a report card on the six leading automakers · [email protected] • clean production action p. o....

A Report Card on the Six Leading Automakers

Moving TowardsSustainable Plastics


THE ECOLOGY CENTER

f e b r u a r y 2 0 0 5

THE ECOLOGY CENTER

F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 5

Moving Towards Sustainable Plastics


Moving TowardsSustainable Plastics

A Report Card on the SixLeading Automakers

A Report by the Ecology Center

AuthorsMark Rossi, PhD. of Clean Production Action, and

Charles Griffith, Jeff Gearhart and Claudette Juska of The Ecology Center

February 2005

Ecology CenterThe Ecology Center is a non-profit environmentaladvocacy organization that works for healthycommunities, clean products and clean production.The Auto Project of the Ecology Center works toaddress toxic and health issues related to theproduction of automobiles and promotes cleanervehicle technologies. The Ecology Center is basedin Ann Arbor, Michigan. www.ecocenter.org

Clean Production ActionClean Production Action (CPA) partners withenvironmental organizations, public health advo-cates, labor unions and community groups aroundthe world to develop and build technical supportfor clean production policies. These policies andstrategies promote the use of products that are saferand cleaner across their life cycle for consumers,workers, and communities.www.cleanproduction.org

Ecology Center

117 North Division Street • Ann Arbor, MI 48104

734.761.3186 (phone) • 734.663.2414 (fax)

[email protected] • www.ecocenter.org

Clean Production Action

P.O. Box 153 • Spring Brook, NY 14140

716.805.1056 (phone)

www.cleanproduction.org

i


Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the following people whose advice and assistance helped us

produce this report: Alex McPherson and Beverly Thorpe, Clean Production Action; Karen

Thomas, Environmental Defense; Tom Lent, Healthy Building Network; Mary Beth Doyle

and Stephanie Feldstein, Ecology Center.

We wish to thank our editor Nora Ferrell, Valerie Denney Communications.

For graphics and layout assistance we would like to thank Nancy Pinzke, Pinzke Design.

For supporting the ongoing work of the Ecology Center and publication of this report, we

would like to thank the John Merck Fund, the New York Community Trust, and the Joyce

Foundation.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of this report. The views and ideas

expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of our funders.

ii


Table of Contents

Preface ............................................................................................................................................1

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2

1 The Environmental Implications of Plastics ........................................................................... 7

2 A Flourishing Market for Plastics: The Auto Sector ................................................................. 9

3 The New Directive to Automakers: Recycle More, Use Less Toxic Plastics ........................... 12

4 The Plastics Report Card: How the Six Leading Automakers Fared ...................................... 19

4.1 How the Automakers Were Graded ............................................................................... 20

4.2 How the Automakers Fared on Overview Topics .......................................................... 21

4.3 How the Automakers Fared on Measurable Goals Toward Sustainable Plastics ........... 25

4.4 How the Automakers Fared on Reporting Progress ....................................................... 28

4.5 Report Card Conclusions ............................................................................................... 33

5 Recommendations for Sustainable Plastics: The Role of the Auto Sector ............................. 35

6 Bibliography ..........................................................................................................................37

Appendix 1 Polymers in Automobiles by Application............................................................... 38

Appendix 2 The Report Card Method ........................................................................................ 39

Appendix 3 Sustainable Plastics Grading Criteria ...................................................................... 44

Appendix 4 Correspondence with Automakers ......................................................................... 47

FIGURES

Figure 1. Recycling of ELVs (Auto Industry as a whole) .............................................................. 13

Figure 2. PVC Life Cycle: Generic Hazards Associated with Vehicles ......................................... 16

Figure 3. Greenpeace Plastics Pyramid ........................................................................................ 18

Figure 4. Plastics Spectrum .......................................................................................................... 18

Figure 5. Toyota Recycle Vision ................................................................................................... 22

iii


TABLES

Table 1ES. How They Fared: Sustainable Plastics Grade Point Average (GPA) & Grade ............... 2

Table 1. Materials in a Typical American Family Vehicle (pounds) ............................................ 10

Table 2. PVC End Uses in Chrysler Group Vehicles (2001) ........................................................ 11

Table 3. End-of-Life Vehicle Requirements in Europe and Japan ............................................... 13

Table 4. Opel Priority List for Plastics with regard to Recycling Aspects .................................... 14

Table 5. Toxic Chemicals Targeted for Reduction by Europe’s ELV Directive ............................. 15

Table 6. DEHP Exposures from Vehicle Interiors ........................................................................ 17

Table 7. Evaluating the Automakers’ Design for Environment /

Design for Recycling Vision Statements ................................................................................ 22

Table 8. Evaluating the Automakers’ Chemicals Policy Statements ........................................... 23

Table 9. Evaluating Automaker Information Access Through the Web ...................................... 25

Table 10. Automakers’ Commitments to Measuring Environmental Progress ........................... 26

Table 11. Evaluating the Automakers’ Measurable Goals for Sustainable Plastics...................... 27

Table 12. Evaluating the Automakers’ Reporting on Progress .................................................... 31

Table 13. Sustainable Plastics Overall Grade Point Average (GPA and Grade) ........................... 33

Table 14. Vehicle Sales in the United States ................................................................................ 39

Table 15. Grading Scheme Applied: Letter Grades and their Numerical Equivalents ................ 40

Table 16. Generic Grading Criteria for Evaluating Measurable Goals & Objectives................... 41

Table 17. Generic Grading Criteria for Evaluating Reporting of Progress .................................. 42

iv


T

Preface

his report represents the first in a series of reports planned by the Ecology Center in collaboration

with Clean Production Action on the use of sustainable plastics in the auto sector. It is a continuation

of research we have been conducting through the Clean Car Campaign on more environmentally

preferable materials in automobiles.

As one of the largest consumer products, automobiles are responsible for a sizeable portion of the flow of

materials and waste in our economy-in addition to their well-known consumption of petroleum fuels during

their use. The sector therefore merits close scrutiny from the public at large to ensure it is moving in a sustain-

able direction.

Plastics represent a growing proportion of the typical automobile-currently at 4.3 billion pounds a year-and are

the fastest growing source of waste at the automobile’s end of life. Petrochemical-based plastics like PVC also

contain toxic chemicals that can harm human health during their production and use, potentially exposing

drivers to unhealthy emissions inside their automobile.

This report shows that while automakers are beginning to recognize the problems that some plastics pose,

progress has so far been limited. American consumers suffer from a double standard in which companies are

doing more to reduce the health and environmental impacts of plastics used in their European and Asian

vehicles than their U.S. vehicles.

Only Toyota has combined both vision and strategy to begin making measurable progress toward sustainable

plastics at the global level. Toyota is currently the industry leader because it has set goals, measured progress,

and taken action to reduce the environmental impacts of the plastics in its automobiles. We challenge all

automakers to now step up and do the same, in order to help us achieve a safer, healthier future.

Moving Towards Sustainable PlasticsA Report Card on the Six Leading Automakers

1


U.S. automakers are falling behind their

foreign competitors in the use of sustainable

plastics. The industry leader, Toyota, has set

aggressive goals for increasing its use of

recyclable and biodegradable plastics, and is also

reporting publicly on its progress. While U.S. auto-

makers are making progress in some areas, none are

matching Toyota’s goals, research and development

investments, or actual use of sustainable plastics.

Plastics are a growing material component of ve-

hicles. Plastics now represent 7.5% of a vehicle’s

weight, up from 0.6% in 1960. While 7.5% of a

vehicle’s weight may seem small, it represents 258

pounds of material per vehicle or 4.3 billion pounds

per year in the United States alone. That is 4.3 billion

pounds of plastics disposed primarily in landfills and

incinerators. With the use of plastics in automobiles

and auto production on the rise globally, plastic

waste from discarded autos will continue to flood

into landfills and incinerators across the earth.

The manufacture of plastics poses another set of

environmental challenges. Made from non-renew-

able fossil fuels and toxic chemicals, the plastic

products of today are both unsustainable and the

source of toxic pollutants. For example, polyvinyl

chloride (PVC), one of the leading plastics used in

vehicles is made from the carcinogen, vinyl chloride

monomer (see text box on page 3).

Plastics do not need to be manufactured from non-

renewable fossil fuels and toxic chemicals. Back in

the 1930s, Henry Ford produced an entire car body

made from soybean-based plastics. Today, Toyota is

developing plastics made from sugar cane and corn

for use in its vehicles.

To help consumers and other stakeholders evaluate the

progress of automakers towards sustainable plastics,

this report grades the top six auto companies in the

U.S. on their policies, goals, and actions. How do

corporate-wide environmental goals address plastics

use? What are their goals for sustainable plastics?

How are they measuring progress toward meeting

their goals? And how far along the path of environ-

mentally sustainable plastics have they gone?

For this report, we define environmentally sustain-

able plastics as:

■ having no hazardous chemicals associated with

the life cycle of the material,

■ being capable of either a) closed-loop recycling

(recycled into the same product) or b) degrading

into healthy nutrients for the soil, and

■ being manufactured from renewable raw materials

and energy (without the use of genetically modified

organisms–GMOs).

This report evaluated and graded the six largest

automakers selling into the American market:

Daimler Chrysler, Ford, General Motors (GM),

Honda, Nissan, and Toyota (see Table 1ES). Together

these six automakers account for 87% of vehicle

sales in the United States.

Executive Summary

Table 1ES. How They Fared: Sustainable Plastics GradePoint Average (GPA) & Grade

Automaker GPA (Grades) for all Topics

Toyota 2.1 (C)

Honda 1.3 (D+)

DaimlerChrysler 1.2 (D+)

Ford 1.2 (D+)

Nissan 1.1 (D)

GM 1.0 (D)

2


We graded the automakers based upon:

■ their vision for sustainable materials,

■ the measurable goals they set to achieve sustain-

able plastics, and

■ the actions they have taken to transform their

use of plastics.

Toyota is the clear sustainable plastics leader. Its

Sustainable Plastics Grade Point Average (GPA) of

2.1 or a “C” is almost a grade higher than its closest

competitor, Honda, with a GPA of 1.3 or a “D-plus”

(see Table 1ES).

Toyota is the leader because it has:

■ developed its own innovative renewable-based

plastic and closed-loop recyclable plastics,

■ set measurable goals at the global level, and

■ taken action, including striving to eliminate its

use of PVC.

GM lags the farthest behind with the lowest

Sustainable Plastics GPA of 1.0 — which is barely

passing with a “D.” GM had little to highlight in

terms of measurable goals and activities toward

sustainable plastics. Nissan, with its Sustainable

Plastics GPA of 1.1, and DaimlerChrysler and Ford,

with their Sustainable Plastics GPA’s of 1.2, how-

ever, are only a shade better than GM.

Honda, with a Sustainable Plastics GPA of 1.3, is

still struggling, but is slightly ahead of the other

companies. The relative strength of Honda’s

reporting on activities toward sustainable plastics

moved it ahead of the others.

While automakers can improve their grades by

doing a better job of reporting their activities, such

as reporting their goal of reducing PVC use, the

level of commitment to taking action to use

sustainable plastics is weak among five of the six

automakers evaluated here, Toyota being the excep-

tion. Assuming that the data provided in their

environmental reports and on their webpages are

good indicators of the automakers sustainable

plastics goals and activities, all of them have a lot

of work to do.

Given that the concept of “greening” of plastics is

still in its infancy, it should come as little surprise

that the overall grade point averages for the auto-

makers on “sustainable plastics” are barely above

failing. Certainly disappointing, however, is that the

American automakers are at the bottom of the class

in terms of sustainable plastics performance.

3

Many petrochemical-based plastics use andrelease toxic chemicals at several stages of theirlife cycle. For example, PVC used in vehicle

components has the following impacts:

Production

■ Input of toxic chemicals and human

carcinogens including ethylene dichlo-

ride, vinyl chloride monomer, lead,

phthalates and organotins

■ Release of toxic chemicals including

dioxin, furans, hexachlorobenzene, and

PCBs

Vehicle use

■ Release of phthalates resulting in

occupant exposure and fogging

End of Life

■ Release of dioxins, furans and hydro-

chloric acid during vehicle shredding

and incineration

■ Landfill leachate of heavy metals and

phthalates from auto shredder reside


American Consumers Suffer fromEnvironmental Double Standards

In reporting on progress toward sustainable plastics,

the Japanese firms of Toyota and Honda are clearly

ahead of Ford, GM, and DaimlerChrysler. With the

U.S. government lagging behind Japan and the

European Union in terms of recycling requirements

and elimination of toxic chemicals, the North

oped and developing nations. This report card

reveals that the U.S. is increasingly being treated as

a developing nation. As American environmental

laws fall behind those of Japan and Europe,

corporations are slower to adopt more environ-

mentally advanced products and materials in the

U.S.

We predict that the activities toward sustainable

plastics of all automakers selling in the U.S. will

continue to lag behind activities in Japan and the

European Union.

Sustainable Plastics: Examples of Leadershipfrom the Auto Sector

While progress toward sustainable plastics is slow,

and progress in the U.S. is slower than in Europe

and Japan, there are positive examples of change in

the industry. Collectively, the best visions, goals,

and actions among the six automakers represent a

clear first step toward materials that sustain human

health and natural ecosystems and away from

plastics with negative environmental impacts.

The combination of Toyota’s vision of recyclability

and Ford’s vision of sustainable materials creates a

clear path toward sustainable plastics. Toyota’s

vision is simple and clear: use recycled material and

renewable resources, reuse used parts, and reduce

toxic substances of environmental concern such as

lead (Toyota, 2003, p.36). Ford’s vision is grounded

in ecology: sustainable materials never become

waste, but instead become “nutrients that either

feed healthy soil or the manufacturing processes

without moving down the value chain” (Ford,

2002, p.72).

4

The lack of global environmental commitmentsamong all the automakers reflects the environ-mental double standards that are often imposed,especially with products, on nations withoutstrong consumer and environmental laws.

