we
:13
‘ 2

      

  

 
      

11‘
‘ l
E R , 1Q .- .
t if: z‘ ' 3:1 ~
3 V i b‘igé'éE-‘ftk 22 ”fl"; _ 1;. _
139‘; 5 a. 1‘. §§I€§é\:¥¥hp ‘ ‘ I 7 f ,i ‘ 1&3??? 5;; E‘ ‘1: 3“: 2*? *7 13%
ms; t“ , . ' :’ '. H -- ‘ :‘;:.:“‘%~ .53»
5‘; fig: “fig: 32423;" ~. .m..$59,512:;.:i§i‘:§§i:§‘:‘§‘i§§§k§:"g:5 1" ‘x‘f‘ ,§‘*%I::fig.-z.‘;
, - m. 1 . 4+1: ,* zz-‘iv4 as: ' ' '.’=‘;.,‘-'"‘
- ~ ‘: ‘3‘“:‘5‘1‘. :::.‘:‘%‘::=‘:* i::“:*: “%:::::“%§:::‘: 2‘ ‘ * :5‘.:‘:::::::::
x 55.5,“: .5 f ::::‘::‘.:§::§‘.2 :‘%1E§‘E::§i‘:i:ii“‘§“‘“"‘ .=:-:.:§ ‘2
- H“ ‘- 5, .. ;. 21mm“: “‘*‘§““~“:‘:‘.i§%=‘ H15: '
- _ ‘ 2: ‘ 35%;:tag-5:221.‘e25§§§“%‘%‘%x§i:s‘ii“:§§i§‘fi, xig-‘Efiz'fififi‘gt 'x‘i’ {$533} “1::
:_ ' y’:v‘ a 1i“ ‘1‘}.‘;‘ v 93‘, “,1. ~ E zé-«i‘ 0:15.31. 2- i; ‘ 2 h ,v
. m :-::‘§‘ ‘15:: 'i:.;==:::::‘:x3% :s‘i‘é‘: “2‘ 5““ “v": '2?“ $2? :2: 2:: . !: fig“:
‘:~,- ': 1.: *x‘; Egg gig-3:: ‘25:: 13%;: aghézg $312515“ “32%": “ x%{""ts‘§§3~““§““‘%‘“i%§‘““i““%:‘v:»:
:: s: a :::,.::n:::.:‘::: {:11} ‘:'"*‘:‘ :1‘""-:“:: *‘ ‘2 “‘w““~“k’s§‘“‘9“
\ ‘5 " gaff: : . {‘r fififiifi‘ " "as. "~ at 1:; {iv ‘ i ‘7; y", 4 ~1.;:‘1n%:r1vm§:§v'zfitép'fivfiic
1; . E. vtxlvu, .t;:+‘-1 i . ' z ‘4‘ -:§~-:e.:§,!+
= ” flag“ “1‘ : 3:: ‘fi‘é‘: :: 3%“: - £‘%‘:“§i§‘i¥§‘i::t§5i:~ ~
-, _ .1 ‘ . ‘ § §. :. z .'r' 37,"!-“ p ‘5! x..‘1+5:
2 63 4‘ ‘fi‘: :" .' “:5 13:23:: ‘i‘t‘:::‘ ‘1‘" ‘2“ :s:'=§§‘i:‘ ~ “
1 - “'gzvgz‘gg'gzégég §§‘§“§‘ =2
_ ' .pgi.1~:‘:

% ‘3 5:» .‘é‘:
- : gfi'. ‘51:}. :9: ‘5
a: 2?: ‘5»
. E:

‘.
'b
i

:95! $3! 7:
g ' 1% s. ;
:‘giigydi ii; a,
I ’ ' .

          

  
 
   
 
 
  
 

    

         

    
   
          
  

-' ‘ :53“: ‘2‘
~“::“‘:§‘

E.
L
:

   

1”
M
m»
ww I ‘
. .

 
  
           
    

 
 
   

     
   
  
  
  
    
   
   

   
 

 
 

v4“.

‘5

r ‘ §:,‘li}‘§$§§ 1: ’ e:
. : . t , 'i - 2i -
‘3‘fi‘h ;.. ‘1‘“: «*‘3 ‘5‘ z
r ' g i ‘ia L $53, . .
1 «E

3:. ‘ assays“: “‘

:3? iaé‘:=“:§::“‘::

‘ I‘d-‘53 3%? {t 11%

1‘ . g; .3: agafié‘ggig:
‘— 1 _. ti" ‘9 {111% I;

z ‘ 52%; ggé’flék“

‘

‘11 {’5 w 3%.“,- ' 1 2‘
.' * ' “ii“: ’ ‘
g 1; - l . elk « 135::
‘5‘"; ‘ - 63:“:
5 f :1. 7132.1 {15 ’5. -
«2% 551%?" “‘2‘.“ ‘5‘
v #4:. -."¥t§}~ .

1,-‘g‘i‘1" :‘1 «H. a: -

, «has. 13.: . a 4,5.

- fiifififi 13,.“ ‘1‘ tag
*3.“

”fl
‘ ’

.4
1
..,.

w
9.
fl“

  
  
      
   

-. 'v.
was

mm-
vac-1
.w:
5
W4
.

M
mu
9"
.~m,
34.1w
,0»! (M
M

. NW»,
WW”
Thu-JIM
A»: , ,
NI»-
J‘ga W
7“.
. if"
val-«ha!
w. .
‘H ”and
lv‘
.,

w” '
.44 - '

5’};
“W. m
”N
5"“
m4“
.' 3’39
5%:
WM
- M

w 1.:
M.
: . w.
I. ‘ uh“"d
”~31 mm, ,
[nun-KIM we ,
.72me flit?
W W v

 

WW
2‘:

x I
II. :
.lth

w...»

       
  
  

_ .
W
... ...
.ng,
#99:" ‘
”flow

pklv
a
hug

   
   
   

a
.7
«4-
,0.va
. Hyman
.ulr
.1 a”
W»

I".
.1

    
  
 
  

   
  
        

 
 

  
 
  
   

‘ m .: ' - A,
"_,....u ._ '

  
        
  

M
.u »
J .’ _ {.dv
Mu.“ 55.35- I.
.4 j§5_:.#fi 44-1-4 o-
W 5:?“ w
ylmed v P
. Ml
»,. w ’
‘ l
4
M”: "53‘
‘m

          
  
  
 
    
    
 
  
  

   
 
 
 
 

 

      
    

         
    
   
 

     
    

   
 
 

    
  
    

 

 
  

   

i‘:
. 3:?“33
:2», -
A. :55: , . .
1‘ >9 , a .'
..::=,§:::::~* 3‘: :3: . , ,
2 1.13 “53 ' - ‘ 3? ~ ’5. ”.1- ‘;1’
-~ 3*; 3;?“ ““3 ~— ' x * tzzf‘gfims‘
11%" 27‘ $3.7.) ’ £5: .- .éd‘f’tfififii
* 12‘2““ " 3“" . ~
11“}: 3‘3 0‘1 .“ i" ‘3‘“ 1",.
‘1‘“:‘" ‘- :1: “M“: ‘
1:31:11 ‘ Ezhéfié figfilfi ~. 3 E35 ‘fié‘ifii‘ ‘31:“; L iii?) E11 ‘1 }.
A r: ..‘ . 5 1 fig“ ' E i i psi, t‘ififizfiffi‘sgflg‘ifé.‘Ziz‘gflfifi, m
‘ “ ‘2‘: x ‘ii’ié‘iiéiéi‘tm‘i‘fi‘ ‘W
» v ? {2‘2vzzé‘sz‘egméé‘v *
V ‘ ‘ h": ‘3 "3' b‘h‘y
_ ‘3 {i g

filt- : I ,

t. :1in ‘1 ,
h. ’31:“ 1323.2“:
1': ’::s:*‘:e:,§i‘“.
5 ‘§ ‘t

:‘s v“
"a 3“ ‘ .“
‘i 5“ 1* .

M

‘3'.
,...

  

  

was!»
“.44
a...
-W
W
,.
ald‘Jd‘
N
—-I 1/
‘ l 01-!
r 4 J'HJ
*ixv‘w:
,
“Em '

I,» V4IV"‘
1')"
W

2?:
4“» V
'1: ‘ ,
”13»:
w. . N

,
It”.
7:: 1

T 4M:-
.1,
. UL, .
.y:
N
W

«.14-
-.....-~

v~

A.
w .
43¢»!
w
.r
_—~. +22 :
lit-“J9
N

"N
1w
,uu

    

 

THESTS

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

AN ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PROBLEMS
FACING THE GLASS CONTAINER INDUSTRY TO DETERMINE
THE INDUSTRY'S FUTURE GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES

presented by

MARK S. BACHELOR

has been accepted towards fulfillment

Date NOV. 8, 1983

0-7 639

of the requirements for

PAC KAG I NG

degree 111

Michael L. Richmond, Ph.D.

Major professor

 

MSUis an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

LEWW‘WV f

 
 

ram 215::- .
“I e." m; ‘W‘EEQ ‘
Uané‘R’sfigy /‘

 

 

IVIESI.) RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
LIBRARJES remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wilI

 

 

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below;

00 or cmcu r;

 

 

 

 

AN ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PROBLEMS FACING THE
GLASS CONTAINER INDUSTRY TO DETERMINE
THE INDUSTRY’S FUTURE GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES

BY

Mark Stuart Bachelor

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Packaging

1983

 

57— #52

ABSTRACT
AN ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PROBLEMS FACING THE
GLASS CONTAINER INDUSTRY TO DETERMINE
THE INDUSTRY’S FUTURE GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES
By
Mark Stuart Bachelor

This study was primarily undertaken as a result of major problems
the glass container industry has faced in recent years. These problems
include increased competition from plastic containers and the enactment
of mandatory deposit legislations in various states resulting in reduced
demand for new, single-service glass containers, and increased excess
production capacity.

With the information derived from two surveys (consumer and
industry), as well as current available literature, the glass container
industry should experience two to three percent annual growth during the
next five years. This rate will be dependent, however, on favorable
trends in the United States economy and the industry’s own ability to

continue productivity improvements and new container innovations.

 

 

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Gene and Joyce
Bachelor, and to my sister, Lynn Adams. Without their support,
love, and encouragement this thesis would not have been possible.

I would also like to give special recognition to Dr. Michael
Richmond, whose patience, guidance, and positive encouragement

were instrumental in the completion of this thesis.

ii

 

 

: T ' 7 ' ’ ’ ’ u T ' ' .. .._..__

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to express his sincere appreciation and gratitude
to the following individuals:

Dr.

Dr.

Bruce Harte, School of Packaging, Michigan State University,
for serving as a committee member.

Julian Lee, School of Packaging, Michigan State University,
for his technical assistance in tabulating the results of the
consumer survey.

Rick Morrow, Owens-Illinois, Toledo, Ohio, for his willingness
to share information and insights.

Michael Richmond, School of Packaging, Michigan State University,
for his advice and guidance as major professor.

Mary Zehner, Agriculture Economics, Michigan State University,
for serving as a committee member and for special assistance in
developing the consumer and industry surveys.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

I.

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

INTRODUCTION

HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLASS CONTAINER INDUSTRY

Manufacturing Process

Raw Material Availability

The Glass Industry

Class Container Shipments to Present
The Glass Container Industry

Foreign Trade

CURRENT STATUS
Mandatory Deposit Legislation
Competition from Metal and Plastic Containers

Energy Requirements and Environmental Impacts of Glass,

Metals, and Plastic Containers
Recycle, Reuse and Energy Recovery

CONSUMER SURVEY ON BEVERAGE CONTAINERS
Materials and Methods
Results and Discussion
Soft Drink Container Purchases
Beer Container Purchases
Mandatory Deposit Legislation
Survey Conclusions
Survey Considerations

FUTURE TRENDS
Diversification
Cost Reduction
Changing Demographics
Competition
Deposit Legislation
Interviewing Glass Container Industry Executives
Future Growth Opportunities

SUMMARY

iv

Page
vi

ix

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

APPENDIX A - CONSUMER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX B - ADDITIONAL CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS

APPENDIX C - QUESTIONNAIRE FORMAT USED FOR INTERVIEWING
- INDUSTRY EXECUTIVES

REFERENCES

65

73

83

 

 

TABLE

LIST OF TABLES

RESINS CONSUMED IN BOTTLE SHIPMENTS (MILLIONS OF POUNDS)
PLASTIC CONTAINER SHIPMENTS (MILLIONS OF UNITS)
LIFE CYCLE ENERGY ANALYSIS OF BEVERAGE CONTAINERS: BEER

LIFE CYCLE ENERGY ANALYSIS OF BEVERAGE CONTAINERS:
SOFT DRINKS

LIFE CYCLE ENERGY ANALYSIS OF BEVERAGE CONTAINERS BY
VOLUME: SOFT DRINKS

ENERGY ANALYSIS OF REFILLABLE BEVERAGE CONTAINERS:
GLASS BOTTLES (MILLION BTU/1,000 GALLONS BEVERAGE)

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS: NON-REFILLABLE 32-0UNCE GLASS AND
l-LITER PET SOFT DRINK CONTAINER SYSTEMS (Based on
1,000 Gallons of Soft Drink Delivered)

TRIP RATE EQUIVALENT FOR REFILLABLE GLASS BOTTLE COMPARED
TO l-LITER NON-REFILLABLE PLASTIC SOFT DRINK BOTTLE

TYPE or CONTAINER RESPONDENTS USUALLY BUY FOR sorr DRINK
BEVERAGES (N = 191)

FACTORS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT WHEN CHOOSING A TYPE OF
SOFT DRINK CONTAINER

FACTORS CONSIDERED MOST AND 2ND MOST IMPORTANT WHEN
CHOOSING A SOFT DRINK CONTAINER

RESPONDENTS INDICATE THE IMPORTANCE OF TASTE OF SOFT
DRINKS IN CONTAINERS BY AGE (N = 191)

TYPE OF CONTAINER RESPONDENTS USUALLY PURCHASE FOR BEER
(N = 125)

TYPE OF BEER CONTAINER RESPONDENTS USUALLY PURCHASED
BY AGE (N = 125)

FACTORS CONSIDERED MOST AND 2ND MOST IMPORTANT WHEN
CHOOSING A BEER CONTAINER

vi

Page
22
22

26

27

27

28

29

30

37

38

39

39

4O

41

42

 

TABLE

16

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

29

30

31

LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)

