Like an oxobiodegradable beaker, Scotland’s charge on single-use cups has reportedly disappeared – but is still there somewhere (unlike PepsiCo’s reuse target). David Burrows reports.
We have to start this month’s Package with PepsiCo – the latest food and drink behemoth to renege on – sorry “refine” – its packaging targets. “As circumstances evolve, PepsiCo continually adapts how we source ingredients; make, move, and sell our products; and inspire people through our brands,” said PepsiCo chairman and chief executive officer Ramon Laguarta.
The encomium continues with the usual hit list of hyperbole: “focus on where we can have most impact”; “importance of transparency”; “dynamic realities” – all of which echo arch-enemy Coca-Cola’s “evolution” of its targets in December. To be fair, some sustainability goals have been enhanced (notably the one on regenerative agriculture) and in some geographies packaging regulations are only just catching up, which has hindered progress (India only passed laws allowing rPET for beverage packaging in 2023, with food packaging added this year, while China does not allow rPET inclusion in food-grade packaging, for example).
This is a firm that uses over 2.5 million tonnes of plastic packaging every year and has struggled to keep a lid on virgin plastic consumption. So the target to cut virgin plastic from non-renewable sources per serving across its entire beverage and convenient food portfolio by 50% by 2030 has been dropped and the “focus” is now on “absolute virgin tonnage plastic reduction”. PepsiCo will need to focus pretty hard: use of virgin plastic increased 6% between 2020 and 2023 against a target to cut use by 5% by 2025, under the global commitment on plastic.
A (re)fine reusable mess
However the FMCG giant sugar-coats it, the “sunsetting” of the reuse target – to deliver 20% of its beverages in reusable containers by 2030 – casts a dark cloud over a company that has been in the crosshairs of campaigners for decades. None of the Quaker Oats, Doritos and Tropicana owner’s packaging was reusable in 2023, according to a December 2024 plastic commitment update published by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (though five pilots are underway).
PepsiCo blamed infrastructure. The Foodservice Packaging Association saw the statement differently, reading between the lines and writing (no doubt with a secret smile and a wry wink) in last week’s update: “Is PepsiCo stepping back from its reusables target a signal of consumer indifference?”
Single-use PET bottles account for 70.24% of PepsiCo’s plastic packaging. “The best way for Pepsi to reduce plastic pollution is not by abandoning goals but by dramatically increasing the use of refillable bottles – which can be used up to 50 times if made of glass,” said Oceana senior vice president of strategic initiatives Matt Littlejohn. Just a 10% increase in reusable beverage packaging by 2030 can eliminate the need for over 1 trillion single-use plastic bottles and cups, he added.
Worth noting too from the EMF update is that the percentage of packaging that is reusable, recyclable or compostable has hardly budged since the 2018 baseline: 77% to 77.2%. Use of recycled content has been better: up from 3% in 2018 to 9.8% in 2023. Most of that would be rPET but there has been some progress on introducing recycled content into the harder-to-recycle polyolefins like polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE). “We continued working on pilot projects to incorporate recycled polyolefins into our foods’ primary packaging such as incorporating 50% recycled content [using the ICC+ certified mass balance approach] in partnership with GreenDot into our Sunbites chips packaging in the UK,” PepsiCo’s update reads.
PP is one of the most prolific yet least recycled plastic (think pots, tubs and trays as well as some flexible plastic including pouches for coffee). And yet, as Edward Kosior explained in a March blog for Resource Recycling, “we have proven, science-based processes to recycle post-consumer food-contact packaging back into [rPP] resins that are safe to turn back into food-grade [rPP] packaging”.
Beware of paper cuts
Kosior, a consultant and founder of NextLooPP, a global project working to close the loop on post-consumer PP, warned that theplastics industry is “actually harming itself by not creating a circular economy for food-grade PP, as it risks being overtaken by alternatives [like paper-based packaging] that actually have higher carbon footprints in the long run”.
One route to rPP and rPE is chemical recycling. This is an expensive and controversial technology. As Bain & Company notes in a new report on chemically recycled plastics: achieving cost parity with virgin production in Europe could take 20 to 30 years and more than €400bn (£337bn) in cumulative global capital expenditures in a base case.
The consultants suggest that companies are “standing still” on chemical recycling due to a lack of attractive financial carrots and potentially flimsy regulatory sticks: The EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) “is a step forward, but […] we’re hearing companies express wariness about the uncertainty surrounding the regulation’s implementation and the implications of potential penalties”.
EPR is not a LOL matter
In the UK, the focus remains on extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws – and attempts by a coalition of pub, hospitality and brewing companies to delay them for another 12 months. A coalition involving UKHospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, British Institute of Innkeeping, Campaign for Real Ale, Society of Independent Brewers, Wine & Spirit Trade Association, Independent Family Brewers of Britain, Federation of Wholesale Distributors, Cider UK and British Glass has written a letter to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
In the letter they highlight three key issues they feel have been overlooked by Defra, including “double payment by hospitality businesses” and a “disproportionate cost burden on glass” that “is likely to drive certain product types into plastic”. And the scheme is too costly and arriving too soon. “There is a widespread belief that this legislation is being introduced far too quickly, and the financial burdens placed on businesses and their impact on growth are not being acknowledged by Defra,” the letter reads.
Defra has reportedly revealed that the scheme won’t have a material impact on rates of recycling or packaging over the next five years (though we haven’t been able to find the source for that yet). “As well as being another government-inspired cost on businesses in the UK drinks sector, it’s wholly at odds with improving recycling – the aim of the EPR scheme,” said WSTA chief executive Miles Beale, who suggested the regime “could be mistaken as a misjudged attempt by Defra at an April Fool’s joke”.
Latte levy is late
In all seriousness (and sidestepping the rabbit hole filled with glass packaging), should EPR not be targeted at improving reuse first and foremost, then recycling? Speaking of which we turn finally to another delayed regulation: Scotland’s 25p ‘latte levy’ (a phrase that gives the government’s policy wonks cause to cringe). The plan had been to introduce the charge later this year but like an oxybiodegradable cup it has reportedly disappeared – but is still there somewhere.
“The Scottish Government is working closely with stakeholders to develop a single-use cups charge that is deliverable and allows businesses and consumers time to prepare,” a spokesperson told Footprint. “We are taking time to fully consider the issues raised in the consultation to ensure the charge is effective, proportionate, and fair.”
Whether the big brands involved in the National Cup Recycling Scheme – a voluntary initiative designed to increased recycling rate of single-use cups above the current 2%, 4% or 6% (depending on your source) – are happy about the levy coming later isn’t quite clear. “Incentives and charges can both play a role in influencing behaviour, but whatever the mechanism, we need continued focus and collaboration to make cup recycling the norm,” said scheme manager Hannah Osman.
MRW magazine appeared equally confused. The initial headline for the waste magazine’s coverage suggested the coalition was backing the charge, but this has since been edited with the focus of the article now on the importance of voluntary schemes. Because these have worked ‘oh so well’ to date.