American automakers are following suit. We see

this distinction emerging within the automakers

themselves. For example, GM’s leading activities on

sustainable plastics are happening within its

European subsidiary, Opel. And GM even acknowl-

edges the difference: “Over the last decade, for

example, our European subsidiaries have been

progressively increasing the content of recycled

plastics in their vehicles. During 2001, more than

30,000 tons of recycled [plastic] materials were

incorporated in new Vauxhall and Opel vehicles,

six times more than in 1991” (GM, 2002, p.108).

The lack of global environmental commitments

among the automakers reflects the environmental

double standards that are imposed, especially with

products, on nations without strong consumer and

environmental laws. In the past, these double

standards have typically emerged between devel-


The collective goals of the automakers encompass

all of the elements of our definition of sustainable

plastics, including:

■ using recycled content or renewable resources in

plastic products (Toyota),

■ reducing PVC use (Toyota),

■ developing and using materials that are either

technical nutrients (can be closed-loop recycled)

or biological nutrients (can be composted into

matter healthy for the soil) (Ford), and

■ using non-toxic materials (GM).

Significant activities by automakers include:

■ using polymers made from bio-based (i.e.,

renewable) materials (Toyota, DaimlerChrysler,

and Ford),

■ using recyclable plastics that consist of

polyolefins and not PVC (Honda, Nissan, Toyota,

and Opel/GM),

■ using plastic products with recycled content

(DaimlerChrysler, Honda, Toyota, GM, and

Nissan), and

■ reducing PVC use (Toyota).

But no one company is doing enough.

If these six automakers moved quickly to adopt the

leading goals and to implement the leading activi-

ties over the next three years, the auto sector would

make significant strides toward sustainable plastics.

But they’re not there yet.

Recommendations forAutomakers

The best examples from the auto sector show that

automakers have the capacity to design for environ-

mentally sound plastics. Except for Toyota, however,

progress on managing the environmental sustain-

ability of plastics appears to be happening in a

piecemeal fashion.

If the automakers are to make significant progress

toward safer, cleaner plastics they must:

1. Commit to achieving sustainable plasticsat the global level:The automakers are failing to commit to the same

level of sustainable plastics performance in the U.S.

as in Japan and Europe. This is especially true of the

American-based automakers, whose reporting of

progress toward sustainable plastics is not on par with

the Japanese firms. Automakers need to commit to

achieving sustainable plastics at the global level, not

only in nations where change is legislated.

2. Set measurable goals and report on progressglobally:

If progress is to be made, automakers must set goals for

which they can be held accountable. Progress must be

reported on a regional or national basis, as well as

globally, and include quantitative as well as qualitative

data on progress toward specific goals and objectives,

including:

■ eliminating the use of PVC plastic,

■ reducing toxicity of plastics across their life cycle,

■ using renewable resources in making or substituting

for plastics,

■ reusing of plastic products,

■ designing plastic products for recyclability,

■ using post-consumer recycled plastic, and

■ increasing recycling rates for plastic in end-of-life

vehicles.

5


3. Transition away from incineration as adisposal option:Incineration, with or without energy recovery,

should be avoided as a method for achieving end-

of-life vehicle recovery goals because it:

■ Creates pollution with harmful health effects

■ Discourages recycling, and

■ Eliminates the life cycle environmental benefits

of recycling.

In reporting on end-of-life recycling and recovery

efforts, automakers must stop mischaracterizing

incineration as materials recycling or reuse when

reporting on end-of-life recycling and recovery

efforts. Reporting should be consistent with the EU

Directive on End-of Life Vehicles, which explicitly

defines reuse and recycling to exclude energy

recovery.

4. Provide relevant sustainable plasticsinformation on the web.

Given the commitments of all six automakers

included in this report to provide environmental

data to customers, shareholders, and the concerned

public, the automakers need to do a much better job

of providing relevant and easy-to-understand data

on their webpages.

Environmental reports do not need to be, nor

should they be, vast compendia of environmental

data. However, relevant materials and data should

be archived and easily located on corporate

webpages. Similarly, the environmental reports for

all of the corporate brands and subsidiaries should

be available on one webpage.

Recommended Goals forSustainable Plastics inthe Auto Sector

Achieving sustainable plastics will also entail setting

generational goals. We recommend that automakers

adopt the following quantitative goals for sustain-

able plastics:

By 2009, eliminate the use of PVC plastic in

vehicles sold globally.

By 2010, design 95% of all plastic products to be

either reusable or recyclable.

By 2015, use 50% reused plastic products, re-

cycled plastics, or plastics made from renewable

resources at the global level.

By 2020, use only plastics that are made without

hazardous chemicals, are capable of being closed-

loop recycled and are manufactured from renew-

able raw materials.

6


P lastics use in automobiles is large and

growing. The transportation sector in North

America consumes over four billion pounds

of plastics per year, representing five percent of total

U.S. plastics consumption (SPI, 1998). With both

plastics as a percent of automobile weight and auto

production on the rise globally, plastic waste from

discarded autos will continue to flow into landfills

and incinerators across the earth because plastics are

among the most difficult materials to recycle in

vehicles. Along with the waste at the end of the

vehicle life comes toxic pollution that arises during

the production, use, and disposal of many petro-

chemical-based plastics.

Pressed by the governments of the European Union

and Japan to increase vehicle-recycling rates and by

the European Union to address toxic chemicals like

lead in plastic products, automakers are increasingly

evaluating the environmental profile of plastic auto

parts.

But how much progress have they made toward

sustainable plastics? This report attempts to answer

the following key questions:

■ What are the automakers goals for sustainable

plastics?

■ How are they measuring progress toward meeting

their goals?

■ And how far along the path of environmentally

sustainable plastics have they gone?

This report evaluates and grades automakers on their

progress toward sustainable plastics. The report

grades the six largest automakers selling into the

American market. Together these six automakers

account for 87 percent of vehicle sales in the United

States.

The companies are graded based on:

■ their vision of sustainable materials,

■ the measurable goals they set to achieve sustain-

able plastics,

■ and the actions they have taken to transform

their use of plastics in automobiles.

Given that “plastics” and the “environment” are

seldom viewed as synonymous, it should come as

little surprise that the overall grade point averages

for the automakers on sustainable plastics are barely

1 The Environmental Implicationsof Plastics

“I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.

Plastics! There’s a great future in plastics.” — From the movie, The Graduate, 1968

7


above failing. Certainly disappointing, however, is

that the American automakers are at the bottom

of the class in terms of sustainable plastics perfor-

mance. Yet sprinkled among the poor grades are a

few positive examples of sustainable plastics. These

examples indicate the direction automakers need to

move in if they are to stop using plastics from

materials with harmful environmental impacts and

begin using materials that sustain human health

and natural ecosystems.

This report unfolds in four parts.

I. The evaluation of the growing role of plastics in

vehicles.

II. An overview of the environmental concerns

that arise with the use of plastics in vehicles.

III. The Plastics Report Card: How the automakers

fared on their vision statements and publicly

reported goals and activities towards sustainable

plastics.

IV. Recommendations on the necessary steps and

actions in order to transform the auto sector

from a major user of unhealthy plastic to an

industry that produces and uses safe and healthy

materials.

This report presents a vision of sustainable plastics

and creates opportunities for dialogue with

automakers on how to transform their use of

plastic materials.

8

GM and Toyota Environmental Reports.


lastics made from natural resources were the

first plastics used in automobiles. Knobs,

switches, horn buttons, and other molded

parts for interiors were initially manufactured

from soybean-based plastics. Henry Ford even pro-

duced an entire car body made from soy-based plastic

in 1939 (Miller, 1996, p. 39). And the first car battery

storage compartments were made from hardened

(vulcanized) natural rubber (Bijker, 1995, p. 105).

Introduced in 1953, the Corvette heralded the com-

ing-of-age of unsustainable, petrochemical-based

plastics in automobiles. Automakers embraced

petrochemical-based polymers because they resist

harsh chemicals, are good thermal and electrical

insulators, offer good noise, vibration, and harshness

(NVH) characteristics, provide design flexibility, are

lightweight, offer a variety of production options, and

are cheaper to produce (Broge, 2000). Lighter in

weight than metals, plastics help to reduce the weight

of vehicles and increase gas mileage. However, auto-

makers have not taken into account the effects of

production, use and disposal of these plastics on the

environment and human health.

A Flourishing Market for Plastics:The Auto Sector

The Corvette, the first American car with a body made from

fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) panels made a pivotal

contribution to the serious use of plastics automotive con-

struction. ... the project helped establish the economic case

for plastics in metal-replacement applications based on

tooling and lead-time savings.

—B. Miller, How Plastics Helped the Horseless Carriage Reach Its 100th, 1996

2

P

9

1953 Corvette

Soy Car from the collections of the Henry Ford Museum


10

In 2003, the average American family’s automobile

weighed 3,358 pounds (see Table 1), with plastics

accounting for 256 pounds of each vehicle. With

16.7 millions of vehicles sold per year in the U.S.

alone (Automotive News Data Center, 2004), the

256 pounds of plastic per vehicle mushrooms into

total plastics consumption of 4.3 billions of pounds

per year for the automotive sector. With little

recycling of automotive plastics in the U.S., the

billions of pounds of plastics from discarded autos

are ending up in the nation’s landfills and waste

incinerators.

And the vehicle market for plastics continues to

expand as plastics displace other materials.

Examples of ferrous (iron-based) and non-ferrous

Table 1. Materials in a Typical American Family Vehicle (pounds)

Material 2004 (projected) 2003 2000 1991 1985 1977 1970 1965 1960

Steel 1,859.5 1,816.0 1,787.5 1,660.0 1,782.5 2,202.0 NA NA NA

Iron 308.0 328.0 352.5 431.0 468.0 540.0 NA NA NA

Aluminum 289.5 277.5 245.5 166.0 138.0 97.0 NA NA NA

Plastic andplastic composites 257.5 255.5 248.5 238.0 211.5 168.0 102* 30* 22*

Fluids, lubricants 198.5 198.0 198.0 174.0 184.0 200.0 NA NA NA

Rubber 152.0 149.0 144.0 135.5 136.0 150.0 NA NA NA

Glass 99.5 98.5 98.5 86.0 85.0 87.5 NA NA NA

Copper and brass 51.5 50.0 46.0 46.0 44.0 38.5 NA NA NA

Powder metal parts 41.5 40.0 36.0 23.5 19.0 15.5 NA NA NA

Magnesium parts 10.0 9.5 8.0 3.0 2.5 1.0 NA NA NA

Zinc die castings 8.5 8.5 11.5 17.5 18.0 38.0 NA NA NA

Other materials 133.0 127.5 110.0 78.5 99.0 128.0 NA NA NA

Total 3,409.0 3,358.0 3,286.0 3,059.0 3,187.5 3,665.5 3,617** 3,487** 3,617**

Sources: American Metal Market, 2003, www.amm.com; *Wards AutoWorld, September, 2004, p. 34; **NHTSA, Historic Passenger Car Fleet Average Characteristics, http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/HistoricalCarFleet.htm; NA (Not Available)

Today, plastics account for 7.5 percent (256 pounds)

of the weight of an automobile, having increased

from 0.6 percent (22 pounds) in 1960 (see Table 1).

Petrochemical-based plastics, which account for the

bulk of plastics in autos, are found in all segments of

vehicles: interiors, exteriors, electrical systems,

power trains, fuel delivery and storage systems, the

chassis (the frame upon which the body is

mounted), and even in the engine. The largest end-

use for plastics is the interior of vehicles, which

account for 56 percent of total vehicle plastic use

(Broge, 2000). See Appendix 1 for a list of the

numerous automobile products made from plastics

and the polymers used to make the products.


11

The dominant class of plastics used in vehicles is

what plastics engineers call “thermoplastics”.

Thermoplastics are polymers whose molecules are

held together by weak secondary bonding forces that

are softened and melted by heat, then shaped or

formed before being allowed to “freeze” again

(Broge, 2000). Thermoplastics account for roughly

90% of plastic use in vehicles. Specific thermoplas-

tics that are most widely used in vehicles are:

polypropylene, polyethylene, polyurethane, and

polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Familiar products made

from these plastics include polypropylene shampoo

bottles, polyethylene milk bottles, polyurethane

foam used for cushioning in upholstered furniture,

and PVC pipes. The diversity of products containing

these plastics and their degree of market penetration

in vehicles is illustrated in Table 2, which details the

use of PVC-containing products in Chrysler vehicles

sold in the U.S.

The diversity of plastic products and polymers in

automobiles, however, has a downside for the end of

a vehicle’s life: it complicates the potential for

reusing, repairing, and/or recycling the products.

While the share of plastics by weight in a motor

vehicle is small in comparison to ferrous metals and

slightly smaller than non-ferrous metals, it becomes

more significant as automakers work to increase the

percent of a vehicle that can be recycled. If auto-

Table 2. PVC End Uses in Chrysler Group Vehicles (2001)

End Uses for PVC Percent of Chryslerin Chrysler Vehicles group vehicles

using PVC

Interior Trim

Instrument panel skins 50%

Door, console skins 33%

Seating: low-line 50%

Seating: imitation leather 100%

Steering wheel covers 33%

Miscellaneous trim: armrests, 100%and shift boots and knobs

Convertible top covers 75%

Truck flooring 10%

Exterior Trim

Roof ditch moldings 25%

Windshield moldings 90%

Backlight moldings 50%

Belt moldings 25%

Body side moldings 25%

Bright strips 10%

Underhood/Underbody/Chassis

Wiring insulation and tapes 100%

Tubing 100%

Seals and boots 100%

Dipped components, i.e., prop rods 100%

Body sealing

Body sealers (PVC blends) 100%

Paint shop sealers (PVC blends) 100%

Source: Peterson, 2001

(non-iron-based) products under competition from

plastics include:

■ aluminum and cast iron intake manifolds

■ steel and aluminum valve covers

■ brass radiator cans

■ sheet and cast iron clutches, power steering,

brake fluid reservoirs

■ sheet metal body panels and gas tanks (Five

Winds International, 2003, p. 69).

makers hope to manufacture vehicles that are 90

percent or more recyclable, they must address the

issue of how to recycle plastics.