RESPONDENTS INDICATE IMPORTANCE OF EASE OF HANDLING
AND RETURN OF BEER CONTAINERS BY AGE (N = 125)

IMPORTANCE OF WEIGHT OF BEER CONTAINERS BY AGE (N = 125)

TYPE OF CONTAINER RESPONDENTS USUALLY PURCHASE FOR
BEER BY INCOME (N = 115)

RESPONDENTS INDICATION WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD PURCHASE
BEER IN A PLASTIC BOTTLE (N = 125)

ISSUE THAT RESPONDENTS DISLIKE MOST CONCERNING THE
BOTTLE BILL IN MICHIGAN (N = 130)

RESPONDENTS BY EDUCATION LEVEL EXPRESS OPINIONS TOWARD
PAYING RESPONDENTS BY AGE EXPRESS OPINIONS TOWARD ISSUES
CONCERNING BOTTLE BILL IN MICHIGAN (N = 200)

HIGHER PRICES AS A RESULT OF THE BOTTLE BILL (N = 199)

HOW THE BOTTLE BILL HAS AFFECTED RESPONDENTS' BEVERAGE
BUYING HABITS

HOW BOTTLE BILL HAS AFFECTED BEVERAGE BUYING HABITS OF
RESPONDENTS BY EDUCATION

RESPONDENTS INDICATE WHETHER THEY ARE PLEASED WITH
RESULTS OF THE BOTTLE BILL (N = 200)

RESPONDENTS INDICATE WHETHER THEY WOULD VOTE FOR THE
BOTTLE BILL TODAY (N = 200)

INDUSTRY EXECUTIVES INDICATE PROBLEMS THAT WILL
INFLUENCE GLASS CONTAINER’S FUTURE (N = 4)

NUMBER OF TIMES DURING PAST TWO MONTHS RESPONDENTS
BOUGHT SOFT DRINKS IN 2-LITER PLASTIC BOTTLES (N = 190)

FACTORS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT WHEN CHOOSING A TYPE OF BEER
CONTAINER (N = 125)

RESPONDENTS EXPRESS OPINIONS TOWARD STATEMENTS
CONCERNING GLASS CONTAINERS (N = 200)

RESPONDENTS INDICATE WHETHER THEIR BUYING 0F BEVERAGES
DURING THE PAST YEAR HAS CHANGED (N = 199)

Page

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

51

59

73

73

74

 

 

 

TABLE

32

33

34

35

36

37

LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)

RESPONDENTS EXPRESS OPINIONS TOWARD ISSUES CONCERNING
THE BOTTLE BILL IN MICHIGAN (N = 200)

RESPONDENTS BY AGE INDICATE HOW BOTTLE BILL HAS
AFFECTED LARGE SIZE CONTAINER PURCHASE (N = 199)

RESPONDENTS INDICATE WHICH CONTAINER TYPE THEY FEEL IS
EASIEST TO RECYCLE (N = 200)

DISTRIBUTION OF RESONDENTS’ AGE BRACKETS (N = 200)
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS’ INCOME LEVELS (N = 200)

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS’ EDUCATION LEVELS (N = 200)

viii

Page

75

75

76
76
77

77

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Fig. l. A Functional Diagram of Parison & Bottle Forming
Cycle by Press & Blow Process 6

Fig. 2. Domestic Glass Container Shipments (In Millions of Gross) 11

ix

 

 

I. INTRODUCTION

This study was conducted to determine the current status of the
glass container industry in order to predict where the industry will be
heading during the next five years. The project was undertaken
primarily as a result of major problems the glass beverage container
industry has faced in recent years. These problems have caused
extensive changes within the industry and forced marginal producers out
of business. Two main problems are:

l. The increased competition from plastic containers which
have captured the large size soft drink market with the 2-
liter plastic bottle. Other plastic bottles are also making
serious inroads into smaller size beverage container
markets.

2. Mandatory deposit laws on beverage containers in nine
states have resulted in reduced demand for new, single-
service glass containers.

As a result of this drop in new glass container demand, producers
have been faced with costly excess production capacity. Most
manufacturers have also experienced increased operating costs,
particularly in energy and labor, forcing them to layoff workers and
shut down inefficient production facilities. In order to offset losses
in their glass container divisions, many companies have diversified into

other areas with higher profit margins and future growth potentials.

In this study we analyzed how the glass container industry
descended into its current position by discussing the history and
general nature of the industry, which has made it particularly
vulnerable to changes in technology and legislation.

Besides current industry literature we also relied on two surveys
for sources of information. One survey consisted of interviews with
four marketing executives from major glass container manufacturers. The
other was a telephone survey of 200 consumers in the Greater Lansing
area. This survey was conducted to determine consumer attitudes toward
beverage containers and mandatory deposit legislation in Michigan.

With the information obtained from these surveys and current
literature, clarification of current problems facing the glass container
industry is discussed in detail. To predict future growth
opportunities, various trends within the glass container industry are
examined. These include product line diversification, increased
recycling efforts, futher cost reductions, and continued new product
innovations to meet the needs of a changing market.

Glass has been very important in the field of packaging for many
years and now, because of numerous changes in attitudes, technologies,
and economics, it is fighting for survival in a low growth and fiercely

competitive environment.

 

 

II. HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
GLASS CONTAINER INDUSTRY

Glass is one of the oldest materials known to mankind. It is
believed the Egyptians were using glass as early as 3,000 B.C. Pliney
wrote of sailors in the first century using blocks of soda from their
cargo to make a fire on the beach and discovered the soda fused with
sand to form glass (19). Most of today's glass is essentially that of
Pliney’s tale. Glass is still primarily made of silica, the major
component of all sand, which is fused together with other ingredients
such as soda and lime. The soda quickens the melting of the silica and
the lime hardens the finished product.

The first actual glass manufacturing industry in the United States
was established in James Towne, Virginia, during the first year of the
settlement’s existence in 1608. More than a hundred years passed before
our first really successful glass industry was established. It was
founded by German-born Caspar Wistar in Salem County, New Jersey, in
1739. Initially they turned out only a small amount of bottles, but
later the workmen were producing many types of containers including
bowls, dishes, drinking glasses, and preserve jars.

The national census of 1810 listed only twenty-two glass houses in
the United States. At this time England was taking measures to protect
her own industry from this new competition by passing laws preventing
glassworkers from leaving the country. Around 1820, the American glass
industry finally began to develop. After the War of 1812, England’s

glassworkers were now allowed to leave for America. This, along with

 

 

 

new tariffs set up to protect America's glass industry, led the way for
glass production on a new and much larger scale (9).

In 1903, Michael J. Owens introduced a machine that would
revolutionize the glass container industry. He had invented an
automatic bottling machine. Up until that time a worker could produce
only eighteen dozen bottles a day working twelve to fourteen hours.
With this new machine delivering a swift and endless supply of bottles,
an almost unbelievable production rate of one million bottles per week
was soon reached. The specification measurements of the bottles
produced could be so identical to each other that automatic capping and
sealing machines were now also possible. Glass bottles began to provide
safe, sanitary, inexpensive, and reliable containers for medicines,
foods, beverages and many other items that started to appear on store
shelves (9).

Since the turn of the century, the glass container industry has
emerged as an employer of thousands of workers nationwide who, with the
aid of modern technology, currently produce billions of containers in

the United States each year.

Manufacturing Process

 

Glass is defined as a transparent, hard, brittle substance that is
an inorganic product of fusion, cooled to a rigid condition without
crystallizing (12). It is produced by mixing sand, soda ash, limestone,
and cullet (broken glass) together and then feeding the mixture into a
large (60 feet long by 40 feet wide) furnace. This furnace is lined
with firebrick and is located high above the bottlemaking machines.

From the furnace the glass then flows through a narrow opening or

 

"throat" below the surface. The throat allows the glass to flow into a
smaller chamber which holds back impurities usually floating on the
surface. The molten glass then flows into a "feeder" that allows the
glass to stream out of the furnace tank where it is then cut into "gobs"
by shears (20).

These molten gobs flow down a chute into a blank mold where they
are forced by blown air into the neck ring at the bottom of the mold,
forming the bottle's finish (Figure 1). At this point, the bottle is
also blown into its general shape and is now called a parison. The
blank mold then opens and the parison is inverted and transferred to a
second mold (called a blow mold) where it is reheated, elongated, and
blown into the final shape of the bottle. After the blow mold opens,
takeout jaws carry the bottle to a conveyor that transports it to the
annealing lehr. With new, high-speed bottlemaking machines it is
currently possible to blow four parisons into bottles at one time
(called a quadruple-gob bottle making machine).

Glass jars are manufactured in basically the same fashion as
bottles. The main difference is that the glass is pressed into the
blank mold instead of blown, as in the case of a bottle where a
pronounced shoulder is required. The container must be run through an
annealing lehr where the temperature is raised to 1,0000F and then held
for abOut fifteen minutes. The temperature is gradually lowered
allowing the containers to cool slowly in order to prevent internal
stresses, that make glass susceptible to breakage, from building up.
Strains in glass, known as cords, if not relieved can produce a weak
container that could suddenly break, causing product loss and possible

injury. After the container has been produced, coatings are then

fl\\\ ,7. .5093. Wm:

.3 1.... . .So 253.
23:. £3.

.2qu 8.8:
92 to
SEES.

m

 

 

 

 

 

.zamdngzou

OHzO Pawn—m o=<
nun/dam“ 22F
mukjmauo fiu>o
may... H855.
.3 9.5: mxS.

0

So: :3.

85 S355
.625: £qu
.82: can: 22
~86 8.5: so:

mflv

 

 

 

 

.ZOmuzdm 50w
0... =2th nz<
EL><U 22.43
thH mmfiu
no qummmxm

Au m

9H ‘wHL

.Nwoa .mHocwHHHlmcmBO

m 3.29.3” ma
. 92

 

.30: 30.3
OH 989.5,.“
93:. .zo
x~< 30.;
Pz< 2:09
mas—Scum

   

 

..S amaze: 92

3
\L'
11

:3 ,c awash
, x O

 

 

 

 

4. d 95:5. ca
$33.... 825:

.296 5.5% e:

238 memes:

2.........:... m . .. to 3:53

 

2035;

Rama: k K
BB

wonHHmOm UZMQOA
zH mania—C. P...<
xuozaqm .moJoz
v—zjm aumoqu oqu
mam—E5... :uaofifi.
:5:un moo

Au.—

. mgu mmmdh
8. UZuhihm

 

332: 393 a 33: Z LU: ”CZ—Ego“ item a

232.5. 3 52559

22232.: <

"mopsom

 

 

fin-l

 

 

applied to increase the strength and scratch resistance of the surface
as well as to provide a surface more adhering to labeling. Various hot
and cold end coatings are frequently used. These include tin chloride,
titanium, silicone, and polyethylene. By coating glass containers,
strength can be increased as much as three times that of uncoated glass

(12).

Raw Material Availability

 

As previously mentioned, the main raw materials used in the
manufacture of glass are sand or silica, soda ash (Na2C03), and
limestone (CaCO3). Silica is the primary ingredient normally comprising
about 75% of the composition. The soda ash makes up about 15% of the
mixture and represents the greatest cost. Limestone accounts for the
majority of the remaining 10% of the mixture. Cullet is commonly added
to hasten the melting and make the glass more workable. It also reduces
the cost by' accounting for 20 t1) 40 percent of the total inixture.
Cullet primarily replaces portions of the silica and soda ash. Pure
silica makes excellent glass but, unfortunately, has a very high melting
point (3,1330F) that is extremely costly to obtain (20). The soda ash
is converted to sodium oxide which, when added to the mixture, reduces
this melting point nearly in half. Carbon dioxide is given off and
helps to promote the mixing process. Limestone is added to make the
glass insoluble, while providing hardness and chemical durability.
Trace amounts of other materials are frequently added, including lead
and aluminum, to improve glass properties. The purpose of lead is to
improve clarity, but it also tends to soften the glass. Alumina is

often used to increase the durability and hardness of the glass (12).

 

 

 

In.

 

The three raw materials used in the production of glass are
plentiful, easy to obtain, and relatively low in cost. The only area of
possible concern might be in the acquisition of soda ash. Limestone and
sand are readily available, although not always as close to the plants
as the manufacturers would like. Soda ash, on the other hand, is
primarily mined in Wyoming with 70% of its markets being east of the
Mississippi River (8). The estimated 30 million tons of soda ash
reserves could easily supply the world's demand for the foreseeable
future. However, bad weather, freight costs, and possible mining or
rail labor strikes could provide barriers to the accessibility of the
material (11).

Rail transportation plays a major role in the distribution of soda
ash. As shipments travel east, severe weather can prevent both rail and
trucks from making deliveries or returning for reloading. The
possibility of a serious shortage is increased because many glass
container manufacturers operate with limited raw material storage
facilities, permitting only a few days supply. The glass container
industry must, therefore, rely heavily on its raw material suppliers.
These suppliers invest heavily in equipment and transporting facilities
in order to provide reliable delivery service to the manufacturers.
Computerized order processing and shipping equipment, as well as
automated bulk-handling facilities, are primary examples. They also
purchase entire rail car fleets and then stockpile the loaded cars in
eastern locations so they can be drawn on in case of emergencies (8).

As long as glass container producers continue to work closely with
their raw material suppliers, no major supply interruptions should be

experienced in the foreseeable future. Cost containment on raw

 

 

:1

 

 

materials should continue, with no significant shortages or price

increases anticipated (13).

The Glass Industry

 

The glass industry in the United States is divided into three main
areas:

1. Glass containers, which includes beverage, food, medicine,
cosmetics, toiletries, and cleanser bottles and jars.

2. Flat glass, which includes sheet or window glass, plate,
laminated, and safety glass.

3. Pressed and blown glass, which includes lighting and
electronic glass, kitchen, table, as well as art and novelty
glass (10).

Glass containers account for the largest segment of the industry,
more than doubling the other two segments combined in dollar value of
shipments during 1982. In looking at glass containers specifically,
beverage containers (beer, soft drink, wine, and liquor bottles)
accounted for nearly two-thirds of all shipments, followed 1»! food
containers (27%), with all types of containers combining for only 8
percent of total glass container shipments. The total value of glass
container shipments in 1982 was over 5 billion dollars. Beer containers
represented the largest glass container market, accounting for nearly 2
billion dollars of this total. Soft drink beverage containers
represented over 1 billion dollars of glass container shipments.
Considering the tremendous amounts of money represented by beer and soft

drink glass container markets, it is not surprising that these markets

 

materials should continue, with no significant shortages or price

increases anticipated (13).

