Welcome to the Plastic IQ Solutions Database,
a guide to technologies, strategies, and best practices for reducing plastic waste
CHOOSE YOUR SOLUTION
Eliminate plastic items
Minimize plastic
per item
Reuse models
Paper
Compostables
Glass
Metal
More recyclable formats
Enhance
recyclability
Bio-based content
Mechanically
recycled content
Chemically
recycled content
Eliminate plastic items
Rethinking a product, packaging, or business model can eliminate packaging while maintaining or even enhancing the user experience (3). Known as “elimination,” this is defined in the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Upstream Innovation Guide as: “eliminating the need for packaging or a packaging component or making the packaging from an edible or dissolvable material.”
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation identifies two approaches to elimination: direct elimination and innovative elimination. The latter focuses on items of packaging that serve an essential function and require innovation to ensure this function is fulfilled in a new, plastic-free way. The former applies to non-essential packaging that can be directly eliminated. Film packaging on multi-buy packs, for example, may be removed entirely through innovation. Using edible coating to replace plastic films on fresh produce, on the other hand, is an innovative approach because it extends shelf life without the need to collect and recycle the plastic film after use.
Ambition level consideration: Elimination ambition levels vary significantly among different plastic applications. According to the “Breaking the Plastic Wave” report, an ambitious target for fresh produce, based on today’s plastic volumes, is to eliminate 50% of plastic packaging by 2030 (1). But we do not have to wait until 2030 to see results. A key benefit of elimination, particularly direct elimination solutions, is that their implementation can be relatively fast, allowing for “quick wins” in the next one to three years. Similar plastic elimination levels should be possible for wrappers on durable items and multi-pack wrapping, and 50% is also the private label packaging elimination target recommended by WWF (8). Many of these products can be sold unpackaged, individually, or using innovative solutions such as edible coatings on produce, Glue Dots, or laser labeling.
Even higher ambition levels are recommended for plastic packaging defined as unnecessary (e.g., by different national plastics pact initiatives (9)), as well as for small packaging formats that are particularly challenging to recycle and should be either eliminated, turned into a recyclable format, or redesigned entirely ((9), (2)). Where small packaging does not fulfill an essential function, it can be directly eliminated (e.g., removing straws on bottles); in other cases, the required function can be met in innovative ways (e.g., switching to reusable straws or using a dissolvable coating around laundry tabs).
Considerations on different packaging formats: Elimination is most currently applicable for the following types of packaging:
Packaging for household items and clothing, and food or non-food multi-buy items, which are often wrapped in film (or other flexible plastics) but do not require a barrier layer, may be directly eliminated – high potential.
Packaging for fruit and vegetables that is only provided for convenience could be replaced with edible coatings or mist spraying to maintain freshness, or directly eliminated to sell products unpackaged – high potential.
Small attachments like straws, stirrers, and spoons can often be directly eliminated, while other small packaging formats can be replaced, such as by using dissolvable coatings for laundry tabs – high potential.
Packaging for products that may be able to be concentrated or delivered in an alternative format through innovation (e.g., by switching to reusable bottles, concentrates, or shampoo bars) – moderate to high potential.
Household items, toys, and similar products can be packaged in (windowed) multi-material boxes – low to medium potential.
The cost impacts of elimination can vary widely, ranging from 100% cost savings for plastic elimination not requiring a replacement technology to less significant cost savings where replacement technologies are needed. Examples that could achieve 100% savings compared to single-use plastic include the removal of: second layer packaging (e.g., individually wrapped snacks within a bigger package), unnecessary vegetable wrapping (e.g., for potatoes not requiring a protective layer), and unnecessary small items (e.g., straws on bottles). Plastic IQ research identified case studies in which replacement technologies ranged from 59% to 74% cheaper than plastic . Effective replacement technologies include using Glue Dots instead of six-pack wrapping, laser food labeling instead of vegetable wrapping, and reusable instead of disposable water bottles.
Detailed data and methodology can be found in the Method Appendix. [Link]
Eliminating avoidable packaging has the highest potential emissions savings of any lever: up to 4 metric tons of CO2e savings per metric ton of plastic avoided (i.e., 100% savings) in cases where packaging is eliminated entirely and no replacement technology is needed. The Plastic IQ tool estimates an 85% reduction in emissions for the elimination lever, equating to 3.4 metric tons of CO2e avoided for every metric ton of single-use plastic eliminated. This reflects the fact that the emissions savings shown in available studies vary widely depending on the replacement solution used, if any. The data of case studies feeding into this estimate can be found in the Method Appendix. [Link]
It is important that elimination strategies are assessed on a case-by-case basis as, in practice, it is possible for them to have a zero or even negative impact on overall greenhouse gas emissions if unintended consequences are not carefully monitored. For example, where packaging is required for food preservation purposes, eliminating it can cause a rise in food waste and a subsequent increase in emissions.
