Personal Note From Patrick, The Editor

Hello Reader, this is a short message to follow up on the last Sustainability Snack lesson you received.

I want to talk about a nuance because I made a mistake that might have caused some confusion:

Focusing Take-back Program Impacts

In the previous piece wrote towards the end:

However, this sentence contains a mistake.

It should read:

It seems miniscule but I want to be precise when writing for you.

Why This Change Matters

When comparing impacts from plastic treatment, we use numbers that are based on per kilogram of plastic waste.

The transport impact was calculated based on a single transport event – meaning it’s a fixed absolute number for a given distance and mass.

So, if you combine both numbers, you get the emissions released from transporting 1 kg of plastic waste.

Does that make sense? Yes, but it’s an extreme case.

The Solution

In the updated Excel sheet, I have revised the calculations so you can vary the amount of plastic waste returned – 1 kg, 5 kg, 100 kg, or however much you like.

The result: The more plastic waste is downcycled or recycled, the better the outcome, because the additional truck emissions are distributed across more kilograms of plastic.

Does The Conclusion Change?

No, it is still true that unnecessary transport distances can make take-back programs carbon positive.

While transport emissions may seem small if calculated for moving only the plastic itself, once we consider that a vehicle weighing several tons would need to drive additional kilometers for a limited amount of plastic, those emissions become more noticeable.

However, both in the previous piece and in the additional article, I updated the language to better highlight that although additional travel matters (which is rarely disussed), the amount of take-back and End-of-Life treatment are the other two major decisive factors.

How Companies Handle That

Most companies use already established mailing routes, as they provide shipping labels. It seems likely that the boxes are then collected at mail stations and transported to specific recycling plants.

The issue arises from the fact that, when using a take-back program, providers might only collaborate with a handful of recycling partners, potentially located farther away. Or maybe not — we simply don’t know.

Of course, it also seems likely that most companies work with subcontractors. But since the mail business is complex and the waste sector loves secrecy, even the providers themselves might not know details about environmental impacts.

What That Means

The more plastic waste you return, the more favorable the carbon savings become. The updated Excel file makes this much clearer.

Below I visualized this once more for you:

Still, there is a major problem:

No matter how we calculate it, the key limitation is that we basically know nothing about most take-back programs.

Travel distances can easily range from 5 to over 1,000 km if collection, sorting, recycling, and manufacturing facilities are in different locations.

And while some vendors communicate more openly — for example, Avantor states that since they partner with TerraCycle, your pipette tip boxes are turned into park benches - for others you might need to inquire directly.

What you need to decide whether a take-back program makes sense for you:

• The amount of plastic waste you will return
• The mode of transport and (average) transport distances
• How your waste is treated (how often it is recycled or whether it is actually downcycled)

All links for you once again:
The updated Sustainability Snack​

The updated Discussion​

The updated Excel File​

How We Feel Today

If you have a wish or a question, feel free to reply to this Email.
​​
Otherwise, wish you a beautiful week!
See you again on the 26th : )

Find the previous lesson click - here -​

​
Edited by Patrick Penndorf
Connection@ReAdvance.com
Lutherstraße 159, 07743, Jena, Thuringia, Germany
​Data Protection & Impressum​
​
If you think we do a bad job: Unsubscribe​