The Glass Industry

The glass industry in the United States is divided into three main
areas:

1. Glass containers, which includes beverage, food, medicine,
cosmetics, toiletries, and cleanser bottles and jars.

2. Flat glass, which includes sheet or window glass, plate,
laminated, and safety glass.

3. Pressed and blown glass, which includes lighting and
electronic glass, kitchen, table, as well as art and novelty
glass (10).

Glass containers account for the largest segment of the industry,
more than doubling the other two segments combined in dollar value of
shipments during 1982. In looking at glass containers specifically,
beverage containers (beer, soft drink, wine, and liquor bottles)
accounted for nearly two-thirds of all shipments, followed by food
containers (27%), with all types of containers combining for only 8
percent of total glass container shipments. The total value of glass
container shipments in 1982 was over 5 billion dollars. Beer containers
represented the largest glass container market, accounting for nearly 2
billion dollars of this total. Soft drink beverage containers
represented over 1 billion dollars of glass container shipments.
Considering the tremendous amounts of money represented by beer and soft

drink glass container markets, it is not surprising that these markets

 

 

10

have grown increasingly competitive with other types of beverage
containers.

Metal cans accounted for 61.0% of total packaged beer in 1982 and
glass bottles the remaining 39.0%. In the soft drink sector, metal cans
represented 65%, glass bottles 29%, and plastic bottles the remaining 6%

of total shipments (3).

Glass Container Shipments to Present

 

Since 1949, total domestic glass container shipments have generally
increased each year, with few exceptions, until 1979 (Figure 2).
Shipments steadily increased through World War II as great amounts of
steel and tin were required in war production and, therefore, provided
little competition to glass containers. In 1948, however, shipments of
glass containers decreased for the first time since the start of the
war. At this time adequate supplies of metal cans were becoming
available (16).

Economy related effects on cnsumer purchasing were major causes of
declines in shipments during the recessions of 1954, 1957-58, 1971, and
1974-75. Another important reason for reduction in shipments during
those years was the expirations of labor contracts. Although no labor
strikes actually took place, there were significant amounts of hedging
to build inventories to higher levels in case strikes did occur. This
stockpiling of inventories only helped to accelerate recessions within
the industry during these years by creating false demands, price

increases, long lead times, and other negative stimuli. But when no

 

200

 

ll

    
 

vv'vyry'vvv

 

LU“: All 414.1.ALILLLJJ 1.1 .1“

i . l
19“) “5 50 55 60 6 5 7o 75 50 35

Source: U.S. Department of Comer-co
bureau of the Census

Fig. 2. Domestic Glass Container Shipments
(In Millions of Gross)

 

 

12

strikes took place, supply threats diminished and these false stimulants
became depressants on the purchasing environment for glass containers
(14).

In 1968 a decline in glass container shipments was caused by a work
stoppage. There was a 51 day strike by industry workers in February and
March of that year. Shipments during 1968 were 3% below 1967 figures
which were partially inflated due to unusually heavy purchasing during
the latter part of the year in anticipation of expiring labor contracts
(10).

As previously noted, until 1979 declines in glass container
shipments during the past 30 years were primarily caused by downturns in
the economy or strikes. But in 1979, two unprecedented events took
place that severely affected the industry. One was the introduction of
the 2-liter plastic soft drink bottle and the other was the enactment of
mandatory deposit legislations in several states.

Glass container shipments by tonnage also declined in 1979
reflecting a decrease in average bottle size as market share of the 2-
liter plastic bottle increased. The effect of the bottle bill in
Michigan on new glass bottle shipments is exemplified by the Carling
Brewery in Frankenmuth. Since the enactment of the bill, Carling's
purchases of new' glass bottles has dropped to one-tenth the number
purchased prior to the bill (18). Glass container manufacturers were
suddenly faced with, overcapacity that, along ‘with increasing costs,
reduced earnings and forced marginal producers out of business.

After years of 2-3% annual growth, the declines in 1979 and 1980
resulted in major changes within the industry. Producers were forced to

shut down non-productive furnaces and manufacturing plants in order to

 

13

reduce costly labor forces. Companies began investing millions of
dollars into new equipment in order to increase production efficiency.
Owens-Illinois, for example, has invested 550 million dollars into new
equipment since 1978 resulting in increased operating efficiency and a
reduction of the total work force (4). Currently, Owens-Illinois is
running at their highest level of capacity since the mid-1950’s. This
seems to be a trend within the industry (21).

Analyzing the recent problems that have confined the growth of the
glass container industry, it becomes apparent the industry has certain
characteristics that make it particularly vulnerable to changes in
technology and legislations. Some of these characteristics will be more

fully discussed in the following pages.

The Glass Container Industry

 

The glass container industry is capital intensive and highly
concentrated. The industry consists of about 30 companies operating 126
plants in 29 states throughout the United States. The four largest
companies (Owens-Illinois, Anchor Hocking, Brockway, and Thatcher)
accounted for 54% of shipments in 1982, while 77% was concentrated in
the eight largest (3).

Employment in the labor intensive glass container industry in 1982
was estimated at 61,100, representing a 10% decrease since 1979.
Closing of marginal plants and laying off workers in response to a drop
in glass container demand contributed to the decline. Payrolls in 1982
accounted for an estimated 30% of the value of industry shipments,

compared to 13% in the metal can industry. However, computerization,

 

 

14

increased automation, and technical innovations have helped to alleviate
upward presure on labor costs (3).

The glass container industry is also energy intensive. Energy
costs, primarily fuel for the melting furnaces, accounted for nearly 9%
of the value of industry shipments in 1982. The industry relies heavily
on natural gas which has seen costs quadruple during the past decade.
The amount of energy use has been reduced, however, through better
furnace design, preheating and advance burning, improved combustion
systems, and computerized furnace firing controls. These fuel
conservation measures have resulted in an overall energy improvement of
almost 20% since 1972 (3).

Growth in the glass container industry is strongly dependent on the
United States economy. Depressed business conditions, resulting in
decreased levels of consumer expenditures for non-durable goods, produce
adverse effects on glass container demand. The reasons for these
declines vary. For beverge containers (beer, soft drink, liquor, and
wine bottles), demand for beer and soft drink bottles tend to be most
affected by recessions. Although people are assumed to drink more beer
during a recession, figures show they are not purchasing more of it in
glass bottles. Keg sales of beer usually increase during a recession as
more beer is being consumed in bars which, consequently, tends to
decrease package beer sales. As for soft drinks, history also shows the
consumer buying less during a recession. Soft drink beverages are
commonly perceived as a luxury item, one that can be replaced by less
expensive drinks (such as powdered mixes) when money starts getting
tight. Liquor and wine bottles are also not "recession proof", although

they do not tend to be affected as much as beer and soft drink

 

 

 

15

containers. This is probably because these two beverages are not
heavily purchased by lower income groups who tend to be the most
affected by a recession (21).

Glass food container demand also drops off during a recession,
although not to the extent of beverage container demand. The consumer
generally keeps lower inventories of food during recessions. As
unemployment rises, people tend to buy food in smaller quantities than
normal. More "hand-to-mouth" purchases take place since consumers do
not have the extra income enabling them to stock up (21).

The glass container industry strongly resembles the metal can
industry in many respects. Both industries have been experiencing
marginal sales gains in recent years due to the relatively slow growth
of food and beverage markets. Because the two industries share the same
basic markets, a market share gain by one usually results in a loss by
the other. Besides sharing common markets that are nearing saturation,
the lack of new market opportunities and the continuing threat from
plastic bottles further erodes market share. The two industries also
experience common problems of low profit margins, excess capacity,
changing market demands, environmental restrictions, and governmental

regulations.

Foreign Trade

Although the United States is the world’s largest producer of glass
containers, foreign trade is limited because their high weight to value
ratio discourages profitable transport over long distances. As a
result, glass container exports in 1982 amounted to less than 1% of the

total value of shipments. Mexico and Canada have traditionally

 

 

 

16

accounted for over half of United States glass container exports.
Canada is also a major supplier of glass containers to the United
States, accounting for over 50% of total imports. Favorable exchange
rates have helped to increase the amount of glass containers imported
from Canada. Most imported glass containers are specialty bottles used
to package items such as wine, liquor, perfume, and toiletries. Imports
have risen at a higher rate than exports during the past ten years, but
still represent a very small portion of total United States glass

container consumption (3).

 

III. CURRENT STATUS

Continued recessionary pressures during 1982 have lowered glass
container/unit shipments to 315 million gross, 1.3% below 1981.
Competition, particularly from plastic bottles, forced glass container
manufacturers to seek new markets for their products. These efforts
were made tougher by poor economic conditions.

Beer packaging represented the largest glass container market
during 1982, accounting for 36% of total industry unit sales. Non-
refillable glass containers accounted for 97% of beer bottle shipments;
about 78% of these units were IZ-ounce bottles (3).

The soft drink beverage market remained very competitive in 1982
and to help compete with other packaging materials, the glass container
industry developed a thin-walled, lightweight, prelabled glass
container. Developed as a single-service, non—refillable container, it
quickly gained retailer and consumer acceptance during the 1980-82
period. This bottle allowed glass container manufacturers to increase
market share in the important 10 and 16 ounce segment of the market.

Glass containers face less competition in the food packaging market
than in the beer and soft drink beverage markets. This is primarily due
to the unique properties glass containers have. These include chemical
inertness, transparency, strong preservative abilities, long shelf life,

and resealability.

 

 

 

"hu.

18

The most significant shift in glass container production in recent
years was caused by the loss of the large size (32-ounce) soft drink
bottle market. This has forced the industry to concentrate on the
production of IO and 16 ounce (see Note below) standard shaped, single
service soft drink bottles and has resulted in a reduction of bottle
sizes as well as total glass container shipments (tonnage).

In an effort to reduce excess capacities at the beginning of 1980,
producers shut down furnaces and closed non—profitable plants. As a
result, capacity utilization increased from 80% in 1980 to approximately
85% by the end of 1982. Although this increase in the utilization rate
is a positive sign, the operating rate must continue to rise in order to
bring the demand-supply relationship for glass containers into a more
appropriate balance. If this increase does not continue it will remain
difficult for producers to raise prices to offset continually increasing
operating costs.

Because of the high costs incurred when starting a production run,
glass container producers are now reluctant to accept short production
runs and, considering high costs of labor and capital investments for
new machinery, downtime is critical. Because of this, the industry
trend is towards increased standardization and longer production runs.
Owens-Illinois, for example, will no longer accept production runs that

are not at least five days in length (21).

 

NOTE: Although the term "16 ounce" is used frequently in this study, it
should be noted that the industry is converting to the metric (half-
liter) size container.

 

19

As a result of reduced labor costs, decreased excess capacity,
installation of new high-speed machines, and increased bottle-size
standardization, industry productivity increased 6% in 1982. If these
advances keep improving and operating rates continue to get better, more
productivity gains should be experienced in 1983. Capital investments
by glass container companies are now being directed toward areas that
will increase productivity (such as installing new triple—gob bottle

making machines) rather than new plant construction.

Mandatory Deposit Legislation

 

In the past 15 years, people have become increasingly concerned
with clean-up and preservation of the environment. Non-returnable
beverage containers have been charged as being significant contributors
to litter in the nation and as a major drain on energy and natural
resources. In July 1983, New York became the ninth state (joining
Oregon, Vermont, Maine, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Delaware and
Michigan) to pass legislation related to non-returnable containers.
When New York's container law went into effect, approximately 25% of the
United States population became covered by State packging regulations
designed to reduce litter (22). Mandatory deposit legislations, also
referred to as "Bottle Bills", have continued (up until recently) to be
implemented by individual State governments at an increasing rate since
the first one in 1972. This is a factor that glass container
manufacturers fear might result in declines in total beer and soft drink
consumption.

Although the impact of such legislation on beer and soft drink

consumption has been negligible to date, there is a noticeable drop in

 

 

20

demand for new glass containers in states that have enacted bottle bill
laws (22). This is likely due to the increase in demand for returnable
bottles, which can be refilled up to 30 times (18). Although a lZ—ounce
non—returnable bottle costs the bottler approximately 6 cents (compared
to 9 cents for a returnable), the differential in initial cost is more
than offset by repeated use of the returnable (21).

The beverage container industry is vehemently against mandatory
legislations and would like to develop its own programs. However, they
have not yet done so on any large scale. Although bottle legislation
results in higher prices on beverages as well as causing many
inconveniences (storing and returning empties, etc.), the majority of
consumers are willing to pay these extra costs. The final decision on
whether or not a state will enact bottle bill legislation rests in the
hands of the voters. In Michigan, where 60% of the voters originally
voted for the bottle bill, a poll taken two years later revealed 75%
would now vote for the same legislation (2). Our survey of 200 people
in the mid-Michigan area also showed this trend. Unfortunately for
glass container manufacturers, these surveys indicate that, despite
certain flaws, people are in favor of the mandatory bottle legislation

and are willing to pay the price.

Competition from Metal and Plastic Containers

 

Glass containers face significant competition from plastic
containers in the fight for market share within the container
industry. Conversely, the standardized IO and l6—ounce single-service,
pre-labeled glass bottle is now beginning to threaten metal can

domination of the soft drink vending market. Recently, glass container

21

producers have also introduced 44-ounce glass bottles, designed to
compete with the standard 46-ounce metal can for various food products.

Even though glass container manufacturers see further opportunities
to gain market share at the expense of metal cans, they are quite
worried about the impact plastic bottles are currently making in the
lucrative beverage container market. Consumer acceptance of the
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle (especialLy in the soft drink
beverage market) is having a tremendous effect on the United States
packaging industry. PET bottles have taken over the 2-liter size soft
drink market and are improving sales in the one-half and l-liter size
markets. Approximately 40% of 1982’s estimated shipments of plastic
containers for foods and beverages were PET bottles; another 40% were
high density polyethylene plastic milk continers (3).

The success PET has had in the marketplace is obvious when looking
at the amount of resin produced. The relative changes in resin
manufacture for all types of plastic containers for the period 1972-82
is shown in Table 1.

The estimated 1982 resin consumption for PET bottles was 18 times
that of 1977. This exemplifies the tremendous increase in PET bottle
manufacture in recent years. The success of PET bottles has enabled
plastic bottle producers to become a major factor in United States food
and beverage packaging.

Table 2 shows the relative changes in the markets for United States
plastic bottles convering the period 1972-82. From this table we
observe that shipments of plastic containers for foods and beverages
have more than doubled during the 1972-82 period. Virtually all of the

markets for plastic bottles increased during this period.