W

The New Directive to Automakers:Recycle More, Use Less Toxic Plastics

Plastics are being given a careful look as a result of heightened

concern over the environment, and some properties of plastics

are being reevaluated in terms of how the large use of plastics

affects the environment. —E.S. Stevens, Green Plastics, 2002

53/EC), it requires automakers to reuse, recycle, and

recover legally specified percentages of their product.

In the past, and in countries like the U.S. with no

recycling requirements, scrap dealers recycled steel

and aluminum vehicle parts for their scrap value. These

materials are relatively easy to recycle — i.e., to remove

and separate from other materials in the vehicle, melt

down, remove impurities, and resell. The recycling of

metals from discarded vehicles has led to recycling rates

of approximately 75% (by weight) in the U.S. (GM,

2002). Figure 1 illustrates the recycling process for ELVS.

The ELV Directive requires automakers to move beyond

the existing rates and to attain reuse and recycling rates

of 80% by 2006 and 85% by 2015. In addition, they are

required to achieve reuse and recovery rates of 85% by

2006 and 95% by 2015. “Recovery” is defined broadly

to include incineration with energy recovery (also

known as “thermal recovery”) as well as recycling. In

2002, Japan passed its Automobile Recycling Law,

which mirrors the ELV Directive and requires achieving

a recovery rate of 95% by 2015 (see Table 3).

Incineration with energy (thermal) recovery provides

automakers with a quick route for boosting their

recovery rates and managing the difficult to recycle

plastics waste stream from vehicles. The use of incinera-

12

3

ith a diversity of plastics on the market

and in vehicles, how does the concerned

public identify more environmentally

friendly plastics? We define environmentally

sustainable plastics as:

■ having no hazardous chemicals associated

with the life cycle of the material,

■ being capable of either a) closed-loop

recycling or b) degrading into healthy

nutrients for the soil, and

■ being manufactured from renewable

raw materials and energy (without the use

of genetically modified organisms–GMOs).

This definition is a vision for plastics. While no

commodity plastic meets all of these criteria, several

parts of the definition have been attained for some

plastics used in the auto sector.

For example, automakers are striving to increase the

recyclability of plastics to comply with the European

Union’s landmark legislation in 2000. Called the

End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) Directive (Directive 2000/


tion delays activities to reuse and recycle increasingly

higher levels of waste from autos because incinerating

plastic waste is easier than designing products to be

recyclable and creating systems to recycle the plastic

waste. The “ease” of incineration, however, comes at a

cost. Incinerators disperse toxic pollutants into the air,

exposing residents who live downwind of the incinera-

tors. In the U.S., for example, municiple solid waste

incinerators are a major source of dioxin emissions.

Table 3. End-of-Life Vehicle Requirements in Europe and Japan

Year - Requirement European JapanCommunities

2005 - Vehicle Recovery Rate 88%

2005 - Auto ShredderResidue (ASR) Recovery Rate 30%

2006 - Reuse and Recovery 85%

2006 - Reuse and Recycling 80%


2010 - ASR Recovery Rate 50%

2015 - Reuse and Recovery 95%

2015 - Reuse and Recycling 85%


2015 - ASR Recovery Rate 70%

Automakers Must Exclude Incinerationas Part of Their Plastics End-of-LifeManagement SchemesIncineration, with or without energy

recovery, is not a safe way to achieve

end-of-life vehicle recovery goals

because it:

■ Creates pollution — incinerators,

for example, are a major source of

dioxins globally;

■ Discourages recycling — it is much

easier to throw waste into an

incinerator and burn it than to

design products and materials for

reuse and recycling;

■ Eliminates a life cycle advantage

of recycling — when waste is

incinerated, those materials are no

longer available for recycling,

thereby eliminating opportunities to

capture life cycle environmental

savings by recycling the waste.

Disassembly

Engine, transmissions,seat, door assembly,tires, wheels,electronic parts

Scrap sellers Shredding operators Final processors

Shredder

SortingFerrous andnon-ferrous metal

Used parts Material recycling(20-30%) (50-55%)

(20-25%)

Average recycling efficiency is75-80%

Image Source: NissanEnvironmental & SocialReport 2002

Figure 1. Recycling of ELVs (Auto Industry as a whole)

LandfillDismantling ASR and waste produced

End of Life Vehicles

13

(variable %)Incineration


To increase recycling rates, however, many

automakers are now targeting plastics for increasing

their recyclability. Opel — a GM subsidiary in

Europe — for example, evaluated the recyclability of

the plastics it uses and published the ranking in its

2000/2001 environmental report (see Table 4). Opel

concluded that polypropylene and polyethylene —

known to plastics engineers as “thermoplastic

polyolefins” or “TPOs” — are the most recyclable

plastics and that PVC and composites are the least

recyclable (composites are mixtures of materials,

plastics combined with other materials such as

fiberglass).

The difficulty of recycling PVC and ease of recycling

TPOs is leading automakers to change the plastic

content of vehicles. Today TPOs are “among the

fastest growing materials in the auto industry. In the

last 10 years, TPO use has risen about 10% each year

through replacement of polyurethanes, PVC, and

thermoplastic elastomers (TPE) for exterior bumper

fascias, air dams, step pads, body-side trim, and

underbody parts” (Modern Plastics, 2003). Easier

14

recycling, along with their low cost, toughness, and

flexibility, is making TPOs the preferred plastic in

vehicles (Modern Plastics, 2003). This is illustrated

by the widespread reclamation of polypropylene-

based bumpers in Japan, where Honda, Nissan, and

Toyota are recycling polypropylene bumpers into

new bumpers and auto replacement parts for repairs

(Honda, 2003; Nissan, 2003; and Toyota, 2003).

Automakers are also moving to reduce the toxicity

of plastics across their life cycle. Again the driver is

the ELV Directive, which requires automakers to

reduce and phase-out their use of cadmium,

hexavalent chromium, lead, and mercury (see Table

5). The requirements to phase-out toxic metals are

relevant to plastics because lead compounds are used

as stabilizers in some PVC products, especially PVC

coated electrical wires. Heat and light cause PVC to

degrade. Lead compounds are added to PVC to

stabilize the plastic and help it resist degradation.

Automakers selling in the European market were

required to phase out their use of lead in PVC wiring

for new vehicle models in July 1, 2003.

Table 4. Opel Priority List for Plastics with regard to Recycling Aspects

Prefer

– Polypropylene, Polyethylene

– Polyoxymethylene (POM), Polyamide, Thermoplastic Urethane (TPU)

– Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA, i.e.,acrylic), Styrene Maleic Anhydride (SMA) copolymer, Acrylonitrile StyreneAcrylate (ASA), Styrene Acrylonitrile (SAN)

– Polycarbonate, Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), PolybutyleneTerephthalate (PBT)

– Thermoplastic Elastomer (TPE)

– Polyurethane

– Sheet Molding Compound (SMC), Phenol- Formaldehyde (PF)

– Elastomer

– Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)

– Mixture of incompatible materials

Avoid

Source: Opel Environmental Report 2000/2001

Incr

easin

g Pr

iorit

y


The banning of lead compounds in PVC wiring is

indicative of a larger problem with plastics: many of

the materials, specifically feedstocks (raw materials)

and additives, used to manufacture plastics are toxic.

All plastics contain additives — additional chemicals

added to the plastic — to facilitate manufacturing,

impart specific properties to the plastic, and/or

prolong the use life of the plastic. The toxicity of

plastics across their life cycle will vary depending on

the inputs and outputs that arise during production,

use, disposal, and accidental fires. Due to the toxic

inputs, the production, use, and disposal of plastics,

especially by incineration, can create toxic pollution.

15

To illustrate the toxicity concerns that can emerge

across the life of a plastic product, we examine the

life cycle of PVC plastic. (see Figure 2 on page 16)

On the input side, PVC is manufactured from

carcinogenic chemicals — ethylene dichloride (EDC)

and vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) — and the

plastic may include toxic additives — including lead,

organotins, or phthalates — depending on the final

end use for the product.

Table 5. Toxic Chemicals Targeted for Reduction by Europe’s ELV Directive

Chemicals to Eliminate by 2003 Exemptions Labeling Required?

Cadmium None

Hexavalent Chromium – Corrosion prevention coatings No (maximum of 2 grams per vehicle)

Lead as an alloy – Steel (up to 0.35% lead by weight) No

– Aluminum (up to 0.4% lead by weight) No

– Aluminum in wheel rims, engine parts, and window levers (up to 4% lead by weight) Yes

– Copper alloy (up to 4% lead by weight) No

– Lead/bronze bearing-shells and bushes No

Lead and Lead Compounds – Batteries Yes

– Coating inside gasoline tanks Yes

– Vibration dampers Yes

– Vulcanizing agent for high pressure or fuel hoses No

– Stabilizer in protect paints No

– Solder in electronic circuit boards No

Mercury – Bulbs and instrument panel displays Yes


16

FIgure 2. PVC Life Cycle: Generic Hazards Associated with Vehicles

Toxic Inputs in PVC Production PVC Life Cycle Stages Toxic Outputs

or

or

–Dioxins–Furans–Hydrochloric Acid

Dispose of Vehicle Vehicle Fires

Landfill Fire

–Ethylene dichloride (probablehuman carcinogen)–Vinyl chloride monomer(known human carcinogen)

Additives may include:–Lead–Phthalates–Organotins

PVC Production

Use of Vehicle

Shred and SeparateRecyclable Materials

Recover FerrousMetals and CopperCoated with PVC

Auto Shredder Residue (ASR)

Incinerate

Landfill Cover

Landfill Leachate–Heavy metals–Phthalates

–“Fogging” from therelease of phthalates–Occupant exposure tophthalates

–Dioxins–Furans–Hexachlorobenzene–PCBs

Landfill


17

Table 6. DEHP Exposures from Vehicle Interiors

DEHP Levels Measured Human ExposureTemperature in a Vehicle Interior (nanogram per cubic meter — (microgram per kilogram body

ng/m3) weight per day — µg/kg bw/day)

77°F (or 25°C) 10,000 ng/m3 <1 µg/kg bw/day

140°F (or 60°C) 300,000 ng/m3 30 µg/kg bw/day

Highest documented level of DEHP in vehicles 1,000,000 ng/m3 100 µg/kg bw/day

US EPA Reference Dose (RfD)* for DEHP 20 µg/kg bw/day

*The RfD is an estimate of the daily oral exposure to a chemical that is likely to be without risk of harmful non-cancer effects during a lifetime.

Source for DEHP concentrations in vehicles: Huber, et. al, 1996

Organotins, like lead, are added to PVC to stabilize

the plastic. An inherently rigid plastic, PVC requires

softening agents (technically known as “plasticiz-

ers”) like phthalates to make it flexible. However,

the phthalates are not tightly bound to PVC and

they leak from the plastic over time. Automakers

have acknowledged that PVC products in interiors

cause “fogging” of windshields (Tolinski, 2000): the

glazing of windshields with a fine layer of phthalates

or other plasticizer used in the PVC.

Of concern to occupants of the vehicles is exposure

to phthalates. A phthalate commonly used in PVC,

di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) is a reproductive

toxicant — i.e., damages the reproductive system of

animals. The heating of PVC by the sun increases

the rate at which DEHP leaks out of the plastic.

Research shows that as the temperature of a vehicle’s

interior rises, the concentration of DEHP in the air

rises. As detailed in Table 6, the levels of DEHP in

automotive interiors can rise above the US Environ-

mental Protection Agency’s Reference Dose (RfD) of

20 µg/kg bw/day for DEHP. While no one sits in a

vehicle at 140°F, we do enter into vehicles that have

baked in the sun and reached temperatures much

higher than 77°F.

Toxic outputs also emerge during the production

and disposal of plastic products and during vehicle

and landfill fires. A main concern with PVC is the

formation of chlorinated byproducts during these

stages. Dioxins and furans are emitted from PVC

manufacturing, are formed when PVC is burned in

incinerators, and will form during accidental fires of

PVC products, including auto fires and landfill fires.

PVC contributes to dioxin formation because it

contributes chlorine, one of the necessary condi-

tions for dioxin formation. The other conditions are

heat, organic matter (carbon), and catalysts. Auto

fires are common, with almost 400,000 auto fires

reported annually in the U.S. Dioxins and furans are

persistent, bioaccumulative, and very toxic chemi-

cals that are targeted for elimination under the

international treaty, the Stockholm Convention on

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).

To develop a better understanding of which petro-

chemical-based plastics are safer for human and

environmental health, Greenpeace scientists

evaluated plastics based on life cycle toxicity

concerns. The result is the Greenpeace “plastics

pyramid” (see Figure 3). The least preferred plastics

are at the top of the pyramid, with PVC at the

pinnacle, and the most preferred plastics are at the

base, with bio-based plastics at the bottom and the

thermoplastic polyolefins (TPOs) — polypropylene

and polyethylene — next to bottom.


18

When comparing the conclusions of

Greenpeace’s life cycle toxicity assessment to

Opel’s recyclability assessment, two common

conclusions emerge:

1. The polyolefins — polypropylene and

polyethylene — are the most preferred

petrochemical-based plastics in both assess-

ments.

2. PVC is among the least preferred plastic in

both assessments.

Figure 4 illustrates these common conclusions in

a side-by-side comparison of the recyclability

(Opel) and life cycle hazard (Greenpeace)

assessments of plastics.

While more research needs to be done to fully

compare the life cycle hazards associated with

specific plastics, this initial research by

Greenpeace and Opel indicates that the

polyolefins are the most environmentally

preferred petrochemical-based plastics and PVC

and composites are the least environmentally

preferred plastics.

