This story first appeared in Fast Company July 8, 2011.
“We live in a platform world!” an enthusiastic Jason Foster told me at the recent Sustainable Brands Conference in Monterey. “Bulk, weight and mass are the new parameters for innovation.”
If this all sounds a bit confusing, let me backtrack. Foster has created an entirely new format for plastic spray bottles and containers that rethinks many of the core presumptions of the category.
The big idea? Move past the current cheap disposable bottle (and mindset) toward a new paradigm of utility. The goal is to design bottles that are truly reusable.
An added benefit of his design is that the bottles are designed for consumer mixing – they’re shipped sans the 99% water that fills most cleaner bottles. Instead, they feature an innovative reservoir that – much like a bar shot dispenser – can shoot pre-measured concentrate into the bottle for consumers to mix with their own tap water.
This platform is the linchpin of his new Replenish line of cleaners. But the innovation is catching on outside the category – Foster is in talks with a number of other companies who want to license his bottle for non-cleaner purposes.
“I want to combine the age old concept of durability, longevity and utility, with an innovative, intuitive design. Once you use Replenish, you don’t ever look at the old spray bottle or container design the same way again.”
Foster has great faith in plastic. The problem, he believes, is that it’s an innovation that’s half complete.
“When plastic exploded on the consumer market after the second world war, it opened up a world of new possibilities. But its success was its downfall – plastic became ubiquitous, cheap, and therefore disposable. In our excitement, we completely neglected to think through the design of its entire life cycle. Instead, we simply focused on getting it to the consumer. Then, when we finally realized there was a problem with plastic waste, we focused all our attention on the back end, on recycling and repurposing, thinking this would make the problem go away. But it hasn’t.”
Facts bear out Foster’s point: after 40 years in mass circulation, only about 7% of North American plastic is recycled.
Is Less The Answer, Or More?
Douglas Woodring believes part of the problem lies in the throwaway culture we’ve created around plastic products. The solution, he believes, is to take excessive plastic right out of the supply chain.
Woodring, co-founder of the California and Hong-Kong based Ocean Recovery Alliance, made his first voyage to the infamous Pacific Ocean Garbage Gyre in 2009. A year later, at the Clinton Global Initiative, he launched the Plastic Disclosure Project.
The PDP was inspired by the Carbon Disclosure Project, an international effort through which over 3,000 organizations voluntarily measure their greenhouse gas emissions. The PDP aims to get companies to establish benchmarks for more efficient plastic use, either by reducing plastic, or by raising the level of plastic recycled in their facilities. The bottom line, says Woodring, is that “we want less plastic going into the ecosystem.”
Driving plastic reduction through self regulation and (ultimately) investor pressure works in the long term. But is there a short term innovation shift that can help us turn the tide?
Focus On Innovative Recycling
One such idea was revealed to me by John Viera, Director of Sustainable Business Strategies at Ford.
In our conversation, Viera rolled out a list of sustainability-inspired innovations in the new Ford Focus that warrant an article of their own (look for it in the coming weeks).
The Focus’s plastic parts, however, provide a wonderful example of how to push the boundaries of recycling. Components like underbody shields, wheel arch liners and air cleaner assemblies are created in part from old pop bottles and milk jugs. Not only does this redirect plastic that can’t be recycled into more bottles, but it replaces car parts made of potentially non-recyclable materials. In other words, it’s an entirely new use for plastic, reduces the plastic waste stream incrementally, and rethinks possible applications for this incredible material.
Lessons
Hearing John Viera talk about new uses for old materials, I realized we don’t use nearly enough creativity reimagining the possible. Certainly, an old plastic bottle can become a new plastic bottle. But who’s to say an old plastic bottle can’t – with a tweak in formulation – replace parts traditionally machined from metal or fiberglass?
Speaking of tweaks, Jason Foster’s plastic spray bottle innovation started as a tweak on three standards – the durable glass bottle, throwaway spray cleaner platforms, and a concentrate dispenser we’ve all seen many times before. Rethinking context is key to innovation. If you want to reimagine your plastic use, get outside that plastic jar and look at it with fresh eyes.
And finally, there’s a lesson to be learned from Doug Woodring – a successful innovation pipeline has both short and long term projects. Although the Plastic Disclosure Project will take time to gain momentum, its long term benefit will be significant. And it just might give manufacturers a more fully-formed idea of how to make more, with less plastic.

