Updated August 22, 2025

Originally published Jul 28, 2023

In Part 1 of this series, we discussed how the term “bioplastics” can refer to many different things, including (but not limited to) biodegradable or compostable plastics. In Part 2, we dove into the difference between “biodegradable” and “compostable,” what happens in a composting environment, and the compostability certifications. Here in Part 3 of this series, we’ll cover the appropriate uses of compostable packaging.

When does it make sense to use compostable packaging?

The primary circularity benefit of using compostable packaging is to help deliver food waste and other organic matter to composting facilities and away from landfills. Food waste in landfills is one of the top sources of waste in landfills and is also a major producer of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that is more than 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide. Diverting food waste from landfills is a key intervention to limit climate change, and compostable packaging can help do that by being the “vehicle” that food scraps ride along with on their way to composting facilities. Composting facilities that accept compostable packaging are able to bring in more food waste than those that don’t.

Compostable packaging should be reserved for packaging that is:

• Used to serve prepared food or contains frozen or raw food
• Likely to deliver food to a composting facility
• Food-contact packaging and food service ware that is not readily recyclable
• Often disposed of with food waste (e.g., produce stickers)
• Fiber-based and is likely to become food-soiled

When should we not use compostable packaging?

Compostable packaging should not be used for the following applications, with some exceptions:

A package that can be made of easily recyclable materials
If a package can be made from a material that’s already widely recycled, that’s usually the better route. Recycling simply has more infrastructure and keeps materials working harder, longer.

Access matters. About 91% of U.S. residents can toss recyclables in the blue bin,i but only about 11% have access to composting programs that actually accept packaging.ii So if the same cup or box can be designed for recycling, it’s far more likely to avoid the landfill.

Value matters too. In a circular economy, we want to keep materials at their “highest and best use.”iii Recycling lets us do that: a PET bottle can be turned back into a PET bottle, and paper can become paper again. Composting, on the other hand, breaks things down into their basic organic parts. That’s still valuable, but it’s a one-way trip, or at least a very roundabout one—those materials can’t come back as the same product again, although the soil could theoretically be used to grow new feedstocks to make new compostable products.

That’s why recyclable should almost always beat compostable, when both are options. Compostables shine in other places—but for materials that are easily and widely recycled, recycling is the stronger play.

Packaging that is part of a suite of recyclable packaging products
Our goal is to make decisions as easy as possible for consumers when they’re discarding a suite of packaging. The ideal packaging system is either entirely recyclable or entirely compostable. If the package system has a mix of both recyclable and compostable items, it is less convenient (not to mention confusing) for consumers to separate items. For example, an e-commerce shipment that comes in a cardboard box ideally just has curbside-recyclable packaging inside so that the consumer can place all items (box, cushioning, etc.) in the recycling bin. Another example would be food service ware that’s entirely compostable. Ideally, a clamshell tray, napkins, and cutlery would all be compostable so the consumer can place everything in one bin.

Packaging not used for food, or packaging for personal care, cleaning products, or cosmetics
Packaging for non-food purposes doesn’t increase the amount of food waste diverted to composters, and thus should be used sparingly. Additionally, leftover product inside (like residues from cleaning products or cosmetics) may not be safe for compost since it will someday be soil. Some composters have raised the issue that if packaging for a lot of non-food items is designed to be compostable then they’ll receive too much packaging relative to food. The influx of compostable packaging may throw off the composters’ chemical balances at their facilities. While composters vary widely in their perspectives on and acceptance of compostable packaging, many composters who accept packaging note that they ultimately want mostly food and yard trimmings and just some packaging.

Moving towards food-contact materials

As we’ve explained in this series, the most appropriate use of compostable packaging is in food-contact applications to divert food scraps to composting facilities. That said, engineering high-performance compostable materials for food-contact applications is challenging, and we aren’t there yet. While it sounds simple to use a compostable film, for example, to package raw chicken, the performance requirements are steep for most food-contact applications: moisture and oxygen barriers, shelf life requirements, grease barriers, and more create an engineering challenge that few have solved, much less at a price point the market is willing to tolerate.

