Why you should stick to your sustainable packaging goals

Last December, Coca-Cola revised their sustainable packaging goals downward, from 50% recycled material in all packaging by 2030 to 35-40% by 2035. The blowback was swift and harsh: 

• In a CNN article, Break Free from Plastic said Coca-Cola’s “latest move is a masterclass in greenwashing, ditching previously announced reuse targets, and choosing to flood the planet with more plastic they can’t even collect and recycle effectively.” 
• Packaging Dive quoted Sam Pearse from The Story of Stuff Project: “Coca-Cola’s pledge lasted less time than one of their reusable bottles might expect to be in circulation.” 
• MSN’s story included this quote from a Grist article: "That Coca-Cola has abandoned its refillable commitment is alarming, regrettable, and regressive," according to Frances Fairhead-Stanova, a shareholder advocate for the eco-friendly mutual fund Green Century Capital Management. 

Coke is a particularly strong target for this level of ire: They are routinely listed by Break Free from Plastic as a top generator of plastic pollution, not a list any brand wants to top. But in reality, Coke, like many other brands, is simply suffering the hangover of a one-time practice in sustainability, which went like this: “It doesn’t matter if you know how to meet the goal or not. Just put the big, audacious goal out there to hold yourself accountable, and get to work on meeting it.”  

Now, generally, goal setting is a terrific practice for achieving what you wouldn’t have otherwise — even if you don’t hit the stated target, you achieve more than you would have without it.  

Coke’s challenge is that they set a recycled content target that relied on consumer participation and recycling infrastructure that didn’t (and still doesn’t) exist. Now, they seem to be adjusting their target to align with what is realistically possible, given the current challenges in plastic waste collection. In other words, there simply isn’t enough plastic waste reaching recyclers to produce the recycled material that brands are competing for. 

Add to that conflict the new challenges we’re facing with tariffs on steel and aluminum, which makes virgin plastics an even cheaper option for packaging, plus general uncertainty with trade policy — which could make supply chains more expensive and consumers less eager to spend money — and brand owners have a lot to manage to keep products affordable and sellable. 

All of this might be a good argument for abandoning sustainable packaging goals altogether. 

But based on my conversation with Jonathan Quinn, CEO of U.S. Plastics Pact, on the main stage at the Sustainability in Packaging US conference last week, there are three key reasons to stay the course: 

1. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation is expected to continue its march across U.S. states: Jonathan mentioned that even states like Nebraska (and Tennessee, where yours truly is headquartered) have proposed EPR, so it’s already spread beyond traditionally blue states. Besides the 5 states that have already adopted EPR legislation (California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota and Oregon), the following have introduced it, in addition to Nebraska and Tennessee: Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington state. Though every state’s legislation is different, the general idea in each of these policies is that producers — brand owners — must pay a fee for the end-of-life management of their packages. Packages that aren’t recyclable require a higher fee. So, there’s a big motivator to continue innovation to design for recyclability. Some EPR legislation even includes incentives for compostable packaging.
2. Consumers expect it: As ERM Shelton’s latest consumer surveying revealed, 83% of people around the world believe companies should bear responsibility for products’ end of life (though a better term is “end of use,” as we move to a circular approach). Our Canned Good campaign also taught us that when we promote the recyclability of one material (in this case steel) we improve faith that other materials are also getting recycled. Consumers want to believe that recycling is working. If brands come together to solve some of the infrastructure problems and run collective campaigns to drive consumers to put materials in the recycling bin, we can collect more useful material and actually start achieving recycled content goals — and brands get to be seen as problem solvers and leaders, which is worth a lot.
3. The cost of silence: The flip side to being seen as a problem solver and leader is being seen as THE problem or, at minimum, as a laggard. This was one of Jonathan’s key points: Coming together, as companies do in the U.S. Plastics Pact, offers a bit of an insurance policy while also offering collective action that can drive real change.   

This is all to say, as you stare down tariffs and rising costs, don’t cut your packaging sustainability efforts to reduce product costs. It will cost you more — in real dollars and reputational risk — in the long run.