Those bottles are pretty. Interestingly, Apartment Therapy just had a post asking, will Americans ever go for refillable products? Right away commenters pointed out that refilling is common in the U.K. and India. What’s wrong with us? Now, I wonder if this product could work with glass. I’m no chemist, but I’ve been led to understand that plastic cannot be recycled – it can only be downcycled. And that glass is the only true recyclable. Glass could maybe be refilled at stations in stores, if the spray mechanism would work……?
Emmy,
Thanks for the note. In most ways you are correct, but there are some new technologies coming out that let PET bottles to become 100% PET bottles again, but this is far from being the market norm to date, as the volume capacity to handle so many bottles is still at its infancy, and the technology is just being perfected. This is the goal for many bottlers for the future, but we are not there yet. One of the issues has to do with the color of the “new” recycled material, which is not always perfectly clear. If we, the consumers, can accept bottles that are not perfectly clear (should we be drinking water from these bottles in the first place, where clarity of the bottle may then not matter?), then these could come into the market faster. Another issue is that bottlers do not like rebate programs, where bottles are returned for recycling. These programs are proven to work, and they bring economies of scale for recycling. In the past, bottlers didn’t have the option of putting 100% back into bottles (and today, they still don’t, as they don’t have enough factories to do it), but if that is now possible, then having economies of scale for bottles being returned is an important piece for this equation to work. So, watch this space.
Hi Doug – thanks so much for that update! I guess we have to wait for some innovations, but they sound promising. For cleaning products, this is good news if the plastic can be recycled. I still think that glass would be a better solution, since consumers could just hang on to the bottle and not create more fossil fuels through the recycling plant. But obviously for some products, plastic is necessary. You mentioned drinking water – that to me is a somewhat different issue. Corporations like Nestle overtaking the tap water from town supplies, bottling it and then trying to sell it back to people for ten times as much is not such a great thing. We can just have our reuseable steel bottles and use the tap water we already pay for.
Thanks again for the info, best wishes in the future and I look forward to hearing more about your innovations!
Very interesting Marc. The fact is we will never be able to eliminate the use of plastic but we do have the ability / technology to utilize it in a much more responsible way, to ensure it all gets recycled. However the innovation process, that will ultimately result in positive change in this regard, is being thwarted somewhat by the advent of quasi green washed products without any real honest comparison of actual environmental footprint. Obviously you know know where my perspective comes from. The disposables industry. Let’s take cutlery for instance. In our quest to launch a truly compostable wooden cutlery we discovered that the actual footprint of our competitors in the market who manufacture “biocutlery” from starch and claim to be biodegradable, could very well have a footprint that far exceeds that of regular plastic cutlery. Billions of gallons of water, millions of acres of farm land, millions of tons of fertilizer, chemical additives and yes even some petroleum derivatives, are all needed to make these products. Add to this massive footprint the added “benefit” of driving our food prices through the roof and filling our landfills with stuff that may biodegrade but is not truly compostable. Bio Fuel production has similar “green blemishes” The question that begs to be answered is in our quest to be a sustainable, environmentally responsible society, are we willing to be smart, honest and truly objective so we don’t stumble in the race to be green. We really need to get it right this time and ensure that our bias is based upon truth. Hopefully the result will be innovation on both sides that will be truly sustainable.
Keep up the great work Marc. Keep the discussion going. Keep us thinking.
Sorry to comment again but @Lawry well said, it’s interesting that we rely on product makers to tell us what is green, instead of expecting that the label would come from actual Biologists! I just posted on this recently – it’s sad that people don’t just use silverware. Corn monoculture ruins the soil and requires tons of deforestation – considering that trees filter the air, water and soil, it’s certainly greenwashing when any disposable cutlery is promoted.
Hi Emmi,
Lawry and I worked together launching a new type of wooden cutlery called WUN. It was made of waste wood, laminated using tree sap, and was 100% compostable. Not only that, but it looked terrific and worked beautifully. You can see the packaging job we did for it in my portfolio (just click the portfolio tab on the home page).
I think Lawry realized that people needed disposable cutlery – and were going to keep buying it, whether we approved or not. So, we might as well create cutlery that was the best possible (for both customers and the planet).
It’s a sad reality that people usually won’t change their ways unless they’re pressured to. So it’s up to us as producers and marketers to create a better way forward.