To keep R&D moving and build the scale needed to bring costs down, we’re thoughtfully exploring select lower-performance, non-food applications, like our Sway seaweed-based polybags. We believe non-food pilots can help us learn and scale, without losing sight of the main goal of composting and compostable packaging.

Sway is a compostable replacement for thin-film flexible plastics made with seaweed. We are currently developing Sway for lower-risk, lower-performance uses like protective poly bags for apparel, home goods, accessories, cosmetics, and personal care items. Trials like these help us improve compatibility with manufacturing processes, validate end-of-life pathways, and generate informative data, all of which accelerate progress toward food-grade films. Simultaneously, we’ll be working with material scientists and packaging engineers to improve the barrier properties of Sway films so that they could be used for all kinds of food-contact applications. Until then, we’ll keep development targeted and responsible, and we’ll steer customers to recyclable formats when that’s the better choice.

I have a good use case for compostable packaging. What else should I know?

Compostable packaging should be certified by one of the below bodies or tests:

• BPI Compostable – used for compostable foodservice packaging
• TUV Austria OK Compost (either “HOME” or “INDUSTRIAL”)
• ASTM D6400 or ASTM D6868 (more common in the U.S.)
• EN 13432 (more common in Europe)

For more information on compostability certifications, check out the previous Deep Dive in this series!

Compostable packaging should be clearly marked to prevent contamination.
Compostable packaging only turns to compost if it’s composted. Compostable packaging should be marked clearly to instruct consumers to find an outlet to compost it. It should also include any applicable certifications on the package. Signals and wording of compostability also help composters spot compostable packaging and avoid contamination from non-compostable packaging. Best practices include tinting the packaging or food service ware green and displaying the compostability language in large text.

Endnotes

i Sustainable Packaging Coalition, “2020-2021 Centralized Study on Availability of Recycling.” This number represents the “US residents [who] have access to either curbside and/or drop-off recycling programs that accept packaging materials.”

ii Sustainable Packaging Coalition (2021), “Understanding the Role of Compostable Packaging in North America.”

iii For more information, see the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s page on this principle: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circulate-products-and-materials

___________

Where to go from here?

• Visit our library of all our Deep Dives articles here
• Check out our Sustainability Terms Glossary, where we’ll add key terms from each of our Deep Dives over time.
• Sign up for our Deep Dive LinkedIn Newsletter and get these articles delivered straight to your inbox every month.
• Bookmark these pages for future reference!

UPDATED July 11, 2025 

Originally published July 4, 2023 

In Part 1 of this series, we discussed how the term “bioplastics” can refer to many different things, including (but not limited to) biodegradable or compostable plastics. But what do “biodegradable” and “compostable” mean? What happens in a composting environment at home versus a commercial composting facility? After this post, in Part 3 of this series, we’ll cover the appropriate uses of compostable packaging.

What is composting, and how is it part of a circular economy?

Compost is a nutrient-rich, dark, crumbly material that results from the decomposition of organic matter, a process called composting. Composting is the controlled and accelerated breakdown of organic materials, such as kitchen scraps, yard waste, and other biodegradable materials (including some packaging) by microorganisms, bacteria, fungi, and other decomposers. During composting, these organisms break down the organic matter into simpler substances, releasing carbon dioxide, water, and heat in the process.

Just like we can recycle materials like plastic, paper, metal, and glass, composting represents a way to “recycle” organic material so that it doesn’t go to a landfill. You may even hear composting referred to as “organics recycling.” When we compost, we keep organic material circulating in our economy and turn it into a useful product for gardens, farms, and landscaping.

It’s critical that we keep organic material – whether it’s food, packaging made from organic material like paper or bioplastics, or lawn trimmings – out of landfills. Not only do they represent wasted material that we can’t get back; they also cause a major climate issue. In landfill conditions, organic material breaks down mostly anaerobically (i.e., in the absence of oxygen). When this occurs, a main byproduct is methane gas, which is an extremely potent greenhouse gas (GHG). It’s about 20 to 80 times as powerful at trapping heat as carbon dioxide, so keeping organic materials out of landfills is an important climate initiative. Meanwhile, in a composting environment, material mostly decomposes aerobically (i.e., in the presence of oxygen) and produces very minimal methane.

