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
Minimize plastic per item
Ambition level considerations: An ambitious plastic minimization target for highly applicable packaging types, such as multi-wrapping (if elimination is not an option), is 80% by 2030. Achieving this target will often require product and/or packaging redesign, such as switching from six-pack wraps to multi-pack handles (e.g., Nature Multi Pack by KHS). Shifting to a concentrated product (e.g., concentrated all-purpose cleaners) could make even higher minimization ambition levels possible. After a careful assessment of recyclability, ambitious smartweighting can minimize around 30% of plastics. For example, ALPLA recorded a 28% material reduction by lightweighting milk bottles while WRAP reports a 30% material reduction in stretch film following the simple modification of existing equipment (7). In other cases, only a 10-15% material reduction is feasible, such as reducing the size of liner back seals by using a new sealing approach (e.g., Marks & Spencer salad packaging (7)).
Considerations on different packaging formats: Minimization is currently most applicable for the following types of packaging:
Bottled products such as beverages, cleaning products, and personal care products; PET/HDPE/LDPE/PP bottles for syrup or other condiments; and trays and pots used for products like yogurt, fruit, and vegetables – high potential.
Stretch wrap used for fruit and vegetable and other wrapping, pouches, and plastic bags, such as for bread – moderate to high potential.
Minimizing packaging material leads to reduced packaging costs through efficiency savings. Plastic IQ estimates a 100% cost saving for each ton of plastic packaging reduced via minimization. However, packaging redesign and innovation may incur initial R&D costs that are not quantified in the Plastic IQ tool but should be evaluated by companies.
If done right, reducing the quantity of packaging material eliminates the GHG emissions associated with the reduced plastic and does not cause any unintended increases in emissions. This equates to 4 metric tons less CO2e per metric ton of plastic reduced. But it is crucial to make sure that packaging minimization does not cause unintended consequences, such as increased food waste or a need for more secondary packaging to ensure product protection, both of which can increase GHG emissions. While the 100% GHG savings potential refers to the plastic material saved, other emission-related processes – including after-use transportation, sorting, recycling, or cleaning (for reusable packaging) – may not result in the same level of GHG savings.
Additional implementation and solution information is available for each of the elimination approaches:
Reduce overpackaging (e.g., reduction of unnecessary headspace or cap sizes).
Smartweighting (e.g., thinner bottles or pouches).
Make the product more concentrated (e.g., shampoo or lemonade concentrate).
- Cost reduction: By minimizing packaging size and/or weight, business costs for packaging and transportation can be reduced (3).
Meeting shifting consumer expectations: Minimizing overpackaging can score an important win with certain consumers. Although consumers rank the environmental impact of a product’s packaging below other factors– such as hygiene and food safety, shelf life, or ease of use – a U.S. survey found that 55% of respondents are still extremely or very concerned about the environmental impact of product packaging (4).
Minimizing plastic packaging is in line with this trend: Overpackaged items may even turn more eco-conscious consumers off. However, the new packaging should still meet consumer expectations for functionality and user experience (6).
Reduced environmental impacts: By achieving material savings and improving the efficiency per individual packaging, plastic minimization can reduce GHG emissions from plastic production, transportation of products and waste, use of natural resources, and land use space associated with disposal (2).
- Think from a system perspective: reusability, recyclability, and compostability first: If a packaging system is already reusable, recyclable, or compostable, minimizing material may be beneficial under certain conditions (see points below). If not, focus first on making packaging reusable, recyclable, or compostable to improve its overall performance in the system rather than minimizing a material without a system for after-use in place.
- Avoid unintended consequences by leveraging machine and packaging technology as well as design insights: Strike a balance between unnecessary overpackaging and ineffective underpackaging by checking product requirements to identify any “over-requirements” in product protection (e.g., shelf life, protection against contaminants, maintaining freshness), tamper resistance, packaging quality, pack appeal, or convenience when planning where to decrease material input (5).
- Ensure recyclability of minimized packaging formats: A heavier, recyclable rigid plastic may be more circular and therefore more sustainable than a non-recyclable, lighter, multi-material. The costs of collecting and recycling complex, lightweight multi-material formats may exceed the revenue from recycling them. If that results in this packaging not getting collected and/or recycled, the overall system outcomes could be worse than for heavier but more recyclable packaging (1). Packaging changes need to be assessed carefully: lighter is not always better.
- Think about logistical aspects and transport: Different forms of packaging may handle and store differently (5). Reducing primary packaging can lead to additional protection from secondary or tertiary packaging being required. Aim to optimize the total system rather than only the primary packaging usage. In some cases, secondary and tertiary packaging can offer great packaging savings opportunities, which should be taken into account even if they are beyond the scope of the Plastic IQ project (6).
- Government policy and support: Policies such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes may incentivize a reduction in packaging use.
Consumer acceptance: Product changes require the engagement and acceptance of consumers to be successfully adopted, especially for solutions that amend the product itself, such as by shifting to concentrates.
Supply chain collaboration: Collaborating with supply chain partners can be necessary to innovate and scale minimization solutions, such as the development of more concentrated products.
Mindset shift of packaging designers: The view on how much packaging is needed is changing. Many companies are starting to question the need for packaging in different applications, encouraging them to minimize plastics to the necessary amount. It is imperative that packaging designers also adopt this lens when designing products and packaging. (1)
Solutions and case studies
- Reduce overpackaging (e.g., reduction of unnecessary headspace or cap sizes)
Smartweighting (e.g., thinner bottles or pouches)
Make the product more concentrated (e.g., shampoo or lemonade concentrate)
References and further reading
(1) Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Upstream Innovation. A guide to packaging solutions. (Link)
(2) EPA: Reducing Wasted Food & Packaging: A Guide for Food Services and Restaurants. (Link)
(3) European Economic and Social Committee: Recycling food packaging & food waste in plastics revolution. (Link)
(4) McKinsey (2020). Sustainability in packaging: Inside the minds of US consumers. (Link)
(5) Packaging Europe. (Link)
(6) Packaging Fed. (Link)
(7) WRAP (2009). Efficient use of resources in breakfast cereal design packaging. (Link)
