In the bag? Can regulation lead to packaging harmonisation

The countdown to November is on; while the US buckles up for another volatile election season, the rest of the world prepares itself for the finalisation of the Global Plastics Treaty. Set to occur just weeks apart, the results of both politically charged events will reshape the trajectory of the packaging industry. 

The fourth intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC) meeting was held in April 2024. Key discussions included:

The fifth and final INC meeting will take place 24th November to 1st December, and negotiators hope that the text of the treaty will be finalised during this meeting and a legally binding instrument will be in place by the end of 2024. 

A global plastics treaty could have the power to become the most ambitious and globally aligned legislation on plastic pollution, however, there have been setbacks throughout the negotiations that spark concern. 

Slow progress - Several organisations have highlighted that the negotiations are taking too long with an ongoing plastic pollution crisis. The first round of INC meetings began at the end of 2022, meaning that the provisions will have taken over two years to finalise even if all remains on schedule.

Global alignment - Some are questioning whether the treaty will establish enforceable global rules or opt for voluntary national plans on some provisions. Without common standards, many fear the treaty will be too weak to tackle plastic pollution effectively.

Exclusion of key stakeholders - Many have called out the exclusion of several key groups, including Indigenous peoples, scientists and civil society groups from certain negotiation processes. This will have limited the diversity and perspectives made throughout the meetings; it also calls into question the potential unintended consequences of some of the provisions. 

Industry influence - There has been significant criticism of the fossil fuel and plastic industries’ involvement in the negotiations, leading many to fear the treaty will be a watered-down version to align with the business interests of these groups.

Once adopted, the treaty will set countries the task of shifting internal regulations to align with international standards. While some nation-states will have an easier time implementing these changes, like many in the EU who have enacted stringent packaging and waste requirements over the last decade, it will be an arduous process for countries, including the US, which have taken a more lenient approach to plastic regulation.

Cost implications will also test plastic-dependent industries. Extensive resources will be required to bring plastics-heavy companies up to standard with the new regulations including costs of:

The investment in innovation is paramount for plastic-dependent industries to continue to thrive. New technology will be essential for both the production and waste management ends of material lifecycles, and therefore investors in the circular economy will become key stakeholders in the aftermath. 

Finally, greater attention to consumer engagement and education is imperative. Whilst businesses will be expected to curate strategies and lead the markets, consumers play a critical role in effective plastics pollution management through their product choices and their post-use disposal habits. While many EU countries have successfully established responsible use habits in consumers, the US lags in social expectations and education on responsible consumption. 

Some countries have already implemented restrictions on plastic production and waste. Several nations and groups have targeted specifically single-use plastic including:

Going beyond single-use plastic, the EU has also adopted the European Green Deal and, beneath it, the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP), which seeks to tackle plastic pollution through design for durability, repair and recyclability.

Though the US does not have federally implemented policies concentrated on plastic, there are several pieces of legislation acknowledging the need for heightened plastic oversight.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Enacted in 1976 to protect human health and the environment by ensuring that waste, including hazardous plastics, is managed responsibly.

SB 54 (previously known as Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act) - California implemented SB 54 in 2022 to address plastic waste and pollution in the state. The law establishes new requirements for plastic producers, mandating them to reduce plastic packaging and increase recycling.

Extended Producer Responsibility Act - New York passed the state-wide EPR Act to hold producers responsible for the entire lifecycle of the products and packaging they create, focusing particularly on managing waste and promoting recycling.

Non-plastic packaging regulations have also become more prevalent as technology introduces alternative materials to the markets. Both California’s SB 54 and New York’s EPR Act encompass non-plastic materials in their provisions. The EU has introduced several other pieces of legislation that directly target packaging waste reduction.

EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD) - Adopted in 1994 and periodically updated (most recently in 2018), the EU’s PPWD sets requirements for packaging design, encourages recycling and reuse, and outlines specific waste reduction targets.

EU Timber Regulation - In 2013, the EU enacted this to fight illegal logging and promote sustainable forest management globally.

EU Extended Producer Responsibility - Similar to the New York EPR Act, the EU takes the concept of EPR to a broader scale, shifting the burden of waste management from consumers to producers. Several EU directives, including PPWD and the Single-Use Plastics Directive, contain EPR requirements that establish its legal framework

The federalist system in the US results in a fragmented approach to any plastic legislation. While the RCRA is binding on a national level, the most progressive policies are enacted at the state level. This lack of continuity not only waters down the US’s actions against plastic pollution, but also creates a complex marketplace whereby companies are held to different requirements across state lines. Not only is this impractical for production, but the gap in infrastructure innovation across the states results in complex waste management protocols that are both ineffective and confusing. 

Changing social habits on a national scale is already a tall order; combine that with arbitrary state policies, infrastructure, and disposal capabilities and it’s easy to see why US recycling rates sit at only about 32% according to the EPA. Without further consumer education on the materials used in their products, and clearer instructions on how and where those specific products can be recycled, it is unlikely Americans will have the incentive or willingness to adjust disposal habits. 

