Extended producer responsibility for packaging rules could mean voluntary agreements and targets become extinct. David Burrows reports.

Carbon credits were the subject of a recent Footprint premium slot (the Monday one that everyone craves; read by those well rested from the weekend and delighted to be distracted from the emails that have somehow flooded their inbox throughout Saturday and Sunday).

So, not to be outdone, we are going to start this month’s Package with a commentary published in the journal One Earth. “Plastic credits are marketed as an innovative solution to plastic pollution, yet they mirror the well-documented shortcomings of carbon credits and overlook the unique material complexities of plastics. Effective plastics governance must avoid fragmented, loophole-prone, and inequitable approaches to plastic pollution,” write the experts from Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and the US.

These credits tend to be measurable, transferable assets representing one tonne of plastic waste diverted or recovered from the environment. So, this can be collections of waste as well as recycling of plastic waste, but not reductions in plastic production or reuse. 

The academics are less than impressed by the current state of this embryonic market, suggesting that if “nearly everything about carbon credits needs change” following that market’s high profile downfall, then so too must the one for plastic credits … and before it’s too late. “Private actors promoting plastic credits have fundamental financial incentives to overstate environmental outcomes and to avoid stringent regulation or asset-repricing risks,” they wrote.

Some big brands have already had their fingers burned. Danone is perhaps the most prominent after campaigners exposed the shortcomings of its much-hyped project in Indonesia. Others, including Unilever and Coca-Cola, have distanced themselves from the concept, with the latter suggesting it is a “band-aid” pollution solution. 

The credits have also become entangled in the marketing net as brands promote ‘plastic neutral’ claims – which set alarm bells ringing and campaigners rushing for plastic packaging tonnage data. As Sophie Tuson, senior associate and environment and climate change practice lead at RPC, noted in a recent Footprint piece on plastic credits: tread carefully.

As with carbon, not all plastic credits are bad. Zoë Lenkiewicz, founder of Global Waste Lab, which helps teams across the global south to “democratise waste wisdom”, cited CleanHub and Plastics 4 Change as two examples as those that are “community first” and develop long-term relationships, with a focus on workers’ rights and protections. Transparency is high and there is “no bullshit”, she told Just Drinks in June. In others the sites registered by plastic standard credit providers are not all visited and the credits are not arriving in the community they were meant to serve.

“I visited one [in Indonesia],” she tells Footprint, “and the waste that wasn’t selected for recycling was taken on a conveyor straight into an […] incinerator – with zero emissions control. The community felt very disenchanted,” she adds.

Pumped up

The One Earth authors reported that, between 2020 and 2023, more than 75,000 plastic credits were issued through existing standards, and they are also being integrated into regulatory frameworks in some countries – particularly within extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes.

That isn’t the case in the UK. Still, as regular readers will know, that doesn’t mean the regulations have been created and deployed swiftly and seamlessly here. The right leaning press has run a number of headlines of late about how this “packaging tax” will push up prices and put businesses at risk. Plastic will also become more popular, so the negative narrative goes.

Let’s not tread over old ground (it’s here and here if you are interested) and focus on the latest – which is the news that funds raised through pEPR will be channelled into improved recycling infrastructure. “[W]e are pumping more than £1bn into local recycling services,” said resources minister Mary Creagh. “This will revolutionise how we deal with our waste and ensure more of today’s rubbish is recycled into tomorrow’s packaging.”

The sooner this happens the better as news this week emerged of another recycling plant closure. Domestic, regional and global conditions all played a role in the decision to close Biffa’s site in Washington, Sunderland, which could process up to 39,000 tonnes of plastic a year, most of it high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polypropylene (PP). “The global economic climate, the regional competitive conditions in terms of power and labour costs, and the domestic concerns in the regulatory environment are all currently not conducive to UK recycling, and contributed to this decision,” Biffa polymers managing director James McLeary told Letsrecycle.com.

More plastic may well be exported as a result. Whether that £1bn will prevent more going the same way remains to be seen. For now, Defra’s announcement has injected some enthusiasm into the waste sector and even food industry representatives. “This announcement is welcome news for both industry and consumers, coming just before producers receive their first invoices for EPR,” said Jim Bligh, director of corporate affairs and packaging at the Food and Drink Federation. “It marks a vital step towards delivering the improvements in the UK’s recycling system that we all want and need,” he added.

EPR has been a long time coming, but it’s only now that some businesses are realising that this is serious stuff. These are confusing and costly new rules for packaging producers. We have for example spotted a few posts on social media that suggest understanding of the reuse exemptions in the rules are passing some by. Small brands that rely on glass packaging, like dairy brands selling milk in glass bottles, are crying foul. “Don’t believe the hype,” said Robbie Staniforth from compliance scheme Ecosurety. “Reusable glass bottles will pay far lower EPR fees across their life than a single-use plastic equivalent, as long as they are refilled more than six times.”

Panning of the pacts

We have also heard there is something sizeable happening in relation to single-use plastic in Switzerland. Yes, it’s time for the final-final round of talks to thrash out a Global Plastics Treaty. The fun starts today, Monday 4th August. The likes of Coca-Cola Europacific Partners, Danone, Mars, Nestlé, Tesco, Unilever and Waitrose, as well as The Sustainable Restaurant Association and Wrap have signed a statement organised by Defra and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) calling for an ambitious treaty. 

EMF and Wrap have traditionally led the charge on voluntary commitments to better manage plastics, which haven’t really panned out successfully. Consultants at Gartner actually forecast that more companies will ‘sunset’ their commitments as they fall (way) short on their targets and focus on aligning with regulations like pEPR. John Blake, senior director analyst in Gartner’s supply chain practice, reckons that by the end of this year 90% of public sustainable packaging commitments will remain unmet “as organisations continue to rely on plastics and single-use packaging”.

Blake explained that legislation is now the primary force shaping product and packaging design strategies, replacing the previous focus on cost and consumer appeal. Companies must align packaging with new sustainability, labelling, and reuse requirements, often within the limits of current recycling infrastructure. This will see 75% of those with voluntary targets dropping them by 2028.