Figure 3. Greenpeace Plastics Pyramid

Least Preferred Plastic

Most Preferred Plastic

PVC

PU, PS, ABS, PC

PET

Polyethylene, Polypropylene

Bio-Based Polymers

Source: Van Der

Naald and

Thorpe, 1998

Figure 4. Plastics Spectrum

Sources: Table 4 and Figure 2

Acronym key

PVC - Polyvinyl ChloridePF - Phenol-formaldehydePU - PolyurethaneTPE - Thermoplastic ElastomerPS - PolystyreneABS - Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene

PC - PolycarbonatePET - Polyethylene TerephthalateTPU - Thermoplastic UrethanePE - PolyethylenePP - Polypropylene

PVC PE PP

AVOID

RECYCLABILITY

PET Styrenics: ABS, etc.

LIFE CYCLE HAZARDS

PVC PE PP

PU, PS, ABS, PC

Bio-based

plastics

TPU

PET

PREFER

TPEPUPF


The Plastics Report Card:How the Six Leading Automakers Fared

T

19

4

o evaluate the progress of automakers

toward sustainable plastics we accepted the

invitations of auto industry executives and

examined the data in their environmental

reports and on their webpages. What we found is

both worrisome and heartening. Unfortunately,

most of the automakers have yet to develop compre-

hensive programs for sustainable plastics. However,

there are examples of leadership in developing new

“Toyota looks forward to receiving your open and honest opinionsconcerning this [environmental] report and its contents.”

—Toyota Environmental and Social Report 2003

“We welcome your feedback on our approach to corporateresponsibility and sustainability reporting.”

—Ford Corporate Citizenship Report 2003-2004

Unfortunately, most of the automakershave yet to develop comprehensiveprograms for sustainable plastics.

In this report we evaluated the six automakers with

the largest sales of vehicles in the United States.

They are: Daimler/Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda,

Nissan, and Toyota.

In this chapter we include:

■ The method used to grade the automakers for

their sustainable plastics performance

■ The report cards with automakers’ grades by topic

area

■ An assessment of the state of sustainable plastics

among the six automakers

plastics or adopting natural fiber alternatives to

plastics.


4.1 How the AutomakersWere Graded

Below is a summary of the overall grades that

automakers received for progress towards

sustainable plastics.

Toyota had the highest Grade Point

Average (GPA) of 2.1 (a “C”)

Honda had a GPA of 1.3 and

DaimlerChrysler and Ford had

GPAs of 1.2 (each received a “D+”)

Nissan with a GPA of 1.1 and GM with

the lowest GPA of 1.0 got the lowest

grades (both received a “D”)

To evaluate the performance of automakers in their

progress toward sustainable plastics, we developed

a list of 17 environmental topics related to plastics

and graded automakers on each of the topics. The

17 topics fall within one of three core areas:

■ Overview Topics (three topics)

■ Measurable Goals & Objectives for Sustainable

Plastics (seven topics)

■ Reporting of Progress Toward Sustainable Plastics

(seven topics)

The three Overview Topics are:

1. Corporate vision statements for design for

environment (or design for recycling)

2. Corporate chemicals policy statements

3. Web access (on the home pages of automakers)

to data relevant to sustainable plastics

20

The seven topics addressed under the core areas of

a) Measurable Goals and b) Reporting of Progress

towards Sustainable Plastics are the same. In other

words, the seven topics listed below were considered

in the context of both Measurable Goals and Report-

ing of Progress. The seven topics are:

1. Use of renewable polymers or materials

2. Reduce toxicity of plastics (across their life cycle)

3. Design for recyclability

4. Use of recycled content

5. Eliminate use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic

6. Reuse and recycle end-of-life vehicles

7. Reuse and recycle plastics in end-of-life vehicles

D

C

D+


These are the environmental topics that emerged

in our assessment of the life cycle of plastics as the

most important to creating sustainable plastics in

the auto sector.

For each automaker, data relevant to the 17 topics

was extracted from corporate environmental (or

sustainability) reports and company web pages.

The data was compiled during the summer of

2004 and reflects information available at

that time.

Once the data was compiled, each automaker was

given a summary of the findings for their corpora-

tion and the opportunity to review the findings

and provide any relevant additional information.

In response, the Alliance of Automobile manufac-

turers submitted a brief letter outlining progress

that its members, including GM, Ford,

DaimlerChrysler and Toyota, have made toward

sustainable plastics. A copy of this letter and our

letter to the automakers is included as Appendix

4. Honda and Nissan provided no response.

The data collected from the environmental reports

and corporate webpages was then used to deter-

mine grades and GPAs. For comprehensive

methodology, please refer to Appendix 2.

For detailed grading criteria, please refer to

Appendix 3.

21

4.2 How theAutomakersFared on theOverview Topics

Design for Environment/Design for Recycling

Having an aspirational statement supporting the devel-

opment and use of sustainable materials and products is

a necessary step toward using environmentally preferable

plastics in vehicles. Without a commitment from senior

management to incorporate environmental criteria into

material and product selection automakers cannot

progress toward sustainable plastics.

As a group, the automakers received their highest grade

among all topics for their design for environment (or

design for recycling) vision statements. Toyota received

an “A” and the rest a “B” for their vision statements (see

Table 7).

All of the companies affirmed the first three commit-

ments in their environmental reports. To its credit, Ford

provided an excellent statement affirming what sustain-

able materials, including plastics, should be:

The overview topics we graded the automakers on

include their design for environment/design for

recycling visions statements, their chemicals policy

statements, and the availability of relevant environ-

ment data on their websites. Below we outline the

automakers overall grades for these three topics.

Toyota had the highest overview topic Grade

Point Average (GPA) of 2.5 (a “B–”)

Ford, Nissan and GM had overview topic

GPA’s of 2.2 (a “C+)

Honda and DaimlerChrysler had the lowest

overview topic GPA’s of 2.0 (a “C”)C

B-

C+


“The [prototype vehicle called] Model U is

helping encourage development of materials that

are safe to produce, use and recycle over and over

again in a cradle-to-cradle cycle. These materials

never become waste, but instead are nutrients

that either feed healthy soil or the manufacturing

processes without moving down the value chain”

(Ford, 2002, p.72).

22

Toyota also articulated an excellent design for

recycling statement, called the “Toyota Recycle

Vision,” (see Figure 5) in which the corporation

committed to the:

■ “Use of recycled material”

■ “Use of renewable resources (plants, etc.)”

■ “Expanded utilization of used parts (reuse)”

■ “Reduction of substances of environmental con-

cern (SOCs) [such as lead]” (Toyota, 2003, p.36)

Criteria for Evaluating Vision Statements Daimler-Chrysler Ford GM Honda Nissan Toyota

Affirmation of commitment tosustainable materials? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Affirmation of commitment to EU +/or Yes - EU Yes - EU Yes - EU Yes - EU Yes - EU Yes - EUJapanese ELV legislation? and Japan and Japan and Japan

Commitment to implementing sustain-able materials activities globally? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Commitment to implementing ELV-typeactivities in N.America or globally? No No No No No Yes

Vision Statement Grade B (3.0) B (3.0) B (3.0) B (3.0) B (3.0) A (4.0)

Table 7. Evaluating the Automakers’ Design for Environment / Design for Recycling Vision Statements

Contribute to the creation of a sustainable recycling-oriented society

Create the necessary social infrastructure and develop vehicles incorporating the concept of design for recycling (DFR)

Developdismantlingtechnology

Developrecycling and

recoverytechnology

Use ofrecycledmaterial

Use ofrenewableresources

(plants, etc.)

Expandedutilization ofused parts

(reuse)

Reduction ofsubstances ofenvironmental

concern (SOCs)

Developmentof recyclablestructures for

vehicles

Steady promotion of a comprehensive range of recycling activities

Image Source: Toyota Environment and Social Report 2003

FIgure 5. Toyota Recycling Vision


While the automakers clearly view themselves as

global corporations ...

as DaimlerChrysler affirmed, “The company is

active all over the world, so it has a global

responsibility to bear” (DaimlerChrysler, 2003, p.6)

and recognize that environmental problems can be

global in scope ...

as Carlos Ghosn, President and CEO of Nissan

stated, “As a responsible member of the world

society, Nissan is determined to do its best to

preserve and protect the global environment”

(Nissan, 2003, p.4)

they have not adopted, with the notable exception of

Toyota, a global commitment to achieving the EU’s

ELV goals.

Toyota developed a “worldwide goal” for “all its

vehicles to be 95 percent recyclable by 2015” (Toyota,

2002, p.41). This is a step toward ELV implementation

globally, although it falls short of committing to

actually recycle the vehicles globally (rather than just

designing them to be recycled).

The general lack of global environmental commit-

ments among the automakers reflects the environ-

mental double standards that corporations often

impose, especially with products, on nations

without strong consumer and environmental laws.

In the past these double standards have typically

emerged between developed and developing

nations. As will become clear in this review of

plastics and the auto industry, the U.S. is increas-

ingly being treated as a developing nation. As

American environmental laws fall behind those of

Japan and Europe, corporations are slower to adopt

more environmentally advanced products and

materials in the U.S.

Chemical Policy Statements

All of the automakers evaluated have programs to

reduce emissions and waste from their manufactur-

ing facilities. This report does not evaluate these

programs. Rather the focus is on reducing toxic

chemical use related to inputs into vehicles. Having

a chemical policy statement that commits to

reducing the toxicity of chemicals used in autos and

using safer substitutes is relevant to plastics because

most plastics are formulated from and often contain

toxic chemicals as additives.

23

Table 8. Evaluating the Automakers’ Chemicals Policy Statements

Criteria for Evaluating Chemicals Daimler-Chrysler Ford GM Honda Nissan ToyotaPolicy Statements

Commit to using less toxic products? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Affirm EU ELV directive targetedchemicals? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Include lists of restricted + No No No. Noted No No Noreported chemicals + plastics? list exists

Support for EU proposed chemicalspolicy (REACH)? No No No No No No

Chemicals Policy Statement Grade C (2.0) C (2.0) C (2.0) C (2.0) C (2.0) C (2.0)


The criteria used to grade the automakers on

chemicals policy include whether the corporation:

■ commits to using less toxic products,

■ affirms the EU ELV directive’s requirement to

reduce and/or eliminate cadmium, hexavalent

chromium, mercury, and lead,

■ includes lists of restricted and reported chemicals

and plastics (beyond the EU targeted chemicals)

on their webpage or in their environmental

report, and

■ states support for the proposed EU chemicals

policy, known as REACH (Registration, Evalua-

tion, and Authorization of Chemicals).

All of the automakers received a “C” for chemicals

policy because they committed to reducing the

toxicity of the products they use and have affirmed

compliance with the EU ELV targeted chemicals (see

Table 8). However, none of the automakers pro-

vided data (either on their webpages or in their

environmental reports) listing the chemicals and

plastics they prohibit, restrict, and collect data on

from suppliers. Yet we know that DaimlerChrysler,

Ford, and GM have developed these lists — and we

suspect that Honda, Nissan, and Toyota have similar

lists as well. GM has its list of “Restricted and

Reportable Substances for Parts Specification,”

which is noted in its environmental report (see GM,

2002, p. 109). Ford has its list of “Substance Restric-

tions” (Ford, 2000). And DaimlerChrysler has its lists

of “Restricted Substances” and “Regulated Sub-

stances” (DaimlerChrysler, 1997).

None of the automakers have supported the pro-

posed EU REACH legislation despite the fact that

such legislation would provide the automakers with

clear data on the toxicity of the chemicals they use.

Web Access to Relevant Environmental Data

Finding generic environmental information and the

company environmental report on the webpages of

the automakers was easy. However, the scope of the

24

data included on corporate webpages (including

their environmental reports) is limited in terms of

regions covered, subsidiaries covered, and data

provided.

The data in each automaker’s environmental report,

with the exception of DaimlerChrysler, is primarily

related to the country where the corporation has its

international headquarters. The environmental

reports for Honda, Nissan, and Toyota focus on

Japan, while the environmental reports for Ford and

GM focus on North America. DaimlerChrysler,

reflecting its dual-continent identity, did focus on

operations in both North America and Europe.

Given the limited scope of the reports it is impos-

sible to know what progress the corporations are

making toward sustainable plastics at the global

level and — depending on the corporation — in

Japan, North America, and Europe.

In addition, automakers with subsidiaries — such as

GM’s Opel and Ford’s Volvo — only provide limited

coverage of these subsidiaries in their environmental

reports. While the subsidiaries often have their own

environmental report, these reports are typically

weaker in content and data than the corporate

environmental reports.

The web access grades for all of the automakers were

low because the webpage environmental data,

including what is in the environmental reports, is

limited both geographically and in relation to

corporate brands and subsidiaries. The grades for

Ford, GM, Nissan and Toyota, at “C-”, were slightly

higher than the “D” all the other automakers

received (see Table 9). The Ford, Nissan, and Toyota

web sites were detailed and interactive, which

simplified searching for information. The GM,

Honda, and DaimlerChrysler web sites were more

cumbersome to navigate. GM and Toyota provided

better data for their subsidiaries (Opel for GM and

Toyota North America for Toyota) than the other

automakers.


4.3 How the AutomakersFared on MeasurableGoals Toward SustainablePlastics

25

Given the general lack of measurable goals specific

to plastics, and that to receive a grade of “C” corpo-

rations need a measurable goal, the automakers

performed poorly on the seven topics with measur-

able goals (see Table 11 on page 27).

Toyota had the highest Measurable Goals Grade

Point Average (GPA) for Sustainable Plastics at

1.9 (a “C”).

Honda and GM with GPAs of 0.9,

DaimlerChrysler with a GPA of 1.0 and

Ford with aGPA of 1.1 were a full grade lower

than Toyota (each received a “D”).