 

 

22

TABLE 1

RESINS CONSUMED IN BOTTLE SHIPMENTS

(MILLIONS OF POUNDS)

 

Resins Consumed

 

 

 

 

Type of Resin 1972 1977 1982e
Polyethylene
Low and medium density 35 48 126
High density 623 779 1,027
Polyvinyl Chloride 62 79 94
Polypropylene n.a. 28 50
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) n.a. 25 450
All other resins 21 3 5
TOTAL 741 962 1,752
e = Estimated
n.a. = Not Available
Source: U.S. Industrial Outlook 1983.
TABLE 2
PLASTIC CONTAINER SHIPMENTS
(MILLIONS OF UNITS)
Shipments
Plastic Container Market 1972 1977 19828
Food and beverage 1,440 2,333 6,050
Household chemicals 2,569 3,106 3,000
Medicine and health 1,059 1,729 2,275
Toiletries and cosmetics 1,390 2,119 2,000
Industrial chemicals 327 296 350
Automotive and marine 92 148 250
Other 26 20 525
TOTAL 6,903 9,751 14,450

 

 

 

 

e = Estimated

Source: U.S. Industrial

Outlook 1983.

 

 

 

23

Although plastic bottles have made dramatic impacts into the food
and beverage container"markets, they continue to face technological
problems that must be overcome before further penetration can be made on
a large scale. Loss of carbonation, flavor, and aroma volatiles have
prevented the use of plastic bottles in smaller sizes. While the loss
of carbonation in the 1/2—liter size plastic bottle has been improved,
consumers have still not readily accepted it. One of the major
stumbling blocks to the 1/2-liter’s growth is the continuing problem of
taste. Consumers apparently feel that the product does not taste as
good in plastic as it does in glass (an opinion that was mentioned
numerous times during the consumer survey).

The loss of carbonation and flavor concerns has kept the plastic
bottle out of the 12-ounce beer container market. But, the plastic beer
bottle has been marketed with some success in I-liter sizes. 'Fhe
surface area to volume ratio is greater in smaller containers, thus
resulting in unallowable carbonation loss. This is because the surface
area of the container (which is directly related to the permeation rate)
is actually larger in relationship to the contents in smaller sizes and,
therefore, the loss of carbonation is greater.

One of the greatest advantages plastic containers have over other
types of containers is light weight, resulting in lower distribution
costs. However, this same light weight can cause problems on filling
lines when attempts are made to run at the high speeds that glass and
metal containers can achieve.

Shelf life is another important concern for plastics. Since

plastic containers in the past have provided limited food preservation,

 

24

they have only recently entered this market. Plastics also tend to
react with certain substances, thus further restricting their usage.

These technological problems have limited the penetration of
plastic bottles in the beer and food container markets, but the battle
between glass and plastic containers for the soft drink beverage market
is fierce. The greatest competition is currently between the plastic
and glass half-liter size bottles. Plastic bottle producers have been
facing price disadvantages when compared to glass containers. This is
because glass container manufacturers are determined to maintain market
share through price discounting (15).

Until the previously mentioned plastic container problems are
solved, further penetration into the soft drink container market should
not continue at such an alarming rate. However, plastics should make
gains in the distilled spirit and wine markets at the expense of
glass. In November 1982, a ruling which allowed PET bottles to be used
for distilled spirits was passed by the federal government’s Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. PET bottles have already been introduced
in the United States wine industry with favorable results. The extent
to which plastic bottles can penetrate these markets, currently
dominated by glass containers, is of paramount concern to the glass

container industry.

Energy Requirements and Environmental Impacts of Glass, Metals, and

 

Plastic Containers

 

During the late sixties and early seventies, public interest in the
management of resources was centered on the adverse effects of air,

water, and land pollutants. Since the mid-seventies, public attention

 

25

has turned to the conservation of our nation’s energy and natural
resources.

In order to truly consider all of a product's resource and
environmental effects, we must evaluate the stages and processes the
product will encounter during its entire life cycle. For a beverage
container these include raw material extraction, manufacturing,
transportation, container packaging, and final disposal of the
product. Such analyses can be useful in determining the inputs and
outputs at each stages of a beverage container’s life cycle.

The Arthur D. Little Company, an independent research firm, carried
out such a study to determine life cycle energy usage for beverage
containers made from glass, steel (tin-free and tinplate), and aluminum
(17). To determine energy requirements of various containers, they
divided the life cycle of each container type into eight different
stages or processes and then analyzed each one for energy use. Energy
credits were given for steel and aluminum scrap since it was assumed
that these scraps could be recycled to some extent. The energy
requirements for each container type were then summed to obtain the life
cycle energy use for each system.

The first container type analyzed was the beer industry’s 12-ounce
container. The results are depicted in Table 3. Analyzing the results
in Table 3, we see that the non-refillable glass bottle requires the
least energy over the container’s life cycle. If we use seven trips as
an average trippage factor, then the refillable glass bottle becomes the
most energy efficient container using 1.69 MM BTU’s/IOOO containers.
The aluminum and 3-piece bimetallic cans (welded) are at the other end

of the table, requiring the most energy.

 

26

TABLE 3

LIFE CYCLE ENERGY ANALYSIS OF BEVERAGE CONTAINERS: BEER

Million BTU Per

 

 

,Type of Container 1000 Containers
Non-refillable Glass Bottle 3.32
Refillable Glass Bottle (one trippage) 4.80
2-piece, Steel Can 85 lb/BB 3.70
2-piece, Steel Can 103lb/BB 3.92
2-piece, Bimetallic Can 85 lb/BB 4.05
2-piece, Bimetallic Can 103 lb/BB 4.27
2-piece, Aluminum Can 5.00
3-piece, Bimetallic Can: Soldered 4.62
3-piece, Bimetallic Can: Welded 4.49

 

Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1982.

Regarding soft drink containers, it was difficult to compare the
various metals with the two glass containers on an equivalent size basis
because the metal containers analyzed were 12-ounce, while the two glass
containers evaluated were 16-ounce. The results of the energy
requirement analysis for soft drink containers is presented in Table 4.

In order to obtain a more relevant comparison, volume was also used
to compare the 2-piece bimetallic can (85 lb/BB) with the refillable
glass container. Table 5 shows the results of this comparison.

Using volume as the more equivalent base, it is evident that the
refillable lO-ounce glass bottle with a trippage factor of seven is the
most energy efficient soft drink beverage container analyzed. The 2-
piece all-steel and the 2-piece bimetallic cans proved to be the most
efficient metal containers. The 2-piece steel can is not commercially

available.

 

 

27

TABLE 4

LIFE CYCLE ENERGY ANALYSIS OF BEVERAGE CONTAINERS: SOFT DRINKS

Million BTU Per

 

 

,Type of Container 1000 Containers
Non-refillable Glass Bottle 4.66
Refillable Glass Bottle (one trippage) 6.46
2-piece, Steel Can 85 lb/BB 3.51
2-piece, Steel Can 103lb/BB 3.73
2-piece, Bimetallic Can 85 lb/BB 3.87
2-piece, Bimetallic Can 103 lb/BB 4.09
2-piece, Aluminum Can 4.83
3-piece, Bimetallic Can: Soldered 4.44
3-piece, Bimetallic Can: Welded 4.31

 

Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1982.

TABLE 5

LIFE CYCLE ENERGY ANALYSIS OF BEVERAGE CONTAINERS
BY VOLUME: SOFT DRINKS

Million BTU Per

 

 

Type of Container 1000 Gallons
2-piece Bimetallic Can 85 lb/BB (12 oz) 41.3
Refillable Glass Bottle (10 oz) with

trippage factor of seven 22.8

 

Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1982.

Based on the results of this study we see that glass containers,
refillable and non-refillable, are more energy' efficient than. metal
containers on an equivalent volume basis. As the degree of post-
consumer scrap increases, aluminum cans approach 3-piece bimetallic cans

in terms of energy efficiency.

 

 

28

As exemplified in the study, the number of trips 3 refillable glass
beverage container makes has a great effect on the life cycle energy
requirements. Table 6 shows this effect of trippage on life cycle
energy. A trippage factor of seven reduces life cycle energy
requirements for delivery of 1,000 gallons of soft drinks to 22.8
million BTU’s for the 10-ounce soft drink glass bottle. Similarly, for
delivering 1,000 gallons of beer the life cycle requirements are 17.8
million BTU's over seven trips for the refillable 12-ounce container.
This container becomes more energy efficient than the non-refillable
beer container at only two trips, whereas the 10-ounce refillable soft
drink bottle becomes more efficient than the 16-ounce non-refillable

glass bottle at three trips.

TABLE 6

ENERGY ANALYSIS OF REFILLABLE BEVERAGE CONTAINERS: GLASS BOTTLES
(MILLION BTU/1,000 GALLONS BEVERAGE)

 

lO-Ounce Soft Drink 12—Ounce Beer
Number of Trips (Million BTU) (Million BTU)
1 82.2 51.2
2 47.7 31.8
3 36.1 25.3
5 26.7 20.0
7 22.8 17.8
10 19.8 16.2
12 18.7 15.5
15 17.4 14.8

 

Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1982.

29

A similar study was conducted by Franklin Associates who compared
the 32-ounce glass (refillable and non-refillable) soft drink bottle
with the one-liter non-refillable PET plastic container (6). This study
also used the "life cycle" approach to evaluate total energy consumption
for each container type. In addition, they included several categories
which rated overall resource and environmental "impacts" for each
container system. The results of this study are summarized in six
environmental impact categories that include energy use, raw material
use, air and water pollutants, industrial solid wastes, and postconsumer
solid waste.

Table 7 shows the results of the comparison for the 32-ounce non-
refillable glass bottle and the l-liter PET container. The high
scenario is for a PET bottle with a polyethylene base cup and corrugated
shipper, while the low scenario represents a freestanding PET bottle (no
base cup) with reusable plastic shippers. Both container systems had

aluminum closures.

TABLE 7

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS:
NON—REFILLABLE 32-0UNCE GLASS AND I-LITER PET
SOFT DRINK CONTAINER SYSTEMS
(Based on 1,000 Gallons of Soft Drink Delivered)

 

32-Ounce 1-Liter PET
Impact Category ~ Units NR Glass lfifii High
Energy - Million BTU 50 26 36
Raw Material - lb. 6,495 54 338
Air Pollutants - lb. 164 84 123
Water Pollutants - lb. 25 12 21
Industrial Solid Waste - cu. ft. 11.6 2.3 3.1
Postconsumer Solid Waste — cu. ft. 119 71 71

 

Source: Franklin Associates, 1978.

 

30

Analyzing the results in Table 7, PET containers show a significant
margin in every category implying that PET bottles produce less impacts
than non-refillable glass bottles. This is primarily because of the
differences in weight of the PET and glass containers. The weight of
PET containers are only 6 to 11 percent the weight of equivalent glass
bottles (6).

The comparison of 1-liter, non-refillable PET bottles and
refillable 32-ounce glass bottles are summarized in Table 8. This
comparison is complex because the impacts of refillable glass bottles
are dependent upon trip rate. Table 8 shows, for each impact category,
the glass bottle trip rates at which the refillable glass impacts are
equivalent to non-refillable PET impacts (1 trip). For example, it
takes the glass bottle 4.1 trips at the high scenario before its
petroleum and natural gas energy consumption is reduced to the

equivalent amount required by the non-refillable PET bottle.

TABLE 8

TRIP RATE EQUIVALENT FOR REFILLABLE GLASS BOTTLE COMPARED TO
l-LITER NON—REFILLABLE PLASTIC SOFT DRINK BOTTLE

32-Ounce Refillable Glass

Impact Category High 1521

Petroleum and Natural Gas Energy 4.1 trips 4.8 trips
Total Energy 3.4 trips 4.7 trips
Air Pollutants 3.5 trips 4.9 trips
Water Pollutants 4.6 trips --

Industrial Solid Waste 9.0 trips 15.7 trips
Postconsumer Solid Waste 4.4 trips 4.4 trips

 

Source: Franklin Associates, 1978.

 

31

As shown in Table 8, at lower trip rates PET produces less impacts,
while at higher trip rates the refillable glass bottle impacts are
lower. Based on the results of this study, they determined that the
overall impacts of PET bottles are equivalent to those of refillable
glass bottles having a useable life in the range of 4 to 6 trips.

The results of these types of studies provide a basis for comparing
environmental impacts of beverage containers. However, only natural
resources and environmental pollution effects have been considered.
When determining the type of container system to use in a specific
situation many complex factors must be taken into account including
convenience, economics, competition, social and governmental concerns,
as well as resource and environmental issues. Therefore, results of
studies like these should not be viewed as the only criteria for basing
decisions on which type of container system to use. They do, however,

provide important inputs into the decision making process.

Recycle, Reuse and Energy Recovery

 

When examining potential ways to reduce resource and environmental
impacts of beverage containers, three methods can be used including
recycling, reusing, and recovering the energy content of the
container. For each type of container it is possible to recover the
material after use and recycle it by remelting and reprocessing.

The greatest energy savings potential derived from recycling
systems are for aluminum containers. These savings are limited,
however, because aluminum cans must be made from a blend of 25 to 50
percent virgin material, with the remainder scrap, as it is not possible

to manufacture cans from all-recycled aluminum (17). Still, economic

 

 

32

benefits to the aluminum container industry are worth the effort since
it is more economical to convert recycled aluminum back into can stock
than it is to make can stock directly from bauxite ore (5).

Considering the plastics used in packaging today, the most logical
for large scale recycling is PET. The problem, as far as the container
industry is concerned, is that the recovered PET is not considered pure
enough to go back into producing food and beverage containers. There
are, however, many alternate uses for the resin produced. The main
source of PET bottles is currently the nine mandatory deposit states.
Attempts to recycle PET bottles in other states have generally not been
effective to a large degree (5).

Contamination of recycled material has also been a problem in the
steel container industry. Recovered "light ferrous" materials (those
from which can stock is made), currently contain organic contaminants
from unused contents along with non-ferrous contaminants such as tin and
lead. When these materials are present in recovered steel, the types of
products that can be produced from the recovered material are limited.
Processes that will reduce these contaminants will result in recycled
steel being used for a wider variety of products (5).

The recycling of glass containers is usually accomplished by one of
two methods. ’Glass is either cleaned and refilled, as previously
discussed, or crushed and used an; cullet in the manufacturing of new
glass.

