Knowledge sharing | EU Packaging Policy | Part 3

In the EU, each Member State shares the same goal: reducing packaging waste and its impact on the environment. However, each country has its own approach, leading to variations in outcomes. Germany stands out with its unique policies and systems, setting a benchmark for sustainability. Let’s dive into how Germany tackles packaging waste and what makes their approach effective.

Germany’s Packaging Act (VerpackG), introduced in 2019, has revolutionized the way packaging waste is handled. Under this law, manufacturers and distributors are responsible for collecting and recycling packaging through a dual system, where private entities manage collection alongside public services. This approach holds producers accountable, promoting transparency and control in waste management.

The VerpackG requires all packaging producers to register, report data, and contribute financially to recycling initiatives. By incentivizing the use of recyclable and reusable packaging, Germany aims to reduce packaging waste and promote sustainable materials. A central agency oversees the licensing process, certifies recycling data, and ensures stakeholders comply with the packaging laws.

Germany was the first EU country to adopt a Deposit & Refund System (DRS) in 2003 for beverage packaging, achieving an impressive 97% return rate for single-use PET bottles by 2019. This system encourages consumers to return empty bottles by offering monetary rewards, varying by bottle type—€0.25 for single-use plastic, €0.15 for reusable plastic, and €0.08 for glass.

Despite the high return rates, there has been an increase in single-use PET bottles, raising concerns over plastic waste. Consumers often choose single-use options due to convenience, and retailers prefer them as they are easier to manage. To address this, Germany is exploring additional solutions, such as a potential plastic tax, to encourage eco-friendly packaging choices.

Germany’s Dual System is built on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), where companies must financially support packaging waste collection and recycling. Originally marked with the Green Dot symbol, this system certifies that a producer has paid towards recycling. The system allows companies to partner with third-party agencies for waste management, making it both efficient and cost-effective.

However, the EPR scheme in Germany faces challenges. The recycling market for high-quality materials, especially plastics, struggles due to low demand and limited investment. To enhance EPR’s efficiency, the German government could promote economic incentives, such as raising fees on virgin materials, to make recycled materials more attractive.

Germany’s approach to packaging waste management offers valuable insights:

Deposit & Refund Success: The DRS has increased packaging returns, but it needs to be supplemented with incentives for reusable packaging.

EPR Challenges: The Dual System has helped reduce packaging production, yet there’s room for improvement in the recycling market for high-quality materials.

To create a truly circular economy, combining DRS and EPR policies with economic incentives is essential. Germany's efforts highlight the need for continuous innovation in waste management, providing a model for other countries in their quest for sustainability.

Since 1997, Italy’s packaging waste management has been overseen by CONAI (the National Packaging Consortium). This non-profit organization coordinates Italy's packaging waste cycle, ensuring recycling targets are met. Companies that produce or use packaging can either independently manage their waste or work with CONAI, which operates on a shared responsibility model, distributing costs across the entire packaging chain—from manufacturers to consumers.

CONAI divides Italy’s packaging waste into six material categories—steel, aluminum, glass, wood, plastic, and paper—and works to prevent waste by incentivizing eco-friendly innovation. A small fee, known as the “environmental contribution” or CAC, is applied to different packaging materials. This fee is used to support recycling costs, including compensation for municipalities to offset the added expenses of separate collections.

Italy’s waste collection operates through both door-to-door and drop-off systems. Packaging waste separated by consumers is sent to sorting centers, while mixed waste undergoes other processing. Local authorities manage the separate collection systems, while households are encouraged to sort waste properly. Primary packaging collected from households is processed under contracts with CONAI, while commercial secondary and tertiary packaging is managed through a platform system.

Once collected, waste follows the waste hierarchy: recycling and recovery are prioritized over disposal. Italy’s Legislative Decree 152/06 mandates prevention, reuse, and recycling as preferred practices, with landfilling as a last resort. Additionally, a waste tariff system ties disposal costs to the amount and type of waste generated.

Plastic packaging waste in Italy follows a structured path from households to recycling facilities. Households sort plastic separately, which is then collected by municipalities. The sorted plastic is sold at auction to recyclers, who transform it into reusable materials like plastic granules.

While this model has increased Italy’s recycling rates, challenges persist. A recent study found that recyclers, who are primarily private companies, struggle with fluctuating market demands and high costs. Certain types of plastics, such as soft plastics, are difficult and costly to recycle, often resulting in landfilling or exports.

