Packaging waste is a growing environmental concern, impacting ecosystems and human health. Preventing packaging waste can significantly help reduce impacts on ecosystems and human health, and is required by several recent regulatory initiatives, like the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) directive (FPF reported). However, without clear indicators on waste prevention, the progress regarding these goals cannot be measured. In an article published in the journal Circular Economy and Sustainability, Sarah Julie Otto and co-authors comprehensively analyzed the packaging waste prevention indicators used by retail companies and national authorities. The researchers examined data from 30 European countries, 32 German food retail companies, and a total of 123 different indicators.
Their analysis revealed significant disparities in what prevention indicators measure (packaging type, material type, product group) and how they measure it (units, qualitative or quantitative, with or without a comparison to baseline). These differences hinder comparisons between companies and countries, and the unclear descriptions further complicate the accurate interpretation of the reported results. The authors highlighted that specifically “[for] plastics, indicators lack consistency and clarity, potentially facilitating greenwashing at the corporate level.”
The study further found that definitions of waste prevention underlying the different indicators vary widely. For certain measures, categorization within the waste hierarchy is intrinsically challenging, e.g., public drinking fountains that simultaneously prevent single-use plastic bottles and encourage reuse. Other indicators (51% of examined indicators) openly disagreed with the EU’s waste prevention definition by including recycling or recyclability in prevention.
In addition, the study shows that indicators often lack a comprehensive view, focusing on specific packaging types or materials. The authors outline that shifting from one single-use material to another (e.g., plastics to paper) can still pose environmental and health challenges. Furthermore, focusing on specific items like carrier bags diverts attention from the invisible portion of the packaging waste iceberg. They suggest that “it is crucial to consider shipping, transport, and secondary packaging in monitoring, which contribute significantly to total packaging waste.” According to their data, in Germany, secondary and tertiary packaging contributed 10.1 Mt to the 18.8 Mt (54%) of total packaging waste in 2020. Nonetheless, it is rarely targeted by indicators.
Another finding of the study by Otto and co-authors is that many indicators lack a clear monitoring scheme, a baseline, clear targets, or standardized measurement units. They found that only 15% of the reviewed national indicators have established targets, and 11% have a time frame indication. Meanwhile, 48% (n = 109) of all retail indicators were used to communicate success in preventing packaging waste, even though only 52 described a clear reference value or baseline.
The scientists also provide recommendations for improvement. These include establishing a common understanding of waste prevention, adopting a holistic approach to monitoring various packaging materials, enhancing indicator measurability, and harmonizing indicators. They suggest following the guidance by the European Environment Agency (EEA) to ensure indicators are understandable, aligned with data, and meet quality standards. Harmonizing reporting practices and standardizing indicators can particularly enhance transparency and enable cross-country and cross-company comparisons and thus reduce greenwashing, the authors believe. FPF compiles voluntary initiatives and commitments, including those concerning reduction targets, by food brands and retailers from around the world in the Brand & Retailer Initiatives Database.
Reference
Otto, S.J., Schinkel, J. & Rotter, V.S. (2024). “Measuring Progress in Packaging Waste Prevention: Trends and Gaps in Communicated Indicators from National Policy and the Food Retail Sector.” Circular Economy and Sustainability. DOI: 10.1007/s43615-024-00427-w