The glass industry averages about 20% cullet usage in glass
container production, but up to 50% may be used in certain container
systems (7). Three-quarters of this is in-house generated and one-

quarter is publicly recovered glass (5). Efforts are currently being

 

33

made by glass container manufacturers to increase the overall cullet
percentage used in the glass mixture.

A major problem that must be faced is the recycling of glass
containers with cap and ring closures which could contaminate recycled
glass. New machines are being developed for removal of these components
and there is also the possibility of having the consumer remove them
before disposal. Probably the simplest and most economic solution is to
have the closure considered when the original container is being
designed in order to develop a closure system that will not contribute
to recycling problems.

Another major concern is the continuing problem of sorting the
glass by color. Some of the solutions to this problem might include
requiring the consumer or retailer to do the sorting, developing more
efficient separating machinery, and promoting the increased use of
emerald green glass for packaging. If this particular type of green can
be used, the glass container manufacturer would be able to use higher
amounts of mixed cullet. This should help to reduce some of the
problems of recycling used glass containers.

Container reuse requires that the container can be returned,
washed, and refilled. Presently, only glass containers have the
capability of being reused satisfactorily and the real benefits are
related to the number of trips that the refillable glass container can
endure.

Energy recovery methods for beverage containers are currently
available for only the PET bottle. A PET bottle that has been discarded

may be incinerated, along with waste components, and the combustion

34

energy recovered (6). When. material recovery and recycling are not
possible, energy recovery could be an alternative.

Recycling, reuse, or energy recovery methods that have been
discussed can be effectively used for beverage container systems. By
employing these techniques, resources can be conserved and pollution
reduced. However, these methods will be effective only to the extent to
which they are actually implemented. Currently, the reuse of glass
refillable bottles and recycling of aluminum are the only two beverage

container systems which use these techniques on any large scale.

-...I ‘_

 

I I ‘IL
L.
3" 1"
q " I
‘$
-‘

 

 

IV. CONSUMER SURVEY ON BEVERAGE CONTAINERS

Materials and Methods

In order to assess consumer attitudes toward beverage containers
and mandatory deposit legislation in Michigan, a telephone survey was
conducted with 200 people within the Greater Lansing area. This survey
was administered during the period of June 8 through June 22, 1983. The
respondents were randomly selected from the recently published 1983—84
Lansing Area telephone directory. The method of selection consisted of
choosing the fifth (a randomly selected number) residential number from
each of the 250 applicable pages of the directory. In order to obtain
the desired 200 useable respondents, the additional 50 numbers (25%
safety factor) were needed to offset no answers, disconnected numbers,
refusals, as Well as willing respondents who were unable to participate
in the survey because they did not purchase beer and/or soft drink
beverages.

Each of the 250 telephone numbers were called at least once, with
"no answers" being attempted three times (at various intervals of the
day) before being considered unreachable. When a possible respondent
was reached, the person was asked if he or she was at least 18 years of
age and if they purchased beer and/or soft drink beverages from
stores. If the person answered no to either question, he or she was
then asked if another person in the household who met the criteria was
available to take part in the survey. When the answers to both

questions were yes, the interview was conducted.

35

 

 

 

 

36

This survey was performed under the controlled guidelines set forth
in "Mail and Telephone Surveys", a text that was referred to frequently
during the survey’s design and implementation (9a). The suggestions and
recommendations of an experienced survey specialist (23) were also used
to ensure validity and consistency in survey techniques.

The questionnaire used for this survey, as well. as additional
results not essential to this study, can be reviewed in Appendices A and

B, respectively.

Results and Discussion

 

The results of the survey were categorized by overall frequency
distribution as well as demographically by sex, age, income, and
education. To determine whether the demographic data obtained from the
survey was statistically significant, Chi-square tests were applied.
Only the results that fell at or below a 0.05 level of significance were
considered to be meaningful enough to be used in the study.

It should be mentioned that age and, to a lesser extent, education
were by far the most significant demographics. Income levels and sex of
respondents did not prove meaningful to any' acceptable significance
levels in most tabulations.

There were 139 female (69.5%) and 61 male (30.5%) respondents
taking part in the survey. Although this may appear to be an
excessively high percentage of females, it should be taken into account
that in the average household the female(s) do the majority of food and
beverage purchasing. (See Appendix B for distribution of respondents by

age, education, and income.)

:5 _ . . _ f
-": hf. uh" at: its: in:

 

37

Respondents were asked if they had purchased any beer and/or soft
drinks from a store during the past two months. Out of 200 total
respondents, 116 (58.0%) indicated buying both beer and soft drinks, 75
(37.5%) said they bought only soft drinks, and the remaining 9

respondents (4.5%) had purchased beer only.

Soft Drink Container Purchases

 

Of the respondents who said they were soft drink beverage
purchasers, nearly two—thirds (64.4%) indicated that they usually bought
them in glass bottles. This compared with 14.1% who usually purchased
soft drinks in metal cans, 10.5% who purchased them in plastic bottles,
and 11.0% who indicated they were uncertain about their type of soft

drink container (Table 9).

TABLE 9

TYPE OF CONTAINER RESPONDENTS USUALLY BUY
FOR SOFT DRINK BEVERAGES

 

(N = 191)
Container Type % of Respondents
Glass Bottle 64.4%
Metal Can 14.1
Uncertain 11.0
Plastic Bottle 10.5
TOTAL 100.0%

Respondents were then read a list of nine decision factors they
might consider important when choosing a type of soft drink container.

Each factor was considered individually by the respondent. They were

 

 

38

asked whether a particular factor was very, fairly, or not important in
their decision when choosing a type of soft drink container. Taste of
the soft drink in the container was chosen by the highest percentage
(65.4%) of respondents as a very important decision factor (Table 10).
Price and current "specials" were selected as very important factors by

57.0% and 54.5% of the respondents interviewed, respectively.

TABLE 10

FACTORS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT WHEN CHOOSING
A TYPE OF SOFT DRINK CONTAINER

(N = 191)
% of Respondents

Very Fairly Not
Factor Important Important Important
Taste of soft drink in container 65.4% 15.2% 19.4%
Price 57.0 28.3 14.7
Current "Specials" 54.5 17.3 28.2
Ease of opening container 35.6 29.3 35.1
Ease of handling and return 28.8 34.0 37.2
Container not being breakable 27.4 22.6 50.0
Ease of storing container 26.7 28.3 45.0
Clarity (can see soft drink) 26.7 18.8 54.5
Weight of container 14.7 20.9 64.4

 

NOTE: Each factor was considered individually.

Respondents were then asked to indicate which of the factors they
considered to be BEER and second BEES important when choosing a type of
soft drink beverage container. Of these nine factors, taste of the soft
drink in the container was indicated as the_mg§£_important factor by 43%
of the respondents, while price was mentioned by 28.5% as most important

(Table 11). Analyzing this data more specifically by age of

 

39

respondents, we observed that respondents who considered taste important
to the greatest extent is the under 21 group (95.2%). The older the
respondent, the less important taste becomes, as indicated by only 63.9%
of the over 50 category choosing taste of soft drink in the container as

an important decision factor (Table 12).

TABLE 11

FACTORS CONSIDERED MOST AND 2ND MOST IMPORTANT
WHEN CHOOSING A SOFT DRINK CONTAINER

 

 

Most 2nd Most
Important Important
Factor (N = 179) (N = 164)
Taste in Container 43.0% 15.9/
Price 28.5 29.9
Container Not Being Breakable 6.7 5.5
Ease of Handling and Return 6.1 5.5
Current "Specials" 5. 6 15.2
Clarity (Can see soft drink) 3.4 6.7
Ease of Opening 2.8 8.5
Weight of Container 2.2 2.4
Ease of Storing 1.7 10.4
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0%

TABLE 12

RESPONDENTS INDICATE THE IMPORTANCE OF TASTE
OF SOFT DRINKS IN CONTAINERS BY AGE
(N = 191)*
Age of Respondents
Total Under 21 21-30 31-50 Over 50

 

 

Importance of Taste 1 % % % %
Very Important 65.4 71.4 75.4 58.5 55.6
Fairly Important 15.2 23.8 14.5 16.9 8.3
Not Important 19.4 4.8 10.1 24.6 36.1
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Chi square test significant at 5% level.

 

40

Beer Container Purchases

 

The type of container for beer most often purchased by respondents
was again the glass bottle (60%), compared to 32.8% of respondents who
usually buy beer in metal cans, and 7.2% who indicated purchasing beer
in other types of containers (Table 13). Analyzing beer container
purchases by age, we observed that all the respondent categories except
the over 50 group generally purchased beer in glass bottles (Table
14). Only one-third of the over 50 class indicated buying beer in glass

bottles, while over half (55.6%) purchase the product in metal cans.

TABLE 13

TYPE OF CONTAINER RESPONDENTS USUALLY
PURCHASE FOR BEER

 

(N = 125)

Container Type % of Respondents
Glass Bottle 60.0%
Metal Can 32.8
Other 7.2

 

TOTAL 100.0%

 

41

TABLE 14

TYPE OF BEER CONTAINER RESPONDENTS
USUALLY PURCHASED BY AGE
(N = 125)**

Age of Respondents
Total Under 21 21-30 31-50 Over 50
% ° %

 

 

 

Container Type % % A

Glass Bottle 60.0 61.5 77.8 47.5 33.3

Metal Can 32.8 38.5 18.5 40.0 55.6

Other 7.2 0.0 3.7 12.5 11.1
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

**Chi square test significant at 1% level.

These results can at least partially be explained by Tables 15-
17. Although taste and price were again indicated as the most important
factors when choosing a type of beer container, 61.7% and 15.8%
respectively (Table 15), two other factors proved to be very important
to the over 50 group. The ease of handling and return of beer
containers was indicated as being a very important factor by 55.6% of
the over 50, beer purchasing respondents (Table 16). This was the only
group in which over half of the members chose this factor as being very
important. The over 50 class also displayed the greatest percentage of
respondents (44.4%) that indicated the weight of the container was a
very important decision factor (Table 17). Based on these data, at
least part of the reason the over 50 group preferred metal cans to glass
bottles for beer was because of the importance this group placed on
containers being lightweight and easily handled and returned as compared
to younger respondent groups. This is probably because the elderly have
more trouble carrying and lifting the more heavy, cumbersome glass

bottles.

 

 

 

42

TABLE 15

FACTORS CONSIDERED MOST AND SECOND MOST IMPORTANT
WHEN CHOOSING A BEER CONTAINER

 

 

 

Most 2nd Most
Important Important
Factor (N = 120) (N = 99)
Taste in Container 61.7% 17.2%
Price 15.8 33.3
Container Not Being Breakable 5.8 4.0
Current "Specials" 5.0 14.1
Clarity (Can see soft drink) 5.0 5.1
Weight of Container 2.5 2.0
Ease of Opening 1.7 6.1
Ease of Storing 1.7 3.0
Ease of Handling and Return 0.8 15.2
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0%
TABLE 16

RESPONDENTS INDICATE IMPORTANCE OF EASE OF HANDLING
AND RETURN OF BEER CONTAINERS BY AGE
(N = 125)**

Age of Respondents
Importance of Ease of Total Under 21 21-30 31-50 Over 50

 

 

 

 

 

Handling and Return % A % % %
Very Important 27.2 7.7 20.4 30.0 55.6
Fairly Important 22.8 69.2 37.0 22.5 16.6
Not Important 40.0 23.1 42.6 47.5 27.8

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

**Chi square test significant at 1% level.

 

43

TABLE 17
IMPORTANCE OF WEIGHT OF BEER CONTAINERS
BY AGE (N = 125)*

Age of Respondents
Total Under 21 21-30 31-50 Over 50
Z G

 

 

Importance of Weight A % %

Very Important 16.0 15.4 11.1 10.0 44.4

Fairly Important 1804 7.7 1805 2205 16.7

Not Important 65.6 76.9 70.4 67.5 38.9
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Chi square test significant at 5% level.

Classifying beer container purchases by income reveals another
significant trend (Table 18). The greatest percentage of glass bottle
purchasers (82.1%) were represented by the lowest income group, making
under $10,000 per year. For the highest income group ($40,000 per year
or more), the opposite was true. Only 30% of the respondents in this
category indicated purchasing beer in glass bottles, while 65% usually
bought beer in metal cans. To some extent this can be explained by the
fact that less expensive beers are usually sold in returnable, standard

size glass bottles which carry the cheaper five cent deposit.

 

44

TABLE 18

TYPE OF CONTAINER RESPONDENTS USUALLY PURCHASE
FOR BEER BY INCOME
(N = 115)*

Income of Respondents

Under $10,000- $20,000- $30,000- $40,000
Total $10,000 $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 Or More

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Container e % % % % % %
Glass Bottle 61.7 82.1 65.0 58.1 68.8 30.0
Metal Can 32.2 7.1 30.0 38.7 25.0 65.0
Other 6.1 10.8 5.0 3.2 6.2 5.0
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Chi square test significant at 5% level.

Respondents were also asked if they would buy beer in a plastic
bottle (Table 19). Analyzing the results in Table 19 we notice that
although nearly half (48.8%) of the respondents indicate they would not
buy beer in plastic, an even greater percentage (51.2%) said that they
would or might consider purchasing beer in a plastic container. These
results indicate that if plastic beverage container manufacturers can
solve their current technological problems and produce a small size
plastic beer container with an acceptable shelf life, they may have

quite a sizeable market that would consider buying it.

 

45

TABLE 19

RESPONDENTS INDICATION WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD
PURCHASE BEER IN A PLASTIC BOTTLE

(N = 125)
Response % of Respondents
No 48.8
Yes 25.6
Uncertain 25.6
TOTAL 100.0

Mandatory Deposit Legislation

 

Respondents were asked to choose their greatest dislike of the
Michigan bottle bill from a list of six issues concerning the bill.
They indicated most often (33.1%) the higher prices resulting from the
bill as the issue they disliked the most (Table 20). Even those
surveyed who were strongly in favor of the bill tended to dislike paying
higher prices in order to be provided with a manadatory deposit
legislation in their State. Analyzing respondents’ opinions toward
these issues by age we noticed that, for nearly all of the issues, the
older the age bracket the smaller the percentage of respondents who
dislike the generally negative aspects of the bottle bill (Table 21).
When the issue of higher prices as a result of the bill was broken down
by respondents' educational background, another distinct trend emerged
(Table 22). In general, the more educated respondents tended to not
dislike paying higher prices as a result of the bill as much as the
lower educated respondents. Based on these results we can conclude that
the older and more educated a person is, the more likely he will be in

favor of mandatory deposit legislations.