To address these challenges, Italy has introduced a €450/ton tax on single-use plastic packaging as of July 2021. This tax incentivizes the use of recycled materials by providing tax relief for companies that incorporate recycled content into their packaging. The impact is particularly significant for PET materials, as much of this waste comes from beverage packaging and is easier to recycle.

Italy’s experience underscores several key takeaways:

Source Separation is Crucial: Sorting waste at its source greatly improves recycling rates. Effective consumer education and clear labeling, along with penalties for improper sorting, are essential.

Shared Responsibility Works: By involving all stakeholders—from producers to municipalities to consumers—Italy’s shared responsibility model helps spread costs and promote efficient waste management.

Further Improvements Needed: Increasing funding for recyclers, improving plastic sorting infrastructure, and promoting consumer awareness are essential for achieving higher recycling rates.

Italy’s model highlights the importance of collaboration, investment, and innovative policies in packaging waste management. While challenges remain, Italy’s commitment to sustainability offers valuable insights for any country striving toward a circular economy.

In response to packaging waste, many countries are taking action. The EU has introduced bans on certain plastics through the SUP Directive and promoted re-use through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes. South Korea, Japan, and China have implemented their own policies to cut down on single-use plastics and increase recycling rates. However, transitioning to re-use systems has faced obstacles, particularly due to the convenience and cost-effectiveness of single-use options. Despite these challenges, innovative solutions like refillable bulk dispensers and reusable containers are slowly gaining traction.

A standout example is MIWA, a Czech company that developed a system allowing retailers to avoid maintenance by overseeing the cleaning and refill process. MIWA’s success highlights both the potential of reusable systems and the growing willingness among consumers and retailers to support eco-friendly options.

With the shift toward a closed-loop economy, recyclable materials are essential. Multi-material, multilayer packaging (MMPP), widely used for food and beverages, has improved packaging efficiency but poses challenges for recycling due to its complex layers. To address this, companies are exploring alternatives like mono-layer packaging and bioplastics. For example, Dow’s RecycleReady initiative promotes mono-material alternatives that are easier to recycle. Bioplastics, which decompose under the right conditions, are another promising solution, though higher costs and lower performance have limited their widespread adoption.

The rise of e-commerce has transformed retail, but it also brings new environmental concerns. Packaging designed for bulk retail is often unsuitable for single-unit shipping, leading to over-packaging, waste, and increased CO2 emissions. As a solution, many companies are adopting “dematerialization” to reduce packaging materials, like Saica Pack’s approach of creating different box sizes for Amazon to reduce excess air and waste.

Beyond reducing over-packaging, innovative products are emerging to transform the industry. Twenty, for instance, developed solid versions of skincare products that are rehydrated by consumers at home, reducing packaging and transportation costs.

A shift toward greener logistics is essential to reduce environmental impact, and technology will be key. Green supply chain management (GSCM) integrates sustainability into every step, from green procurement and manufacturing to reverse logistics. AI and data science tools, like 3D scanning and machine learning, can optimize packaging size and reduce over-packing. Autonomous vehicles and drones offer low-emission options for short-distance delivery, though challenges remain in scaling these technologies.

Alternative systems, such as the pneumatic tube system used in hospitals and supermarkets, may also play a role in future logistics. Meanwhile, consumer behavior will be crucial—sending packages to collection points instead of homes could reduce waste and transport issues.

European Commission (2022). Assessment of options for reinforcing the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive’s essential packaging and other measures to reduce the generation of packaging waste.

European Commission (2018). Impacts of circular economy policies on the labour market.

Da Cruz, N. F., Simoes, P. and Marques, R. C. (2014). ‘Packaging waste recycling in Europe: Is the Industry paying for it?’, Elsevier, vol. 34 (2), pp. 298-308.

European Commission (2019). The European Green Deal.

European Commission (2020). A new Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe.

European Commission (2018). European Plastic Strategy.

Lombardi, M., Rana, R. and Fellner, J. (2021). ‘Material flow analysis and sustainability of the Italian plastic packaging management’, Elsevier, vol. 287.

Schmidt, S. et al. (2020). ‘Material efficiency to measure the environmental performance of waste management systems: A case study on PET bottle recycling in Austria, Germany and Serbia’, Elsevier, vol. 110, pp. 74-86.

