular economy could really help us in a lot of these places, right? And really could, stem the tide of this, ecosystem destruction, that we're forcing on the earth. and also maybe even revert us back to a place, that's a little more regenerative. So I guess that's a long way of saying that when I'm, say I'm an enthusiast, it means I'm excited about all the various things interventions that the global economy can have, when we decouple human transparency from material extraction and waste. So I'm really excited about the possibility of a circular economy that we don't really see yet anywhere.
Cory Connors:Me too. Me too. Well said. it's possible. And then you and I are very optimistic people, occasionally pessimistic when we reach into a certain, way of, thought, or, after three days in an event and you keep hearing the same things, it's like, Listen, it's time to shake it up a little bit and make some changes here, but very well said. I believe a circular economy is possible and very necessary. I
Brodie Vander Dussen:really, I love and I want to touch back to what you said that recyclability is almost a last resort. I think when we talk about sustainability, sometimes we recyclability metric over everything else. And it it makes everything else feel like noise and it's not necessarily. A circular economy isn't recyclability. Those are not synonymous. And so I think even I want to talk a little bit about, you just got back from Korea. Right. And plastics as much as we talk about recyclability, that's something that really they bought up their heads, but heads with is the plastics versus recyclability and. there's a lot of movement and a lot of conversation and a lot of opinions and feelings about plastics and global treaties, national treaties, statewide regulations. I want to hear your thoughts because I followed along on LinkedIn from each of the days that you posted recaps and your what was going on. And so thank you for that. Because I was, I felt like I was there with you and like, Feeling, feeling hopeful. And then, less as we went on, but I'd love to hear, before you arrived, it sounded like you were hopeful and you had some expectations. Even you posted about it. Can you tell us a little bit about what you were hoping to see before you got there?
Dr. Jon Smieja:Yeah, so this was my second. I was able to go to Ottawa in April as well. So this was my second one of these global plastics treaty negotiation meetings. And I think there was a lot of work that happened between the 4th and 5th. They call it intersessional work where they meet with experts, they work on revising the text, and they try to get it to a better place before they get to what. What ultimately was supposed to be the last negotiating committee meeting, in Busan. And there was a lot of optimism leading up to it because there'd been a lot of good intersessional work. and maybe, to take a step back, like there's part of it, like maybe all of us were a little too optimistic, right? So when you go back to the UN environment agency resolution that passed back in February of 2022, nations agreed to negotiate a legally binding treaty to address plastic pollution, and there was a ton of excitement, that maybe we could finally do something momentous through the UN to really affect change, at the same time, that resolution called for a really aggressive timeline, right? Five negotiated meetings over 24 months. And to have an agreed upon treaty by the end of this year would have been, somewhat unprecedented for the whole of the United Nations to do something that fast. like most people that traveled to Busan, I was hoping that when the gavel fell on the last day, we'd have agreed upon text and we could move into the next steps, which are a diplomatic conference where they iron out final details. Followed by cops, cop meetings like we have for climate and biodiversity. and and in the end, it turns out, and I think we'll get into this a little bit more of it. It turns out some of the divergences and opinion between member states were just too big to overcome in a seven day meeting. And if we think about it, going back to your comments about recyclability, Brodie, it's, a lot of it stems from that, right? Like, there are countries out there that think we can waste manage our way out of the plastics pollution crisis. We can increase take back. We can increase recycling rates. And we can fix this problem. And then there are other countries that I would argue are more realistic and know that's not possible, right? We also need to cut in other ways and affect the issue in other ways. So I think that's why I often say that recycling is the last hope because really recycling relies on not only good product design that leads to recyclability, but also good waste management and good separation and good sorting. And most of the world doesn't have those last things, right? If you visit the global South, most countries don't have good waste management practices. And so therefore, it's much more difficult to really affect change that we need to see through recycling. so yeah, I was optimistic leading up to it, based on the people I was talking to, and vibe going in, and that was, diminished throughout the week in Busan.
