Key Concepts for Improving Plastic Recycling

Since its inception in 1899, the US National Biscuit Company has utilized packaging as a marketing strategy by wrapping Uneda soda crackers in wax paper inside cardboard boxes. Over the decades, businesses have increasingly turned to plastics, making unique packaging a key component for establishing brand identity.

However, the fragile economics of plastic recycling are deteriorating, compounded by the complexity introduced by varying pigments, materials, and more. Currently, only 10% of plastic packaging is recycled globally. In contrast, reusable packaging remains in a niche market.

There are effective and straightforward methods to enhance both the recycling and reuse of plastics, such as having brands adopt similar packaging for products in the same category.

Initially, prioritize recycling. Despite decades of consumer awareness and infrastructure investments, managing various plastic types into specific subcategories remains prohibitively costly. Eliminating pigments and sorting by color is expensive, leading to many plastic varieties being downcycled into gray pipes and construction materials. The supply chain is inconsistent and fragmented, with virgin plastics remaining cheaper, resulting in a lack of reliable buyers for most recycled plastics.

Standardization could significantly improve this situation. If product categories adopt uniform guidelines for plastic types, colors, labels, and adhesives, recyclers could potentially recover much more material at a reduced cost. This would enhance economic viability for recycling and facilitate the vision of producing new bottles from old ones.

The case for standardized reuse systems is equally compelling. Presently, many brands experimenting with reuse employ different containers, necessitating individual return points coupled with specialized cleaning equipment and quality assurance checks, which adds costs and complexity while reducing convenience. Systems based on standardized packaging and shared infrastructure could capture 40% of the market through a more consolidated approach, as noted by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

While standardized packaging might seem anti-capitalistic to some, many brands already produce similar packaging, such as milk jugs in the UK and toothpaste tubes in various countries. Standardization does not imply that all products must look identical. Brands can still employ unique labels, washable inks, embossing, and other distinguishing features. They can also maintain their own shapes and sizes.

It’s undoubtedly challenging to envision competitors like Procter & Gamble and Unilever willingly agreeing to package shampoo in identical bottles. However, with billions lost annually due to single-use plastics, where data ends up incinerated or in landfills, research increasingly highlights health risks associated with unstudied chemicals in plastics. Brands may find it challenging to safeguard their interests. Legally, it could be argued that the harm stemming from customized packaging outweighs the advantages of standardized containers.

More brands might soon have little choice. Regulatory frameworks are evolving in Europe and other regions, focusing on reuse targets and increased recycled content. Standardized packaging offers brands a pathway to meet these objectives while minimizing complexity and cost increases.

Undoubtedly, like-colored shampoo bottles won’t solve all issues, but such changes are becoming increasingly sound from a business perspective. Without them, achieving truly circular packaging remains a distant goal.