Bloomberg Finance L.P. (2021). Deposit Return Scheme: Germany.

Cini, M. and Borrogan, N. PS. (2022). European Union Politics, 7th edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

European Commission, How EU policy is decided.

European Commission, Impact Assessments.

European Union, Types of legislation.

European Parliament (2023). Revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive.

European Parliament (2022). Briefing: Initial Appraisal of a European Commission Impact Assessment: Packaging and Packaging Waste.

Antonopoulos, I., Faraca, G. and Tonini, D. (2021). ‘Recycling of post-consumer plastic packaging waste in the EU: Recovery rates, material flows, and barriers’, Elsevier, vol. 126, pp. 694-705.

European Union (2008). Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives.

Gharfalkar, M. et al. (2015). ‘Analysis of waste hierarchy in the European waste directive 2008/98/EC’, Elsevier, vol. 39, pp. 305-313.

European Commission (2023). Assessment of options for reinforcing the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive’s essential requirements and other measures to reduce the generation of packaging waste (Appendices).

Eguez, A. (2021). ‘Compliance with the EU waste hierarchy: A matter of stringency, enforcement, and time’, Elsevier, vol. 280.

European Environment Agency (2021). Overview of national waste prevention programmes in Europe, Slovakia.

Ettlinger, S. (2017). Deposit Refund System (and Packaging Tax) in Finland, Institute for European Environmental Policy.

Rutkowski, J. E. (2020). ‘Inclusive Packaging Recycling Systems: Improving Sustainable Waste Management for a Circular Economy’, Detritus, pp. 29-46.

Gui, L. et al. (2016). ‘Efficient Implementation of Collective Extended Producer Responsibility Legislation’, JSTOR, vol. 62 (4), pp. 1098-1123.

Watckins, E. et al. (2017). EPR in the EU Plastics Strategy and the Circular Economy: A focus on plastic packaging, Institute for European Environmental Policy.

Filho, W. L. et al. (2019). ‘An overview of the problems posed by plastic products and the role of extended producer responsibility in Europe’, Elsevier, vol. 214, pp. 550-558.

Colelli, F. P. et al. (2022). ‘Assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of packaging waste EPR schemes in Europe’, Elsevier, vol. 148, pp. 61-70.

Rubio, S. et al. (2019). ‘Effectiveness of extended producer responsibility policies implementation: The case of Portuguese and Spanish packaging waste systems’, Elsevier, vol. 210, pp. 217-230.

European Union (1994). European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste.

Lorang, S. et al. (2022). ‘Achievements and policy trends of extended producer responsibility for plastic packaging waste in Europe’, Waste Disposal & Sustainable Energy, vol. 4, pp. 91-103.

European Commission, Reuse of Primary Packaging. Final Report.

Transparency Market Research (2021). European Plastic Packaging Market – Industry, Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends, and Forecast, 2020-2030.

Feber, D. (2021). ‘True Packaging sustainability: Understanding the performance trade-offs’, McKinsey & Company.

European Commission (2022). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC.

European Commission (2022). Impact Assessment Report: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council on packaging and packaging waste.

European Commission (2023). Study to support the finalisation of the legal proposal and the impact assessment for the review of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive.

Amstel, M. v., Driessen, P., and Glasbergen, P. (2008). ‘Eco-labeling and information asymmetry: A comparison of five eco-labels in the Netherlands’, Elsevier, vol. 16 (3), pp. 263-276.

Draskovic, N. (2010). ‘Packaging Convenience: Consumer packaging feature or marketing tool’, International Journal of Management Cases, vol. 12 (2).

D’Souza, C., Tanghian, M., and Lamb, P. (2006). ‘An empirical study on the influence of environmental labels on consumers’, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, vol. 11 (2), pp. 162-173.

Jozwik-Pruska, J. et al. (2022). ‘Consumer Awareness of the Eco-labeling of Packaging’, Sciendo, vol. 30 (5), pp. 39-46.

European Union (2019). Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the council on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment.

Kiessling, T. (2023). ‘What potential does the EU Single-Use Plastics Directive have for reducing plastic pollution at coastlines and riversides?’, Elsevier, vol. 164, pp. 106-118.

Coelho, P. M. (2020). ‘Sustainability of reusable packaging – current situation and trends’, Elsevier, vol. 6.

European Commission (2019). The European Green Deal.

