Plastic is everywhere, and we suddenly decided it was a terrible thing. It was part of the fabric of our lives, and now a worldwide revolt continues to gather pace.
Despite years of appeals and encouragement, plastic pollution is only getting worse. For all this wave of activity, the scale of the plastic problem appears to dwarf the efforts of business and industry. The reality is that the world produces twice as much plastic waste as it did two decades ago, with the bulk of it ending up in landfill, incinerated or leaking into the environment. Only around 14% of plastic packaging is currently collected for recycling globally.
Addressing the complexities of production and consumption needed to stem the flow of plastics into nature is ultimately a transboundary issue. We have already seen a combination of levers adopted by governments worldwide to address the plastic pollution crisis, including bans, taxes, charges, regulations, and legislation.
While their varying levels of success, or otherwise, have been the topic of much debate, we can all agree that future endeavours will be largely contingent on data – and plenty of it! We must strive for total transparency to ensure legislation is optimised.
New, stricter sustainability regulations are emerging on multiple fronts with increasing frequency. However, regulatory focus and approaches vary considerably by region and diverge even further when viewed at the country or state level. This is making the fast-changing regulatory landscape complex to navigate.
EPR: let’s make it work
Never mind the war of words between the Food and Drink Federation (FDF) and the government. It won’t add to our bills, add to inflation, or exacerbate the cost-of-living crisis. The companies who put packaging on the market pay instead. If they use less packaging or make it easier to recycle, it will cost them less too. EPR does what it says on its tin – albeit a complex tin.
When discussing EPR from a euro-centric viewpoint, we must remember that most countries opted for a tax-based system, where the money raised goes directly into the system, and the cost of the tax is estimated to achieve the target. Our market-based system leans heavily on reliable and transparent data to avoid market volatility and bases its fees on how easily the target can be achieved. It is fair to say this is more than a leap of faith in our packaging data infrastructure.
Data is the beating heart of this transformation: a mix of taxation to encourage sustainable packaging; transparent reporting of quantified targets; a strong focus on citizen behaviour change; and support for local authorities and waste collectors to develop and maintain infrastructure.
Unfortunately, in the last few years, the UK market has been highly volatile, which shows the urgent need for reform of the PRN system and increased scrutiny of submitted data and quantities of materials being collected and reprocessed.
More accountability for how revenue generated by the packaging recovery note (PRN) system is spent will be needed to ensure the market-based system survives in the long term. While some have been concerned about rising PRN prices in recent months, the main driver behind the UK achieving its highest volume of plastic packaging recycling in Q2 this year was the investment in waste management from central and local government, along with the landfill tax escalator.
We need to develop a system that creates accountable funding for local authorities. Although complex to achieve, greater data transparency and a floor and ceiling price cap on Packaging Recovery Notes (PRNs) should go a long way toward stabilising the market and funding much-needed investment in infrastructure development.
Packaging companies must be plugged into regulatory developments – personally or by proxy – and track changes in their core markets. At the same time, they will need to develop capabilities to acquire an in-depth understanding of legislative measures, scope, and application and the implications for their own business and customers.