The figure below, presented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), shows how gases generated by organic material behave in a landfill.

Adapted from ATSDR (2008), as shown on the EPA website.

What is the difference between “biodegradable” and “compostable”?

“Compostable” is a subset of the term “biodegradable.”

Biodegradable materials can be broken down by microorganisms like bacteria and fungi into natural elements such as water, carbon dioxide, and biomass. However, “biodegradable” doesn’t guarantee a specific time frame or environmental safety. While natural materials like food and plants biodegrade quickly and harmlessly, other materials—especially plastics—behave differently. Conventional plastics technically degrade, breaking into smaller and smaller pieces over time, but they don’t truly biodegrade. Instead of being fully metabolized by microbes, plastics leave behind persistent microplastics that accumulate in ecosystems and can release harmful chemicals.

Because almost anything will eventually break down in some form, “biodegradable” is often used as a vague or misleading marketing term. In the packaging industry, there are few strict regulatory standards defining what qualifies as biodegradable, making it a common target for greenwashing.

Compostable materials, by contrast, are a specific subset of biodegradable products that break down fully and safely under controlled composting conditions—typically within 90 to 180 days in industrial composting facilities. Compostable items must decompose into non-toxic components that support soil health and are subject to more rigorous certification standards, such as ASTM D6400 in the United States.

What is “degradable” or “oxo-degradable” packaging?

In recent years, some companies have begun making additives that can be added to traditional petroleum-based plastics to help them degrade more quickly. You may see them called “degradable,” “oxo-degradable,” “photo-degradable,” or even “biodegradable.” Others use terminology such as “bio-assimilation.” These technologies are not making the plastics compostable. Instead, the films break down into microplastics. After much evaluation and consultation with other sustainability experts, Atlantic has taken the position that the additives currently available do not offer a salient environmental benefit and may in fact do more harm than good. This is consistent with the views of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, WWF, Berry Plastics, Paragon, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and many other bodies. To read more about the issues with degradable plastics, check out our stance here.

What is home composting vs. industrial composting?

Composting can occur in two main venues: at home or at industrial facilities.

Home- or “backyard”- compostable materials are designed to break down in a typical backyard composting environment, which is usually small-scale and managed by individuals at home.

People often use a compost bin or pile that they contribute to with food scraps and yard waste, and they promote degradation by turning the pile, adding water, or even adding helpful critters like worms. There is typically some heat given off the compost pile, but the temperatures are lower than one usually finds in an industrial setting.

Since individuals are tending to small-scale compost in their backyards, the maintenance can be low, but conditions in a home compost pile can vary significantly. Because of these less controlled environments with lower available heat, compostable packaging materials tend to break down more slowly in home compost than in industrial settings. For this reason, a package that’s certified as “home compostable” will be designed to break down more easily (and thus will likely be less durable) than those designed to compost in industrial environments.

Examples of materials that are typically home-compostable are bio-based materials like proteins and starches (meat and potatoes) and paper. These materials are increasingly being tested as sustainable solutions for packaging, particularly for food contact applications. Furthermore, there are some plastic resins like polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs – made by microorganisms) and polybutyleneadipateteretphthalate (PBAT – derived from fossil fuels) that are designed to be home-compostable options.

Meanwhile, industrial or commercial composting facilities are specialized, highly controlled composting facilities equipped to handle larger volumes of organic waste. These facilities have stricter control over temperature, moisture, and aeration, allowing for more efficient and faster decomposition of organic matter. Commercial composters often will pick up or receive materials not only from homes but restaurants and commercial facilities too. Facility operators can then sell the finished compost product to farmers, landscapers, parks, schools, and more.

Because of the higher temperatures, controlled moisture, and strict aeration in commercial composting facilities, compostable materials that may have trouble breaking down in a home environment break down more easily here. For this reason, many of the compostable packaging options you see on the market today are certified as industrially compostable but are not home compostable. In other words, everything that is home-compostable is also industrially compostable but not the other way around.

