Sunday's THOUGHTFUL Post : 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 “𝗦𝗔𝗩𝗘” 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.

 Sunday's THOUGHTFUL Post

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 “𝗦𝗔𝗩𝗘” 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.

Back in the late 80s and 90s, I was a young polymer sales executive.

I was lucky to be coached by a knowledgeable old Scotsman who taught me one of the most important lessons in materials selection.

Customers would call and ask:

“We want to make product X. What material should we use?”

Which polymer?

Which grade?

Could paper work for part of the application?

Should it all be plastic?

Was there a better material?

Back then, nobody asked whether it was sustainable or recyclable.

Recycled plastic was used widely, but mostly because it reduced cost. Many converters blended it with virgin material, or used it at 100% in industrial applications, because it was cheaper.

But the core rule was clear:

Start with the performance requirements.

Then recommend the best material for the job.

Even if that meant losing the sale.

Even if that meant sending the customer to a competitor.

Even if that meant saying, plastic is not the right answer here.

𝗦𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗿 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝗻𝗼-𝗴𝗼.

🟡It damaged your reputation.

🟡It destroyed credibility.

🟡It caused complaints, returns, & unnecessary waste.

The lesson was simple:

Some materials are simply just better for certain applications.

That remains true today.

But now, in too many cases, material selection has shifted from:

“𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻?”

to:

“𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗮𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰.”

That is not science.

That is not engineering.

That is not sustainability.

That is ideology replacing materials expertise.

Paper is now being pushed into applications where it is not technically optimal.

To make it work, it often has to be coated, laminated, chemically treated, or used at many times the weight of the plastic it replaces.

The result?

More damage.

More returns.

Shorter shelf life.

Higher packaging cost.

Higher transport weight.

Higher emissions.

More waste.

𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘆𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸:

Is this the best material for the demands of end-use application?

Because if the product is damaged, returned, spoiled, or rejected, the environmental “saving” quickly disappears.

But at least someone can say:

“𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲. 𝗪𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰.”

That is the uncomfortable truth.

𝗨𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.

Using the wrong material for the job can be far worse.

sustainability starts with performance, evidence, & lifecycle thinking.

Not slogans.

Not optics.

Not plastic avoidance at any cost.

𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁, 𝗦𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱

source : Daniel O'Kelly