Globally, the responsibility for waste packaging is shifting onto producers, with expanding reporting requirements and the introduction of financial penalties. As a result, there is a strong incentive to design more circular products.
When it comes to promoting and developing more circular systems for packaging, those at the forefront face three challenges, driven by a combination of external forces and internal goals and vision.
First and foremost, businesses across the packaging value chain must operate within the law. The UK’s EPR for Packaging brings increased fees and calls for accurate and timely reporting, while the Europe Union is implementing a range of measures – including a need to design packaging for recyclability, incorporate recycled content and facilitate reuse – as part of its new PPWR legislation.
Set against this is the desire for efficiency. Manufacturing and retail are highly competitive markets that struggle with the pressure to manage costs for customers. This means that innovation and sustainability are always assessed against financial consequences.
Finally, we see genuine aspiration to introduce greater circularity and carbon efficiency. Many of Valpak’s larger customers, in particular, are setting internal targets and goals that exceed legislative demands. To a degree, these are encouraged or called for by customers.
While on the surface these challenges may appear to conflict, in reality we find that goals align, and the cheapest option can often prove to be the most sustainable. With the introduction of eco-modulation, for example, lighter or reusable packaging will meet legislative demands, while also providing the most cost-effective and environmentally-friendly option.
Packaging reforms typical call for greater granularity of data. At first, this is a challenge for packaging producers, especially those facing the varying demands that come with trading across borders. However, data also provides opportunity. With the right tools, producers can save time, build accuracy, plan and measure change.
Case studies
Reporting data
In 2026, businesses will receive the first Extended Producer Responsibility (pEPR) fees based on the UK’s new eco-modulation system. The Recyclability Assessment Methodology (RAM) categorises materials, with ‘red’ non-recyclable packaging materials charged at 20 per cent more than the ‘amber’ rate. Any evidence gaps are classed as ‘red’.
While the recyclability of certain materials might appear explicit, evidencing ‘green’ material can be a significant challenge. Many producers struggle to source this information across global markets and suppliers, so collaboration and smart tools are key to managing costs.
For example, a packaging producer reporting 1,000 tonnes of paper without complete data would pay £250,000 in pEPR fees (based on current forecasts). With complete data calculated, and a green rating, the brand would save £60,000.
Design change for cost and carbon saving
Modern compliance is not just about submitting accurate data; the real benefits lie in putting the data to work, to reduce costs and drive change. The smartest brands in the UK are already benefiting from reliable comparisons against existing formats and modelling potential changes to see the impact on wider environmental goals. Where these businesses lead, others will follow.
The first stage is to accurately calculate the recyclability status of material, the next is to identify the potential for greatest improvement. Modelling provides an opportunity to test outcomes before investment in change.
Lightweighting and material changes offer effective routes to cost reduction and wider sustainability. For example, analysis for a UK-based food business exporting to Europe, Asia, and Australia showed that if best-in-class was matched:
- Lightweighting would provide a pEPR cost saving of 35% & carbon saving of 10%, as well as reducing the need for raw materials
- Material change (biscuit category) would provide a pEPR cost saving of 85% and carbon saving of 30%
- Material change (dry food category) would provide a pEPR cost saving of 90% & carbon saving of 35%
Benchmarking – fruit punnets
Sometimes, it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel. Benchmarking shows existing options and allows producers to compare products with others on the market. For example, benchmarking analysis of fruit punnets compared the packaging product with the ‘best in class’ and market average, for costs under pEPR, to identify a total savings potential of £91,063.38.