In a recent Innovation Forum webinar focused on balancing corporate costs, performance and sustainability in the packaging sector, Tahirah King, director, sustainability and R&D operations at Mars Pet Nutrition indicated that consumer education is paramount in a waste-reduction strategy. She emphasised that it’s on the business to direct consumers on responsible waste disposal and businesses should be “...making sure that we’re driving the consumers [and providing] them visibility to where packaging should go after it’s used”.

Under the Biden administration’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, it would appear the US is ready to invest more necessary funds into a better infrastructure to support recycling and waste disposal. The act is set to include: 

This legislation has introduced hope that the US is ready to take serious action against plastic and packaging waste. However, the legislation also confirmed that the US will invest more in a reactive stance against waste management rather than a proactive one. Some innovations, such as investments in waste-to-energy research and development, may become useful supplemental tools in waste reduction. 

However, innovation to excuse overconsumption and harmful materials should not be the primary goal. When asked about plastic packaging strategy, King commented that reducing the use of virgin plastic is a priority and using PCR (post-consumer resin), rather than virgin plastic is a major component of their strategy. She continued, “It’s really about making smarter choices that help reduce our plastic waste.” 

Perhaps the most volatile aspect of the US’s stance on waste management is its four-year unpredictability. A question that many observers ask is how there can be hope for an effective waste management strategy when each election cycle threatens the rollback or acceleration of policies and regulations.

The circular approach

Contrary to the reactive route the US has chosen, the EU presents a more proactive approach, intending to maximise waste reduction at the production stage. Under the Circular Economy Action Plan, there is an emphasis placed on sustainable product design, specifically focusing on durability, reusability and recyclability. This mindset encourages businesses to minimise waste before it is even generated. “To be fully circular, it takes two things; one, you have got to be designed for circularity, and then two, you need to have an infrastructure mature enough with waste collection and sorting,” King emphasised.

The CEAP also focuses on improved recyclability, and requires specific percentages of recycled materials in product production, to keep materials in the loop as long as possible. This business model shifts standard practices, decoupling economic growth from resource use; businesses will need to source alternative materials, designs and services rather than constantly extracting resources to produce the same products. 

The CEAP comes together under a unified regulatory framework, reducing confusion on best practices that independent nation states can implement. During the same Innovation Forum webinar, Sergio Perelman, senior vice president for packaging North America at Ferrero, spoke about the differences of European and North American waste infrastructure. “Recycling markets [are] very advanced in Europe as compared to North America. Schemes are more harmonised, clear labelling schemes are more harmonised at national levels,” Perelman continued. “Communicating with consumers has been a challenge, but less so than in North America.” 

This cohesion is also immensely helpful in navigating consumer education. As messaging, campaigns and growing infrastructure point in the same direction, the CEAP gives consumers aligned guiding principles that will influence social norms and accelerate peer-to-peer guidance.

Comparing governmental structures and actions will never be apples-to-apples; what works in one economy won’t for another. However, we can highlight that the end goal of these pieces of legislation is the drastic minimisation of waste pollution.

The average person in the world is generating 0.72 kilogrammes of waste per day. Compare that to 1.4 kg per person per day in the EU and 2.2 kg in the US. 

Of course, effective waste management is an important piece in keeping that waste from negatively impacting the environment and vulnerable communities. But with so much waste already in the system, should the primary focus of all highly consumptive nations not be to prevent even more from entering the loop? 

These questions come with considerations for potential compromises in packaging quality. Can recycled materials produce a product that maintains food quality and keeps food fresh, reducing the potential for food waste? Will refill systems deliver the same hygiene and food safety standards that virgin plastic products do? “All [plastic reduction strategies] play a critical role,” King said. “But all of them come with their own set of considerations and challenges.” 

Business has a tendency to equate more regulation with less revenue. Perhaps in the short-term that is true. While the US is balancing environmental goals with economic considerations influenced by industry interests, the EU is integrating sustainability into its economic model to create future resilience. 

Legislation plays a critical role in advancing sustainability initiatives; voluntary adherence won’t scale initiatives to the required level in the timeframe our planet needs. Both King and Perelman advocated for stronger regulations in the US. “We need to be supporting policies that are encouraging recycling,” said King. Perelman agreed, commenting that greater regulation will lead to national harmony and therefore ensure “efforts can really be leveraged more effectively across the US”.

Legislation has its drawbacks, though, in its propensity to take up much-needed time, and to almost never appease all parties. 

This will undoubtedly be true of both the inevitable legislative changes that will rock the US over the coming months depending on the administration that steps into the Oval Office, and the final revisions of the plastics treaty. 

In the meantime, consumers can take our own approach, regardless of the outcome of both these legally charged events. They can choose to become better educated, more involved and make responsible choices to support brands and products that align with minimising waste and reducing impact.