Brodie Vander Dussen:Ugh, big sigh with that. I think, also, you touched on a little, a point, too, that I thought was, I think is interesting, and I think that not that many people are talking about it. When we talk about plastics and the plastic Crisis, right? The waste crisis. The reason why people are focused on plastics are not only because of the recyclability and the end of life, but also the beginning of life and the, creation of plastics is its own polluter and has major effects on communities and health and our bio, Environment, the, like, the life, bio life and all the things around there, it has such, we're not just talking about, we are, but we're not just talking about the great pacific ocean. Garbage patch and all of the other things, we're talking about a full life cycle that we're trying to address and make better. Right. I don't, that's the goal. So I'm encouraged to hear that was something that was talked about and maybe more than we were hoping. And
Dr. Jon Smieja:yeah, it's really interesting, actually, like the, there are, there's a number of. Of member states in the U. N. that want to address only end of life. but if we really think about the plastics problem, there's a couple other things that, like, stick in my mind a lot. First of all, we have not had a full generation of humans. Live with the just vast amount of plastic that's around us now, right? Like people who are in their 70s 80s 90s They grew up in an era where there wasn't very much plastic in their everyday lives And so we haven't really we haven't really yet seen the full ramifications of living an entire human life 100 years with plastics In it every day, and we also know that, the people that live close to, upstream manufacturing of chemicals and polymers are exposed to higher levels of certain chemicals. We know that people living near, waste recovery facilities and things like that are also exposed to different chemical levels. it really is important to think about this whole life cycle. All the way from extraction of, the fossil fuel or even the biomaterial that you're going to use to make the plastic till the end of life. And I think that's, there's a bunch of countries in the UN that are really fighting for that to be part of the treaty. Whether they win,
Cory Connors:it's, it's been like Brody was saying, it's a want, want a feeling for a lot of us sitting back here in the U S or not around the world, frankly, waiting for the results of this event and the next, because the first five were not totally successful, they've, Planned another one a 5. 2, which I think is hilarious like, because 5. 2 isn't more than 5. It's and it's not 6, but it's barely more than 5. I should say. But when is that? When is that event going to be? Where is it going to be? and What do you think it's gonna take to get a real result? there are member states that are basically laughing in closed door meetings at this process saying, you're never gonna get us to move. We're not gonna do anything. And I think it's, what kind of characteristics do we need to pull out to make this thing successful?
Dr. Jon Smieja:Yeah, well, let's maybe I don't know when or where it's going to be. I think, the best money is probably that it would be in Nairobi, where the U. N. Environment program is based. and likely in the first half of 2025. Hopefully not April 29th to May 1st when I'm hoping my when I'm hoping my conference in Denver, that's yet to be seen. they'll work on scheduling and where it's going to be. over the next month or so. I'm guessing we'll learn more about that. but really, we've got it's an interesting process, right? Because you've got 180 plus companies or countries. Sorry at the negotiating table. and on one side, you've got this group that refers to themselves as the like minded countries. And this is the Petro States. you think of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, the Russian Federation, and the list goes on. It's, it's somewhere on in the area of 20 countries. They're part of this group. and those nations have financially benefited from what they would call the exploitation of their natural resources for a really long time, right? Namely, oil. and as they think about the future. They're thinking of plastic production as a hedge against, the eventual decrease in global demand for oil. those countries do not want to see production cuts or a phase out of certain chemicals and polymers in a final treaty because that's their sort of lifeline, their economic lifeline moving forward as they see it. To continue to extract oil and continue to make new plastics out of it. so they're fighting for, only waste management. waste management and maybe a little bit of product design to make those products more recyclable is what they want the treaty to be. and they also want nationally determined contributions. instead of a, A broad global, umbrella to say everyone needs to meet these requirements. Each country would be able to come forward with its own contribution to this. This issue, is similar to how the Paris agreement is set up for climate. there's some challenges there. That's the like minded countries. on sort of one side of this argument on the other side of the country. On the other side of the argument, you've got about 100 countries, maybe more that support a high ambition treaty. So they support reduction in primary plastic creation. They support phase out of certain sort of worst actors, chemicals and polymers. they support, strong financial mechanisms to make sure everybody can do this work regardless of their country's financial, situation. and they, so really it's interesting that these two ends. Are arguing over scope. One of them is saying the scope should end when somebody throws a product away. And the other one is saying the scope are they're saying the scope should start with somebody throws a product away. And the other people are saying it shouldn't it should start an extraction of a fossil fuel or a biomaterial. And that's a pretty big chasm to cross when you're talking about that big of a difference in scope. And I think ultimately, that's where you're at. This treaty hung up is both of these sides have drawn red lines where they won't move. and we'll see if an I. N. C. 5. 2 can change that at all. one of the additional challenges with this whole conversation is that notably the U. S. China and Brazil, three of the top 10 and the top two largest economies in the world have been in the middle, right? Neither. They're not. They're not in the like minded states. They're not in the high ambition states. They're trying to operate in a space in between, and it's. It's hard to imagine the globe moving forward with a really robust treaty without three of the top largest economies. and also, three pretty large users of, creators of plastic, and in some cases, fossil fuel extraction, right? The U. S. is the biggest oil producer in the world right now. so it's a little bit weird, and we'll also see what happens, At INC 5. 2 with likely a new group of negotiators from a new US administration that might have a significantly different stance on some of this stuff than the previous group did. I guess that's a lot that's a long way of saying like, there's a big divide to cross. And there's a lot of unanswered questions leading up to this INC 5. 2. interesting that you bring up the distinction, Corey, because it's actually a good thing that they decided to make this an INC 5. 2. Cause basically what that means is that they can pick up where they left off in Busan, as opposed to if we were to move forward with a new INC, 6. There would have to be meetings at the beginning to settle on what the starting text is, what the procedure is going to be, what the working groups are. Now they can save that day's worth of work at the beginning and just get to work faster. At least that's the hope, but the 5. 2 actually helps us in that way and that it's not a start from scratch, like it could be with an INC six. So
Cory Connors:that's brilliant. That's a good move to cut some of that red tape. I know, Andrew Stevens says, was there with you and, the team from WWF and, it's exciting to see what's possible. And, I, we won't give up. We won't give up on this process. we must continue to fight forward and move this to a reasonable execution where it's actually something that's going to make an impact on our planet in a positive way. I'm crossing my fingers.