 

 

46

TABLE 20

ISSUE THAT RESPONDENTS DISLIKE MOST CONCERNING
THE BOTTLE BILL IN MICHIGAN

 

(N = 130)

Greatest Dislike of Bottle Bill % of Respondents
1. Higher prices as a result of bill 33.1%

2. Returning containers 17.7

3. Storing containers in home 14.6

4. Possible health hazards 13.1

5. Paying a deposit 11.5

6. Cleaning of containers 10.0

 

TOTAL 100.0%

 

.Lv>o~ N. on macaqudcwam wumavm «goat
.Lv>vH Nm an unsouuucmdm amazes «cos
.NOOL nasucu :esaoo 50mm ".902

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n.—n _.m_ o.mw n.c— o.m~ exam
o.~¢ N.wo m.Lm e.~m o.mm oxuamuv no: oxad Losudoz
5.5 ~.o_ n.m~ m.nm c.o~ oxfiamqo
*«vacusucou Nmmdv liwmucmo~o .c
m._~ m.wc «.mm ~.Nn m.om ox«4
m.~_ m.- o.- m.o m.- wxwamuv no: axed Escudoz
c.m~ ~.¢~ o.~_ m.nm o._N oxdamun
muwcumucou :Lsuou culwcd>mz .m
~.m~ ~.m_ m.m~ 0.0 m.m~ exam
m._o _.~¢ m.~m ¢.~m m.~m oxqgouv La: ox- Lozuuoz
n.0q n.- w.mn o.~¢ o.- oxuamfia
camcocemucoo :LLuzm:
was w:LL0um :uaz vuuuw:::u avenue; sumac: .a
_.o¢ m.¢~ o.n— w.m~ m.q~ ox“:
n.an o.n¢ e.wq m.mm m.nq oxamuqv Lo: oxLL szuaoz
c\m— m._m w.~n m.~c c.~m oxdmmwo
ethosauucou mucum ou w:«>m: .m
o.om m.w~ o.w~ o.m~ o.Lm exam
N.m~ «.NQ w.~m m.m~ o.cm oxfidauv no: oxdd Lozudwz
w.~_ m.w~ n.m¢ c.5c :.mm oxufimuo
sauumomvv m Nam cu wcd>m= .N
5.0m ~.N_ m.¢_ m.< e.o_ ox“:
N.cv O.n¢ e.m~ o.o_ o.~m wxuumuv Lo: vxL_ vaudwz
~.m~ a.oe m.cm N.o~ :.~¢ wx¢~m«o
eeaade oauuon Lo masses 1 mm wooden Lesa—z .L
N N N N .mmwmm Haze menace meuctvueoo e=eee
ow uo>o Owl—m emu—N LN Love:

mucovcoamom mo ow<

Aoom u zv
zeouzuuz 2H June mapFOe quzeeezeu mmemml eeezse mzouzlea mmmeexe ewe we mezeezeemee

_N :;m<H

 

 

 

48

TABLE 22
RESPONDENTS BY EDUCATION LEVEL EXPRESS OPINIONS TOWARD

PAYING HIGHER PRICES AS A RESULT OF THE BOTTLE BILL
(N = 199)*

Education of Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some Completed Some Completed

Paying High School High School College College
Higher Prices Total % % % %
Dislike 46.7 71.4 43.1 53.3 38.3
Neither like
nor dislike 37.2 14.3 36.9 43.3 36.7
Like 16.1 14.3 20.0 3.4 25.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Chi square test significant at 5% level.

The bottle bill also affected respondents’ beverage buying habits
(Table 23). As shown in the table, the percentage of respondents that
agreed changes in their buying habits as a result of the bill had
occurred, varied between 5.0 and 10.7 percent. Of the four changes
discussed, the change that the highest percentage (10.7%) of respondents
agreed took place was the switching of beer brands to a brand offering
the cheaper five cent deposit glass bottle. When these same four
changes in buying habits were analyzed by respondents' education levels,
another significant trend was noticed (Table 24). In nearly all
instances, the lower the educational level of a group, the greater the

affect of the bottle bill on beverage buying habits.

 

49

TABLE 23

HOW THE BOTTLE BILL HAS AFFECTED RESPONDENTSI
BEVERAGE BUYING HABITS

% of Respondents

Change in Beverage Buying Habits Agree Neither Disagree

‘1. Switched beer brand to brand
offering standard size glass bottle
requiring cheaper Se deposit (N=131) 10.7 0.8 88.5

2. Now buy more beverages in larger
size containers requiring a smaller
total deposit. (N=200) 10.1 4.5 85.4

3. Buy more beverages in containers
not requiring a deposit (for
example, wine, Kool-Aid, etc.)
(N=200) 6.0 4.0 90.0

4. Buy less of beverages that do
require a deposit (N=200) 5.0 1.5 93.5

. .I“
..

“Ethane-rem

rams- w‘ "a- se tim-

 

 

50

.Ho>oa N~ um u:mu«0u:wum umou sheave «rote

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.00_ 0.00L 0.00~ 0.00— 0.00. q<90p
k.ea e.ea n.na n.ee m.ms seaweeds
0.0 n._ 0.0 m.0~ m._ oouwsmuv no: seems no;u«vz
m.n n.— ~.0 a._~ 0.m owum<
«aAoa_ n 20 .uueoaov
s ouascou 00 uuau owmeuo>wn Lo muvfi >5: .0
0.00— 0.00L 0.00— 0.00~ 0.00. A<H09
k.es e._s e.se n.ee o.oa weeweeue
0.0 n._ ~.0 0.—N 0.: mouwamuv no: ovum: Losuuoz
a.m s.0 «.0 n.0— 0.0 owuw<
«eaao~ I 20
A.Uuu .0«<Iaoo¥ .v:«3 .xmv .uuconov w
wcuuuzvvu uoc muscumucou c0 mowmuw>o£ one: man .n
0.00u 0.000 0.00L 0.00~ 0.000 q<eop
n._o 0.00 n.n0 0.0m o.m0 owuwcmun
0.0 _.m n._ 0.0N 0.0 wouwseuv Lo: ovum: Lozuawz
n.» n.o o.o~ e.- _.o_ ewew<
..Aoo_ . 20 .uuroeue
Hmuou headmam m wcuuusvou speedwacoo
vu«m Lowuwfi cu nvmauw>on who: >50 302 .N
0.00L 0.00L 0.00. 0.00_ 0.00~ u<909
0.00 «.mo 0.00 “.00 ~.ow owuwmmua
0.0 c.~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 wouwwmqv no: seams cvsuuvz
c.—~ a.~ ~.n_ n.nm 0.0_ wouw<
Aok - 20 .uueoeee
ucuo m uoauozu wcuuusvou vague; macaw one»
unmvceum wcuuwumo veep; cu venue new; vozouasw .—
N N N N N ouunuzlwzdasa owouw>oa cu ewcmzo
uweu_eu omeaeou seesaw ewe: Loosen emu: fleece
0o~o~n£00 oeow vouodaeoo meow

eucovcoanux mo ceauuusvw
=0HH<000u >0 mezwazomwmx m0 weuc<z 02H>0m mo<¢m>mm nukowmm< m<= 44H: napeoa 30:

«N mgm<F

 

51

The final portion of the survey was primarily directed at the
respondents’ attitudes toward the effectiveness of the Michigan bottle
bill. When resondents were asked if they were generally pleased with
the results of the bottle bill, 83% indicated that they were (Table
25). When asked if they were voting on the bill today would they vote
for it, 81% of the respondents said they would (Table 26). Remember
that this survey was conducted in Michigan, a state where only 60% of

its voters originally voted for the bottle bill.

TABLE 25

RESPONDENTS INDICATE WHETHER THEY ARE PLEASED
WITH RESULTS OF THE BOTTLE BILL

 

 

(N = 200)
Pleased With Results % of Respondents
Yes 83.0%
No 9.5
Uncertain 7.5
TOTAL 100.0%
TABLE 26

RESPONDENTS INDICATE WHETHER THEY WOULD VOTE
FOR THE BOTTLE BILL TODAY

 

(N = 200)
Vote for Bottle Bill Today? % of Respondents
Yes 81.0%
No 11.0
Uncertain 8.0

TOTAL 100.0%

 

52

Survey Conclusions

To what extent plastic containers will be able to erode future
glass container market share will largely depend on the ability of
plastic manufacturers to solve the technological problems that currently
face small size plastic bottles. Although the majority of respondents
interviewed prefer glass bottles to other beverage container types,
there did exist a sizeable percentage who would consider buying beer in
plastic bottles if the choice was made available to them. The future of
the glass beverage container industry will be most dependent on its own
ability to continue productivity improvements and new container
innovations, such as the lightweight, Plasticshield glass bottle which
has become very popular for carbonated beverages.

The results of this study should not give the impression that
people are generally beginning to favor mandatory deposit
legislations. During the elections of last November, voters defeated
proposals in California, Colorado, Arizona, and Washington that would
have required deposits on soft drink and beer containers (1). What
these results do imply is that the longer a State has a bottle bill
legislaton, the more people tend to like the benefits (such as reduced
litter) that the bill provides. This indicates that once a State votes
in a bottle bill legislation, it will probably have this bill for many
years to come. This consequence is one that all beverage container

manufacturers should be aware of.

 

 

Survey Considerations

 

No survey would be complete without mentioning the limitations
involved. A telephone survey is a relatively quick and inexpensive
interviewing technique. It also has a major limitation in that not all
households have telephones. Even those who do are not always listed in
telephone directories. Because of this, a large portion of the
population, generally considered to consist primarily of households with
lower than average incomes, is not represented.

The time of year this survey was conducted could also be considered
a limitation. This survey took place in June, primarily between the
hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays. Unfortunately, the first
really nice weather of the year took place during the two week period
this survey was conducted. Daylight savings time also assured that the
entire survey took place before sunset. These factors only helped to
increase the percentage of households that could not be reached during
these hours as a higher than average amount of people were outside
enjoying the good weather and, therefore, unreachable by telephone.

Because this survey was conducted in a city that contained a major
university, the population included a larger than average percentage of
college educated people. Although respondents’ education levels were
fairly well distributed, this overeducated population must be
considered.

Finally, because of time and financial restraints, only 200 people
were interviewed for this survey. This relatively small sample size

must also be taken into account.

 

V. FUTURE TRENDS

Diversification

A major trend within the glass container industry in recent years
has been emerging diversification of products and services provided by
manufacturers. The return on invested capital has not been high enough
to justify large reinvestment of funds into glass containers.
Managements have gone into areas such as plastics, insurance, and
financial services in attempts to find higher returns. This
diversification into other business should continue as glass container
producers look to offset the maturity, lower returns, and slow growth of
the industry. Owens-Illinois, for example, is moving into the new
generation of high technology plastics packaging and further increasing
diversification into health care management and supplies. They are
anticipating that by 1988, glass containers will account for only 35% of
total sales, down from 50% in 1983. The type of product manufactured by
Owens-Illionis is no longer their primary interest. If a product cannot
produce a sufficient return on investment, it will no longer be produced

by them (4).

Cost Reduction

If the glass container industry is to continue to increase
operating efficiency, production costs (particularly in energy and
labor) must be further reduced. Successful glass container producers
will continue plant modernization by installing multiple-gobbing
machines, computer controlled gas melting processes, and energy saving
recovery of heat in the manufacturing process. Efficiency improvements

54

 

55

in energy use will continue by the increasing use of recycled glass.
Glass is alone among packaging materials because it can be totally
recycled to reproduce the original product, namely, a glass jar or
bottle. Cullet melts quicker than the basic raw materials, providing
significant energy savings. It also conserves raw materials and helps
to ease the problem of solid waste disposal. With continued
improvements of cullet treatment in recycling centers, a higher
percentage of cullet will be used in the glass mixture. The total
system of glass recycling is estimated to save almost 40 percent of the
energy required to make containers from new materials (7).

Although labor and raw material costs should not increase
substantially through 1987, decontrol of natural gas prices scheduled
for 1985 could result in large increases in energy costs. It will
therefore become even more important for glass container manufacturers
to maximize fuel conservation efforts.

Continued cost reductions will enable manufacturers to improve
their operating rates and pricing incentives. A measure frequently used
by glass container producers to determine operating rates is to compare
the square footage of the furnace capacity with the actual amount of
glass being pulled from the furnace. Although this measure is not
totally accurate, if operating rates could get up around 90% (currently
estimated at 80 to 85%) the manufacturer's ability to raise prices would

strengthen.

 

56

Changing Demographics

Long range demographic factors could result in relative shifts
among the glass bottle markets. The low birth rates of the past decade
may reduce soft drink consumption during the next ten years as the
teenage population declines. However, gains in the 25 to 44 age group
(a traditionally heavy beer and wine consuming segment) could compensate
for losses in soft drinks. Glass container manufacturers must react to
the needs of these changing markets in order to stay competitive in the
battle for beverage container market share. Another factor that must be
considered is the increasing health and diet consciousness of current
generations. Today’s consumer tends to be Inore aware of alcohol and
sugar consumption than any era before. The degree to which this trend
continues will determine its effects on future alcohol and soft drink

consumption.

Competition

The plastic bottle threat during the next several years will
continue to come from the half-liter size soft drink bottle.
Restrictions to the growth of this bottle will include plastic’s
technical problems, price disadvantages, and public acceptance of this
type of container. If these same problems can be solved for the small
size plastic beer container, competition could also occur in this
market. Plastic bottles will begin to make gains in the distilled
spirits and wine markets at the expense of glass. These gains will be
most noticeable in large size container markets.

Even though plastic bottles pose a major threat to the glass

container industry, the greatest competition will likely occur between

 

 

 

57

single-service glass bottles and metal cans in both retail and vending
markets. The 10 and 16 ounce glass bottle will continue to move into
the metal can dominated soft drink beverage vending market during the
next five years. Increased standardization will allow glass to become
more price competitive. The cube efficiency incorporated into glass
container design enables them to be double stacked in vending machines
and thus overcome a major distribution drawback.

Another area that will see increased competition between glass
bottles and metal cans will be the large-size food container market.
Glass container producers have introduced 44-ounce glass bottles,
designed to compete with the standard 46-ounce metal can for a variety
of food products (3).

