For decades the carbonated drink or pop beverage has mixed or divided personal opinion worldwide. One sector of the populations has adorned the fizzy drink as a convenient refreshment via glass or bottle or Cups and Lids. This popularity of the sweet ingredient has led to advantages taken by global industries such as PepsiCo and national supermarket stores to bolster their advertising campaigns and exposure of soft drinks in almost every social spot.
This has made the corporate identities of the companies in question and the make-up of beverages associated a cultural part of our lifestyles.
The opposing argumentative group are those that have given carbonated products a bad reputation. These viewership’s look beyond the romanticism of impressive brand logotypes and tempting visual aids on outer packaging and prefer to state the science behind the drinks. Scientists, nutritionists and the health concerned perceive that whether consuming the beverages via singular Clear Plastic Cups or groupings of Cup Carriers & Trays, people will simply intake contaminants of carbonated water, sweetener and artificial flavouring and colour in excess.
Despite this dispute running for generations it still remains impartial between those that enjoy drinking the fizzy drink through open container or with a Straw and the others that would never touch the produce over aftermath concerns.
One area however that both parties do agree on is the lack of eco-innovation by the large corporations manufacturing and shipping the content and packaging. Since the emerging cultural impact of the soft drink during the 1940s and 1950s branding and persuasion has been preferred over the thought of pack wastage. Understandably recycling was not an agenda during this period that saw all waters, juices/ smoothies, soft and alcoholic liquids distilled only in the fragile glass bottle. Once used it would either be discarded in an open disposal bin or littered and broke across the streets.
Neither customer nor manufacturer took responsibility for damaging deteriorating the environment and harming wildlife at this time. Later decades of the 1970s and 1980s may have seen an improvement of Ripple Cups and White Paper Cups, but this was not to save nature but rather more that plastic is cheaper than glass and a larger surface area for commercialism advertising (see Figure 1).
Furthermore this remaining focus on pushing brand image and product sales did not prevent the plastic and paper being dumped in the garbage or littered.
Remember…during the 1970s, 1980s and partially the 1990s all paper and plastic packaging (and cans) were non-biodegradable and thus once discarded would remain not disintegrate.
Figure 1
Images from www.getdomainvids.com and www.hb-machinery.com
Since the latter part of the 1990s and early 2000s recycling has gathered more awareness through knowledge of naturists and eco-environmental and wildlife protestors. Such campaigns have exposed populated groups of all demographics about the actual harm all litter and wastages have towards the environment. This has encouraged national and local governments to introduce recycling bins with instructions of separating glass from plastics and foils for households, and health and safety guidelines for stores and restaurants to follow.
This was an instrumental movement towards the general and commercial product user, but it was the packaging producer themselves that authorities wanted to influence.
Since then recycling and eco-friendly alternatives has become an aspect of everyday life, and global firms have noticed this by introducing biodegradable Cups and Lids, Food Containers, Cutlery and of course the plastic bag. This has pleased campaigners as designs of moulded fibre such as the Igneo series with their Enviroware (Figure 2) produces around 60% less emissions during the production process.
Figure 2
As one major firm builds a respected reputation as being eco-friendly, another wants to follow suit. Brands such as PepsiCo have urged vending machines, convenience store shelves and chillers and restaurants to opt more for their recyclable range of cup and bottle over the glass that would either be smashed or have to be re-cleaned again and again, i.e. wasting more electrical energy.
Manufacturers now want to encourage recycling further to meet the simultaneous and rapid consumer demands. In planning for a long time but suspected to be in production as of 2016, beverage providers seek to redesign their external entities by following the stages and mentalism’s of reducing the pack size, concerning calculations more, increasing usage boundaries and eco-innovations.
Brands believe that less waste could not only be fulfilled by reimbursing materials and/ or ensuring that they are biodegradable, but to simply use less plastic or paper being descaling the packaging size. Soda will soon be a traction towards the mini-can or mini-bottle holding measures between 7.5 to 8 ounces (Figure 3).
Experimenting with quantity of production rates could start the trend of less quantities, or more likely less single and multi-packaging, could lead to reducing the discarding of unwanted pop crates or those that become out of date. The right amount of produce to cater and not over amounts to fill shelf space could impact wastage.
Figure 3
Images from www.greenliving.lovetoknow.com
In order to reduce the gigantisms of too many flavoured carbonates dedicated to a single brand, which could lead to more waste as many would not sell, sellers will instead focus on the differential styles of container for a drink to suit all situations.
‘Bottles and cans can come in a range of sizes, and bottles themselves may be long or short necks’.
Carolyn Heneghan, Food Dive
The central meaning behind all of these changes to packaging is to improve impact towards the environment. Producers have encouraged campaigns by improving their PET bottles and aluminium cans, but now believe they can innovate further. New forms will be manufactured using materials that are plant –based, renewable and of course recyclable. Manufacturers want to balance the needs of efficient profitability, sustainability and operation.
One area that many critics have still noticed as problematic is the large logotypes covering the plastic and paper products. This manipulates what is contained, thus many argumenta’s raising the issue that brands could be selling any beverage that is not fully true or that consumers could be in drinking any liquid. To rectify this problem more clear and transparent cups and bottles could be introduced with physically see-through yet still visually appealing labelling.