Brodie Vander Dussen:I think to touch on that, that we can't give up, right? While we're waiting for things to be scheduled or waiting for a treaty to potentially be signed and ratified, what can we do in the meantime? I think it would be a waste, no pun intended, to be sitting and waiting for that to happen without making any moves or actions on our end, as companies, as brands, as packaging manufacturers, as packaging designers, even, in your opinion, as a circular economy enthusiast, what do you think that we could be doing while we're waiting for something hopefully to come to fruition from all of this? What can we do in order to help with that waste? Yeah.
Dr. Jon Smieja:I've got three recommendations, I think. one of them, one of them is a little more difficult, but let's start with the two that I think are most important, and maybe easiest, right? So one, companies can consider joining the business coalition for a global plastics treaty. So the business coalition is convened by Ellen MacArthur foundation and worldwide life fund. and it brings together a global group of businesses across the plastics value chain, right? So you've got, you've got chemical producers, polymer producers, brands, retailers, all part of this. You've also got financial institutions and other environmental NGOs, that are committed to supporting the development of an ambitious and effective treaty. that organization has about, I think, over 275 organizations now that have joined it. and they're always seeking new members. So if your company is not a member of the business coalition, but you support a strong plastics treaty, that's one way to get involved. They have, they put out news releases. They have meetings, that happened during the INCs. I believe they also have meetings between INCs to figure out strategy for the group, at the next meeting coming up. And I'm guessing that and I think that this group will continue, in perpetuity as we start the COP discussions eventually around a plastics treaty. I would say second, and this is a little bit of a data plug, but I think it's important, right? Like, companies should know their plastics footprint. They should know how much plastic they're using. Where that plastic is going, hopefully be able to get some information about the ultimate fate of that plastic, right? Is it ended up in landfills, recycled in the environment, et cetera. because I think the more every company knows about what they're putting out into the world, the better set up they will be for the eventual plastics treaty that we're going to have. But also the regulations that are already coming into place, right? We have five states in the U. S. that are implementing EPR companies are going to need to know their, what they're selling into those states, to be able to participate in those. We've also got global EPR schemes. so I think just like getting a better handle on the data, what plastic are you already putting out there? and what is its fate is important. And then the third, and this is, maybe a little bit more controversial, but it's one thing that you see when you're on the ground at these meetings. and also I'll just admit back when I was in corporate sustainability is. Know what your industry groups are advocating for, right? A lot of industry groups will advocate and lobby for no treaty, a very low ambition treaty. they basically are advocating for a lot of things that are in direct contradiction to what their member companies might be advocating for in the same exact policy space. You might not be able to ultimately change what your industry groups are lobbying for, but it's worth knowing and it's worth telling them your position. whatever industry group you might be involved in, as a company, I think it's worth looking into their positions on these things. and, I used to have this conversation when I was in corporate sustainability about like, why are we even a member of, X, Y, and Z industry group. They seem to be advocating for things we're not in favor of. And the answer I always got was, well, we have to be. Everybody in our industry is a member of that organization. And so I think there's a place for, there's a place for having some dissension, within these trade organizations to try to keep them from advocating for the lowest common denominator. That's, that, that's a little bit more difficult than some of the other ones, I think.
