Wasted opportunity?

Adopting more sustainable packaging habits is an important way for businesses and consumers to be more environmentally conscious. And rightly so. The European Commission (EC) estimates that without intervention, total packaging waste could rise by 19% by 2030, compared to 2018 levels, while plastic waste could rise by as much as 46%.

The intentions of packaging regulations such as the EU’s Packaging & Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) and the Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging (pEPR) in the UK, are to address this issue and encourage more environmentally sustainable packaging choices.

However, it appears that, in practice, implementing packaging regulation across supply chains is proving to be complicated and expensive, with businesses often feeling short-changed by a lack of Government guidance, adding significant costs that are often passed on to consumers and compounding the cost-of-living pressures facing households.

The PPWR came into force in February but applied generally from 12th August this year, superseding the Packaging & Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD) and establishing a “harmonised framework for packaging and packaging waste in the Single Market”, according to the EC. The legislation continues the longer-term overhaul of reducing European packaging waste as part of the overarching EU Green Deal. Alongside other changes, PPWR introduced a restriction on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in food contact packaging. Plus, businesses will be expected to comply with further changes, including recyclability content and labelling, over the coming years as more elements of the regulation come into force.

There is widespread endorsement for the regulation, and many stakeholders suggest that the guidance for PPWR is valuable material, according to Packaging Europe. However, while there is support for the objectives, many believe there are broader, practical challenges for businesses. The article highlights several shortfalls in PPWR guidance, including confusion over definitions, limited guidance on certain recyclability criteria and a lack of an available methodology to identify PFAS in food-contact packaging. Alongside the costs of the new scheme to businesses, an absence of comprehensive guidance and clarity impacts their ability to meaningfully demonstrate compliance and invest in sustainable practices.

A similar situation unfolds in the UK. The pEPR “requires packaging producers to cover the full cost of managing household packaging waste” according to the House of Commons Library. This is designed to encourage businesses to “reduce material use and enhance reusability and recyclability”, as stated by UK Government.

Under EPR, in addition to waste disposal costs, large businesses need to obtain Packaging Recycling Notes (PRNs) equivalent to a proportion of the packaging they place on the market. PRN prices for plastic, which is essential for some food businesses, attracted an average trading price of £544.04 per tonne on 14th August 2026, 13 times higher than it was two years ago (August 2024 price was £41.29). Some reasons mentioned for these increases are the mismatch between the supply of PRNs and the increasing demand for them, amplified by a lack of transparency and visibility in the PRN market. This volatility is a huge burden for businesses already under pressure, making it difficult to forecast compliance spending and investment.

To solve this puzzle, better, more deliberate co-design is needed from policymakers. They must resolve the socio-environmental issues around excessive use of packaging while ensuring businesses are equipped with clear guidance and greater visibility over compliance obligations and costs. Avoiding disproportionate and unpredictable costs prevents hikes in prices for consumers and ensures there is administrative and financial capacity for businesses to invest in long-term sustainability improvements, leading to more effective policy.