One material that is often designed for industrially compostability is polylactic acid (PLA). Consumers may be familiar with PLA products if they have been served drinks or food in compostable plastic.

Some services have popped up in various urban areas to collect people’s residential compost and take it to industrial facilities. In this case, even though the individual is collecting compostable materials in their home, the material is ultimately going to a commercial composting facility to be processed. Services like CompostNow (Atlanta, Durham, Raleigh, Charleston, Asheville, Cincinnati), CrownTown Compost (Charlotte), and Wilmington Compost Company (Wilmington) offer services like these in some of Atlantic’s main geographic areas. Other cities offer drop-off programs where residents can bring their compost to central areas like farmers markets. A few cities, like Austin and San Francisco, offer municipally run curbside compost pickup programs.

What are the compostable product certifications?

Packaging that is designed to be compostable should go through a certification process so that consumers and composters can trust that the package is actually designed to fully break down. Certifications are also a way to help consumers understand that they should place the package in compost rather than recycling. Compostable items have become a common contaminant in recycling streams as they have grown in popularity.

It’s important to understand the difference between certification bodies and test standards for compostability. Certifying bodies are the organizations that put their mark on a package. They run tests via codified standards to determine whether the package is actually compostable.

The main certifying body in North America is the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI), which uses the ASTM D6400 and ASTM D6868 test standards to assess compostability. You may have seen their logo on compostable packaging. As of this writing, BPI only certifies products for industrial compostability but has been developing a home compostable certification. In North America, there is not yet a certification for home compostability or a corresponding ASTM standard.

Meanwhile, internationally, you are likely to see the certifying body TUV Austria or the European Bioplastic “seedling” logo. TUV Austria uses the test standard EN 13432 to determine industrial compostability. For home compostability (see how they have a separate logo for composting at home), they do not use an external test standard but have their own protocol for determining home compostability.

When we are assessing compostable packaging, we look for certifications from BPI or TUV Austria. Occasionally, we are presented with a product that is not certified by BPI or TUV, so we will look for evidence that the package passes a composting test standard instead. The standard is almost always either ASTM D6400, ASTM D6868, or EN 13432. These standards mean that:

• Within 180 days, 90% of the carbon in the packaging is converted to CO2
• Within 84 days, 90% of the packaging material is able to pass through a 2mm sieve
• There is no phytotoxicity (toxic to plants), ecotoxicity (toxic to the environment), or heavy metals in the product

One criticism of compostability certifications is that the test standards test packaging using lab conditions rather than actually testing biodegradation in the field. Groups in North America such as the Compost Manufacturing Alliance (CMA) are working on better understanding real-world packaging biodegradation using field conditions. Over the next few years, we expect the certifications to evolve to give field conditions further consideration, and we encourage companies that are designing compostable packaging to consider field testing.

You can check out a summary of the composting certifications in the image below, courtesy of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC).

Understanding composting and these certifications can help clarify when it makes sense from a sustainability point of view to use compostable packaging. In Part 3 of this series, we’ll dive into Atlantic’s philosophy on when it makes sense to use compostable packaging.

Further Resources:

• U.S. Composting Council (USCC)
• Closed Loop Partners (CLP) Composting Consortium 
• Compost Manufacturing Alliance (CMA)
• The Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC)
• TUV Austria 

Where to go from here?

• Visit our library of all our Deep Dives articles here
• Check out our Sustainability Terms Glossary, where we’ll add key terms from each of our Deep Dives over time.
• Sign up for our Deep Dive LinkedIn Newsletter and get these articles delivered straight to your inbox every month.
• Bookmark these pages for future reference!

UPDATED June 27, 2025

Originally published Jun 14, 2023

Over the past few years, you’ve probably seen a spike in bioplastics, biodegradable or just “degradable” packaging, and compostable packaging. While these terms are often used interchangeably, they refer to different things and deciphering whether they’re actually sustainable can be complicated. This deep dive examines what these different terms mean and how we think about them from the lens of sustainability.

