Interview: practitioners on Plastic reduction & packaging systems — what they wish they knew earlier

Europe generates approximately 35 million tonnes of plastic waste annually, yet recycling rates hover stubbornly around 35%—a figure that masks profound inefficiencies in collection, sorting, and reprocessing infrastructure. In conversations with packaging engineers, sustainability directors, and circular economy consultants across the continent, a striking consensus emerges: the gap between ambitious plastic reduction targets and operational reality remains vast, but the practitioners who have navigated this terrain offer invaluable lessons for those beginning the journey. This article distills their hard-won insights on unit economics, adoption blockers, and the signals decision-makers should monitor as the regulatory landscape intensifies through 2025 and beyond.

Why It Matters

The European Union's Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), adopted in 2024, establishes binding reduction targets that will reshape every stage of the packaging value chain. By 2030, member states must reduce packaging waste per capita by 5% relative to 2018 levels, escalating to 10% by 2035 and 15% by 2040. The regulation mandates that all packaging placed on the EU market be recyclable by 2030 and includes specific reuse targets: 10% for e-commerce packaging by 2030, rising to 50% by 2040.

These are not aspirational guidelines. The financial implications are substantial: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) fee modulations in France, Germany, and the Netherlands now penalize difficult-to-recycle formats by up to 200% compared to mono-material alternatives. A 2024 analysis by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation estimated that European brands face €15–20 billion in additional compliance costs through 2030 if they maintain current packaging portfolios unchanged.

The business case extends beyond compliance. Consumer sentiment research from the European Commission's Eurobarometer (2024) indicates that 78% of EU citizens consider excessive packaging a significant environmental concern, with 62% willing to pay a premium for products with reduced plastic content. Forward-thinking brands recognize that packaging transformation represents both a regulatory imperative and a competitive differentiator.

Yet practitioners consistently report that the path from commitment to implementation is fraught with unexpected complexity. Understanding the unit economics of alternative materials, navigating fragmented recycling infrastructure, and managing stakeholder resistance requires granular operational knowledge that policy documents rarely capture.

Key Concepts

Plastic Reduction refers to strategies that decrease the absolute quantity of plastic material entering the economy, achieved through elimination (removing unnecessary packaging), reduction (lightweighting existing formats), substitution (replacing plastic with alternative materials), and redesign (creating new delivery systems that minimize material requirements). Practitioners emphasize that effective plastic reduction requires lifecycle thinking—substituting plastic with a material carrying a larger carbon footprint may solve one problem while creating another.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) provides the methodological foundation for evaluating environmental impacts across a product's entire lifecycle, from raw material extraction through end-of-life management. In packaging decisions, LCA enables comparison of apparently dissimilar options: a single-use plastic bottle versus a glass bottle with established return infrastructure, for instance. Practitioners warn that LCA results are highly sensitive to system boundaries, allocation methods, and regional infrastructure assumptions—a reusable container excels in dense urban markets with efficient reverse logistics but performs poorly in dispersed rural contexts.

Reuse Systems encompass packaging formats designed for multiple use cycles, including refillable containers, returnable transit packaging, and bulk dispensing infrastructure. The economics of reuse depend on achieving sufficient cycle counts: practitioners report that most reusable formats require 15–30 cycles to achieve environmental and economic parity with single-use alternatives, demanding robust return infrastructure and consumer participation rates exceeding 90%.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) shifts end-of-life management costs from municipalities to producers, creating financial incentives for design improvements. European EPR schemes increasingly incorporate eco-modulation, adjusting fees based on packaging recyclability, recycled content, and design-for-recycling criteria. Practitioners describe EPR fee structures as the "hidden tax" that fundamentally alters material selection economics.

Waste Audits provide empirical data on actual packaging flows, waste composition, and system leakage points. Practitioners consistently identify waste audits as the critical first step in any reduction initiative, revealing discrepancies between design assumptions and operational reality—packaging intended for recycling that ends up in residual waste, or reusable containers with unexpectedly low return rates.

Risk Assessment in packaging contexts encompasses supply chain vulnerabilities (material availability, supplier concentration), regulatory exposure (compliance with evolving requirements), and reputational considerations (consumer and NGO scrutiny). Practitioners emphasize that risk calculus has shifted dramatically: maintaining status quo packaging now carries greater risk than transitioning to circular alternatives.

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

Concentrated refill formats have demonstrated compelling unit economics in personal care and household cleaning categories. Brands like Ecover and Method (acquired by SC Johnson) report that concentrated refill sachets reduce packaging material by 75–85% per use occasion while offering consumers 30–40% cost savings. The key insight: concentrates succeed when they deliver genuine consumer value beyond environmental benefits.

B2B reusable transit packaging has achieved significant scale in European supply chains. CHEP's reusable pallet and container pools now circulate over 350 million units annually across the continent, with documented material savings of 1.2 million tonnes of single-use packaging per year. Practitioners note that B2B reuse systems benefit from controlled environments, professional handlers, and established reverse logistics—conditions rarely replicable in consumer contexts.

