Operational playbook: scaling Plastic reduction & packaging systems from pilot to rollout

In 2024, the US Plastics Pact reported that 67% of member packaging was reusable, recyclable, or compostable—up from just 50% in 2023—while recycled content in packaging rose to 13% from 11% (US Plastics Pact, 2025). Yet globally, only 9% of plastic waste is actually recycled, and the plastic packaging sector alone produces 1.8 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2025). The gap between pilot success and system-wide rollout remains the defining challenge for procurement teams working to scale plastic reduction initiatives. This playbook provides a structured approach to moving beyond proof-of-concept, with milestones, ownership models, and metrics that distinguish genuine progress from measurement theater.

Why It Matters

Plastic packaging accounts for 47% of all plastic waste generated globally—approximately 103 million tonnes in 2024 alone (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2024). The environmental consequences extend beyond visible pollution: mismanaged plastic waste contributes to landfill methane emissions, microplastic contamination of water systems and food chains, and significant carbon emissions across the production-to-disposal lifecycle.

For procurement teams operating in the EU, the regulatory landscape has fundamentally shifted. The EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) mandates that all packaging must be recyclable by 2030, with specific recycled content targets and extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations creating immediate compliance pressure. The regulation requires 30% recycled content in plastic packaging by 2030, escalating to 65% by 2040 for certain categories.

Beyond compliance, the business case is increasingly compelling. Major buyers including Walmart, Unilever, and PepsiCo have established supplier requirements around plastic reduction. PepsiCo's 2024 sustainability report documented a 5% virgin plastic reduction (exceeding their 2% annual target), while Unilever achieved 18% virgin plastic reduction against their 2019 baseline (PepsiCo, 2024; Unilever, 2024). Suppliers unable to meet these requirements face contract risk, while those ahead of the curve gain competitive advantage.

The transition from pilot to rollout is where most initiatives fail. A successful pilot at one facility or product line encounters different obstacles at scale: supply chain fragmentation, inconsistent data collection, resistance to change, and the discovery that pilot economics don't translate. This playbook addresses these failure modes systematically.

Key Concepts

The Pilot-to-Rollout Gap

The transition from pilot to scale involves four distinct phases, each with different requirements:

Phase 1: Proof of Concept (Months 1-6) Testing material alternatives, operational changes, or supplier partnerships in controlled conditions. Success metrics focus on technical feasibility and early unit economics.

Phase 2: Pilot Validation (Months 6-18) Expanding to multiple SKUs, facilities, or geographies while validating that initial results hold under varied conditions. This phase surfaces integration challenges with existing systems.

Phase 3: Rollout Preparation (Months 18-24) Building the infrastructure—supplier contracts, training programs, data systems, quality assurance protocols—required for enterprise-wide deployment.

Phase 4: Full Rollout (Months 24-36+) Systematic deployment across the organization with continuous improvement mechanisms.

Measurement Framework: Beyond Vanity Metrics

Effective plastic reduction measurement requires distinguishing between input metrics (what you're doing), output metrics (immediate results), and outcome metrics (actual environmental impact).

Metric Type	Example Metrics	Common Pitfalls
Input	% suppliers engaged, training sessions delivered	Activity ≠ impact
Output	Tonnes virgin plastic reduced, % recycled content	May shift problems elsewhere
Outcome	Net lifecycle emissions, actual recycling rates	Requires full LCA data

The most common form of measurement theater occurs when organizations optimize input metrics while ignoring outcomes. A 50% reduction in virgin plastic means little if the replacement material has higher lifecycle emissions or ends up in landfill due to incompatible recycling infrastructure.

Material Hierarchy for Plastic Reduction

Effective plastic reduction follows a clear hierarchy, with each tier delivering different environmental value:

Elimination: Removing packaging entirely where possible (highest impact)
Reduction: Lightweighting and material efficiency improvements
Reuse: Reusable packaging systems (requires return infrastructure)
Recyclable substitution: Switching to materials with established recycling streams
Recycled content: Increasing post-consumer recycled (PCR) content
Alternative materials: Bioplastics, paper-based alternatives (context-dependent)

Organizations often jump to tier 6 (alternative materials) because it appears innovative, while tiers 1-3 typically deliver greater environmental benefit per dollar invested.

What's Working

Standardized Supplier Engagement Programs

Organizations achieving scale have moved beyond ad-hoc supplier requests to structured engagement programs with clear requirements, timelines, and support mechanisms.

Key success factors:

Tiered requirements matched to supplier capabilities
Multi-year transition timelines (typically 3-5 years) providing planning certainty
Technical assistance and co-investment for strategic suppliers
Clear consequences for non-compliance integrated into contract renewals

The Sustainable Packaging Coalition's How2Recycle program demonstrates this approach, providing standardized labeling that reduces confusion for both suppliers and consumers while creating accountability through third-party verification.

Reusable Packaging Systems in B2B Contexts

Reusable packaging has proven viable in controlled B2B supply chains where return logistics can be optimized. Studies show reusable systems reduce solid waste by 86%, cut CO2 emissions by 60%, and decrease energy consumption by 64% compared to single-use alternatives (Reloop Platform, 2024).