Before jumping in: why are bioplastics and compostables being used more?

We’ve all become more aware over the last several years that traditional, petroleum-based plastic may be very effective as a packaging material, but it poses many challenges in its manufacturing and end-of-life (EOL). For the sake of brevity in this Deep Dive, we’ll just refer to traditional, petroleum-based plastic as “plastic.” Those challenges include:

• Plastic is made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource that is environmentally damaging to extract
• Some plastics are challenging to recycle for a variety of reasons (we’ll save that for another Deep Dive!)
• Many plastics are destined for landfills, where they sit for hundreds of years, or incinerators, where they are burned and release toxic fumes
• Some plastics tend to wind up in the environment, especially consumer-destined single-use plastics, and if they do, they take hundreds of years to degrade
• As plastics sit in the environment, they can cause harm to wildlife and eventually become microplastics

These, among other problems, are challenges that packaging companies are trying to address. While some packaging applications lend themselves to changes in materials, like switching from paper to plastic, other applications are harder to replace with something that…isn’t plastic.

One way the packaging industry has tried to address this is by using bioplastics, a term which is usually shorthand for plastics made from renewable feedstocks.

There has been a movement toward bioplastics that are designed to decompose to avoid some of the harms mentioned above. The idea is that if someone can design plastic that is no longer made of petroleum and that is also designed to disappear, we’ve solved the plastics problem. Right?

As with everything sustainability-related, the reality is nuanced and there are ethical gray areas. First, we have to understand what “bioplastics” means.

The complex landscape of bioplastics

“Bioplastic” is a challenging word to define because it’s often used to describe two different and unrelated traits of some of these special plastics:

1. Feedstock source – you may see the word “bioplastic” used to describe plastic made partially or entirely from plants or other organic matter. The feedstock is most commonly a plant such as sugarcane or corn.
2. Biodegradability – sometimes the term “bioplastic” is meant to refer to a plastic’s ability to break down into elements found in nature, typically referred to as either “biodegradability” or its stricter cousin, “compostability.”

These are the two dimensions we use to understand what exactly is meant by a “bioplastic.”

Graphic adapted by Atlantic Packaging from original created by European Bioplastics

As you can see from the graph above, “bioplastics” may refer to plastics that are both made from renewable inputs and that are also biodegradable. However, the term may also be referring to plastics that are made from renewable feedstocks but are not designed to be biodegradable. Even more confusingly, it can also refer to plastics that are made from petroleum but are designed to be compostable. These two dimensions can cause confusion, so at Atlantic, we encourage our salesforce, suppliers, and customers to be more specific than “bioplastics.”

Let’s look at each of the three “bioplastic” quadrants highlighted above in turn to discuss those plastics’ traits. We can examine them on three dimensions: structure, formulation, and end-of-life.

Renewable, biodegradable/compostable bioplastics

The most common types of plastic in this category come from polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), which is a polymer produced by bacteria, or polylactic acid (PLA), which is often made of corn, sugarcane, or other carbohydrate-rich crops. This formulation likely looks and feels like traditional plastic to the naked eye, but it is ultimately not designed to behave like traditional plastic at end-of-life so that it can achieve biodegradability or compostability. If you’ve used compostable cups like the one pictured above, or maybe compostable cutlery, you’ve probably interacted with this kind of plastic.

Typically, these plastics are designed to be compostable and have certifications instructing consumers to compost through industrial composting. Less commonly, these plastics may be able to go into home compost (More on compostability certifications in Part 2 of this series!)

Renewable, often recyclable bioplastics

This plastic is designed to be “dropped in” with existing traditional plastic structures, and as such, it behaves like traditional plastic too.

You’ve probably seen this kind of plastic in some beverage bottles that advertise having plant-based plastic in them. Plastic beverage bottles are usually made of a polymer called PET, and these bottles are still using PET but are just using a mixture of petroleum-based and plant-based PET precursors.

Since the plastic is designed to behave just like traditional plastic, bioplastics of this kind can be recycled in the same way their traditional counterparts are. In other words, a bottle with some plant-based PET would be as recyclable as one with entirely petroleum-based PET. Ultimately, the polymer is still PET, regardless of feedstock, so the recyclability stays the same.

