Circularity and Plastics: Proceedings of a Workshop (2025)
Chapter: 3 Packaging: Desired Future State and Solution Pathways
3
Packaging: Desired Future State and Solution Pathways
In characterizing the desired future for packaging, this breakout group discussed a vision of convenient, safe, equitable access to products and reuse and recycling systems, with near-term and increasing reduction in plastic use and pollution and ultimately right-sizing of the packaging stream for the needs of the market. This vision considered both of the roles of waste management and recycling and the consumer engagement side of the market.
As presented in Table 3-1, these systems could benefit from being intuitive, making the “right” choice the default option, and should minimize the burden on the consumer both financially and in terms of environmental and health impacts. Participatory design and other paths for stakeholder engagement could potentially grow support for and increase interaction with circular strategies by members of the public.
This group discussed desirable characteristics of a future extended producer responsibility (EPR) program (Table 3-2) and the potential related targets and measurable impacts (e.g. reduction and reuse targets and recycling rates). The group also envisioned harmonized and transparent collection of data and materials streams, which provides enough flexibility to enable innovation but also specifies targets and timelines.
The group noted that the increasing number of states engaging on EPR presents an opportunity to set a federal “floor” for these programs. For example, “producer” could be defined because different states and sectors define this term differently. Accordingly, a federal framework to provide commonality is another potentially helpful step—not only to enable future state-level legislation by accelerating that process, but also to harmonize definitions from an operational perspective.
The group indicated the potential for the EPR effort to be combined with bottle bills or a takeback program and to be complementary with other regulations. In addition to
state efforts and a federal “floor” model, education could be a powerful pathway to enable the end states described, particularly if it illuminates the intended end state.
There are some limits to current legislative efforts in this area. For example, the life cycle assessment (LCA)-based requirements in Oregon’s EPR scheme may end up incentivizing more plastic use. Plastic scores well in the LCA developed by Oregon because the state reviews a specific set of environmental factors (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions) based on nationally averaged, and sometimes, outdated data. EPR fees are based on weight, and LCAs are often based on weight, meaning that heavier packaging (e.g., metals or glass) are disincentivized twice, which could create perverse incentives to increase plastic use. This group noted the benefits of learning from the successes and drawbacks of legislation across the United States and internationally.
In addition, a potential future where every material on the packaging market is recyclable (displacing virgin plastics) was described, with desires for consistency in design, which set the stage for the design subgroup’s report-out.
The design breakout group envisioned a future state where design and technology deliver plastic packaging that does not harm people or the planet. Under the umbrella of “C5” (for Collaboration + Consistency + Commonalities + Communication + Confidence across value chains with all stakeholders), this group discussed a generic brand company to create and develop tools for standardization and scoring, test materials and product design, and new technologies. This generic brand could partner with nongovernmental organizations and academia to support innovation, research and development (R&D), piloting, and scaling efforts—particularly so that established brands do not assume all of the risk. This endeavor could utilize unique QR codes to track the life cycle and drive reuse, refill, and recycling of the material.
Approaches to packaging are based on a reduce, reuse, and recycle paradigm to reimagine growth. The group noted the desire to eliminate unnecessary packaging and materials, minimize (and simplify) the number of essential plastics (e.g., medical supplies) in use, and use refillables or reusables where possible. Materials, products, and technology could be designed to support this effort.
This group outlined a future where:
- Consumers understand the benefits and risks of their product purchases and packaging.
- Companies have the correct tools to design minimal negative impacts on people and the planet.
- Regional material processing and converting facilities know how to safely and effectively process material in a circular fashion.
- Regionalized value chains (waste generators, collectors, processors, converters, and end markets) are connected so that the design of materials and products, and the technology that is deployed, connects to end market demands.
| Desired Future State—Human Dimension | Example Pathways to Desired Future |
|---|---|
|
Redesign
|
|
Example Pathways → Systems approach
|
Example Policy (Requiring specific or standardized packaging, requiring refill options, EPR, taxes or subsidies for initial investments and scalability and consumer affordability)
|
NOTES: This summary from the breakout session reflects the discussion of the group and should not be construed as reflecting consensus of the group. EPR: extended producer responsibility; MRF: material recovery facility.