Additional implementation and solution information is available for each of the elimination approaches:
Direct elimination (e.g., eliminating film packaging on multi-packs, selling unpackaged fruit and vegetables).
Innovative elimination (e.g., using edible packaging, switching sales from single-use to durable products such as water filters). (Make these links to L2 pages).
Elimination is often a hidden innovation opportunity to achieve packaging sustainability targets, particularly for formats that are challenging to fit into the circular economy (e.g., non-recyclables and small or high-leakage packaging formats) and/or are used in locations where collection is difficult (e.g., outdoor events) (3). Key benefits include:
Cost reduction: By eliminating unnecessary packaging, cost savings can be achieved on packaging materials themselves. Redesigning products to eliminate packaging can also reduce any expenses and carbon emissions associated with transport or storage space. For example, replacing liquid products with more concentrated or solid alternatives, or switching to locally produced products, can reduce touchpoints and logistics (3).
Increased brand reputation and sales: Unpackaged, less intensively packaged, and innovatively packaged products may all lead to increased sales due to changing consumer consumption patterns, expectations, and perceptions. A new and improved user experience may be created when, for example, the need to unwrap and dispose of packaging is eliminated, freshness is enhanced by locally grown unpackaged products, or lighter shampoo bars are carried home instead of heavy bottles (3).
Reduced environmental impacts: Eliminating plastic packaging avoids energy used for transportation; cuts emissions from packaging production, waste transport, and landfill; reduces natural resource use; and decreases land use associated with disposal (4).
- Prioritize products applicable to elimination: For maximum impact, prioritize packaging that is avoidable, hard to recycle, or most likely to pollute the environment (6). Packaging examples include household items, clothing, fruit and vegetables, multi-packs, and small attachments (see “Considerations on different packaging formats”). Where possible, aim to eliminate the entire packaging instead of a component (3).
Engage the innovation team from a “first principles” perspective: Begin by defining the service or experience that a product-packaging combination is offering consumers. Based on that, test which packaging is really needed or how any essential functions could be offered in a different way. For example, could herbs be sourced locally instead of packaged for transport to ensure freshness? Innovatively packaged or unpackaged products will have the best uptake if sold at a similar price as existing ranges (3).
Find opportunities for rapid prototyping and design thinking: Deploy a learn-by-doing approach to avoid early-stage failures and identify successful elimination solutions in practice. For instance, conduct trials of new innovative elimination solutions in low-risk markets or for low-risk product lines first.
Test for unintended consequences: Make sure the elimination strategy can be implemented without creating unintended consequences, such as significantly higher levels of product waste or an adverse rise in product damage rates (3). For example, while food sold without packaging can prevent the generation of plastic waste and related negative externalities, unless alternative solutions – such as edible coatings – are rolled out in parallel, this can also decrease shelf life and increase food waste (5).
- Mindset shift in packaging designers: Companies are shifting their views about what constitutes “necessary” packaging. Many are questioning the need for packaging in various applications, and the number of packaging items broadly considered “unnecessary” is growing (3). It is imperative that packaging designers also adopt this lens when designing products and packaging.
Common industry understanding: Brands, retailers, and policymakers are continually refining the list of unnecessary packaging items. Creating a common understanding on these avoidable items is an important way for industry to rapidly and collectively reduce the use of unnecessary plastic (3). National plastics pacts, for instance, are increasingly defining lists of “problematic and unnecessary plastics.” Subject to antitrust laws and regulations, industry players can communicate with each other to innovate and scale elimination solutions.
Solutions that engage consumers: Creating solutions that consumers will accept and engage with is a necessary condition for achieving successful elimination at scale. Even though consumers rank the environmental impact of packaging below factors such as hygiene and food safety, shelf life, or ease of use, a U.S. survey found that 55% of respondents are extremely or very concerned about the environmental impact of product packaging (7). Eliminating plastic is in line with this mindset shift away from packaging waste, but it is still important for businesses to introduce solutions that their consumers can and will participate in and welcome.
Solutions and case studies
- Direct elimination (e.g., eliminating film packaging on multi-packs, selling unpackaged fruit and vegetables).
Innovative elimination (e.g., using edible packaging, switching sales from single-use to durable products such as water filters).
References and further reading
(1) SYSTEMIQ Ltd (2020). Breaking the Plastic Wave: A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution. (Link)
(2) New Plastics Economy. (Link)
(3) Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Upstream Innovation. A guide to packaging solutions. (Link)
(4) EPA: Reducing Wasted Food & Packaging: A Guide for Food Services and Restaurants. (Link)
(5) European Economic and Social Committee: Recycling food packaging & food waste in plastics revolution. (Link)
(6) WRAP (2019): Eliminating Problem Plastics. (Link)
(7) McKinsey (2020). Sustainability in packaging: Inside the minds of US consumers. (Link)
(8) WWF Packaging. (Link)
(9) Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Plastics Pact. (Link)