I wouldn’t be discouraged by the greenwashing done in the name of progress, or the fact that we got it so wrong so many times. Real innovation only happens with plenty of failure and missteps. If we weren’t failing forward, it would be a sign we weren’t trying.
It’s up to us to keep up the good fight, and embrace innovation and failure as the real way forward. We should also be saluting folks like Lawry and WUN for really nailing it.
M
Hey Mark! Hope you’re having a good week – and thanks for the response. The product certainly is beautiful. While I appreciate the spirit of using waste wood, I have a few significant concerns. Since you obvioiusly care about the environment, I’m sure you’d want to consider these as well. Where did the wood come from? Was this a fallen barn? Or was it wood hauled out of a forest? If so, was it a rainforest in Indonesia? A maple-birch community in New England? Boreal forest in Canada? What’s the industrial metabolism each time the product is made? We know that new roads = a free way in for illegal loggers and black market wildlife poachers. I won’t bore you with published studies, but this is well documented.
How long does the cutlery take to biodegrade? If I put it in with my the vegetables in my compost pile, will it degrade within a month with the apple cores and banana peels? And if there were other chemicals used, what effect will they have on the soil? Are users instructed to bring the used utensils to a compost pile? If placed in an anaerobic environment such as a garbage bag / landfill, the product will produce methane, and contribute to greenhouse gasses.
The problem with “sustainable” wood (and it’s not a small problem) is that the forest needs coarse woody debris (from dead or fallen trees) to replace calcium and phosphorous in the soil. If we keep hauling it out for 6 billion people and for every product under the sun, the forests will be degraded and at some point they lose their ability to reduce global warming and filter water / soil.
If it’s reclaimed wood, that’s great for products we *need*. No one needs disposable cutlery. Quite honestly, this was not the kind of revolution we were looking for. We have perfectly good silverware that could probably be used 10,ooo times as opposed to once. You even mentioned that it’s only being created because people seem reluctant to change their habits. Which makes me think you agree that indeed it would be a good thing if people tried to reuse stuff more.
I am always discouraged when a product says it’s eco-friendly, biodegradeable or the like. You’re the creator of this product. Sure, say it’s beautiful, useful, etc. Any label that refers to its ecological effects should really come from an ecologist, don’t you think? As a perfectly intelligent and conscientious person, I know you understand what I mean.
Hi Emmy,
Part of what I loved about this product when I first saw it was the green thinking behind it.
The wood is aspen…up here in BC, that’s the ‘waste’ wood the lumbermen cut down and burn on their way to getting the ‘valuable’ pine and spruce. So the raw material used is wood that would otherwise end up going up in smoke.
The utensils are laminated for strength. But the glue is tree sap. 100% natural, and completely biodegradable.
Finally, they’re glazed with confectioner’s glaze to take away any wood taste – the sort of taste you get when you get to the stick in the popsicle. Again, completely biodegradable.
The cutlery takes as long to biodegrade as a piece of thin wood, or wood chips. You can throw it in your composter – no special conditions or high heat needed.
To your final point, you’re right that there’s no need for disposable cutlery. But we’re going to keep on using it, because we like it. So the folks at WUN figure – quite rightly – that it would be better to use ‘good’ disposables rather than plastic. It’s a step in the right direction.
Cheers
M
Tree sap is always good.
Of course the Vermonters and Mainers are at odds over who has the best maple syrup, supposedly Maine has the best baked potatoes. Visitors to the Big E stand in line for hours to try it………
Anyway, I assume it’s the xylem sap? That does sound like it would degrade quickly. So that’s good. Again, I’d hope that the label states to the consumer that it won’t biodegrade harmlessly if thrown into the garbage.
So far as the source is concerned – we agree forest ecology is a science, right? When scientists hypothesize an effect, we are all held to the same standards. There must be experiments and / or literature to back up our claims. We can’t just say stuff and expect the scientific community to take our word for it. This works because we’re all held to the same standard.
I did not post any studies to back up my claims here for the sake of brevity (I know, how did that work out?) but that means maybe everything *I’ve* said here is false, and any scientist could say I’m wrong, a worthless biologist to boot and an embarrassment to the scientific community (it wouldn’t be the first time someone’s told me that)!
The point is – any scientist who had the creds to say that, would back up their contradictions against my claims. It does not matter if we agree or disagree. The published literature speaks for itself.
