SMART DESIGN

26 | L&L
And this is at a time when
governments, brand owners and retail
groups are stepping up their demands
and looking to move forward more
rapidly with carbon reduction in the
packaging and labeling supply chain.
Certainly, the next few years will see an
even bigger push on reducing carbon
emissions – and the introduction of
global ‘carbon credits.’ The label industry
has yet to feel the full brunt of these new
challenges.
Yet, if the label industry is to convince
brand owners, consumer groups and
governments that labels are not a part
of the problem – as it is often portrayed,
and particularly for self-adhesive
labels and release liner waste – then
labels need to be promoted more as
a means of carbon reduction. This is
going to need a more collaborative
relationship between industry suppliers,
more positive marketing and PR, more
good news stories, and definitive steps
towards significantly lowering emissions.
As Jussi Vanhanen, president of UPM
Raflatac, stated at the recent L9 global
industry forum in Tokyo, ‘It is more
important than ever for the industry to
focus its efforts on the efficient use of raw
materials and resources. Doing nothing
is not an option.’ His presentation was
part of an L9 initiative aiming to stimulate
global awareness and collaboration
for recycling and sustainability in the
self-adhesive labelstock industry. He also
invited label printers and end-users to
join labelstock suppliers in supporting
the efficient use of raw materials and
resources by promoting environmentally
sound options.
While the main labelstock suppliers are
already starting to measure and reduce
carbon emissions in their manufacturing
and distribution chain, there are many
other areas of label printing and
converting where carbon emissions
have an impact. How much do we really
know about all of these? Inks and ink
manufacture have a carbon footprint;
label presses and the printing process
have a carbon footprint; UV-curing
has a carbon footprint; waste disposal
and recycling has a carbon footprint;
despatch of labels to the customer has a
carbon footprint.
From talking with many of the leading
industry suppliers at the recent Finat
Technical Seminar it seems that many
of them are already starting to calculate
the carbon footprint of their part of the
label manufacturing supply chain. For
example, Sun Chemical is working on
this for some of its inks; Avery Dennison
for substrates; GEW for UV ink drying;
EskoArtwork for pre-press; Gallus
for presses; Channelled Resources
for recycling waste. Others are also
embarking on measuring and recording
CO2 emissions.
However, what the industry really
needs now is to achieve some joined-up
thinking and improved supplier
collaboration to fully understand where
carbon emissions are created in the label
industry supply chain, what elements of
the label manufacturing process have the
main impact, where reductions can and
should be made, and then fully promote
and market every major step forward in
carbon reduction.
Maybe label industry suppliers in the
future will have a carbon footprint figure
for their products on their own labels
when despatched to the label converter.
After all, if the major retail groups are
putting a Carbon Footprint value on
the product labels, why shouldn’t label
industry suppliers be doing the same?
It will probably also be necessary to
work closely with label application and
end-user companies. This way, the
carbon footprint of the applied label
might eventually be determined, and
a true comparison against other forms
of labeling obtained. Certainly, the
applied label carbon footprint of shrink
and stretch sleeve labels is already
being promoted. How does the carbon
footprint of self-adhesive and other forms
of labeling compare with these, or with
wrap-around film or in-mold labels?
How can we effectively market and
promote self-adhesive labels in an
ever-more demanding carbon footprint
reduction world if we don’t have
all the answers? Let’s embrace the
challenge and move forward to a more
collaborative, joined-up, informed and
positive future.