There have been several attempts at creating a fully plant-based PET, but as of today the technology is still being developed into a commercially viable solution.

Petroleum-based, compostable bioplastics

Lastly, “bioplastics” may be referring to materials polybutyrate (PBAT) and polycaprolactone (PCL).

These structures are fossil fuel-based but are designed to be compostable. Similar to PLA and PHA, PBAT and PCL are fundamentally different formulations for plastics, so are not designed to be recyclable.

Some people wonder why they should bother using a fossil fuel-based compostable plastic when bio-based compostable plastics are available. Polymers like PBAT can have some advantages compared to PLA or PHA.

For example, PBAT may have better heat resistance or provide barrier properties that are challenging for PLA or PHA. Furthermore, it is frequently seen as a compostable alternative to polyethylene.

While we are talking about compostable plastics as if they either come from either petroleum-based or plant-based feedstocks, but in reality, Keep in mind that some compostable plastics are composed of both bio-based and petroleum-based polymers.

Do bioplastics have a lower environmental footprint than regular plastics?

More complicated sustainability questions! The short answer is: it depends…on a lot of things. How is the feedstock for the bioplastic grown? What does the manufacturing and converting process look like? What happens to it at the end of its life? Are we most concerned about bioplastics’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, their water use, their ecotoxicity, etc.?

While there are many variables to consider in assessing the footprint of bioplastics, in theory, bioplastics should be able to have lower emissions than petroleum-based plastics since they absorb carbon from the atmosphere rather than pulling stored carbon (in the form of fossil fuels) out of the ground. Many life cycle assessments (LCAs) have found that bioplastics have lower global warming potential (GWP) than petro-plastics, but this is not automatically true just because a plastic comes from a bio-based feedstock.

Water use or intensity can also increase when using biobased feedstocks compared to petro-based, further complicating the issue of whether biobased plastics are more sustainable.

There are also innovations towards using bio-based feedstocks that come from waste products, like upcycled food industry waste. This can be even more beneficial from a total life cycle perspective, saving additional GHG emissions, water, and energy.

Which type of bioplastic is best?

As with any packaging- or sustainability-related question, the answer is that it depends! In some applications, the designer may be trying to optimize home-compostability rather than industrial, so they might choose a formulation that allows for that. In other cases, barrier properties may dictate the design criteria due to application requirements.

When assessing the sustainability of a bioplastic, Atlantic’s concern focuses less about the polymer structure and more about actual compostability, sourcing, feedstocks, end-of-life (EOL) outcomes, and packaging applications.

Other sustainability considerations and concerns for bioplastics

Many articles have heralded bioplastics as the answer to the plastic waste crisis, but every substrate carries some inherent sustainability risks and questions. As we see bioplastics proliferate in packaging, we have been encouraging our suppliers and customers to consider the following impacts to their packaging solutions.

Sourcing Considerations

• Bio-based plastics can come from a variety of feedstocks from corn to sugarcane to seaweed. There is not a perfect feedstock, and many sustainability advocates have raised the alarm that sourcing plastics from commodity crops like corn could perpetuate heavily industrialized monocultural agricultural practices that are harmful to the environment.
• While there is no easy answer to how crops for bioplastics should be grown to be considered “sustainable agriculture,” we like to ask suppliers of bio-based plastics if they have insight into how these crops are grown.
• Advocates also consider whether arable land is being converted to use for growing crops for bioplastics rather than food. According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), about 0.016% of the total global agricultural area is being used to grow bioplastics. This is quite small for now, but a growth in bioplastics production will inevitably be accompanied by more land area being needed.
• It will be important that the sustainable packaging community keep in mind the total amount of land being used for bioplastic production as its use rises. The worst-case scenario that we will also need to monitor for is if forests are being destroyed to make room for land to grow bioplastics.
• Some types of feedstocks such as seaweed can help alleviate concerns about land use change. In ideal cases, crops (including ones like seaweed) are grown in a regenerative fashion to create healthy habitats and foster biodiversity while they’re in the process of being grown.
• Crops grown with regenerative agriculture, as well as feedstocks that come from waste products, represent some of the best-case scenarios for bioplastic production.