Success conditions:

Closed-loop supply chains with predictable return flows
High-value goods justifying return logistics investment
Digital tracking systems (RFID, QR codes) enabling asset management
Long-term contracts providing return-on-investment certainty

Collaborative Industry Initiatives

Individual company efforts face limitations that industry-wide collaboration can address. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation's Global Commitment has enrolled 500+ signatories representing 20% of all plastic packaging produced globally, creating shared standards and reporting frameworks that reduce friction for suppliers serving multiple customers.

The US Plastics Pact's 2024 progress demonstrates collective action potential: member companies achieved 67% reusable, recyclable, or compostable packaging, with a commitment to establish film recycling infrastructure by 2026—something no individual company could accomplish alone.

What's Not Working

Premature Material Substitution

The rush to eliminate plastic has led many organizations to substitute materials that perform worse on lifecycle analysis. Paper and cardboard alternatives often require more material by weight, generate higher production emissions, and fail in humid or wet conditions. Bioplastics frequently lack compatible end-of-life infrastructure—a "compostable" package that ends up in landfill delivers minimal environmental benefit.

The data is sobering: A 2024 analysis by Greyparrot found that 35,000 tonnes of recyclable plastics ended in landfills despite being technically recyclable—a failure of infrastructure rather than material (Greyparrot, 2024). Switching to theoretically superior materials without verifying end-of-life infrastructure creates false progress.

Recycled Content Challenges

Major brands including PepsiCo, Unilever, and Coca-Cola have acknowledged being "behind plan" on 2025 recycled content targets. PepsiCo revised its target from 50% recycled content by 2030 to 40% by 2035, while Coca-Cola adjusted from 50% by 2030 to 35-40% by 2035 (Packaging Dive, 2024).

Root causes:

Insufficient supply of food-grade recycled plastic (rPET, rHDPE)
Price volatility in recycled material markets
Quality consistency challenges affecting production processes
Competing demand from multiple industries simultaneously increasing targets

Flexible films—pouches, sachets, multilayer packaging—represent a growing proportion of plastic packaging but remain notoriously difficult to recycle. Greyparrot detected 7 billion flexible film items in waste streams in 2024, with recycling rates near zero (Greyparrot, 2024). Organizations focusing reduction efforts on rigid packaging while increasing flexible packaging may achieve positive metrics while worsening actual outcomes.

Key Players

Established Leaders

Amcor — Global packaging leader with commitments to 30% average recycled content by 2030 and 100% recyclable or reusable packaging. Operating circular packaging partnerships with major CPG brands.
Berry Global — Developing recyclable mono-material flexible films and scaling post-consumer recycled content. $13B revenue with significant R&D in sustainable materials.
Graphic Packaging — Fiber-based packaging specialist helping brands transition from plastic to paper-based solutions. Published comprehensive circularity metrics in 2024 Impact Report.
Sealed Air — Industrial packaging focus with BUBBLE WRAP® brand. Piloting reusable packaging systems for e-commerce and achieving 30% recycled content targets.

Emerging Startups

Notpla — UK-based seaweed packaging company raised €23.9M in 2024. Supplies biodegradable packaging to Compass Group, Just Eat Takeaway, and major sports venues.
Vytal Global — German reusable packaging platform raised €14.2M in 2025. Provides tech-enabled reusables for events (UEFA Euro 2024) and food service with RFID tracking.
Xampla — Cambridge-based natural biopolymer company raised $17.6M to develop plant-based alternatives to single-use plastics, partnering with CPG brands for flexible packaging applications.
Nfinite Nanotech — US startup raised $6.5M for FDA-approved barrier coatings that enable mono-material recyclable packaging, partnering with Unilever, PepsiCo, and Amcor.

Key Investors & Funders

Closed Loop Partners — US-based investment firm focused on circular economy infrastructure. Led investments in recycling technology and sustainable packaging startups.
Circularity Capital — European private equity fund with €170M+ under management focused exclusively on circular economy businesses.
Alliance to End Plastic Waste — Industry consortium with $611M committed by third parties in 2024 for plastic waste solutions globally.
European Investment Bank — Major funder of circular economy infrastructure projects in EU member states, with dedicated plastic reduction financing windows.

Examples

1. Unilever: Systematic Virgin Plastic Reduction

Unilever's plastic reduction program demonstrates enterprise-scale implementation. By 2024, the company achieved 18% virgin plastic reduction against a 2019 baseline, with 72% of packaging portfolio technically recyclable and 21% recycled plastic content (Unilever, 2024).

Key implementation elements:

Portfolio-wide review identifying elimination opportunities (removed 26,000+ tonnes through refill/reuse)
Concentrated product formats reducing packaging per use
Strategic investments in recycling infrastructure (partnership with Veolia)
Regional adaptation recognizing different recycling infrastructure maturity

Lessons learned: Progress requires both product redesign and infrastructure investment. Targets for recyclability mean little without verification that recycling actually occurs.

