Tinplate Industry Demands New Cost System For Disposal

Industry and trade are obliged to register the quantities of sales packaging they place on the market with a dual system according to material type and to pay corresponding participation fees for disposal. According to Thyssenkrupp Rasselstein, these participation fees have become "drastically skewed": Over the years, the prices have taken less and less account of material-specific differences and have become more and more similar. Manufacturers, i.e. the distributors of tinplate packaging filled with goods such as soup or paint cans, are directly disadvantaged by this. However, packaging producers or tinplate manufacturers such as Thyssenkrupp Rasselstein are also indirectly affected.

Thyssenkrupp bases this on a report by the economic and political consultancy firms Prognos and INFA, which was commissioned by the German Metal Packaging Association (VMV). The study concludes that prices for all other packaging materials have fallen steadily since 2003. The Prognos/ INFA study concludes that tinplate causes significantly lower costs in relation to its volume share than the other material fractions in the yellow bag and the yellow or recyclables garbage can (LVP fraction). The report states in detail that tinplate makes up around 10 percent of the contents of the yellow garbage can collection and plastics 50 percent. Tinplate packaging accounts for 7 percent of the costs for collection and transportation, the plastic fraction for 65 percent – so the ratio of quantity to costs is roughly right. When it comes to sorting costs, however, it becomes clear that tinplate packaging only accounts for 4 percent, while 81 percent of the costs are incurred for sorting out the plastics.

According to the Prognos/INFA report, these cost effects are paid for by the tinplate fraction. The conclusion of the market participants is that over the years in the dual system, millions have been cross-subsidized by plastic packaging. Ultimately, this is a relevant competitive disadvantage for the steel industry. The system disproportionately increases the cost of recycling-friendly white plastic packaging.

In order to restore fair competition, non-material recycling costs should no longer be added to the participation fees for tinplate packaging in particular. According to the VMV, the fees for tinplate would be reduced by up to 75 percent if they were calculated according to the polluter-pays principle.

The current European discussion on a forward-looking Packaging Ordinance (PPWR) also provides for a cost distribution for collection, sorting and recycling based on the polluter-pays principle. "We are calling for an unbureaucratic solution that is introduced once and clearly establishes equal opportunities. The fact that plastic packaging, of all things, is currently benefiting from competition sets the wrong ecological incentives", says Mario van Hall, Head of Sustainability and Digitalization at thyssenkrupp Rasselstein GmbH. Material-based pricing would not be a cost burden for consumers. Tinplate cans would receive a fair price when purchased, says van Hall. "According to expert calculations, this is 3 to 5 cents below the current price. This is noticeable when you sell 60 million cans of soup a year."

Christoph Freitag, Managing Director of BOGK (Bundesverband der obst-, gemüse- und kartoffelverarbeitenden Industrie e. V.), supports the demands: "The distributors of vegetables, fruit or potatoes must also look at the price when purchasing packaging materials. We were very annoyed when the Prognos report revealed the unfair pricing of cans on the market. We urgently need to create a fair competitive situation in this matter", says Freitag.

Opinions of the Disposal Companies

FACHPACK360° also asked waste disposal companies for their opinions. Veolia Umweltservice GmbH explained: "As the minimum standard for measuring recyclability indisputably proves, metal packaging has above-average recyclability. Therefore, the problem does not lie in the mixed calculation for the collection and sorting of lightweight packaging, but rather in the insufficient steering effect of §21 VerpackG. Due to system-inherent problems in the design of Section 21 VerpackG, the dual systems have limited scope to set significant incentives for recyclable packaging." The federal government is already aware of this problem. A revision of Section 21 VerpackG is being sought.

"In order to achieve a greater steering effect, the dual systems have proactively developed a draft model organized under private law, which has already been taken note of by the current government and will be included in the considerations for model development."

When asked how fair the system is, Prezero replies: "The dual systems are free to set their own prices. In competition, the price is formed between supply and demand. In addition to the pure raw material revenues, the collection and sorting of lightweight packaging in particular have an influence on the price. All fractions in the yellow bin/yellow bag have to go through these steps, including the tinplate fraction." The waste management company, which is part of the Schwarz Group, adds: "There is a certain amount of understanding for the criticism, but all dual systems have to pay for logistics and general expenses for the system in addition to the cost factors mentioned. The fact that the license price is now formed in the market in this way is a result of supply and demand and not a one-sided disadvantage for the tinplate group."

Der Grüne Punkt stated that it did not wish to comment on the inquiry about pricing "for reasons of competition law".