Undesirable End-of-Life Outcomes

While compostable plastics are of course designed hoping that consumers can and will compost them, this is not always feasible. It is critical to understand what happens to compostable plastics when they are littered, recycled, or thrown away to go in a landfill.

Litter

• Many consumers see on-pack messaging about “biodegradable” or compostable packaging and think that this means that it will disappear if put into land or water. As we’ll discuss in Part 2 of this series, biodegradable or compostable plastic typically needs very specific conditions to degrade.
• Most bioplastics are not designed to disintegrate on the side of a highway or in bodies of water. In fact, most bioplastics behave like normal plastics in these environments, at least in the short term, and so we often see similar effects on wildlife when bioplastics are littered. For instance, a drinking straw made from a bioplastic can have similarly detrimental effects on marine animals as straws made from traditional plastic. It is just as important that we keep bioplastics out of the environment as it is that we keep petro-plastics out.
• Even bioplastics that have undergone testing for marine degradability cannot be assumed to immediately disintegrate upon entering the ocean.

Recycling

• We discussed that some bioplastics with a “drop-in” formulation, like plant-based PET, can be recycled alongside their petro-based counterparts. However, other compostable bioplastics like PLA, PHA, and PBAT cannot be recycled, and they in fact will have detrimental effects on the recycling stream if they are.
• Generally, consumers don’t understand the difference between composting and recycling; consumers may see “green” marketing on the package and see that as a hint to recycle it.
• Recyclers have already raised the alarm that they are seeing increased contamination in materials recovery facilities (MRFs) from compostable plastics.

Landfilling

• There is also a misconception among many consumers that compostable or biodegradable plastics will also degrade in a landfill and are a more sustainable choice. However, landfill chemistry makes this issue much less straightforward. Depending on the conditions in each landfill such as microbe and enzyme activity, some materials may begin to degrade in landfills; others will not.
• From a GHG perspective, though, it is actually undesirable for any item to break down in landfills. This is because landfills are largely anaerobic environments, and when organic materials break down in anaerobic environments, they produce methane.
• Methane is a potent GHG about 20 to 80 times as powerful as carbon dioxide, and one of the main concerns about landfills is that they are the third-largest source of man-made methane emissions. Counterintuitive as it may seem, from a GHG perspective, we do not want materials breaking down in landfills.

As you can see from the many ways in which different end-of-life outcomes can affect the sustainability of compostable plastics, there is really only one ideal outcome: for them to be composted. In Part 2, we’ll tackle what composting is, how it’s different from biodegradability, and when compostable packaging is a good alternative.

____

Also check out our Sustainability Terms Glossary, where we’ll add key terms from each of our Deep Dives over time. Bookmark this page for future reference!

Updated May 13, 2025

Originally published Jul 8, 2024

Also check out our Sustainability Terms Glossary, where we’ll add key terms from each of our Deep Dives over time. Bookmark this page for future reference!

On this Page:

• Updates as of May 2025
• Key Takeaways
• Introduction to EPR
• The Concept Behind Packaging EPR
• Elements of Packaging EPR
• What Brands Should Do Now
• Keeping Up with EPR News

Updates as of May 2025

The packaging EPR landscape is rapidly changing in the U.S., so we have provided some updates here on new states with EPR laws, timelines as we know them today, and challenges producers have encountered. Given that the implementation of EPR laws is evolving so quickly, it is difficult to keep this blog post up to date with the latest. See the “Keeping Up with EPR News” section below for a list of websites that are regularly updated.

Key Takeaways

• Packaging EPR requires producers (usually brands) to pay fees based on the amount of type of packaging they sell into the state.
• Seven U.S. states have passed packaging EPR laws.
• The Circular Action Alliance (CAA) is the Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) assigned thus far to manage these EPR programs and collect fees.
• Producers were required to report their 2024 packaging data for Oregon by March 31, 2025. The next deadline is for Colorado reporting, due July 31, 2025.
• Companies should be conducting EPR reporting now and working to reduce and improve their packaging now to reduce fees.