Nissan had a barely passing Measurable Goals

GPA of 0.6 (a “D-minus”).

While the automakers are weak on measurable goals

for sustainable plastics, they are nonetheless making

some important commitments in support of environ-

mentally preferable plastics.

■ DaimlerChrysler committed to increasing its use

of renewable raw materials (DaimlerChrysler, 2003,

p.96) and selecting recyclable plastics: “With

plastics, we give priority to recyclable materials or

recycled plastics” (DaimlerChrysler, 2003).

■ Nissan committed to selecting recyclable

plastics: “Today, plastics materials that are

difficult to recycle are land filled in the form of

ASR [auto shredder residue]. To recycle a greater

amount of such plastic materials, we are expand-

ing the use of parts made from single materials

and the use of materials that are easy to recycle”

(Nissan, 2003, p.35).

■ GM committed to requiring designers “to seek

materials that are non-toxic, take account of

renewable resources, increase the percentage of

recyclable materials and give preference torecycled goods over virgin materials” (GM, 2002,

p.108).

■ Honda committed to promoting the use of

recyclable plastics by standardizing resin materi-

als to promote “olefin resin” (Honda, 2003, p.32).

■ In addition to its measurable goals, Toyotacommitted to “reducing the volume of PVC

resin used” (Toyota, 2003, pp.37 and 40).

■ Ford committed, as noted above in Section 4.2,

to developing materials that never become waste

(Ford, 2002, p.72).

These commitments (see Table 10 for further details)

are steps in the right direction, but they are built

upon a weak implementation plan: they have no

timelines, no measurable goals, and no goals for

global implementation.

Table 9. Evaluating Automaker Information Access Through the Web

Evaluating Information Access Daimler-Chrysler Ford GM Honda Nissan ToyotaThrough the Web

Final Grade (GPA) D (1.0) C- (1.5) C- (1.5) D (1.0) C- (1.5) C- (1.5)

D-

C

D


Developing measurable goals for sustainable plastics

is not an impossible task, as illustrated by Toyota’s

goal of using 20% recycled content or renewable

resources for resin parts by 2015 in Japan. Yet,

developing measurable goals means the automakers

must commit the resources — staff and financing —

to achieve those goals.

The automakers were most concrete in setting goals

that place them in compliance, or slightly above

compliance, with government laws. They developed

measurable goals to comply with the EU and

Japanese end-of-life vehicle directives, but did not

develop measurable goals for recycled content,

renewable materials, PVC reduction, and recycling

plastics at the end of vehicle life. The lack of

measurable goals beyond government requirements

implies that most of the automakers, with the

exception of Toyota, have not made sustainable

plastics a high priority. They continue to follow the

lead of governments in setting environmental

priorities, and they may choose to meet government

ELV requirements by burning for energy recovery

most of their plastics waste.

Table 10. Automakers’ Commitments to Measuring Environmental Progress

Company Commitment to Providing the Commitment to Defining and Meeting Commitment to at Least Definition of at Least a Public with Environmental Data Measurable Environmental Goals? a Single Attribute of Single Goal Related to

Sustainable Plastics (e.g., Sustainable Plastics? renewable, recyclable, reduced toxicity)?

ChryslerYes. “An extensive list ofenvironmental goals defines theroad map for environmentalprotection at DaimlerChrysler”(DaimlerChrysler, 2003, p. 94).

Ford

Yes No

Yes. Ford will achieve account-ability by “Being responsive tostakeholders’ concerns on theimpact of our operations,products and services throughpublic disclosure and regularreporting” (Ford, 2002, p. 12).

Yes No

GM Yes NoYes. “We’re in the third year ofworldwide energy and environmentaldata collection and are publishing ourglobal performance data (1999-2001)against four of the metrics” (GM, 2003,p. 3-9).

Honda Yes. Honda’s annual reportis designed “to keep thepublic informed” of its annualenvironmental progress(Honda, 2003, p. 5).

Yes NoYes. To achieve our environmentalgoals “it is essential to establishdirections for specifically definedissues, and set targets for action ...”(Honda, 2003, p. 7).

Nissan Yes. Nissan’s environmental manage-ment program “ensures that environ-mental action plans are formulated, thattargets and aims relating to business ac-tivities ... are set for mid-term, long-term,and yearly periods” (Nissan, 2003, p. 11).

Yes. “One guiding principle ofNissan’s corporate vision is thatour company is customerfocused and environmentallyfriendly” (Nissan, 2003, p. 4).

Yes No

Yes Yes

Daimler-

Yes. “Measuring, understandingand responsibly managing ourresource use, especially materialsof concern and nonrenewableresources” (Ford, 2002, p. 75).

Yes. GM is implementing theCERES Principles, whichincludes continuous improve-ment in “Public accountabilityand corporate disclosure” (GM,2003, p. 33).

ToyotaYes. “The Toyota Environmental ActionPlan is a medium- to long-term planthat summarizes specific activities andgoals” (Toyota, 2003, p.13).

Yes. Toyota has committed to“Actively disclose information”(Toyota, 2002, p. 12).

Yes. DaimlerChrysler commits toproviding “employees and the pub-lic with comprehensive informationon environmental protection”(DaimlerChrysler, 2003, p. 94).


Table 11. Evaluating the Automakers’ Measurable Goals for Sustainable Plastics

Measurable Goalsfor Sustainable DaimlerChrysler Ford GM Honda Nissan Toyota

#1 Select for renew-able polymers ormaterials

— Commitment— Grade: D (1.0)

— Commitment touse plastics madefrom renewables inprototype vehicle— Grade: C- (1.5)


— No statement— Grade: F (0)


— Measurable goal— Grade: B (3.0)

#2 Select for plasticswith reducedenvironmental healthtoxicity

— Comply with EUELV directive re toxicchemicals— No commitmentspecific to plastics— Grade: C- (1.5)

— Commitment touse Oekotex stan-dard to evaluatematerials forallergens and noxi-ous substances— Grade: C- (1.5)


— Comply with EUELV directive retoxic chemicals— No commitmentspecific to plastics— Grade: C- (1.5)

— Comply withEU ELV directivere toxic chemicals— No commitmentspecific to plastics— Grade: C- (1.5)

— Comply withEU ELV directive retoxic chemicals— No commitmentspecific to plastics— Grade: C- (1.5)

#3 Select forrecyclable plastics

— Commitmentto increase therecoverable contentto 95% by 2005— Grade: C- (1.5)

— Commitmentto use recyclableplastics in Model Uprototype vehicle— Grade: C- (1.5)




— Commitment— Created recycl-able plastic and setglobal recyclablegoal (not specificto plastics)— Grade: C (2.0)

#5 Reduce PVC use

#4 Select for plasticswith recycled content






— Measurable goal— Grade: B (3.0)

— No commitmentin environmentalreport or webpage,but commitment inpublic domain— Grade: D (1.0)




— No statementon webpage,environ-mentalreport, or in publicdomain (at leastnot found)— Grade: F (0)

— Commitmentin public domainand environmentalreports— Grade: C (2.0)

#6 End of life vehiclereuse and recycling

— Comply withELV legislation— Grade: D (1.0)



— Comply withELV legislation— Set interimobjectives— Grade: C (2.0)

— Comply withELV legislationahead of schedulefor new modelsin Japan— Grade: C- (1.5)

— Comply withELV legislation— Set interimobjectives— Grade: C (2.0)

#7 Plastics end-of-life management







GPA for Measur-able Goals

D (1.0) D (1.1) D (0.9) D (0.9) D- (0.6) C- (1.9)

27



CD+

DD-

4.4 How the AutomakersFared on ReportingProgress

Toyota was again the best of the group with a

Reporting on Progress GPA of 2.0 (a “C”).

Honda with a GPA of 1.4 and Nissan with a

GPA of 1.3 each passed with a “D-plus”.

DaimlerChrysler with a GPA of 1.1 and Ford

with a GPA of 1.0 each passed with a “D”.

GM was at the bottom of the pack, near

failing with a GPA of 0.6 (a “D-minus”).

28

The overall performance of automakers on reporting

progress toward the use of sustainable plastics was

poor. Their poor performance relates to the failure to

define in the environmental reports (or webpages)

measurable goals. Without measurable goals for

sustainable plastics, there is no way to assess

progress. Instead the automakers report in an ad

hoc manner anecdotal stories of activities toward

sustainable plastics rather than quantitative data on

progress toward meeting measurable goals. Among

the few notable exceptions that included quantita-

tive data was DaimlerChrysler’s evaluation of its

progress toward using plastics with recycled content.

“For around 13 percent of the plastics required [in

vehicles], the use of secondary raw materials in

the development phase has already been success-

fully tested and approved for the production

breakpoint.” (DaimlerChrysler, 2003)

For each of the seven topics included in the previous

section on measurable goals we evaluated the status

of reported activities to achieve these “goals.” The

automakers did report activities related to environ-

mentally preferable plastics. The automakers were

somewhat better at reporting activities related to

sustainable plastics than at defining measurable

goals. However, the automakers’ grades remained

quite low because they did not report quantitatively

on their progress (see Table 12 on page 31). To

receive a grade of “C” or higher automakers had to

provide quantitative data on progress.

Toyota was the clear leader for reporting on activities.

It is innovating in plastics, having entered the

business of producing sustainable plastics, manufac-

turing both an eco-plastic made from sugar cane and

corn (polylactic acid) and a polyolefin made from

petrochemicals — called Toyota Super Olefin Polymer

(TSOP).

Specific activities the automakers highlighted in their

environmental reports included:

■ Toyota reported that the “Use of Toyota Eco-

Plastic started with launch of the new Raum [in

Japan] in May 2003” (Toyota, 2003, p.36). Toyota

is using its recyclable polymer TSOP “in the

interior and exterior parts of new models or those

that underwent complete redesign in 11 vehicle

series” (Toyota, 2003, p.37). Toyota also stated that

is has “made significant reductions in chlorine

(used in polyvinyl chloride) ... but have not yet

entirely eliminated” it (2002, p.41). PVC reduction

activities included the new Raum, with 25% less

PVC than the previous model (2003, p.37) and the

use of a halogen-free wire harness (electrical wiring

network) “that was first adopted in the Alphard

launched in May 2002” (2003, p.36).


■ DaimlerChrysler listed 12 products in its

environmental report that are made from 100%

recycled plastics, including spare tire protector,

door trim panel, and mirror bracket. The plastics

used are: crumb rubber, polyamides (PA66),

polycarbonates (PC), PC/ABS (acrylonitrile

butadiene styrene), polypropylene, and polyeth-

ylene terephthalate (PET) (DaimlerChrysler, 2003,

p. 96). DaimlerChrysler, as noted in the Vision of

Sustainable Plastics section above, has started to

substitute an array of natural fibers for plastic

fibers.

■ Honda highlighted its activities related to

selecting for recyclable plastics and plastics with

recycled content. “For all of the new models and

changed models released in fiscal 2002 [in Japan],

highly recyclable olefin resins are now used for

injection-molded interior parts,” including: trunk

decoration, pillar decoration, instrument panel,

bumper face, air conditioning unit, door lining,

and others (Honda, 2003, p.32). In 2002, Honda

“used 3.2 kg of recycled resins for the Accord, and

will further increase the use of recycled materials”

(Honda, 2003, p.32).

29

■ Ford highlighted auto indoor air quality and

the use of renewable materials. Air quality, Ford

emphasizes, inside a vehicle “can be a concern

to people who suffer from asthma and allergies.

We have begun to focus on the use of interior

materials that are low-emission and generally

free of allergens” (Ford, 2002, p.83). Ford is using

the Oeko-tex standard to evaluate materials for

allergens and noxious substances (Ford, 2002,

p.83). Ford is also evaluating the use of

renewables. For example, the “eco-effective

polyester” fabric designed by Milliken and Co.

DaimlerChrysler components made from 100%recycled resin. Source: DaimlerChrysler

Ford Model U Concept Vehicle. Source: Ford Motor Company

“can be recycled into base elements and repro-

cessed into material fiber again and again without

losing any performance qualities, and it is made

from natural substances” (Ford, 2002, pp.83-84).

“Renewable, plant-based components are used in

several cases [in the Model U] to replace petro-

leum-based materials”, including the use of soy-

based components to replace polyurethane

seating foam (Ford, 2002, p.72).


■ Nissan has also been active in specifying for

recyclable plastics. Examples of changed specifica-

tions include: instrument panel cover changed

from PVC to polypropylene and instrument panel

foamed layer changed from polyurethane to

polypropylene foam (Nissan, 2003, p. 35). Nissan

decreased the variety of polypropylene polymers

it uses to make the end products more recyclable

(Nissan, 2003, p.35). And for new vehicles Nissan

is using “easily recyclable materials” for many

products, including: bumpers, instrument panels,

door trim, glove compartments, console boxes,

pillar trim, and floor carpet (Nissan, 2003, p. 58).

■ GM’s reporting on activities related to sustainable

plastics was quite limited. GM did note that the

“Use of recycled plastic materials in Opel/

Vauxhall vehicles rose to 34,000 metric tons in

2002” (GM, 2003, p.3-52). In addition, Opel’s

2002 environmental report included a table

listing which plastics are more recyclable (see

Table 12).

Opel’s table on the recyclability of plastics high-

lights conclusions that Toyota, Nissan, and Honda

have reached as well. First, the polyolefin plastics of

polypropylene and polyethylene are the easiest

plastics to recycle. Second, that PVC is among the

most difficult to recycle plastics. Thus, as

automakers move to recyclable materials they are

moving away from PVC and other plastics to the

polyolefins.