Aseptic packaging will continue to move into the fruit juice and
milk container markets where carbonation loss prevention is not
required. Aseptic milk and juice packaging using hydrogen peroxide as a
sterilizer was approved by the FDA in January 1981, and is beginning to
make impacts into these markets. Depending on consumer acceptance,
aseptic containers could become a major competitor of glass bottles
during the next five years particularly in fruit juice container

markets.

Deposit Legislation

To what extent mandatory deposit legislation will continue to
affect the glass container industry remains uncertain. The drive for a
national bottle bill by proponents of deposit legislation was
temporarily halted by the defeat of bottle bill legislations in four

western states during recent elections (November 1982). The defeat of

 

58

the bill in Washington marked the third time in a decade that voters in
that state have turned down a deposit proposal. Although it is doubtful
that the issue of mandatory deposits will fade away, it seems likely
(considering the November results) that state legislators may begin
assigning lower priorities to bottle bills. Glass container
manufacturers must continue to encourage recycling in order to bring it

up to levels acceptable to the voting public.

Interviewing Glass Container Industry Executives

 

To help determine where the glass container industry will be
heading during the next five years, a series of telephone interviews
with four industry executives were conducted during June 28 and 29,
1983. The four people interviewed were marketing executives from the
four largest glass container manufacturers in the United States.
Companies represented were Owens-Illinois, Anchor Hocking, Thatcher, and
Brockway Glass. The questionnaire format that was used for these
interviews is included in Appendix C.

The executives were asked what they felt were glass container’s
greatest advantage over other types of containers. Two of the
respondents answered the inertness of glass while the other two
mentioned impermeability as the biggest advantage. When asked what they
felt were glass container’s greatest disadvantage, two indicated
breakability and the other two said the weight of glass relative to
other container types.

The four respondents were read a list of ten problem areas
currently facing the glass container industry. For each one they were

asked to indicate whether they felt this problem would have no, some, or

 

59

much influence on future growth of the glass container industry (Table
27). The only problem area where the majority of the executives (3 of
4) agreed would definitely influence future growth was unutilized
capacity. When they were asked to indicate the problem that will have
the.22§£ influence on future growth of the industry, unutilized capacity
was again chosen by three of the four respondents. The problem of too
much capacity is apparently expected to cause still more problems during
the next five years. The remaining executive indicated the current
recession as having the most influence on future industry growth. The
four persons were then asked which problem would have the second most
influence on the industry. Two of them indicated weight of glass, one
said increasing energy costs, while the other mentioned competition from

plastic containers.

TABLE 27

INDUSTRY EXECUTIVES INDICATE PROBLEMS THAT WILL
INFLUENCE GLASS CONTAINER’S FUTURE

 

(N=4)
Number of Executives
No Some Much

Problem Influence Influence Influence
Competition from 2-liter

plastic bottle 1 2 1
Competition from other plastic

containers 1 1 2
Competition from the metal can 3 1 0
Mandatory deposit laws 0 4 0
Increasing labor costs 0 3 1
Increasing energy costs I 1 2
Unutilized capacity 0 1 3
Current recession 0 2 2
Weight of glass 0 2 2
Plastic liquor bottles 0 4 0

 

NOTE: Each problem was considered individually.

 

60

The four executives were asked what overall change in glass
container market share during the next five years could be expected.
Two executives felt glass container market share will slightly decrease,
one said it will remain about the same, while the other felt a slight
increase would occur.

Three of the four indicated that their companies have diversified
into new areas during the past five years. As previously mentioned,
this does appear to be a trend within the industry. The areas into
which these companies have diversified include plastic and metal
containers, high technology plastics, health care, and financial
services.

When the respondents were asked if they foresaw any pg!_markets for
glass containers during the next five years, three of the four said
yes. Microwave containers, juice bottles, and increased use of glass
containers for food products were mentioned as new potential markets.

In order to determine the impact of bottle bill legislations on the
four companies, the executives were asked if the legislations have had
no, small, or great effects on company glass container sales volume
during the past five years. Three of the four indicated bottle bills as
having small effects, while the other executive (from Owens-Illinois)
said they have had great effects on his company’s glass container sales
volume.

All four of the respondents said that labor and energy costs,
compared to total operating costs, have increased during the past five
years. Increased unionization, fringe benefits, workers compensation,

and rising natural gas prices were mentioned as causes.

 

 

 

61

In order to offset these rising labor and energy costs all of the
executives indicated that their companies have taken actions to increase
capital utilization. These included installing new triple and quadruple
gobs, high speed bottle making machines and shutting down inefficient
production facilities.

All of the respondents also said the current recession has had a
slight effect on glass container sales volume. The decline in new glass
container demand has made it difficult for manufacturers to increase
prices in order to offset rising operating costs. All of the executives
indicated that it has been over a year since their company has had a
glass container price increase. Two of them said they could foresee no
price increases during the next six months, while the other two were
uncertain whether their company's would be raising glass container
prices.

Finally, the four were asked if they foresaw any problems with raw
material availability during the next five years. All respondents
indicated they did not.

Although these interviews did tend to reinforce the assumptions of
current and future trends within the glass container industry, they
should not be taken as indicative viewpoints for the entire industry.
It should be taken into account, however, that the four companies

together represent over half of the industry’s sales volume.

Future Growth Opportunities

 

As previously mentioned, growth of the United State glass container
industry is strongly dependent on favorable trends in the United States

economy. With gains in disposable income, lower interest rates, and an

 

 

62

expected decline in the rate of inflation, United States glass container
shipments should grow at an annual rate of 2 to 3 percent during the
next five years.

This rate could change, however, depending on the glass container
industry’s ability to develop new products to meet the continually
changing needs of the consumer. Glass microwave containers, for
example, were frequently mentioned by the industry executives
interviewed as having tremendous future market potentials. The rate of
glass container growth will also be dependent on technological
developments by the industry in order to make further cost reductions
possible. A recent example of this is the effects lightweighting has
had on the industry. Improved design methods and manufacturing
techniques have enabled producers to make glass bottles with thinner
walls while maintaining container strength. This has resulted in less
glass being required, which not only cuts distribution costs and saves
raw materials but also helps to achieve faster production speeds.

It can be safely stated that the main influence on future growth of
the glass container industry will not come from competitors or
legislators, but from the industry’s own internal developments that will

enable it to reach previously unattainable markets.

 

 

VI. SUMMARY

Based on favorable trends in the United States economy, the glass
container industry should experience two to three percent annual growth
during the next five years. This rate is dependent, however, on the
industry’s ability to continue productivity improvements and new
container innovations. Also having an influence will be the actions of
competitors and the efforts of state legislators attempting to pass
mandatory deposit legislations.

To what extent plastic containers will be able to erode future
glass container market shares will largely depend on the ability of
plastic manufacturers to solve technological problems that currently
face small size (l/2-1iter) plastic bottles. A sizeable percentage of
respondents in the consumer survey indicated they would consider buying
beer in plastic bottles if the choice was made available to them.

The drive for national bottle bill legislation has been temporarily
halted by the defeats of proposals in four western states during the
1982 elections. The results of the consumer survey implied that the
longer a state has a bottle bill, the more people tend to like the
benefits (such as reduced litter) the bill provides. This indicated
that once a state votes in bottle bill legislation, it will probably
have this bill for many years to come.

The majority of the industry executives interviewed felt that
overcapacity would continue to be the greatest problem facing the glass
container industry during the next five years. They indicated
breakability and weight as being glass container’s greatest
disadvantages when comparing them to other types of containers.

63

 

 

64

Microwave containers, juice containers, and increased use of glass
containers for food products were mentioned as potential new markets for
glass containers. The majority also indicated that their company’s have
diversified into other product areas producing higher returns than glass
containers. This seems to be a trend within the industry.

Despite the glass container industry's competitive environment, the
industry does appear to have a stable future and will likely be around
for a long period of time. The industry will remain highly competitive,

however, and management will face a difficult job in coming years.

 

 

 

APPENDIX A

CONSUMER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

 

Telephone Interview - Consumer Beverage Container Buying Habits

Interviewer Initials Phone Number
Interview Status: Sex of Respondent:
Completed Male
Disconnected Female
No Answer
Busy
Refused
INTRODUCTION: Hello, I am a packaging student at

 

Michigan State University. We are doing a Lansing area research study on
beverage containers and your telephone number was drawn in a random sample
of the area. I have a few questions I would like to ask you which will take
only a few minutes.

 

 

Consumer Survey

1)

3)

During the past 2 months have you bought any beer and/or soft
drink beverages from a store?

___ Soft drinks and beer

___ Soft drinks only

___ Beer only ( Go to #7 )

___ Neither ( End of survey. thank respondent )

Do you usually buy soft drinks in metal cans, plastic bottles,
or glass bottles?

___ Metal Cans

___ Plastic Bottle

___ Glass Bottle

Uncertain

I am going to read to you some factors that you might consider
important when choosing a type of soft drink container. For each
one please indicate whether you feel this factor is very important.
fairly important, or not important in your decision when choosing
a type of soft drink container.

fiery Fairly Not Imp.
1) Taste of soft drink in container
2) Ease of handling and return
3) Weight of container
4) Ease of storing container
3) Current "Specials"
6) Clarity of container ( can see soft drink ) ___ ___ ___
7) Ease of opening container
8) Price

9) Container not being breakable

66

lb

 

 

67

4) Now. of the factors we have just discussed. which one do you feel is
the most important when choosing a type of soft drink container?
If you like. I would be happy to read them again.
# Most important factor
Which is the second most important factor?
# Second Most Important Factor

5) This question refers to your buying of soft drinks in the large
Z-liter plastic bottle. About how many times during the past two
months have you bought soft drinks in this type of bottle?

Never. what don't you like about them?

 

( Go to $6 )

 

1-2
3-4
5-6
___ 7 or more

What do you like most about this type of bottle?

 

6) I would now like to find out if you are a light. moderate. or

heavy buyer of soft drink beverages. We define a moderate buyer
as one who in an average week buys 1-2 six packs of twelve ounce
cans or 1 carton of eight half-liter bottles or 1 two-liter plastic
bottle. Based on this definition of a moderate buyer, would you
consider yourself a light. moderate, or heavy buyer of soft drink
beverages?

Light

Moderate

Heavy

’Elf respondent does not buy beer, go to #12

7) Do you usually buy beer in metal cans or glass bottles?
Metal Can
___Glass Bottle

Other. please explain.

 

 

 

8)

9)

10)

68

If it were available. would you buy beer in a plastic bottle?

Uncertain

Yes

I am going to read to you a list of factors that you might consider
important when choosing a type of beer container. For each one
please indicate whether you feel this factor is very important.
fairly important. or not at all important in your decision when
choosing a type of beer container.

Egry Fairly Not Imp.
1) Taste of beer in container
2) Ease of handling and return
3) Weight of container
4) Ease of storing container
5) Current "Specials"
6) Clarity of container ( can see beer ) ___ ___ ___
7) Ease of opening
8) Price
9) Container not being breakable
Now, of the factors we have just discussed, which one do you feel

is the most important when choosing a type of beer container?
If you like, I would be happy to read them again.

 

# Most Important Factor

Which is the second most important factor?

# Second Most Important Factor

 

 

11)

13)

69

Now I would like to find out if you are a light. moderate.or
heavy buyer of beer in bottles and cans. We define a moderate
buyer as one who in an average week buys 1-2 six-packs or 3-4
quart bottles of beer. Based on this definition of a moderate
buyer. would you consider yourself a light. moderate, or heavy
buyer of beer in bottles and cans?
Light
Moderate
Heavy
I am going to read to you six different statements about glass
bottles in general. For each one please indicate whether you
agree. disagree. or neither agree nor disagree with the statement.
Agree Neither Dis.
1) Glass bottles are just too heavy.
2) I like the taste of a beverage in glass.
3) Glass bottles are too hard to handle and return.
4) I wish glass bottles were offered in more sizes.
S) The price of a beVerage is less in glass bottles.

6) I like the "feel" of a glass bottle as compared
to other container types.

Would you say that during the past year your buying of beer and
soft drinks in all tvpes of containers has remained about the
same. increased. or decreased?

Remained about the same
___ Increased

Decreased

 

 

70

14) I would now like to find out your feelings on the bottle bill
in Mi hi mg Th is is the law that requires you to pay a deposit
on beer and soft drink containers. I am going to read to you six
different issues which you may or may not like about the bottle
bill. For each one please indicate whether you like, dislike.
or neither like nor dislike the issue concerning the bottle bill.

Dis. Neither Like
1) Having to return containers
2) Having to store m‘ntainers in home

3) Having to pay a deposit

4) Higher prices on many beverages as
a result of the bottle bill

5) The health hazzards connected with
storing and handling containers

6) The cleaning of dirty containers
that is sometimes required before
returning ___ ___ ___

*IF RESPONDENT DIDN"T INDICATE ANY DISLIKES GO TO #16

15) Now, of these issues concerning the bottle bill we have just
discussed which one do you dislike the most?

# Greatest dislike

16) I am now going to read to you several statements about how the
bottle bill may have affected your beer and/or soft drink buying
habits. For each statement please indicate whether you agree.
disagree. or neither agree nor disagree.

Agree Neither Dis.

 

1) As a result of the bottle bill I
now buy more beverages in containers
that don't require deposits. For ex.
fruit drinks, Kool-aid. draft beer. wine

 

2) As a result of the bottle bill I now
buy less beer and/or soft drinks

 

3) As a result of the bottle bill I now
buy beer and/or soft drinks in larger
size containers. requiring a smaller
total deposit to be paid.

*ASK BEER DRINKERS ONLY
4) As a result of the bottle bill I have
changed my beer brand to a brand that
offers the cheaper Sc standard 12 oz -—— ——— ———
size glass bottle. For ex. Strohs, Pabst. Gobel

 

 

 

 

 

17)

18)

19)

71

In general are you pleased with the results of the bottle bill?

Uncertain

If you were voting on the bottle bill today. would you vote for it?
Yes
No

Uncertain

This question is concerned with the recycling of containers
which enables them to be reused again. Which type of container
plastic. metal. or glass. do you feel is the easiest to recycle?

Plastic

Metal

Glass

anertain

In which of the following age brackets do you fall?
Are you under 21, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, or over 607

___ Under 21 ___ 41-50
___ 21-30 ___ 51-60
___ 31-40 ___ Over 60

What was your approximate total household income in 1982 before
taxes were deducted? Was it under $10,000, 10,000 or greater but
under $20,000. $20,000 or greater but under $30,000, $30,000 or
greater but under $40,000, or $40,000 or greater?
___ Under $10,000
___ $10,000-$19,999

$20.000-$29.999
___ 530,000-339,999

$40,000-or greater

 

 

22)

23)

What was your last grade completed in school?
Some high school or less
Completed high school

Some college or special training

Completed college or more

This completes the survey. Do you have any additional comments
about glass, metal. or plastic containers that you would like to
mention?