TABLE 3-2 Summary of EPR Desired State and Example Pathways Prepared by the Packaging Breakout Group
| Desired Future State—EPR | Example Pathways to Desired Future |
|---|---|
|
Convenient, safe, equitable access to reasonably priced products, reuse and recycling systems in the near-term, while continuing reduction of plastic use, limiting pollution, and right-size the packaging stream for needs EPR Programs that are:
Other regulations
|
“Federal floor” concept: a minimum federal requirements as basis for EPR schemes, including:
Introduce ON-RAMP to give parties a chance to deliver results Apply lessons learned and build upon existing EPR program leaders from the U.S. and other jurisdictions outside the U.S. Reuse existing legislative language from the following states/topic area:
|
| Every material on the market for packaging in future is recyclable (e.g., phasing out use of PVC in future applications) |
Education programs targeting the following audiences:
Examples to include in programs:
It could be more beneficial from a multi-party group that includes NGOs, academia, recyclers, associations, brand owners, and plastics producers |
| Including incentives for regional use for example pathways for U.S. domestic waste to circle back into U.S. products (e.g., including domestic PCR requirements as part of EPR with ecomodulation for higher use of PCR, regardless of domestic status) | |
| Increasing usage of recycled content Removing undesirable ingredients from plastics recycling streams | |
| Applying PCR mandates (including food exemptions, credit systems, etc.) with simple content criteria | |
| Protection for new (positive) formats that can technically be recycled (but may not yet have infrastructure) |
NOTES: This summary from the breakout session reflects the discussion of the group and should not be construed as reflecting consensus of the group. EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; EPR: extended producer responsibility; FDA: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; KPI: key performance indicator; LCA: life cycle assessment;
NGO: non-governmental organization; NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology; PCR: post-consumer recycled content; PIR: post industrial recycled; PVC: polyvinyl chloride.
When discussing the pathway to a desired future, the group raised the issue of legacy materials and related toxicity concerns. In its vision of an end state, the previous breakout subgroup indicated a role for federal funding and engagement (funded through small contributions from state EPR programs) so that agencies could conduct the testing needed to enable engagement with legacy materials. The design breakout group noted the importance of shared definitions and standardization for reduction, refillables, reusables, and recyclability—for both the producers and consumers. The International Standards Organization (ISO) has developed standards, but they do not include residential components, for example, effects from reusing plastic packaging in the home (e.g., when microwaved).
The group also underscored the role of commonality for producers as well as for industrial and commercial stakeholders, coupled with education to enable consumer behavior changes. For example, standards could be developed for refillable, reusable, and recyclable food packaging, with agreed-upon packaging design to engender systems change across brand owners. Another vision involves reusables with QR codes with reverse vending machines for deposits. Reusable applications could be attained in closed systems including reusable cups that do not leave stadiums, semi-closed systems such as cafeteria trays that could be taken away but then reported, systems with financial deposits, and reusables cup at restaurants that customers can return when driving to an alternative location. The group noted that learning from failed cases can inform development of successful systems.
This group’s discussion concluded with an emphasis on accelerating the R&D time-line for plastic packaging innovation, exploring technologies that could be deployed in the short term while working through R&D timelines for alternatives. Regarding the desire to drive more collaboration and/or cooperation, the group discussed the application of standards to both upstream and downstream material flows, as well as consistent scoring frameworks, particularly those that account for social, economic, and environmental opportunities and for community-level factors.
One additional topic discussed was the global or regional nature of material selection, branding, and marketing. In contrast, recycling is a local endeavor, with different facilities, recycling systems, costs, and policies in different places. The role for different communication channels, communication formats, and marketing efforts, and how these are received in different communities, was also noted.