2. Loop/TerraCycle: Reusable Packaging at Scale

Loop's reusable packaging platform, developed by TerraCycle, partners with major brands including Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, and Coca-Cola to deliver products in reusable containers that consumers return for cleaning and refill.

Implementation approach:

Premium positioning absorbing additional logistics costs
Deposit system incentivizing returns (90%+ return rates achieved)
Centralized cleaning facilities ensuring quality consistency
Gradual expansion from pilot markets to broader rollout

Challenges encountered: Consumer convenience expectations require seamless pickup/return systems. Unit economics work for premium products but struggle with low-margin categories. Geographic density matters—sparse markets have unsustainable logistics costs.

3. Mars Inc.: Portfolio Redesign for Recyclability

Mars committed to redesigning or eliminating 50% of its packaging portfolio to align with available recycling infrastructure by 2025. The approach prioritizes practical recyclability over theoretical recyclability.

Tactical execution:

Mapping packaging types against actual municipal recycling capabilities
Eliminating problematic elements (colored PET, multi-material sachets)
Engaging retailers on in-store collection for materials lacking curbside recycling
Publishing material specifications enabling supplier alignment

Key insight: "Recyclable" packaging placed in bins that contaminate recycling streams creates negative outcomes. Mars's infrastructure-first approach acknowledges that material choices must match end-of-life realities.

Sector-Specific KPI Benchmarks

KPI	Laggard (<25th %ile)	Median	Leader (>75th %ile)	Notes
Virgin plastic reduction (% vs. baseline)	<5%	10-15%	>20%	3-year rolling measurement
Recycled content (% PCR)	<10%	15-20%	>25%	Food-grade plastics only
Packaging recyclability (% by weight)	<50%	65-75%	>85%	Verified against actual infrastructure
Supplier engagement (% by spend)	<40%	60-70%	>85%	Suppliers with active reduction plans
Data completeness (% SKUs measured)	<60%	75-85%	>95%	Full LCA data availability
Reusable packaging (% eligible categories)	<5%	10-15%	>25%	B2B contexts primarily

Action Checklist

FAQ

Q: How do we handle suppliers unwilling or unable to meet plastic reduction requirements?

A: Develop a tiered approach. For strategic suppliers, co-invest in capability building with multi-year transition plans. For commodity suppliers, use competitive procurement processes that weight sustainability performance. Some supplier transitions will be necessary—begin identifying alternatives 18-24 months before mandate effective dates. The key is providing sufficient notice for good-faith suppliers while maintaining consequences for non-compliance.

Q: When is material substitution the wrong choice?

A: Material substitution fails when the replacement has higher lifecycle emissions, lacks viable end-of-life infrastructure, or compromises product protection leading to increased waste. Before any substitution, conduct LCA comparison and verify that recycling/composting infrastructure exists in your markets. Paper replacing plastic for wet or humid applications frequently fails on both functional and environmental criteria.

Q: How do we avoid "measurement theater" while still tracking progress?

A: Focus on outcome metrics over activity metrics. Track actual recycling rates (not recyclability claims), verified recycled content (not supplier assertions), and net lifecycle emissions (not just virgin plastic reduction). Engage third-party verification for material claims. Be transparent about data gaps rather than filling them with estimates. The goal is decision-useful information, not audit-friendly documentation.

Q: What's a realistic timeline for enterprise-wide rollout?

A: Most organizations should plan for 3-5 years from pilot initiation to full deployment. Rushing creates technical failures and stakeholder resistance. The typical phasing: 6 months for proof-of-concept, 12 months for pilot validation, 6 months for rollout preparation, 12-24 months for systematic deployment. Organizations attempting faster timelines often achieve paper compliance without genuine environmental benefit.

Q: How do we balance plastic reduction with other sustainability priorities?

A: Plastic reduction should integrate with overall sustainability strategy, not compete with it. Some plastic reduction choices increase carbon emissions; some increase food waste. Use lifecycle assessment to evaluate trade-offs. In general, prioritize interventions that deliver benefits across multiple dimensions (e.g., lightweighting reduces both plastic use and transport emissions) over those requiring trade-offs.

Sources

US Plastics Pact. (2025). 2024 Progress Report. Available at: https://usplasticspact.org/
Pew Charitable Trusts. (2025). Breaking the Plastic Wave 2025. Available at: https://www.pew.org/
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2024). Global Commitment Progress Report. Available at: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/
PepsiCo. (2024). 2024 ESG Summary. Available at: https://www.pepsico.com/esg-topics/packaging
Unilever. (2024). Plastic & Packaging Progress Report. Available at: https://www.unilever.com/sustainability/plastics/
Packaging Dive. (2024). Companies begin to signal changes to 2025 plastic targets. Available at: https://www.packagingdive.com/
Greyparrot. (2024). What we learned by detecting 40 billion waste objects in 2024. Available at: https://www.greyparrot.ai/
Sustainable Packaging Coalition. (2025). 2025 Sustainable Packaging Trends Report. Available at: https://sustainablepackaging.org/
Reloop Platform. (2024). Reusable Packaging Economic Analysis. Available at: https://www.reloopplatform.org/