Mono-material flexible packaging redesigns have gained traction as brands respond to recycling infrastructure requirements. Companies including Nestlé, Mondelez, and Unilever have reformulated flexible films to eliminate problematic multi-layer structures, enabling mechanical recycling. Practitioners report that mono-material transitions typically require 18–24 months of technical development and carry 5–15% cost premiums, but EPR fee reductions increasingly offset this differential.

Deposit return schemes (DRS) for beverage containers have demonstrated collection rates exceeding 90% in markets including Germany, Sweden, and Norway. The 2024 rollout of DRS in Ireland and Romania, with Scotland and Austria following in 2025, extends this infrastructure to additional markets. Practitioners describe DRS as the "forcing function" that enables high-quality recycling streams and viable reuse economics.

What Isn't Working

Consumer-facing reuse systems continue to struggle with participation rates and return logistics. Multiple high-profile pilots—including Loop's European trials and various supermarket refill stations—have achieved participation rates below 10%, far short of the 50–60% required for economic viability. Practitioners identify convenience friction as the primary barrier: consumers must remember containers, transport them, and adapt shopping routines, creating abandonment at each stage.

Paper and cardboard substitution has proven more complex than anticipated. While paper offers renewable sourcing and established recycling infrastructure, practitioners report that functional requirements (moisture barriers, mechanical protection, shelf life) often necessitate coatings or laminations that compromise recyclability. Moreover, LCA comparisons frequently favor lightweight plastic over heavier paper alternatives when carbon footprint is the primary metric—creating tension between plastic reduction goals and climate objectives.

Fragmented national recycling infrastructure undermines design-for-recycling efforts. A package format recyclable in Germany's advanced sorting facilities may be unrecyclable in markets with less sophisticated infrastructure. Practitioners describe the challenge of designing for the "lowest common denominator" while maintaining functionality and cost competitiveness. The absence of harmonized collection and sorting standards across EU member states creates persistent uncertainty.

Chemical recycling scalability remains unproven despite significant investment. While chemical recycling technologies offer theoretical solutions for difficult-to-recycle plastics, practitioners report that commercial-scale facilities have faced persistent technical and economic challenges. The 2024 collapse of several high-profile chemical recycling ventures has increased skepticism about near-term contributions to circular economy targets.

Key Players

Established Leaders

Amcor operates as Europe's largest flexible packaging producer, with 25 manufacturing facilities across the continent and documented commitments to 30% recycled content by 2030. Their technical capabilities in mono-material redesigns have made them a preferred partner for FMCG brands navigating recyclability requirements.

DS Smith leads in corrugated packaging innovation, with their "Now and Next" sustainability strategy targeting 100% recyclable or reusable packaging by 2025. Their circular design principles, developed in partnership with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, have been adopted by major retail customers including Tesco and Carrefour.

ALPLA has positioned itself as the European leader in recycled PET processing, operating six recycling facilities producing 162,000 tonnes of food-grade rPET annually. Their vertical integration—from collection through reprocessing to bottle manufacturing—provides supply chain security increasingly valued by brand owners.

Smurfit Kappa dominates the European corrugated and paper-based packaging market, with 350 production sites and €12.8 billion in 2024 revenues. Their "Better Planet Packaging" initiative has developed over 500 alternatives to plastic packaging for retail and e-commerce applications.

Berry Global (European operations) supplies rigid and flexible packaging across food, beverage, and personal care categories. Their investment in PCR integration technologies and design-for-recycling expertise makes them a significant player in European brands' sustainability transitions.

Emerging Startups

Notpla (UK) has developed seaweed-based packaging materials for food service applications, with deployments across delivery platforms including Just Eat Takeaway. Their 2024 Series A raised €30 million to scale production capacity.

Tipa (Israel/Netherlands) produces compostable flexible packaging films certified to EN 13432 standards, targeting fresh produce and bakery applications where conventional flexible plastics prove difficult to recycle.

Repack (Finland) operates a returnable e-commerce packaging service achieving 90%+ return rates across Nordic markets, demonstrating viable unit economics for circular e-commerce delivery.

Packoorang (Germany) provides reusable e-commerce packaging systems with integrated deposit management, targeting fashion and electronics retailers seeking to reduce single-use packaging volumes.

Carbiolice (France) has developed enzymatic additives enabling PLA biodegradation in home composting conditions, addressing a key limitation of industrial composting requirements for bioplastics.

Key Investors & Funders

Circularity Capital (Edinburgh) manages a €200 million fund focused on circular economy opportunities, with packaging investments including CupClub and Grover.

Sky Ocean Ventures invests in innovations addressing ocean plastic pollution, with portfolio companies including Notpla and Plastic Energy.

European Investment Bank has deployed over €1.5 billion in circular economy lending since 2020, including significant allocations to packaging infrastructure and innovation.

Closed Loop Partners (European operations) invests in materials science and recycling infrastructure, with portfolio companies addressing collection, sorting, and reprocessing challenges.