Brodie Vander Dussen:Maybe, but it doesn't make it any less important, right? I think sometimes the harder ones and the big obstacles, they're hard for a reason that. they're, we're in a waste crisis for a reason and we're not going to solve anything if we're not willing to have the hard conversations or raise our hand, even if the answer is, well, this is the way things have always done. Okay, I think it's really valuable to make someone say that out loud. I think they hear it and they know. And it starts a conversation, even if take some courage, but I think it's really important, even if it's hard,
Cory Connors:that's brilliant to, to be a part of the groups that are advocating for something that you're not necessarily in favor of, but to be the voice of reason, or, maybe pull back a little bit and say, Hey. I don't agree with that, like, I think that's important to be that person in the room. Sometimes, Adam and I have our Monday morning podcast, about, and oftentimes we'll disagree on something. And sometimes those are the best episodes where, just 3 people from the industry. we're not in business together. we're all, we have very different jobs and careers. But when 1 of us doesn't like something, or 2 of us don't like something, it can be very interesting to hear what you think. Why? And to hear the, well, from my point of view, this is what I think, and I think you're exactly right, and that's why these, maybe the lack of a, cohesion, can cause, Even further, movement in the right direction, sometimes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Dr. Jon Smieja:It's interesting you bring up the sort of, we, when we're building content for our conferences, we always refer to it as productive tension, right? can we bring some competing voices into panels that, can disagree with each other respectfully and actually have a meaningful conversation? and I think those are often the most fruitful. They're sometimes hard to come by.
Cory Connors:Well, Brody and I are happy to speak at any event and we'll have the opposite opinion of each other for your panels. Yeah, we can debate both sides. Yeah,
Brodie Vander Dussen:Corey. I'm trying to think of anything that you and I really disagree about. And I think it might be Taylor Swift might be the only thing. John, we're happy to debate. Don't tell my wife.
Dr. Jon Smieja:Corey, are you anti Taylor Swift?
Cory Connors:No, I'm a huge fan, but I don't enjoy her music. I think she's incredibly talented. I, respect her in so many ways, her philanthropy or the, what she's done for the music industry and for millions of people. Yeah, frankly, 10. 2 million people have seen her perform over 150 shows. Incredible. Incredible. In person.
Dr. Jon Smieja:I have a five and a ten year old daughter, so I can't, I can't speak negatively about Taylor Swift in any way,
Cory Connors:form, or mass. No, I would never, but, if I have a choice of music to listen to, it wouldn't be that, I can say that without getting shot, too. anything else to say, sir? What's your next event?
Dr. Jon Smieja:I have so much to share, Corey. How much time do we have? well, let's just touching briefly one more time on this plastics treaty thing. I will say, for the U. S. based companies and listeners out there, it's incredibly likely that the U. S. are unlikely. Sorry that the U. S. is actually going to ratify any treaty that comes out of this process. Anyway, the U. S. generally doesn't ratify treaties. and, after the election this past November, Whether or not the U. S. is even in support of the treaty, much less ratifying it is really up in the air, probably more likely than not that our federal government is going to say, No, we want nothing to do with this. So I think, if you're interested in this topic as a U. S. corporation, and you would like to see some level of business continuity, risk mitigation, et cetera, on the issue of plastic pollution. I would say now's a good time to start getting up to speed on what these negotiations, like what's happening in these negotiations, because we could be facing a situation similar to the 2016 17 transition where the U. S. hadn't ratified the Paris Treaty. The Trump administration, basically backed away from it. And then companies, NGOs, states, cities here in the US had to go forward with a sort of we're still in mentality. it's not entirely clear what that looks like for a global plastics treaty. But I think we might be Gearing up for something like that. and I guess like our next events here at Trellis is our Green Biz event in Phoenix in February. We're going to be having some discussions around policy, but I would say, shameless pitch for circularity in Denver, Colorado, April 29th to May 1st. We have a whole track on policy. we have quite a few discussions around plastics and packaging at that event. and so we'd love to see folks there if they would like to join us in Denver.
Cory Connors:Beautiful city. Beautiful place. Yeah, that's great.
Dr. Jon Smieja:Very excited about it as a host city. We've got a bunch of really good, local, local support from the NGOs, from the business community there from the government. and it's, going to be one of our first States here in the US to implement a packaging EPR. So there's going to be plenty to talk about on the policy front.
Brodie Vander Dussen:Wow. That's going to be so impactful and valuable. Yeah, definitely. Definitely encourage anyone who hasn't been to a Trellis event. Like I said, they're really helpful.
Cory Connors:They are impressive as an Oregonian visiting Colorado. I always feel at home. we're equally, green focused and, a little bit strange in the best ways. I think, thanks again, John. We appreciate you and, hope to have you on after 5. 2 to see, uh, how that goes.
Dr. Jon Smieja:Yeah,
Cory Connors:hopefully better
Brodie Vander Dussen:crossing my fingers for you.
Dr. Jon Smieja:All right. Thank you, sir. Yes. Thanks for having me.