United Nations Environmental Programme (2021). UNEP Food Waste Index Report.

Coulomb, D. (2008). ‘Refrigeration and cold chain serving the global food industry’, Elsevier, vol. 19 (8), pp. 413-417.

Mistriotis, A. et al. (2016). ‘Design of biodegradable bio-based equilibrium modified atmosphere packaging’, Elsevier, vol. 111, pp. 380-389.

Matar, C. et al. (2021). ‘Benefit of modified atmosphere packaging on the overall environmental impact of packed strawberries’, Elsevier, vol. 177.

European Union (2020). Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 on the system of own resources.

OECD (2018). Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060.

World Bank (2018). What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050.

Fitch-Roy, O., Benson, D., and Monciardini, D. (2021). ‘Assessing optimality in comparative circular economy policy packages’, Elsevier, vol. 286.

Dimitrijevic, U. (2023). ‘Recycling in Italy: Contributing to a circular economy’, EXPATICA.

Mairie de Paris (2023). Guide to Waste Sorting.

Miranda, R., Monte, M. C., and Blanco, A. (2011). ‘Impact of increased collection rates on the quality of recovered paper’, Elsevier, vol. 31 (11), pp. 2208-2216.

Tallentire, C. W. and Steubing, B. (2020). ‘Environmental benefits of improved packaging waste collection in Europe’, Elsevier, vol. 103, pp. 426-436.

CITEO (2022). France’s packaging recycling rates are on the rise.

Yanatma, S. (2023). Italy, Belgium, Latvia: Top European countries for recycling, Euronews.green.

European Commission (2022). Proposal for Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation.

European Commission (2022). Directive 2009/125/EC on ecodesign requirements for energy-related products.

Van Der Vegt, M. et al. (2022). ‘Business requirements for increasing the uptake of recycled plastic’, MDPI, vol. 7 (4).

Foschi, E., and Bonoli, A. (2019). ‘Commitment of the packaging industry within the European Strategy for Plastics’, MDPI, vol. 9 (1).

Plastics Europe (2021). Plastics – the Facts 2021: Analysis of European plastics production and waste data.

Plastics Recyclers Industry in Europe (2022). Mapping of Installed Plastics Recycling Capacities, 2020.

European Commission (2018). A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy.

OECD (2014). State of Play on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).

European Commission (2019). Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2024 on ecodesign requirements for refrigerating appliances.

DIWECON (2017). Die Ökonomie der Getränkverpackung.

Azevedo, B. D. et al. (2021). ‘Improving urban household solid waste management in developing countries based on the German experience’, Elsevier, vol. 120, pp. 772-783.

Chiatto, E. and Sospiro, P. (2023). ‘Transition from waste management to circular economy: the European Union roadmap’, Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 25, pp. 249-276.

Brindha, R. et al. (2023). ‘Recent Advances in Extended Producer Responsibility Initiatives for Plastic Waste Management in Germany and UK’, Materials Circular Economy, vol. 5 (6).

Dehio, J., Janben-Timmen, R., and Rothgang, M. (2023). ‘Regulating markets for post-consumer recycling plastics: experiences from Germany’s Dual System’, Elsevier, vol. 196.

Ambiente Diritto, Legislazione Giurisprudenza (1997). Decreto Legislativo 5 Febbraio 1997 n. 2.

CONAI (2020). What is Conai.

CONAI (2023). Consortia.

ISPRA (2022). Rapporti Rifiuti Urbani Edizione 2022.

Rigamonti, L. et al. (2015). ‘Economic-financial analysis of the Italian packaging waste management system from a local authority’s perspective’, Elsevier, vol. 87, pp. 533-541.

Ferreira, S. et al. (2015). ‘The costs and benefits of packaging waste management systems in Europe: the perspective of local authorities’, Taylor & Francis Online, pp. 773-791.

Cossu, R. and Masi, S. (2013). ‘Re-thinking incentives and penalties: Economic aspects of waste management in Italy’, Elsevier, vol. 33, pp. 2541-2547.

Agovino, M., Garofalo, A., and Mariani, A. (2016). ‘Effects of environmental regulation on separate waste collection dynamics: empirical evidence from Italy’, Elsevier, vol. 124, pp. 30-40.

COREPLA (2018). Relazione sulla gestione 2018.

