Policy is often painted in the abstract: a cloud of acronyms, consultations and regulatory timetables. But for the drinks industry, the latest wave of packaging reforms is not distant bureaucracy. It is an immediate and material shift in how producers design, collect, and reuse the very containers their business depends on. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and Deposit Return Schemes (DRS) have become the sharp end of this transformation, bringing both opportunity and challenge as the UK charts a course toward a more circular packaging economy.
For permanent materials like aluminium and steel, whose properties enable them to be recycled infinitely without loss of quality, the reforms ought to represent a watershed moment. The potential for metals to anchor a truly circular system is unparalleled. Yet in practice, the legislative framework remains uneven, at times undervaluing the unique role of metals and risking distortions that could inadvertently favour lighter, less recyclable materials.
Into this moment steps Jason Galley, Director and Chief Executive of the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association (MPMA). Responsible for the overall management of the Association, Galley is the principal contact with the Government and the leading voice of the UK’s metal packaging sector. The MPMA represents 29 member companies across 47 factories, employing close to 5,000 people, and stands as the guardian of a material whose contribution to sustainability, food security and circularity is too often taken for granted. This October, Galley will take to the stage at London Packaging Week as part of its renowned conference programme, joining industry peers for the session Policy on Top: What the Latest Packaging Reforms Mean for the Drinks Industry. It is a timely conversation, and one in which Galley intends to bring the enduring message of metal to the fore.
“The overriding message is that metal recycles forever,” he says. “If people can keep that one in their mind, then that kind of begets everything else you need to know about metal.”
That simple truth forms the cornerstone of the sector’s sustainability story. Because metals can be remelted and reused an infinite number of times, they achieve some of the highest recycling rates of any packaging material. “Steel has the highest of any packaging material in the UK, 86.6%,” Galley notes. “The aluminium beverage can is the most recycled container format the world and sits at 81% in the UK now, and will get higher with DRS. You get these fantastic recycling rates because it recycles forever. It recycles back into something useful again and again and again.”
The infinite life of metal
This “forever loop” has profound environmental implications. Every time metal is remelted rather than mined and refined anew, carbon is saved and energy preserved. The UK’s decarbonisation ambitions lean heavily on this principle. As Galley explains, “If you can do that, you save carbon. If you do that, you will have great recycling rates in the UK. If you can do that, you save energy by remelting rather than going back to the beginning of the supply chain. These things stem from the unique property of aluminium and iron being elements that can recycle forever, stay in circulation and be valuable and needed.”
And yet, despite this unique contribution, Galley argues that metal is too often undervalued or taken for granted in policy discussions. The beverage can is a prime example of a format that has flourished in recent years. “It’s making great inroads, high growth, it’s the favoured format,” he says. “When we have young brands coming to us, they all want to be in cans. I think that follows a little bit from the craft beer revolution. Then you look at some of the areas that it’s penetrating now, like wine, like ready-to-drink cocktails.” Innovation has helped to drive this trend. “The sleeker can formats first seen in energy drinks have opened doors into new categories. It fits well with wines. It fits well with ready-to-drink cocktails. The beverage can is doing well.”
But the story is more complex for the humble food can, which Galley insists is “seriously underrated.” Its impact on UK food security, he argues, is immense. “If you think about any time of stress, like COVID, what was in your cupboards? Full of cans. You can imagine in Ukraine, or if you live in a remote part of Scotland and you’re snowed in, you rely heavily on cans. If you are in times of stress, homeless or otherwise, and can’t feed yourself, including some NHS workers needing food banks, they rely on the food can.”
Beyond accessibility and affordability, cans play a critical role in nutrition and food waste prevention. “It’s a product that can be kept at ambient temperature. It’s already cooked, so you can just eat it as it is. All the nutrients are locked in. Because you’re packing these at source, you have an incredible impact on food waste, and the same impact again at the consumer phase. It’s just doing an incredible job and getting left by the wayside with some of these reforms that are happening.”
Ignoring physics
That frustration is rooted in the mechanics of the current EPR system. “The EPR system as it is now is a direct threat to the future of steel packaging,” Galley warns. The issue lies in how fees are calculated, often failing to reflect both recycling performance and the inherent differences between materials. “Steel is some nine times denser than plastic or fibre-based composites. If you don’t take account of that when setting policy, you’re ignoring the laws of physics and can’t expect a sensible result. The EPR fees seriously penalise steel packaging versus competing formats, despite the fact that it uses four to five times less material by volume. If you don’t recognise that and take care of it, you’ll get poor results.”
The danger, Galley suggests, is that alternatives with weaker sustainability credentials may displace high-performing, truly circular materials like steel and aluminium. He draws on history to illustrate the point: “If you think back to the early 2000s, the first Courtauld agreement led to three can-making factories closing because they were making pet food in cans that was replaced by plastic pouches. Because metal recycles forever, if we’d been making those in steel, at least 75% of the steel would still be in circulation today. But all those plastic pouches have gone to landfill or incineration ever since, and we’re about to make the same mistake again.”