SYSTEMIQ combines consulting and investment activities, with their Circular Economy Practice advising major brands and their investment arm backing packaging innovations.

Examples

Carrefour's Bulk Dispensing Rollout (France): Since 2022, Carrefour has installed bulk dispensing stations across 1,200 French hypermarkets and supermarkets, offering over 100 products including grains, cereals, cleaning products, and personal care items. Internal data indicates plastic packaging reductions of 85% per kilogram of product sold through bulk formats. However, practitioners report that bulk categories represent only 2% of store revenues, highlighting the challenge of scaling beyond niche applications.

REWE's Deposit Return Expansion (Germany/Austria): Building on Germany's established DRS infrastructure, REWE Group extended deposit collection to 2.4 billion beverage containers in 2024, with 95% collection rates for eligible formats. The company invested €150 million in reverse vending infrastructure and achieved 18% year-over-year growth in closed-loop recycling. Practitioners note that DRS success depends on regulatory mandates creating universal participation—voluntary systems consistently underperform.

IKEA's Fiber-Based Packaging Transition (Pan-European): IKEA committed to eliminating EPS (expanded polystyrene) packaging globally, replacing it with fiber-based alternatives developed with suppliers. By 2024, the company achieved 95% conversion across European operations, reducing packaging plastic by 20,000 tonnes annually. Practitioners emphasize that IKEA's vertically integrated supply chain and product design control enabled changes impractical for brands with fragmented supplier bases.

Action Checklist

FAQ

Q: What return rate must reusable packaging achieve to outperform single-use alternatives economically? A: Practitioners consistently cite 85–95% return rates as the threshold for economic viability, though exact break-even points depend on container cost, cleaning and logistics expenses, and the single-use alternative's cost. For expensive reusable containers (glass bottles, durable plastic totes), the equation also depends on achieving sufficient rotation cycles—typically 15–30 uses—before container replacement. Consumer-facing systems rarely achieve these parameters without deposit schemes creating strong return incentives.

Q: How should brands navigate conflicting guidance on paper versus plastic substitution? A: Practitioners recommend avoiding categorical material preferences in favor of context-specific assessments. Key questions include: What functional requirements must the packaging meet? What recycling infrastructure exists in target markets? What are the full lifecycle impacts including sourcing, weight-related transport emissions, and end-of-life outcomes? In many applications, optimized lightweight plastic with established recycling pathways outperforms heavier paper alternatives on carbon metrics, even as plastic reduction targets favor paper. Transparency about these trade-offs, rather than marketing claims of simple solutions, builds stakeholder credibility.

Q: What regulatory developments should European packaging decision-makers monitor most closely? A: The PPWR implementing acts—expected through 2025—will define recyclability assessment methodologies and design-for-recycling criteria. These technical standards will determine which packaging formats qualify for reduced EPR fees and which face penalties or market restrictions. Additionally, national transposition of PPWR requirements may introduce variations across member states. Finally, the proposed EU Green Claims Directive will constrain marketing language around packaging sustainability, requiring robust substantiation for environmental claims.

Q: How are leading companies addressing the tension between plastic reduction and carbon reduction goals? A: Sophisticated practitioners have moved beyond single-metric optimization toward integrated packaging sustainability frameworks. These frameworks establish material-specific reduction targets (plastic tonnes), carbon budgets (Scope 3 emissions from packaging), and circularity metrics (recycled content, recyclability, actual recycling rates). Where trade-offs exist—reducing plastic may increase carbon, for instance—governance processes weigh considerations against strategic priorities. Some companies have adopted internal carbon pricing that makes these trade-offs explicit in procurement decisions.

Q: What timeline should brands expect for significant packaging portfolio transformation? A: Practitioners report that comprehensive packaging transitions require 3–5 years from strategy development through full implementation. Individual SKU redesigns typically require 18–24 months including technical development, supplier qualification, manufacturing line modifications, and market testing. Portfolio-wide transformations must sequence changes to manage operational complexity and capital investment requirements. Brands beginning now should target 2027–2028 for substantial portfolio completion, allowing buffer for regulatory refinement and infrastructure development.

Sources

European Commission. (2024). Proposal for a Regulation on Packaging and Packaging Waste—Adopted Text. Brussels: European Commission.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2024). The Global Commitment 2024 Progress Report. Cowes: Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
European Environment Agency. (2024). Plastics in a Circular Economy: Status and Trends in Europe. Copenhagen: EEA.
Eurobarometer. (2024). Attitudes of European Citizens Towards the Environment. Brussels: European Commission.
SYSTEMIQ. (2024). Breaking the Plastic Wave: European Implementation Pathways. London: SYSTEMIQ Ltd.
PRE (Plastics Recyclers Europe). (2025). European Plastics Recycling Industry Report 2024. Brussels: PRE.
CEFLEX. (2024). Designing for a Circular Economy: Guidelines for Flexible Packaging. Brussels: CEFLEX.