 

 

* THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

ADDITIONAL CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS

 

 

 

73

TABLE 28

NUMBER OF TIMES DURING PAST TWO MONTHS RESPONDENTS BOUGHT
SOFT DRINKS IN 2-LITER PLASTIC BOTTLES

 

(N = 190)
2-Liter Purchases Z of Respondents
None 38.9%
1'2 3000
5-6 6.3
7 or more 13.7
TOTAL 100.01
TABLE 29
FACTORS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT WHEN CHOOSING A TYPE OF BEER CONTAINER
(N = 125)
Z of Respondents
Very Fairly Not
Factor Important Important Important
Taste of beer in container 81.6 12.0 6.4
Price 45.6 32.0 22.4
Current "Specials" 41.6 28.8 29.6
Ease of storing container 28.0 28.8 43.2
Ease of Opening 28.0 25.6 46.4
Ease of handling and return 27.2 32.8 40.0
Container not being breakable 21.6 22.4 56.0
Clarity (can see beer) 20.0 11.2 68.8
Weight of container 16.0 18.4 65.6

 

NOTE: Each factor was considered individually.

 

 

74

TABLE 30

RESPONDENTS EXPRESS OPINIONS TOWARD STATEMENTS
CONCERNING GLASS CONTAINERS

(N = 200)
z of Respondents
Statement About Glass Containers Agree Neither Disagree

 

1. I like the taste of a beverage
in glass. 77.5 14.5 8.0

2. I like the "feel" of a glass
bottle as compared to other

container types. 46.0 25.5 28.5
3. I wish glass bottles were

offered in more sizes. 36.5 26.5 37.0
4. The price of a beverage is

less in glass. 21.5 44.5 34.0
5. Glass bottles are just too

heavy. 21.5 14.0 64.5
6. Glass bottles are too hard to

handle and return. 20.0 16.0 64.0

TABLE 31

RESPONDENTS INDICATE WHETHER THEIR BUYING OF
BEVERAGES DURING THE PAST YEAR HAS CHANGED

 

 

(N = 199)

Change in Beverage Purchases Z of Respondents
Remained about same 77.9%
Increased 14.1
Decreased 8.0

TOTAL 100.0%

 

 

 

75

TABLE 32

RESPONDENTS EXPRESS OPINIONS TOWARD ISSUES

CONCERNING THE BOTTLE BILL IN MICHIGAN

(N = 200)

 

Z of Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue Concerning Bottle Bill Dislike Neither Like
1. Higher prices on beverages as a
result of bottle bill. 47.0 37.0 16.0

2. Having to pay deposit. 33.0 36.0 31.0

3. Having to store containers in home. 32.0 43.5 24.5

4. Health hazards connected with

storing and handling containers. 27.0 57.5 15.5

5. Having to return containers. 21.0 22.5 56.5

6. Cleaning of dirty containers. 20.0 55.0 25.0

NOTE: Each issue was considered individually.

TABLE 33
RESPONDENTS BY AGE INDICATE HOW BOTTLE BILL HAS
AFFECTED LARGE SIZE CONTAINER PURCHASES
(N = 199)
Age of Respondents

Buy More Beverages in Total Under 21 21-30 31-50 Over 50
Larger Size Containers** Z 1 2 Z Z
Agree 10.1 19.0 9.6 12.1 2.6
Neither Agree nor Disagree 4.5 19.0 2.7 3.0 2.6
Disagree 85.4 62.0 87.7 84.9 94.8
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
**Chi square test significant at 1% level.

 

 

 

76

TABLE 34

RESPONDENTS INDICATE WHICH CONTAINER TYPE
THEY FEEL IS EASIEST T0 RECYCLE
(N = 200)

Container Type Z of Respondents

Metal 36.5%
Glass 36.0
Uncertain 19.0
Plastic 8.5
TOTAL 100.0%

TABLE 35
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS' AGE BRACKETS
(N = 200)
Age Bracket Z of Respondents
Under 21 10.5%

21-30 37.0

31-50 33.0

Over 50 19.5

TOTAL 100.01

 

 

77

TABLE 36
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS’ INCOME LEVELS

(N = 200)
Income Level Z of Respondents
Under $10,000 19.0%
$10,000 - 19,999 19.0
$20,000 - 29,999 24.5
$30,000 — 39,999 10.5
$40,000 or Greater 15.5
Refused 11.5
TOTAL 100.0%

 

TABLE 37
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS' EDUCATION LEVELS
(N = 200)
Education Level Z of Respondents
Some High School 7.0%
Completed High School 32.5
Some College/Special Training 30.0
Completed College 30.0
Refused 0.5
TOTAL 100.01

 

 

APPENDIX C

QUESTIONNAIRE FORMAT USED FOR INTERVIEWING
INDUSTRY EXECUTIVES

 

 

Industry Survey

1.

What types of containers do you produce besides glass?

None
Plastic, % of total container sales volume?
Metal, % of total container sales volume?

Other, % of total container sales volume?

2.

3.

a.

\D

What do you feel is the greatest advantage glass containers have over
other type containers?

 

What do you feel is their greatest disadvantage?

 

I am going to read to you ten problem areas facing the glass container
industry today. For each please indicate whether you think this problem
will have much influence. some influence, or no influence on future
growth of the 8.0. industry?

2:
C)
'8
E
E
r)
3:

Competition from the 2-liter plastic bottle
Competition from other types of plastic containers
Competition from the metal can

Mandatory deposit laws

Increasing labor costs

Increasing energy costs

Unutilized capacity

Current Recession

Weight of glass

Plastic liquor bottles

00 (I)\) O\\I\ :WNH
\«lvvvvvvvvv
“\Omfl 0‘th NH
0

Now, of these problem areas we have just discussed which one do you feel
will have the most influence on future growth of the G.C. industry? If
you like, I would be happy to read them again.

Most Influence
Which one will have the second most influence?
Second Most Influence

This question concerns change in G.C. market share of total container

sales during the next 5 years. Do you feel G.C. market share will

greatly decrease, slightly decrease, remain about the same, slightly

increase, or greatly increase during the next 5 years? -

Greatly Decrease
Slightly Decrease
Remain the Same
Slightly Increase
Greatly Increase

 

 

79

7. Do you foresee any new markets for glass containers during the next five
years?

Uncertain
No
Yes, please explain:

 

8. Has your company diversified into any new areas during the past 5 years?

No, do you plan to?
No, Uncertain, Yes, explain:

 

Yes, please explain:

 

9. This question concerns energy consumption in three different operations
namely. production, transportation, and recycling of containers. As I
read each operation please tell me which container type, plastic, metal,
or glass, you feel requires the least energy consumption, which one re—
quires the most energy consumption. Least Host

1. Production of containers
2. Transportation of containers
3. Recycling of containers

10. Now, based on this discussion of energy consumption, which container
type do you feel requires the least amount of total energy required
to produce, transport, and recycle?

Least total energy required
Which container type do you feel requires the most total energy
consumption to produce, transport, and recycle?

Most total energy required.

11. This question concerns bottle bill legislations which requires
mandatory deposits on most beverage containers. During the past 5
years would you say that bottle bill legislations have had a great

effect, small effect, or no effect on your company's G. C. sales volume?

No effect

Small effect

Great effect

12. Concerning G. C. monthly sales fluxuations, would you say that monthly
sales fluxate greatly (more than 10%), somewhat (10% or less), or very
little at your company?

___ Very little
Somewhat

Greatly

‘ ' . ._..'; '.' I if, ‘hf' -

5.3: our. «91

 

13.

14.

80

During which months does your company experience its peak sales?

 

What about low G. C. sales months?

 

This question refers to changes in energy costs as compared with
total operating costs for G. C. production at your company. Would
you say that energy costs as a percentage of total operating costs
for G. C. production have greatly increased, slightly increased,
remained about the same, slightly decreased, or greatly decreased
at your company during the past 5 years?

___ Remained the same (Go to #15)
Greatly increased

Slightly increased

Slightly decreased

Greatly decreased

What has caused this change?

 

 

What about changes in labor costs as compared to total operating
costs for G. C. production? Has this percentage greatly increased,
slightly increased, remained about the same, slightly decreased, or
greatly decreased during the past 5 years?

Remained the same ( Go to #16)

Slightly increased

Greatly increased

Slightly decreased

Greatly decreased

What has caused this change?

 

 

Has your company taken any action to increase capital utilization
during the past 5 years?
No

Yes, please explain:

 

 

At what level of capacity are you currently operating?

 

This question has to do with the effect the current recession has
had on your company's G. C. sales volume. Would you say the current
recession has had a great effect, slight effect, or no effect on
G. C. sales volume?
___ No effect (Go to #19)
___ Slight effect
___ Great effect
Could you please explain this effect?

 

 

 

 

 

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24

81

What about inventory turnover for G. C. at your company during the
current recession. Has inventory turnover for G. C. increased, re-
mained about the same, or decreased during this recession?

Uncertain (Go to #20)

Remained the same (Go to #20)

Increased

Decreased

What do you feel has caused this change?

 

 

Does your company forecast G. C. demand?

_N
_What do you base production on?

 

(Go to #21)

 

Yes
How far into the future do you forecast G. C. demand?
___ less than 1 month

___ 1-3 months

_ 4—6 months

___ 7-12 months

___ more than 1 year.

How long has it been since your conpany has had a G. C. price increase?

less than 1 month
1—6 months

7-12 months

more than 1 year

Do you foresee any G. C. price increases during the next 6 months?
Uncertain

No

Yes

I 1

What would you say has been the average profit margin for G. C. at
your company during the past year?

Zero
16%
443%
7—912

10% or more

Do you foresee any problems with raw material availability during the
next 5 years?
___ Uncertain
No
::: Yes, please explain:

 

 

 

 

 

82

25. In conclusion. how do you feel in general about the future of the G. C.
industry?

 

 

26. Would you like a copy of the results of this study sent to you?
No

___ Yes, What is your mailing address?

 

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer these questions. Your
assistance with this study has been appreciated.

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

 

 

13.

REFERENCES

Anonymous. 1983. Bottle bills lose (again). Standard & Poors
Industry Surveys. 151(6):C106.

Anonymous. 1980. The efficiency of the bottle bill. Package
Engineering. 25(4):17.

Anonymous. 1983. U.S. industrial outlook 1983. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, Washington, D.C.

Anonymous. 1983. Owens-Illinois: A cautious venture beyond glass.
Business Week. 2797:84.

Anonymous. 1981. Recovery, recycling, and reuse. Package
Engineering. 26(2):31.

Bider, W., and R. Hunt. 1978. Family-size soft drink containers -
a comparative energy and environmental analysis. Franklin

Associates Research Consultants, Prairie Village, KS.

Brown, K. 1983. Changing perspectives in the glass container
industry. Chemistry and Industry. 1983(4):154.

Clagett, R. 1981. The soda ash picture. Class Industry. 62(12):28.

Diamond, F. 1953. "The Story of Class". New York: Harcourt,
Brace & Company.

Dillman, D. 1978. "Mail and Telephone Surveys; The Total Design
Method". New York: Wiley.

 

Glass Containers Manufacturers Institute. 1969. Glass Containers/
1969 Edition. Glass Containers Manufacturers Institute,
Washington, D.C.

Hall, W. 1981. The raw material outlook for 2000. Glass Industry.
62(2):28.

Hanlon, J. 1971. "Handbook of Package Engineering". McGraw—Hill,
New York, NY.

Herrman, B., and R. Shamel. 1983. World soda ash outlook: supply,
demand, and trade. Chemistry and Industry. 1983(4):146.

83

 

,7 ,1, 1 1 "7. A.‘ __, 7._.._.,_ A»- LAWHV,’ _ . ..,._r:w,,=,e— — 71m.» v—vw

 

 

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

84
Hoagland, J. 1982. Personal communicaton in Material Forecasting
class, Graduate School of Business, Michigan State University.

Holman, R. 1983. Containers/metal, glass and plastic. Wall
Street Transcript. 76(5):68,700.

Lewis, C. 1951. Statistics of packaging. Modern Packaging
Encyclopedia. Packaging Catalog Corp., New York.

Little, A. 1982. The life cycle energy content of containers.
Arthur D. Little Research Consultants, Cambridge, MA.

MacGregor, D. 1982. Personal interview, supervisor at Carling
Brewery in Frankenmuth, MI. November 4, 1982.

Meigh, E. 1972. "The Story of the Glass Bottle". Stoke-on-Trent,
England: C. E. Ramsden & Company, Ltd.

Moody, B. 1963. "Packaging in Glass". London: Hutchinson.

Morrow, R. 1982. Telephone interview, Marketing Manager at
Owens-Illinois in Toledo, OH. November 23, 1982.

Saftlas, H. 1981. Containers basic analysis. Standard & Poors
Industry Surveys. 150(34):C115.

Zehner, M. 1983. Personal communication, Specialist in
Agriculture Economics Department, Michigan State University.

 

 

16.

17.

18.

20.

21.

22.

84
Hoagland, J. 1982. Personal communicaton in Material Forecasting
class, Graduate School of Business, Michigan State University.

Holman, R. 1983. Containers/metal, glass and plastic. Wall
Street Transcript. 76(5):68,700.

Lewis, C. 1951. Statistics of packaging. Modern Packaging
Encyclopedia. Packaging Catalog Corp., New York.

Little, A. 1982. The life cycle energy content of containers.
Arthur D. Little Research Consultants, Cambridge, MA.

MacGregor, D. 1982. Personal interview, supervisor at Carling
Brewery in Frankenmuth, MI. November 4, 1982.

Meigh, E. 1972. "The Story of the Glass Bottle". Stoke-on-Trent,
England: C. E. Ramsden & Company, Ltd.

Moody, B. 1963. "Packaging in Glass". London: Hutchinson.

Morrow, R. 1982. Telephone interview, Marketing Manager at
Owens-Illinois in Toledo, OH. November 23, 1982.

Saftlas, H. 1981. Containers basic analysis. Standard & Poors
Industry Surveys. 150(34):C115.

Zehner, M. 1983. Personal communication, Specialist in
Agriculture Economics Department, Michigan State University.

 

   

 

   

M'1111111117leLilflmjfyifll'lflflsmflfflilfllfim