During Climate Week NYC in the beautiful Glasshouse in Chelsea Arts Tower, I was thrilled to moderate a panel and facilitate a workshop on how packaging design for circularity can help companies meet Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) requirements while driving broader business and sustainability goals.
I was joined by Ame Igharo of Ulta Beauty, Anne Bedarf of Colgate-Palmolive, and Rob Opsomer of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation for the panel discussion. The panelists shared their obligations in states with existing laws and potential exposure to new laws on the horizon.
Some of the high-level trends we discussed include:
- Packaging EPR is leading companies to really grapple with their data and arrive at a better understanding of their packaging footprint.
- Companies are getting a much better understanding of packaging recyclability, both in terms of state guidance and what is recyclable in practice through material recovery, facility sortation, and end markets.
- Companies are finding they can create better consumer experiences and build their brands by doing more circular design.
- Revisiting refill/reuse and learning from the many failed pilots to do better in the next phase.
- The need for radical collaboration: with competitors, NGOs, policymakers, and more.
While all panelists expressed that packaging EPR laws could be better and further harmonization across states is needed, they also agreed that the enacted laws and the legislation in development are spurring companies to update their packaging and confront challenges that had previously seemed insurmountable.
We also had some interesting discussion about the intersection of packaging goals and climate and nature goals. For those with Science-Based Targets or other reduction goals, packaging improvements are likely to assist with Scope 3 Category 1 value chain emissions reductions. And keeping plastics out of nature and cleaning up what’s in nature are critical goals. However, the panelists cautioned that these goals do not always work in tandem. It is possible, for example, to see a reduction in plastic come with an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, or a shift to paper run against deforestation goals. As one panelist stated, in sustainability, we must always start with the answer “it depends.”
Following the panel, Pure Strategies’ Vice President of Sustainability Consulting, Cheryl Baldwin gave an overview of Pure Strategies’ new report: Realizing Sustainable Packaging: the Next Era of Packaging. The report shares the history of how we got to this “Current Era” of modest, incremental progress and the opportunity to move into the “Next Era” with more transformative change. The report also details our Refine, Redesign, and Reimagine framework for packaging circularity opportunities.
To wrap up our Circularity sessions, I hosted a workshop where the room was split into small groups to discuss a case study focused on a non-recyclable, virgin plastic, mixed-material face cream package. The groups reviewed California’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54) guidance, considered potential EPR fees, and assessed component costs for alternative packaging solutions. These groups then reported and shared opportunities to make the packaging more circular and reduce exposure to EPR fees, while not driving up component costs significantly.
Our “Day of Action” Climate Week program highlighted the opportunities and tradeoffs companies need to weigh when redesigning packaging, such as climate and nature impacts, EPR fees, material costs, and supply assurance. Thank you to all of the speakers and attendees who took part in our sessions!