Bassi, S. A. et al. (2020). ‘Extended producer responsibility: How to unlock the environmental and economic potential of plastic packaging waste?’, Elsevier, vol. 162.

EY Global (2020). Italy introduces proportional tax on plastic items.

Larrain, M., Billen, P., and Van Passel, S. (2022). ‘The effect of plastic packaging recycling policy interventions as a complement to extended producer responsibility scheme: A partial equilibrium model’, Elsevier, vol. 153, pp. 355-366.

Van Sluisveld, M. and Worrell, E. (2013). ‘The paradox of packaging optimization – a characterization of packaging source reduction in the Netherlands’, Elsevier, vol. 73, pp. 133-142.

Jang, Y. et al. (2020). ‘Recycling and management practices of plastic packaging waste towards a circular economy in South Korea’, Elsevier, vol. 158.

Ministry of the Environment Japan (2018). Fundamental Plan for Establishing a Sound Material-Cycle Society.

Beitzen-Heineke, E., Balta-Ozkan, N., and Reefke, H. (2017). ‘The prospects of zero-packaging grocery stores to improve the social and environmental impacts of the food supply chain’, Elsevier, vol. 140 (3), pp. 1528-1541.

Mahmoudi, M. and Parviziomran, I. (2020). ‘Reusable packaging in supply chains: A review of environmental and economic impacts logistics system designs, and operations management’, Elsevier, vol. 228.

European Union (2008). Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008 on recycled plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foods.

Pouikli, K. (2020). ‘Concretising the role of extended producer responsibility in European Union waste law and policy’, ERA Forum, vol. 20, pp. 491-508.

Feber, D. et al. (2022). ‘Reusable packaging: Key enablers for scaling’, McKinsey & Company.

Gatt, I. J. and Refalo, P. (2022). ‘Reusability and recyclability of plastic cosmetic packaging: A life cycle assessment’, Elsevier, vol. 15.

Mulakkal, M. C. et al. (2021). ‘Advancing mechanical recycling of multilayer plastics through finite element modelling and environmental policy’, Elsevier, vol. 166.

De Mello Soares, C. T. et al. (2022). ‘Recycling of multi-material multilayer plastic packaging: Current trends and future scenarios’, Elsevier, vol. 176.

Garforth, A. A. et al. (2004). ‘Feedstock recycling of polymer wastes’, Elsevier, vol. 8 (6), pp. 419-425.

Davasahayam, S. (2021). ‘Decarbonising the Portland and Other Cements – Via Simultaneous Feedstock Recycling and Carbon Conversions’, MDPI, vol. 13 (5).

RameshKumar, S. et al. (2020). ‘Bio-based and biodegradable polymers: State-of-the-art challenges and emerging trends’, Elsevier, vol. 21, pp. 75-81.

Moshmood, T. et al. (2022). ‘Sustainability of biodegradable plastics: New problem or solution to solve the global plastic pollution?’, Elsevier, vol. 5.

STATISTA (2023). E-commerce as share of total retail sales worldwide 2015-2027.

Escursell, S., Massana, P., and Roncero, M. B. (2021). ‘Sustainability in e-commerce packaging: A review’, Elsevier, vol. 280 (1).

McKinsey & Company (2019). Pulp, paper, and packaging in the next decade: Transformational change.

Gronberg, S. B. and Hulthen, K. (2022). ‘E-commerce packaging as an embedded resource in three network settings’, Research Article, pp. 450-467.

Spruit, D. and Almenar, E. (2021). ‘First market study in e-commerce food packaging: Resources, performance, and trends’, Elsevier, vol. 29.

Kennisinstituut Duurzaam Verpakken (2023). Twenty.

James, F. and Kurian, A. (2021). ‘Sustainable Packaging: A study on Consumer Perception on Sustainable Packaging Options in E-commerce Industry’, NVEO, vol. 8 (5), pp. 10547-10559.

Kollia, I. et al. (2021). ‘AI-Enabled Efficient and Safe Food Supply Chain’, MDPI, vol. 10 (11).

Kellermann, R. et al. (2020). ‘Drones for parcel and passenger transportation: A literature review’, Elsevier, vol. 4.

WWF (2020). Plastic Packaging in Southeast Asia and China.

Johannes, H. P. et al. (2021). ‘Applying the extended producer responsibility towards plastic waste in Asian developing countries’, Waste, Management & Research, vol. 39 (5), pp. 690-702.