The reporting of PVC plastic exemplifies how the

automakers need to do a better job of reporting on

and quantifying their transition to sustainable

plastics. All the automakers, with the exception of

Nissan, have publicly stated plans to reduce PVC

30

use. Toyota, however, was the only automaker

among the six to state its PVC reduction goal in its

environmental report. To understand the progress

automakers are making toward eliminating PVC the

public needs to know the following:

■ Baseline data: Automakers need to establish a

base year and baseline quantitative data from

which they will measure progress toward their

goal. For example, in 1998 Automaker X used an

average of 20 pounds of PVC products in its

vehicles. Interior applications accounted for 8.5

pounds, exterior trim 4.0 pounds, body sealing

4.0 pounds, electrical wiring systems 2.5 pounds,

and window encapsulation 1.0 pounds (Peterson,

2001).

■ Progress to date: For the latest year present

quantitative progress toward the goal, including

whether there are differences in activities by

region. For example, in 2003 Automaker X:

❑ Reduced the average weight of PVC for all

vehicles sold globally by 20% or 4.0 pounds

since 1998.

❑ Reduced the use of PVC for all vehicles sold

globally by 18% or 1.5 pounds in interiors;

zero percent for exterior trim, body sealing,

and window encapsulation; and 100% for

electrical wiring systems, i.e., eliminated PVC

use in electrical wiring.

❑ Reduced the use of PVC in vehicles sold in

Europe and Japan in interiors by 3.0 pounds,

but made no reductions in PVC use in interiors

for vehicles sold in North America.

In addition to this quantitative data, the qualitative

data that some of the automakers already provide is

important. For example, Nisssan’s reporting that it

eliminated PVC use for instrument panel covers.


31

Table 12. Evaluating the Automakers’ Reporting on Progress

Activities toAchieve Sustain- DaimlerChrysler Ford GM Honda Nissan Toyotaable Plastics

#1 Select forrenewable polymersor materials

— Examples ofusing renewable-based products— Grade: C (2.0)

— Use ofrenewable-basedpolymers inprototype vehicle— Grade: C- (1.5)

— No statementof activities— Grade: F (0)



— Made its ownpolymer from bio-based plastics— Grade: B- (2.5)

#2 Select for plasticswith reduced environ-mental health toxicity


— Status of activitiesto use less toxicsubstances in ModelU prototype vehicle— Grade: C- (1.5)


— General statusof reductions of EUtargeted chemicals,including reducinglead in PVC— Grade: C- (1.5)

— Examples ofreductions of EUtargeted chemicals,including lead,mercury, cadmium— Grade: C (2.0)

— Detailed statusof reductions of EUtargeted chemicals,including elimin-ation of lead in PVC— Grade: C (2.0)

#3 Select forrecyclable plastics


— Status ofactivities to userecyclable plasticsin Model Uprototype vehicle— Grade: C (2.0)

— Opel environ-mental reportassessedrecyclabilityof plastics— Grade: C (2.0)

— Status ofinitiatives to userecyclable plastics— Grade: C (2.0)

— Status ofinitiatives to userecyclable plastics— Grade: B- (2.5)

— Created newrecyclable plasticand reported on itsuse in vehicles— Grade: B- (2.5)

#4 Select for plasticswith recycled content

— Quantitativedata on the use ofrecycled content,including specificend uses— Grade: B- (2.5)

— Statements ofuse of recycledcontent in products,not specific toplastics— Grade: D (1.0)

— Noted use ofrecycled content inplastics productsin Europe— Grade: D (1.0)

— Goodqualitative andquantitative dataon recycled contentin plastic products— Grade: C (2.0)

— Use of recycledcontent in bumpers— Grade: D (1.0)

— Examples of useof plastics withrecycled content— Grade: C (2.0)

#5 Reduce PVC use — No statementof activities— Grade: F (0)



— EliminatingPVC use ininstrument panels— Grade: D (1.0)

— EliminatingPVC use ininstrument panels— Grade: D (1.0)

— Made signifi-cant reductions inPVC use— Grade: B- (2.5)

#6 End of life vehiclereuse and recycling

— Describedrecycling system inGermany and ELVgoals— Grade: C- (1.5)

— Generic dataon recycling rateof autos in N.America (notcompany specific)— Grade: D (1.0)

— Generic dataon recycling rateof autos in N.America (notcompany specific)— Grade: D (1.0)

— Data onrecycling rate andprogress in Japan— Grade: C (2.0)

— Detailed dataon recovery ratein Japan— Recovery rateincludes incinera-tion— Grade: C- (1.5)

— Detailed data onrecycling rate inJapan, with somedata for N. America— Recovery rateincludes incinera-tion— Grade: C- (1.5)

Continued



With regards to reporting of end-of-life recovery and

recyling efforts, two Japanese automakers reported

that they use incineration with energy recovery as

part of their strategy to attain the recovery goals of

the Japanese legislation. Toyota, for example, reports

that it is now operating a new auto shredder residue

(ASR) Recycling and Recovery plant in Japan that

“gasifies” combustible substances at 600°C. And

Nissan reports that it is “reusing” ASR through

thermal recovery, which has helped Nissan to

increase its “recycling” rate by 2.4% (Nissan, 2003,

p.33). In reporting on incineration for thermal

recovery the automakers must use language that is

32

consistent with the EU Directive on End-of Life

Vehicles, which explicitly defines reuse and recycling

to exclude energy recovery:

■ “Reuse means any operation by which compo-

nents of end-of life vehicles are used for the same

purpose for which they were conceived;” and

■ “Recycling means the reprocessing in a produc-

tion process of the waste materials for the original

purpose or for other purposes but excluding energy

recovery. Energy recovery means the use of

combustible waste as a means to generate energy

through direct incineration with or without other

waste but with recovery of the heat.”

Therefore it is misleading and legally incorrect in

Europe for automakers to state, as Nissan does, that

thermal recovery contributes to end-of-life vehicle

reuse and recycling. Thermal recovery is not recycling

and the two terms must not be confused.

Table 12. Evaluating the Automakers’ Reporting on Progress Continued

Activities toAchieve Sustain- DaimlerChrysler Ford GM Honda Nissan Toyota

#7 Plastics end-of-lifemanagement

— Note on dealingwith the ELVdirective for plastics— Grade: C- (1.5)



— Data onrecycling bumpers— Grade: D (1.0)



GPA for Status ofActivities

D (1.1) D (1.0) D- (0.6) D+ (1.4) D+ (1.3) C (2.0)

Without measurable goals for sustainableplastics, there is no way to assess progress.



■ Develop and use materials that never become

waste (Ford)

■ Use non-toxic materials (GM)

The significant activities toward sustainable

plastics are:

■ Use polymers made from bio-based (i.e., renew-

able) materials (Toyota, DaimlerChrysler, and Ford)

■ Eliminate use of lead, mercury, hexavalent chro-

mium, and cadmium (Toyota, Ford, Honda, and

Nissan)

■ Use recyclable plastics by selecting for polyolefins

and de-selecting PVC (Honda, Nissan, Toyota, and

Opel — i.e., GM)

■ Use plastic products with recycled content

(DaimlerChrysler, Honda, Toyota, GM, and Nissan)

■ Eliminate PVC use (Toyota, Honda, and Nissan)

If all of the automakers moved quickly to adopt the

leading goals and to implement the leading activities

over the next three years the auto sector would make

significant strides toward sustainable plastics.

Unfortunately, the data for each automaker as a single

entity leads to a less promising vision of progress

toward sustainable plastics in the near future. While

automakers can improve their grades by doing a

better job of reporting their activities — e.g., reporting

their goal of reducing PVC use — the level of commit-

ment to sustainable plastics is weak among five of the

33

4.5 Report Card Conclusions

Collectively the best visions, goals,

and actions among the six automakers

represent an ambitious start toward sustainable

plastics in vehicles.

The combination of Toyota’s vision of recyclability

and Ford’s vision of sustainable materials creates a

clear path toward sustainable plastics. Toyota’s

vision is simple and clear: use recycled material and

renewable resources, expand utilization of used parts

(reuse), and reduce toxic substances of environmental

concern such as lead (Toyota, 2003, p.36). Ford’s

vision is grounded in ecology: sustainable materials

never become waste, but instead become “nutrients

that either feed healthy soil or the manufacturing

processes without moving down the value chain”

(Ford, 2002, p.72).

The goals — as articulated most clearly by Toyota,

along with help from Ford and GM — are:

■ Achieve global goal for all vehicles to be 95 %

recyclable by 2015 (Toyota)

■ Use 20% recycled content or renewable resources

for resin parts by 2015 in Japan (Toyota)

■ Reduce PVC use (Toyota)

Table 13. Sustainable Plastics Overall Grade Point Average (GPA) and Grade

Automaker GPA (Grade) GPA (Grade) GPA (Grade) for Measurable GPA (Grade) for Progressfor all Topics for Overview Topics Goals & Objectives Towards Sustainable Plastics

Toyota 2.1 (C) 2.5 (B-) 1.9 (C) 2.0 (C)

Honda 1.3 (D+) 2.0 (C) 0.9 (D) 1.4 (D+)

DaimlerChrysler 1.2 (D+) 2.0 (C) 1.0 (D) 1.1 (D)

Ford 1.2 (D+) 2.2 (C+) 1.1 (D) 1.0 (D)

Nissan 1.1 (D) 2.2 (C+) 0.6 (D-) 1.3 (D+)

GM 1.0 (D) 2.2 (C+) 0.9 (D) 0.6 (D-)

Section 4.2 pg 22 Section 4.3 pg 26 Section 4.4 pg 29


six automakers evaluated here: Toyota being the

exception. Assuming that the data provided in their

environmental reports and on their webpages are

good indicators of the goals and activities of

automakers for sustainable plastics, they all have

a lot of work to do.

Toyota is the clear sustainable plastics leader.Its leading Sustainable Plastics GPA of 2.1

is almost a whole grade higher than its closest

competitor, Honda, with a GPA of 1.3 (see Table 13

on page 33). Toyota is the leader because it:

■ innovates: developed its own renewable-based

plastic and closed-loop recyclable plastics,

■ sets measurable goals, even at the global level, and

■ takes action, including striving to eliminate its use

of PVC.

GM, Ford, Nissan make up the bottom of the pack.

GM has the lowest Sustainable Plastics GPA of 1.0

— which is barely passing with a “D.” GM had little

to highlight in terms of measurable goals — with a

Measurable Goals & Objectives GPA of 0.9 — and

activities — with a Progress Towards Sustainable

Plastics GPA of 0.6. Nissan with its Sustainable

Plastics GPA of 1.1, and Ford and DaimlerChrysler

with their Sustainable Plastics GPA’s of 1.2, however,

are performing only a shade better than GM.

Honda with a Sustainable Plastics GPA of 1.3 is still

struggling, but is slightly ahead of the pack of

laggards. The relative strength of Honda’s Progress

Toward Sustainable Plastics GPA of 1.4 moved it

ahead of the laggards. Honda’s Sustainable Plastics

GPA of 1.3, however, is still merely a “D-plus”.

It is clear that the opportunities for improvement on

sustainable plastics reporting and activities are vast.

To address the low grades automakers need to define

measurable goals for sustainable plastics and report

quantitatively on their progress toward meeting

those goals. The reporting of activities of PVC plastic

illustrates how the automakers can do a much better

job of quantifying their transition to sustainable

plastics.

In terms of reporting on Progress Toward Sustainable

Plastics the Japanese firms of Toyota, Honda, and

Nissan are clearly ahead of Ford, GM, and

DaimlerChrysler. With the U.S. government lagging

behind Japan and the EU in terms of recycling require-

ments and elimination of toxic chemicals, the North

American automakers are following suit. We see this

distinction emerging within GM where the

corporation’s leading activities on sustainable plastics

are happening in Europe with Opel. GM even ac-

knowledges this difference: “Over the last decade, for

example, our European subsidiaries have been progres-

sively increasing the content of recycled plastics in

their vehicles. During 2001, more than 30,000 tons of

recycled [plastic] materials were incorporated in new

Vauxhall and Opel vehicles, six times more than in

1991” (GM, 2002, p.108).

We predict that the activities toward sustainable

plastics of all automakers selling in the U.S. will

continue to lag behind activities in Japan and the

European Union. Without government leadership the

automakers will not make the investments in develop-

ing and using recyclable materials in the U.S. (at the

same rate as in Japan and Europe) and will not attain

the recycling rates achieved in Japan and Europe. The

sustainable plastics performance of the auto industry

in the U.S. reflects a broader trend where the U.S. as a

nation is becoming an environmental laggard in

relation to Europe and Japan.

While the American automakers may assert that they

can meet comparable environmental performance

levels as seen in Europe without legislation (i.e.,

voluntarily) the evidence, however, supports an

opposite conclusion: without legislation corporations

selling in the U.S. market lag behind their environ-

mental performance in nations with better environ-

mental policies.

34


T

Recommendations forSustainable Plastics:The Role of the Auto Sector

he best examples show that the auto sector

has the capacity to design for environmen-

tally preferable plastics. Now is the time for

the automakers to take the lead in design-

ing safer, cleaner plastics for use in their automo-

biles. Except for Toyota, however, progress on

managing the environmental profile of plastics (as

reported by the automakers) is happening in a

piecemeal fashion.

If the automakers are to make significant progress

toward safer, cleaner plastics they must:

1. Commit to achieving sustainable plasticsat the global level:The automakers are failing to commit to the same

level of sustainable plastics performance in the U.S.

as in Japan and Europe. This is especially true of the

American-based automakers, whose reporting of

progress toward sustainable plastics is not on par

with the Japanese firms. Automakers need to

commit to achieving sustainable plastics at the

global level, not only in nations where change is

legislated.