Part of the problem lies in outdated data and flawed methodology. “There’s been a misguided and in places lazy approach,” Galley argues. “We’re relying on data for collection costs from 2017; it doesn’t reflect today’s situation. Costs for sorting materials are divided by weight supplied, leading to situations where a steel container pays two to three times more to be sorted than a same-sized plastic or fibre-based composite one. It doesn’t make sense. It stems from not bothering to get the right data. Moves are happening, but it’s years down the line. This should have been done a long time ago.”
The consequences of getting it wrong are stark. “I believe you can’t modulate your way out of a poor base fee; it’s going to be a mess. You have to get the base fees right. Modulation won’t put things right; we don’t think it goes far enough. There could be some short-term consequences from the EPR fees.”
One of those consequences may be ill-judged attempts by companies to reduce their costs. “I’ve seen job advertisements on LinkedIn for big retailers looking for someone to mitigate EPR costs,” Galley says. “If that mitigation is to make the containers or packaging more recyclable, then that’s great. If it’s producing, I don’t know, going from four different plastics to one, and it’s a more recyclable plastic, that’s great. But if it’s changing something that recycles at 86.6% to something that recycles at 52% or 27%, then that would drive the wrong behaviour.”
His message to brands is simple: “Think a bit more deeply than just the financial costs. Think of the environmental costs, too.”
Patience, too, is a virtue in a shifting regulatory landscape. “This is a moving scenery,” Galley reflects. “We’ve got EPR fees now, we’ve got EPR fees plus RAM later, we’ve got EPR fees with sorting costs reviewed, and so on. It’s a moving target, and I would stay away from any knee-jerk reactions. Wait and see will be my message.”
Despite these frustrations, Galley remains optimistic about the future role of metal in a circular system, particularly under DRS. “Metal recycling rates are going to increase. We are optimistic that DRS will achieve a 90% beverage can recycling rate and the sector has a roadmap to 100%, significantly surpassing the current 81%. That’s a good thing. Recycling rates of steel have been going up. The problem is that when you remove high-recycling materials and replace them with materials that are recycled at lower rates, overall recycling rates go down. EPR should deliver increased recycling rates, not the opposite.”
Permanence, policy, and the path to true circularity
Getting policy right, however, requires careful calibration to avoid distortion. “If all containers were the same size and getting the same fee, you’d have a level playing field, no distortion. But reality isn’t like that. Multi-packs of cans or bottles versus large PET bottles need variable deposit rates to avoid market distortion. Potential distortions also arise when not all materials are included, such as glass in some nations without a deposit. Timing differences between nations or interoperability issues can also create challenges. We’re pushing for interoperability across the Four Nations, starting everything at the same time, so consumers aren’t confused. If the policy is right, recycling rates of all materials in DRS will go up. But there’s a long way to go between collection and actual recycling, and between being able to recycle forever and only a few times.”
It is here that Galley finds common ground with other permanent materials, such as glass. “Sometimes we present one face as a packaging sector and sometimes we push the benefits of our own material,” he reflects. “Glass, like metals, is a permanent material; it can be recycled over and over. That’s a strong message to stakeholders.”
The history of metals reinforces this message of permanence and resilience. “Since the Bronze Age and Iron Age, we’ve been remelting and reusing metals because it’s the easiest thing to do. All we have to do is put metal in the right recycling bin or reverse vending machine. Laws of economics, common sense, and convenience will mean we keep recycling metal forever and maintain very high recycling rates.”
Meanwhile, the sector itself is investing heavily in decarbonisation. “There are huge decarbonisation plans within our members and supply chains,” Galley says. “Making packaging converts a material, and most carbon is in the material itself. In metals, investments like Port Talbot steel electric arc furnaces reduce carbon and increase recycled content. Novelis is doubling its aluminium recycling capacity for DRS.”
A persistent challenge is ensuring that policymakers and brand owners fully appreciate the unique advantages of metals. “Many people making policy or designing packaging haven’t touched metals; it’s a niche. I constantly bump into people who are surprised by metal facts. Keep listening and keep an open mind.”
That is why platforms such as London Packaging Week are so vital. “These platforms are great for messaging,” Galley reflects. “Careers move on, so you must constantly repeat the same messages until they stick. In the digital age, we follow up through LinkedIn and other channels, using collateral from the show to further push the message beyond attendees. Networking with Government, deposit management organisations, brands, and retailers provides exposure and shows members the value we bring.”
At the heart of his message lies one unshakable truth: metal recycles forever. It is a property that has underpinned civilisations for millennia and could, if policy keeps pace, form the backbone of a genuinely circular packaging economy.