So when we say, “we’re doing the forest a favor by taking this wood out of here” or “it’s harmless / it’s eco-friendly”……..we need to back up those words with evidence, or at least some line of logic having to do with science. Anyone can make claims, but we agree that ecology is a science, right? Eco-friendly. Ecology. I’d advise you to ask several third-party scientists (professors, foresters, etc) to give their perspective. Your product, your choice, obviously. But again – informed decisions.
ps This is not to criticize anyone, Mark. It’s not about fighting, it’s about exchanging information. That’s all. Who cares if we are wasteful once in a while? That’s not the issue. It’s about helping each other and inspiring each other. And making informed decisions so we can decide if we can live with it.
Hi Emmy,
Thanks for your passion on this topic. To get the whole story on Aspenware please visit our website and view the product guide. In summary, I believe we have addressed the majority of the very important issues you’ve raised. The wood we use is primarily Aspen and Birch, hardwoods, that come from Canadian traditional softwood logging operations, agricultural land clearing etc. Both species are incredibly fast growing and as we only use a portion of the mature trees to make cutlery the majority of the fiber is left in the bush. Furthermore an Aspen grove is self sustaining and reforestation occurs naturally. The mature trees, no longer provide low hanging food for wildlife but fresh new growth does. The cutlery composts very well and has been tested and approved by the Cedar Grove Composting certification facility in Washington State.
As for the use of steel cutlery one needs to consider the environmental footprint of that as well. Lets consider the deforestation needed to develop an iron ore mine, the thousands of acres of tailings ponds and harsh chemicals used in the production process. Let’s consider the reclamation process at the mines life end and the quite common acid rock drainage issues that plague and pollute our water systems for ever.
The steel cutlery is heavy, costs more to transport, is more expensive, like to find it’s way from restaurants to our kitchens, takes billions of gallons of fresh water each year and strong chemical detergents to wash all of which are deposited into our waste water streams damaging the most important and vital gift we have on earth, fresh water. In addition, steel factories belch out millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere and other noxious gasses. I know the steel product looks pretty and is obviously stronger than wooden cutlery but if one were really personally committed to utilizing the cutlery with the smallest carbon and environmental footprint they would accept the minor sacrifice in strength and utility using wooden cutlery all the time. In fact it might be wise for us to take the word disposable out of our literature.
You are so right that it’s not about fighting but about challenging each other to personally ignore the retoric and make informed, conscientious consumer decisions based on the big picture and not just what we hear and see. Pardon the Pun but we often cannot see the forest for the trees but once we do consider all the factors on the eating utensil side, whether disposable or not, Aspenware is really the only sustainable option. Thanks again Emmy for having the guts to table your position. It provides a great opportunity for constructive and educational dialogue.
Lawry, thanks again for the great conversation, and I agree we are just cooperating. We all have a stake in being good stewards. For me it used to be about what I valued….but since the 7 tornadoes hit our region in one day, although that may have merely been a chance event, I honestly think we could all be in some trouble (although since you’re up North, you only need worry about climate refugees for now, LOL).
Re: silverware: all true what you said – but of course, for silverware handed down over generations, that is sparing the environment from more industrial metabolism, and so far as chemical dishwashing is concerned, all our silverware fits into our dishwasher, so if a load is being washed anyway, it is actually less wasteful to add in that silverware. New silverware from Ikea? Yes, bad idea. Buy used ones at a tag sale! (Also, was your product wrapped in plastic? May be better to go package-free if you want to sell the green idea).
I’m just going to mention that as a Biologist, I am far more interested in how a product damages the environment, than how it is eco-friendly. And I think we all have an obligation to ask ourselves that. Regular consumers focus on how their lives are harming the ecosystem, not what they’re doing right. And I think people making money should do the same. Hiring outside scientists just as a one-shot deal might be really enlightening.
We can hope all we want, but the fact is, the environment on its own is reacting to our products, with our without our knowledge. It benefits us and all other species if we make the effort to understand what is *actually* going on instead of crossing our fingers and hoping our innovation will make an impact.
Sustainable logging is highly misunderstood. Yes it is possible, but I assume you want your brand to succeed, no? Sell big? How will it remain sustainable if that happens, and I also wonder about the details of that logging operation. I’m as guilty as anyone of buying paper products that most likely come from B.C., but again – there is some impact from giving money to those operations. It’s good to know what that is.
Cheers, you guys, and I genuinely hope for your success in all this. I am inspired by how thoughtful you all are in your ventures.