2. Set measurable goals and report onprogress globally:If progress is to be made, automakers must set goals

for which they can be held accountable. Progress

must be reported on a regional or national basis, as

well as globally, and include quantitative as well as

qualitative data on progress toward specific goals

and objectives, including:

■ Eliminating the use of PVC plastic

■ Reducing toxicity of plastics across their life cycle

■ Using renewable resources in making or substitut-

ing for plastics

■ Reusing of plastic products

■ Designing plastic products for recyclability

■ Using post-consumer recycled plastic

■ Increasing recycling rates for plastic in end-of-life

vehicles

3. Transition away from incineration as adisposal option:Incineration, with or without energy recovery,

should be avoided as a method for achieving end-of-

life vehicle recovery goals because it:

■ Creates pollution with harmful health effects

■ Discourages recycling, and

■ Eliminates the life cycle environmental benefits

of recycling

35

5

Automakers need to commit to achievingsustainable plastics at the global level, notonly in nations where change is legislated.


In reporting on end-of-life recycling and recovery

efforts, automakers must stop mischaracterizing

incineration as materials recycling or reuse when

reporting on end-of-life recycling and recovery

efforts. Reporting should be consistent with the EU

Directive on End-of Life Vehicles, which explicitly

defines reuse and recycling to exclude energy

recovery.

4. Provide relevant sustainable plasticsinformation on the web:Given the commitments of all six automakers

included in this report to providing environmental

data to customers, shareholders, and the concerned

public, the automakers need to do a much better job

of providing relevant and easy-to-understand data

on their webpages.

Environmental reports do not need to be, nor

should they be, vast compendia of environmental

data. However, relevant materials and data should

be archived and easily located on corporate

webpages. Similarly, all the environmental reports

for all the corporate brands and subsidiaries should

be available on one webpage.

36

The best examples show that the autosector has the capacity to design forenvironmentally preferable plastics.

Recommended Goals forSustainable Plastics in the AutoSector

Achieving sustainable plastics will also entail getting

generational goals. We recommend that automakers

adopt the following quantitative goals for sustain-

able plastics:

By 2009, eliminate the use of PVC plastic in

vehicles sold globally.

By 2010, design 95% of all plastic products to

be either reusable or recyclable.

By 2015, use 50% reused plastic products,

recycled plastics, or plastics made from renew-

able resources at the global level.

By 2020, use only plastics that are made without

hazardous chemicals, are capable of being closed-

loop recycled, and are manufactured from

renewable raw materials.


37

Automotive Learning Center, 2003. “PlasticsApplications in Cars: Power Train.” See http://www.plastics-car.com/.

Automotive News Data Center, 2004,www.autonews.com.

Bijker, 1995. Bijker, Wiebe E. 1995. OfBicycle, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward aTheory of Sociotechnical Change. Cam-bridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Broge, 2000. Broge, Jean L. 2000. “NewPlastics and the Automobile.” AutomotiveEngineering International, May.

Corbett, 2004. Corbett, Brian. 2004.“Mixed Bag for Plastics.” Wards AutoWorld,September: 34-35

DaimlerChrysler, 1997. DaimlerChryslerCorporation, DaimlerChrysler CorporationCharacteristics Standard No: CS-9003.

DaimlerChrysler, 2003. DaimlerChrysler, 360DEGREES: Environmental Report 2003 andWWW Additional Information Supplementingthe Print Version. http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/dccom

Eller, 1998. Eller, Robert. 1998. “PVC and ItsCompetitors in Automotive Applications.”Proceedings: Flexpo ’98. Houston: ChemicalMarket Resources.

Five Winds International, 2003. ProductStewardship Opportunities within theAutomotive Industry. Philadelphia: FiveWinds International.

Ford, 2000. For Motor Company, RestrictedMaterial Standard WSS-M99P9999-A1.

Ford, 2002. Ford Motor Company, 2002Corporate Citizenship Report: Our Principles,Progress and Performance. http://www.ford.com/en/company/about/corporateCitizenship/default.htm

Bibliography6Ford, 2004. Ford Motor Company, CorporateCitizenship Report 2003-2004: Our Principles,Progress and Performance. http://www.ford.com/en/company/about/corporateCitizenship/report/

default.htm

GM, 2003. General Motors, CorporateResponsibility & Sustainability Report, 2003.http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/sustainability/reports/03/index.html

GM, 2002. General Motors, CorporateResponsibility & Sustainability Report, 2001-2002. http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/sustainability/reports/archives.html

Honda, 2003. Honda, Environmental AnnualReport 2003. http://world.honda.com/environment/reports/index.html

Honda, 2002. Honda, Ecology, 2002. http://world.honda.com/environment/reports/index.html

Huber, et. al., 1996. Huber, W.W., B. Grasl-Kraupp, and R. Schulte-Hermann, 1996.“Hepatocarcinogenic potential of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in rodents and itsimplications on human risk.” Critical Reviewsin Toxicology, 26(4): 365-481.

Intermediate Technology Development Group,2003. Technical Brief: Recycling Plastics.Rugby, United Kingdom: The SchumacherCentre.

McNulty, 2003. McNulty, Mike. 2003.“Producers Tackle Key Issues as PU UseRises.” Rubber and Plastics News, 16 June2003: 14.

Miller, 1996. Miller, Bernie. 1996. “HowPlastics Helped the Horseless Carriage ReachIts 100th.” Plastics World, October: 39-45.

Modern Plastics, 2003. “Resins 2003Forecast.” Modern Plastics, 80(2).

Nissan, 2003. Nissan, Environmental andSocial Report (Year Ended March 31, 2003).http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/ENVIRONMENT/LIBRARY/index.html

Opel, 2001. Opel, Environmental Report2000/2001. http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/environment/annual_reports/opel.html

Peterson, 2001. Peterson, Douglas G., 2001.“PVC Usage in DCX [DaimlerChrysler].” ed.State of Minnesota.

SPI, 1998. Society of the Plastics Industry(SPI). 1998. Facts and Figures. Washington,DC: SPI.

Tolinski, 2000. Tolinski, Mike. 2000. “TheTPOs skins game.” Automotive Plastics,December: 36-39.

Toyota, 2003. Toyota, Environmental & SocialReport 2003. http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/environmental_rep/03/index.html

Toyota, 2002. Toyota, Toyota North AmericaEnvironmental Report: Toyota 2002. http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/environmental_rep/02/pdf2002.html

Urethanes Technology, 2002. “BASFAnnounces PVC Alternative.” UrethanesTechnology 19(6): 38.

Van der Naald and Thorpe, 1998. Van derNaald, W.G.H. and B. Thorpe. 1998. PVCPlastic: A Looming Waste Crisis. Amsterdam:Greenpeace.

Volvo, 2002. 2002 Corporate CitizenshipReport. http://www.volvocars.com/AboutVolvo/CorporateCitizenship/Reports/


Appendix 1: Polymers in Automobiles by Application

Application Area Principal Polymers

ExteriorsBumpers + fascia systems Thermoplastic olefins, polycarbonates, polyesters, polypropylene, polyurethanes, polyamides, compositesBody panels Sheet molding compound (SMC, a thermoset polyester sheet), reaction injection molding (RIM) urethane

(thermoset), thermoplastic systems (including polyolefins)Lighting systems Polycarbonate, acrylicTrim (mirror housings, door Nylons, polystyrene, polycarbonate, acrylic-styrene-acrylonitrile/poly (acrylonitrile ethylene styrene)handles, side trim, etc.) (ASA-AES), PVC, polypropylene, polyesters, urethanes

Interiors

Upholstery Urethane foams (for cushioning), PVC-based fiber (for floorings)Instrument panels Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS), ABS/polycarbonate alloys, polycarbonates, polypropylene, modified

polyphenylene ether resin, PVC, styrene maleic anhydride (SMA) resin, urethane resinSteering wheels PVC, RIM-pigmented urethaneAir ducts ABS, polypropylene, SMA resinOther applications (seat bases, Glass mat thermoplastic (GMT) composite (polypropylene/fiber glass), ABS, polycarbonate/ABS, PVCheadliners, door panels, etc.)

ElectricalComponent housing Nylon, styrenics, polypropylene, and polyesterSwitches + sockets Nylon, polyester, and acetyl resins (for switches); polyphthalamide (PPA), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS),

syndiotactic polystyrene (SPS) (for sockets)Connectors Polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET), nylonLighting systems PolyetherimideCircuit boards + wiring PVC

Power Train

Transmission Glass fiber reinforced phenolic resins (stationary transmission parts)Bearings Nylon (for housing bearings)CV joints + U joints Acetyl

Fuel System

Fuel tanks High density polyethylene (HDPE)Fuel lines NylonVapor recovery system Glass reinforced nylon or polypropylene

Chassis

Suspension Acetyl, nylon, polypropylene (for suspension tubing and links)Brakes Aramid fiber (for brake pads)

Engine

Air-intake systems Nylon, polypropylene (for air cleaner systems)Fuel-intake systems Nylons (for plastic intake manifolds)Cooling systems Nylon (for radiators); nylon and PPS (for water pumps)

Source: American Plastics Council, Automotive Learning Center, www.plastics-car.com (accessed 11/15/03).

38



Top SixAutomakers:percent of totalvehicle sales =87%

39

Appendix 2: The Report Card Method

The automakers evaluated in this report are the six

with the largest sales of vehicles (in terms of number

of vehicles sold) in the United States. They are:

Table 14. Vehicle Sales in the United States

Rank in Corporation 2003 Sales 2003 SalesTotal Sales (# of vehicles sold) (% of total vehicle sales)

1 General Motors 4,714,782 28.3%

2 Ford 3,477,444 20.9%

3 DaimlerChrysler 2,346,168 14.1%

4 Toyota 1,866,314 11.2%

5 Honda 1,349,847 8.1%

6 Nissan 794,417 4.8%

7 Hyundai 637,692 3.8%

8 VW 389,526 2.3%

9 BMW 276,957 1.7%

10 Mazda 258,865 1.6%

11 Mitsubishi 256,810 1.5%

12 Subaru 186,819 1.1%

13 Suzuki 58,438 0.4%

14 Isuzu 30,328 0.2%

15 Porsche 28,416 0.2%

16 Other* 2,881 0.0%

Total 16,675,704

*Lamborghini, Maserati, FerrariSource: Automotive News Data Center, http://www.autonews.com/

DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, and

Toyota. Together these automakers account for 87%

of the vehicles sold in the U.S. (see Table 14).


40

To evaluate the performance of automakers in their

progress toward sustainable plastics, we developed a

list of 17 environmental topics related to plastics

policies and practices and graded each automaker on

each of the topics. Each of the 17 topics falls within

one of three core areas:

■ Overview Topics (three topics)

■ Measurable Goals & Objectives for Sustainable

Plastics (seven topics)

■ Reporting of Progress toward Sustainable Plastics

(seven topics)

The three Overview Topics are:

1. Corporate vision statements for design for

environment (or design for recycling)

2. Corporate chemicals policy statements

3. Web access (on the home pages of

automakers) to data relevant to sustainable

plastics

The seven topics for both “Measurable Goals and

Objectives” and Reporting of Progress” are:

1. Use of renewable polymers or materials

2. Reduce toxicity of plastics (across their life

cycle)

3. Design for recyclability

4. Use of recycled content

5. Eliminate use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC)

plastic

6. Reuse and recycle end-of-life vehicles

7. Reuse and recycle plastics in end-of-life

vehicles

These are the environmental topics that emerged in

our assessment of the life cycle of plastics as the

most important to creating sustainable plastics in

the auto sector.

The grading scale is a typical classroom grading

scale, with the highest grade an “A”, lowest grade an

“F”, and grades of “B”, “C”, and “D” in between.

Table 15. Grading Scheme Applied: Letter Grades and their Numerical Equivalents

Letter Grade Numerical Equivalent

A 3.8 - 4.0

A- 3.5 - 3.7

B+ 3.2 - 3.4

B 2.8 - 3.1

B- 2.5 - 2.7

C+ 2.2 - 2.4

C 1.8 - 2.1

C- 1.5 - 1.7

D+ 1.2 - 1.4

D 0.8 - 1.1

D- 0.5 - 0.7

F 0.0 - 0.4


The letter grades were converted into numbers (see

Table 15) to facilitate developing an overall sustain-

able plastics grade point average (GPA). The GPA for

each automaker is determined by adding the grades

for all the topics, then dividing them by the total

number of topics. The topics were not weighted, so

each topic is considered to be of equal importance.

Grading criteria were developed for each topic.

Initially generic grading criteria were developed for

both Measurable Goals & Objectives and Progress

Towards Sustainable Plastics. The generic grading

criteria were then modified to address specific

aspects of some topics (see Table 16 & 17).

For each of the 17 topics we compared the data

collected from the environmental reports and

corporate webpages to the grading criteria, then

assigned a letter grade to the topic. For quality

control, a second person graded each topic using the

same procedure — collecting data from the environ-

mental reports and webpages, then comparing the

data to the grading criteria, and assigning the

appropriate grade. The two graders then compared

grades, discussed any differences in grades, and

agreed upon the final grade. In general, the grades

awarded by the two graders were very similar.

Evaluating Measurable Goals and Objectives

We define a “measurable goal” as an endpoint

whose achievement, and progress towards achieve-

ment, can be measured quantitatively, has a set date

by which the endpoint will be reached, and specifies

a geographical level of achievement (i.e., at the

national, regional, or global level). In many in-

stances automakers only stated a general commit-

ment to the environmental topic but set no measur-

able goal. In our evaluation, a measurable goal is

considered more ideal than a general commitment.

Here is a hypothetical example of a measurable goal

for plastics:

■ Measurable Goal: Eliminate the use of PVC

plastic in vehicles sold globally by 2009.

Here is a hypothetical example of a general commit-

ment for plastics:

■ Commitment: Reduce the use of PVC.

