Governments must buy into the benefits of reusable packaging rather than the bull spread by single-use sector. By David Burrows.

Ships in the port of Nice sounded their foghorns on Friday 13th June, a “brassy crescendo” to a rare moment of global unity as the third UN Ocean Conference drew to a close. Moments earlier, more than 170 countries had adopted by consensus a sweeping political declaration promising urgent action to protect the ocean.

The UN’s press statement following the five-day event in France that culminated in the Nice Ocean Action Plan is littered with niceties. “We close this historic week not just with hope, but with concrete commitment, clear direction, and undeniable momentum,” Li Junhua, the UN’s under-secretary-general for economic and social affairs told reporters. Journalists at The Guardian suggestedthe ocean is “having a moment”.

So, June 2025 is the moment the world woke up to the decline of our seas. This follows our “wake up” to plastic consumption and pollution in 2018. So expect a few years of grogginess, yawns and pushing ‘sleep’ on any ensuing alarms over the next few years.

You snooze, you win

The first of these will come over the summer months as attention turns to the Global Plastics Treaty talks, scheduled for August 5th to 14th in Geneva, Switzerland. In Nice, 95 governments (including the UK) signed a document called ‘The Nice wake up call for an ambitious plastics treaty’. 

This is more akin to an alarm that switches on BBC Radio 4’s shipping forecast rather than one designed by ‘Data’ from The Goonies involving a big drum bursting from his chest and playing at your bedside. 

Support for a treaty that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics, includes a binding obligation to improve design of plastic products, phases out the most problematic plastic products and the most concerning chemicals found in them, and delivers a lot more financing founded on the polluter pays principle is certainly welcome. “A treaty that lacks these elements, only relies on voluntary measures or does not address the full lifecycle of plastics will not be effective to deal with the challenge of plastic pollution,” the wake-up statement reads. 

Canada is unfortunately but unsurprisingly the only major oil-producing country to have put pen to paper. Prepare for August’s talks to be testy given that the ‘final’ talks in South Korea were so mired in division that we needed these final-final ones in Switzerland.

Relying on businesses to intervene with their voluntary schemes seems folly. Plastic pacts have spotlighted big brand reliance on this type of packaging (if not any other materials and the unintended consequences of those) and encouraged some to make progress. But it feels like some are reaching for the sleep button on such initiatives, pointing as they pull the covers back over their heads to the laggards who are still dozing. 

PepsiCo and Coca-Cola have recently both pulled back on their packaging ambitions in relation to reusable packaging and the use of recycled content in single-use containers (which is the focus of next month’s Package as targets tumble down the gap between virgin and recycled plastic content prices).

Making use of reuse

Many brands have dipped their toes in the water with trials of reusable packaging but say they won’t get anywhere unless everyone joins them at the water’s edge, where littered plastics likely tickle at their toes. Regulation is desperately needed but don’t expect politicians in many countries to creep up and push them in under the heat of the late summer sun in Switzerland.

Scotland is one country kicking the sand and wondering whether to shuffle closer. This month its expert group has reportedly been deliberating consultation responses to the proposed 25p charge on single-use cups. An analysis of these was published earlier this month, with the conclusion likely to delight detractors: “The key message is that while many support the proposals and their potential to encourage behaviour change, many other individuals and organisations either opposed the introduction of a charge or highlighted multiple issues that they felt needed to be considered before progressing the proposals.”

In other words: hit that snooze button while the powers that be discuss this a little more. And by ‘this’ we mean the same things that have endlessly been discussed, debated and left doubts in politicians’ minds. “Refillables represent health and safety hazards for consumers and retailer staff and should not be encouraged,” wrote the Foodservice Packaging Association (FPA) executive director Martin Kersh in his response. “Refillables put retailers and their teams at great risk and require strict HACCP regimes which add to retailer administration.” 

If that isn’t enough to have reusable supporters and resource experts reach for their keyboards in response, then this will: “To date there is not one single example of a successful test of reusables in a UK commercial retail setting,” Kersh added.

No pressure, then, on Hubbub and its recent trial on the high streets of central Glasgow involving the likes of Burger King, Costa and Caffè Nero. The collaboration – with the notable exception of Starbucks from the big chains – is extremely encouraging in terms of its intent. The charity supports the introduction of a cup charge in Scotland but is under no illusions that this is a silver bullet to reducing reliance on single-use cups.

“[…] we also know that reuse behaviours are difficult to embed and it should not be assumed that a charge alone will shift behaviour,” reads Hubbub’s response to the consultation in Scotland. “For the charge to be fully effective it must be combined with good communications to frame the problem with single-use cups and explain how reuse is better. There must also be investment in reuse systems to provide a convenient alternative to single-use cups, recycling infrastructure for single-use cups, and the charge must sit within the wider policy framework such as EPR [extended producer responsibility].”

A charge will of course force foodservice companies to come up with solutions – or lose sales. The FPA and the like argue (relentlessly) that it is the charge that will cost sales and damage businesses and the economy and impact most on poorer areas of society. Potentially – but only if the sector doesn’t get its act together and roll out standardised reusable cup schemes at scale. Hubbub’s trial will give us the first glimpse of what such a collaborative effort looks like. 

Refill reverse without regulation

When reusable cups started gaining traction there was a feeling that we’d all be carrying one within five years. That hasn’t happened: a (very) small percentage of us try to carry one, plagued with guilt when they forget it and think of the four they have at home in the cupboard and the other one in the car. And it probably won’t become commonplace to own one because it’s not that convenient. Coffee chains have to make it so – and they need a gentle push from policymakers.

Valentina Lovat, associate programme specialist at the ocean literacy project within UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, chatted with Packaging Insights after the Nice conference. She explained that consumers have a role to play in tackling the use and abuse of plastics but “[g]overnments, policymakers, and corporations must take the lead, transforming supply chains, driving innovation in sustainable packaging materials, and offering affordable alternatives while moving beyond business-as-usual models”.

Refill is in danger of going into reverse if politicians buy into the bull presented by representatives of the single-use sector. Big brands oft hide behind the likes of the FPA in consultations, the ‘industry’ response aligning with the lowest denominator (as they have seemingly done in the cup consultation in Scotland). As such, the laggards take the lead and the pioneers begin to wonder what the point is.