DS Smith: New EU Rules Risk Flood of New Plastic Packaging and Contradict Years of Progress to Curb Plastic in the EU

• Proposed amendments to the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) could add 8.1bn plastic crates to EU transport sector

• These amendments contradict the aims of the Green Deal, the Circular Economy Action Plan, and ongoing global negotiations to curb plastic pollution

LONDON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The EU is close to agreeing new rules around packaging and packaging waste, but amendments proposed to the Commission’s proposal risk flooding the market with millions of tonnes of new plastic and rolling back a decade of measures to curb plastic use, according to DS Smith, the FTSE 100 leader in sustainable packaging, paper products and recycling.

Amendments to the Commission’s proposal for a Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) are being debated by MEPs and Member States, and proposed changes include introducing mandatory reuse targets for all materials.

According to independent peer-reviewed analysis commissioned by FEFCO¹, mandatory reuse targets applied to all materials would increase the amount of plastic packaging in circulation and establish a plastic monopoly on some market segments.

For example, if applied to the transport and e-commerce corrugated cardboard packaging categories, 8.1bn new plastic crates weighing 12mn tonnes will be needed to achieve a reuse target of 90% by 2040, and 16bn litres of water will be needed to wash just half of them for reuse².

This huge injection of plastic into the EU economy contradicts years of progress in curbing the use of plastic packaging in the EU and internationally.

If the controversial amendments are adopted, PPWR would:

• Risk billions more pieces of plastic being added to the 91%³ of it that already remains un-recycled;
• Penalise the most widely recycled packaging material and pose serious threats to the functioning of the best performing recycling system in the EU
• Jeopardize the success of recent policy initiatives to curb plastics use in the EU, including the Single Use Plastics Directive;
• Be in contradiction with the objectives of the ongoing negotiations on the landmark international treaty to curb plastic pollution.

Alex Manisty, Group Head of Strategy & Innovation, DS Smith, said: “We support the aims of the Green Deal and the new legislation, but amendments that mandate reuse targets for paper and cardboard would compromise the European corrugated cardboard industry, embed a plastic economy into the single market, and hold the EU back on climate change.

“Recycling and reuse both have a role to play in packaging circularity and should be complementary. Reuse systems should be used where beneficial for the environment, economy and society. Imposing mandatory reuse targets would only benefit the plastic industry. The Commission recognised this by deliberately excluding corrugated cardboard from most of the mandatory reuse targets. We call on the European Parliament and member states to do the same.”

According to life cycle analysis data from FEFCO⁴, reusable plastic trays must be reused at least 63 times to be environmentally sustainable. In contrast, with a recycling rate over 80%, corrugated cardboard is the most recycled packaging material, and the industry is committed to ambitious decarbonization targets.

In the last decade, DS Smith has developed a circular model that utilises only 100% recyclable paper-based packaging. The company has also worked with the world’s largest brands to replace plastics in their supply chains with recyclable materials and has created more than 1,000 reuse design templates, as well as exploring reuse pilots and partnerships in situations where reusing carboard make sense.

Ends

¹ FEFCO - European Federation of Corrugated Board Manufacturers
² FEFCO data. Sources: Plastics Europe, IFCO, Albrecht 2021, FEFCO, Investopedia
³ Plastic pollution is growing relentlessly as waste management and recycling fall short, says OECD
⁴ FEFCO_Visual_Overview_v8.1.pdf
https://www.fefco.org/sites/default/files/2022/FEFCO_Comparative_LCA_study.pdf