“Measurable objectives” are interim steps to reach-

ing the final goal and are used to measure progress

toward achievement of a measurable goal. A hypo-

thetical set of measurable intermediate objectives:

41

Table 16. Generic Grading Criteria for Evaluating Measurable Goals & Objectives

Grade Generic Grading Criteria for Evaluating Measurable Goals & Objectives

A or 4.0 Measurable goal that meets a higher level of performance and specifies that this is a global goal

B or 3.0 Measurable goal that meets a high level of performance

C or 2.0 Any measurable goal related to sustainable plastics (and not required by the government)

D or 1.0 General commitment, i.e., statement in support of addressing the topic, or measurable goal thatcomplies with government regulation

F or 0.0 No statement on the topic


For all vehicles sold globally, eliminate the use of

PVC plastic in:

■ exterior trim by 2006

■ vehicle interiors by 2007

■ body sealing by 2008

■ all other applications by 2009

Under the generic grading criteria for Measurable

Goals & Objectives, automakers had to develop any

measurable goal that was not a government require-

ment to receive a “C” (see Table 16). An example of

government-required goals occurs under the topic

“Reuse and Recycle End-of-Life Vehicles”, where

Japan and the EU have recycling goals for end-of-life

vehicles. For grades above “C” automakers had to

meet higher levels of performance — including

global implementation and committing to achieve

goals that are beyond regulatory compliance (see

Appendix 3 for details).

Evaluating Reporting of Progress

Setting goals and making progress at the global level

was an important element for many of the topics.

The automakers are global corporations, selling

vehicles on all continents where people drive cars. If

they do not set global goals that represent the best

practices in the corporation in nations with leading

environmental laws, then a set of double standards

will emerge, where nations with weaker environmen-

tal laws are subjected to greater pollution. Thus, the

automakers were evaluated upon whether they

developed and made progress in implementing global

goals that set the same standards as the best national

or regional environmental standards.

The generic evaluation criteria for “Reporting of

Progress” emphasizes whether automakers provide:

■ quantitative data — numeric assessment of

progress, e.g., 10% of all plastic products by weight

contained post-consumer recycled content as of

2003 for all vehicles sold globally,

■ qualitative data — descriptions of activities, such

as changing from the use of PVC and polyurethane

for instrument panels to polypropylene, and

■ data at multiple geographical levels, especially at

the regional and global levels.

In our evaluation, quantitative data is considered

more ideal than qualitative data, and data at multiple

geographic levels is more ideal than data from a few

regional locations (see Table 17).

For the detailed list of topic specific grading criteria

see Appendix 3.

42

Table 17. Generic Grading Criteria for Evaluating Reporting of Progress

Grade Generic Grading Criteria for Evaluating Reports on Progress Towards Sustainable Plastics

A or 4.0 Provided quantitative data that was both related to a measurable goal and evaluated progress atdifferent geographical levels (including national, regional, and global levels)

B or 3.0 Provided quantitative data that was related to a measurable goal

C or 2.0 Provided some quantitative as well as qualitative data on progress

D or 1.0 Described activities related to the topic

F or 0.0 No statement on the topic


illustrated by the financial accounting scandals —

Enron and MCI to note two prominent examples —

of the last few years. Therefore we recognize that

corporate-provided data may be exaggerated in the

direction of placing a firm in more favorable light

than actual conditions merit.

Yet from the perspective that corporate environmen-

tal reports and webpage data represent the best

management thinks they have to share with con-

sumers, they represent a solid starting point for

evaluating the best practices in corporations. As a

general rule we did not supplement the data used for

evaluating corporate progress towards sustainable

plastics with data available either in the public

domain (for example, in journal or newspaper

articles) or through direct contact with the corpora-

tions. Of the 17 topics there was one exception,

whether the automakers had goals to eliminate PVC.

Since there was a wave of publicity in the late 1990s

and early 2000s of automakers deciding to eliminate

PVC in interiors, we included other data sources for

the goal of eliminating PVC. For most topics, the

corporate environmental reports proved to be a

better source of data than corporate webpages.

Data Sources

For each automaker, data relevant to the 17 topics

was extracted from corporate environmental (or

sustainability) reports and company web pages. We

chose corporate environmental reports and corpo-

rate web pages as the data sources for comparing the

automakers performance on sustainable plastics

because they provide a common platform for

evaluating the companies. They include the data a

company willingly offers to the public and its

customers about its environmental performance.

They are data sources any consumer with internet

access can access. And they provide an opportunity

to compare automakers based on the best environ-

mental practices the corporation decides to share

with the public.

However, corporate environmental reports and

corporate webpage data have their limitations. First,

the data are not comprehensive. Positive and

especially negative environmental activities within a

company may be absent from environmental reports

or corporate webpages. Second, these data sources

are typically not subject to external review. While

there is progress towards the use of external auditors

in evaluating environmental data and statements

made by corporations, environmental auditing is in

its infancy. The need to be cautious of corporate-

provided data, even externally audited data, is

43


— Clearly committed to settingmeasurable goals and meetingthem related to materialsselection— Clearly stated commitment toimplement EU ELV type activitiesglobally— Emphasized commitment toselect for renewable, recyclable,reusable materials / products andto recycle and reuse materials atthe end of the vehicle’s life

— Clearly stated commitmentto implement EU ELV goals inN. America (as well as Japan +Europe)— Emphasized commitmentto select for renewable,recyclable, reusable materials/ products and to recycle andreuse materials at the end ofthe vehicle’s life

— Affirmed corporatecommitment to ELV goalsin Japan +/or Europe— Emphasized commit-ment to select forrenewable, recyclable,reusable materials /products and to recycleand reuse materials at theend of the vehicle’s life

— Emphasizedcommitment to select forrenewable, recyclable,reusable materials /products and to recycleand reuse materials atthe end of the vehicle’slife

Failed to defineany DfE / DfRvision oncompanywebpage

— Supported proposed EUchemicals policy (i.e., REACH),including language requiringsubstitution with safer alterna-tives— Provided list of restricted(prohibited) and reportedchemicals/plastics— Included discussion of thefour EU ELV chemicals

— Provided list of restricted(prohibited) and reportedchemicals/plastics beyond EUELV Directive— Affirmed compliance withEU ELV Directive to reduce /eliminate: mercury, lead,cadmium, and hexavalentchromium— Included generic supportfor non-toxic products

— Affirmed compliancewith EU ELV Directive toreduce / eliminate:mercury, lead, cadmium,and hexavalent chromium— Included genericsupport for reducing toxicsin products

— Generic support forreducing toxics inproducts.

Failed to define aChemicals Policyprogram forproduct selectionon companywebpage

Included on corporate webpage:— Environmental Report— detailed data on topicscovered in this report card— all environmental reportsproduced by companies owned bythe corporation— global performance on topicscovered in this report–broken outby continent, performance byvehicle brand or vehicle class fortopics covered in this report

Included on corporatewebpage:— Environmental Reports forall companies / brands withdata of equivalent quality. E.g.,user does not need to go toOpel’s webpage to find Opel’sreport; rather it (or a link) isfound on GM’s webpage; and— detailed data on topicscovered in this report

Included on corporatewebpage:— Environmental Reportand— detailed data on topicscovered in this report card(e.g., complete list ofrestricted chemicals for thecompany)

— ncluded on corporatewebpage: EnvironmentalReport for corporateowner

Failed to provideany relevantinformation onweb

Set goal with interim objectives:≥50% of all virgin plasticproducts will be made fromrenewable plastics or materialsthat use no GMOs by 2025

Set goal with interimobjectives: ≥25% of all virginplastic products will be madefrom renewable plastics ormaterials by 2025

Set any goal for increaseduse of products made fromrenewable materials

Committed to use ofrenewable polymers/materials


Set goals and objectives forreducing toxicity of plastics,including inputs—all feedstocksused to produce the polymer aswell as additives—and outputsacross the life cycle of thematerial

Committed to selecting lesstoxic plastics based uponassessment of toxic inputs,including plastics additives,and outputs across the lifecycle of the plastics

— Committed to endinguse of EU ELV Directivechemicals—Hg, Cd, Pb,hexavalent Cr—inproducts, includingplastics

— Generic statement:committed to selectingless toxic plastics /materials


Topics

44

Design forEnvironment /Design forRecyclingVisions

Chemicals Policyfor Products

Web Access toData Relevant toSustainablePlastics

Use of RenewablePolymers /Materials

Reduce Toxicityof Plastics

MEASURABLE GOALS & OBJECTIVES

Appendix 3. Sustainable Plastics Grading Criteria

Sustainable Plastics in Vehicles — Report Card Topics and Criteria for Evaluating Performance of Automakers

Grades

A B C D F

OVERVIEW TOPICS


Design for RecyclablePlastics

— Set goal by 2025 to use onlyplastics that can be recycled intothe same product (exceptingplastics designed forcomposting); i.e., 100% closed-loop recycling — no downcyclingof recyclable plastics— Committed to using theseplastics in North America

Set goal by 2025 to eliminateplastics that cannot be at leastdowncycled (exceptingplastics designed forcomposting) after end use; i.e.,100% plastics capable ofbeing downcycled

Set any goal for increasinguse of recyclable plastics

Committed to increasinguse of recyclableplastics


Eliminate PVC Use

Use of RecycledPlastics Content

Sets goal by 2025 of ≥25% post-consumer recycled content inplastics, with interim objectives,to be implemented in N. Americaas well as Europe and Japan

Sets goal by 2025 of ≥15%post-consumer recycledcontent in plastics, withinterim objectives, to beimplemented in N. America aswell as Europe and Japan

Sets any goal for increasedrecycled content ofplastics

Commits to increase therecycled content ofmaterials generically


Sets goal to eliminate PVC by2009 with interim objectives

Sets goal to eliminate PVC by2015 with interim objectives

Sets goal to eliminatePVC, goal is listed onwebpage

Sets goal to eliminatePVC, but goal is notpresent on webpage

Had no publiclystated goal ofeliminating PVC

Reuse and RecycleEnd-of-Life Vehicles

— Set goal to achieve recycling/recovery goals globally by aspecified date— Set interim objectives formeeting goals— Excluded wastes disposed ofin “thermal recovery”

— Set goal to achieverecycling/recovery goals inEurope, Japan, and NorthAmerica— Set interim objectives formeeting goals— Excluded wastes disposedof in “thermal recovery”

— Set goal to achieverecycling/recovery goals inEurope and Japan— Set interim objectivesfor meeting goals— Excluded wastesdisposed of in “thermalrecovery”

— Set goal to achieverecycling/recovery goalsonly in countries withlegislation: i.e., Europe +Japan.— Excluded wastesdisposed of in “thermalrecovery” (i.e., waste toenergy incineration)from measures ofprogress

Failed to defineELV recyclinggoals in web-based materials

PROGRESS TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE PLASTICS

Reuse and RecyclePlastics in End-of-LifeVehicles

Establishes goal by 2025 of100% capture rate of plastics atend-of-life for reuse, recycling, orcomposting. Includes interimobjectives

Establishes goal by 2015 of75% capture rate of plastics atend-of-life for reuse, recycling,or composting. Includesinterim objectives

Establishes goal by 2015of 50% capture rate ofplastics at end-of-life forreuse, recycling, orcomposting. Includesinterim objectives

Establishes goal by2015 of 33% capturerate of plastics at end-of-life for reuse,recycling, orcomposting. Includesinterim objectives

Failed to establishgoals/objectivesfor plasticsrecycling onwebpage

Use of RenewablePolymers / Materials

Provided quantitative data as apercentage of progress towardsmeasurable goals and evaluatedprogress at different geographicallevels (including national,regional, and global levels)

Provided quantitative data as apercentage of progresstowards measurable goals

Provided some quantita-tive as well as qualitativedata on progress

Described activitiesrelated to the topic


Topics

45

Sustainable Plastics in Vehicles — Report Card Topics and Criteria for Evaluating Performance of Automakers (continued)

Grades

A B C D F

MEASURABLE GOALS & OBJECTIVES (continued)




Reported on progresstowards implementing theEU ELV directive (rechemicals) as they relateto plastics



— Reported quantitatively as wellas qualitatively on status foreliminating less recyclableplastics at the global level— Specified which plastics arepreferable for recycling— Provided quantitative data as apercentage of progress towardsmeasurable goals

— Reported quantitatively aswell as qualitatively on statusfor eliminating less recyclableplastics within any region— Specified which plasticsare preferable for recycling— Provided quantitative dataas a percentage of progresstowards measurable goals

Provided examples ofwhere the company hasswitched to morerecyclable plastics

Specified which plasticsare preferable due totheir recyclability










A few (1-3) PVCreduction initiatives arenoted


Provided quantitative data as apercentage of progress towardsmeasurable goals and evaluatedprogress at different geographicallevels (including national,regional, and global levels), dataexcluded energy recovered fromincineration

Provided quantitative data as apercentage of progresstowards measurable goals,data excluded energyrecovered from incineration

Provided some quantita-tive as well as qualitativedata on progress, dataexcluded energy recoveredfrom incineration


Failed to addressthe topic oncompanywebpage

Quantifies globally (w/reportingby continent) plastics end-of-lifemanagement, assesses progressrelated to interim goals as apercentage of progress towardsmeasurable goals, and includesdetailed qualitative evaluation ofprogress to date

Quantifies plastics end-of-lifemanagement in relation togoals + objectives, includingdata as a percentage ofprogress towards measurablegoals and activities indeveloped countries

Quantifies plastics end-of-life management inrelation to goals +objectives

Describes activitiesrelated to plastics end-of-life management

Failed to note anyefforts at plasticsrecycling onwebpage

Topics

46

Reduce Toxicity ofPlastics

Design forRecyclable Plastics

Use of RecycledPlastics Content

Eliminate PVC Use

Reuse and RecyclePlastics in End-of-Life Vehicles

Reuse and RecycleEnd-of-Life Vehicles

Sustainable Plastics in Vehicles — Report Card Topics and Criteria for Evaluating Performance of Automakers (continued)

Grades

A B C D F

PROGRESS TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE PLASTICS (continued)


Appendix 4: Correspondence with Automakers

47


48


49


117 North Division • Ann Arbor, MI 48104 • 734.761.3186 (phone) • 734.663.2414 (fax)

[email protected] • www.ecocenter.org

a report card on the six leading automakers · [email protected] • clean production action p. o....

Documents