If you have an interest in packaging policy or sustainable packaging, you have likely heard the term “EPR” or “extended producer responsibility.” But what exactly is EPR, and how will it ultimately affect the types of packaging we use? In this Deep Dive, we will explore the current EPR landscape in the U.S. and what is likely to come over the next several years.

A note of caution: this post is intended as an overview of packaging EPR with some basic advice for companies navigating the new legislative landscape. It should not be taken as legal advice, and we recommend that companies who believe they are regulated “producers” seek legal counsel to better understand their responsibilities.

Introduction to EPR

Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR, refers to a policy approach that shifts the responsibility for waste management of a given product from consumers/taxpayers and municipalities onto the producers of that product. Typically, the main goal of EPR is to minimize the environmental externalities of a product’s end of life – that is, minimize the costs of the unintended consequence of what happens to a product when we’re done with it. EPR prompts a society to start thinking on a large scale about where products end up when we’re done with them and incentivizes companies that produce regulated products, in this case packaging, to minimize their environmental impacts upstream.

EPR regulations have been around for years in the U.S. to manage products like e-waste, mattresses, paint, tires, and batteries. Let’s take the example of paint to illustrate EPR in action. “Producers,” meaning paint manufacturers, are typically responsible for the paint up until the point where you, the consumer, purchase it. But there are some unintended consequences that come when you’re done with that paint can that likely has extra paint in it. While most paint is actually recyclable if collected properly, many people throw it away or pour it down the drain, which can contaminate the environment and water supplies with hazardous chemicals. Ultimately, consumers/taxpayers and the environment pay the costs to deal with this result, and paint companies don’t have an incentive to fix it.

This outcome is obviously not ideal, so many states introduced paint EPR in the early 2000s. Now, 12 states have paint EPR laws that create systems for producers to take back leftover paint and facilitate the responsible disposal of paint to reduce those negative environmental outcomes. In policy or economist lingo, we’d call EPR a way to prompt producers to “internalize the environmental externalities.”

The concept of EPR first began in Europe in the 1990s, then Canada formalized EPR for packaging in 2009, and now the wave of packaging EPR has come to the U.S. We will dive deeper into which states have adopted EPR for packaging legislation and their timelines later.

The Concept Behind Packaging EPR

In the paint example above, consumers/taxpayers (used interchangeably in this piece) were the ones fronting the costs for the improper disposal of paint. The same thing is happening with packaging today. As our current system stands, consumers are the ones paying for the disposal of packaging through taxes and fees which go to waste haulers and local governments that fund our trash pickup, landfilling, recycling services, litter management, and more. There are a variety of unintended consequences, including the plastic pollution crisis that Atlantic and A New Earth Project talk about frequently. There simply are not enough economic incentives in place to discourage landfilling or littering and encourage packaging reduction, reuse, and recycling.

Packaging EPR aims to create some of those incentives. Under packaging EPR (which we’ll just call “EPR” for the remainder of this Deep Dive), the producers will be partially or fully responsible for the cost of disposal, whether that be trash, recycling, composting, etc. (Don’t worry – we’ll get into more detail about who the “producers” are later.)

But what does that “responsibility” look like? It can take two basic forms: financial and operational.

When producers have “financial responsibility” under EPR, they basically take on the cost of paying for responsible disposal of packaging. This likely includes paying for waste collection, more recycling services, composting, and landfilling, as well as programs to prevent litter. As a reminder, this would be instead of, or in addition to, the local municipalities and taxpayers funding the collection and disposal of packaging. Producers fund their financial obligation by paying fees into a system based on the amount of and type of packaging they sell into the regulated state. Those fees then reimburse municipalities for their waste management costs. Sometimes, financial responsibility explicitly means funding improvements to the waste management system (e.g., upgrading recycling centers), as opposed to reimbursing municipalities for their day-to-day waste management costs.

With “operational” responsibility, producers actually play a role in the day-to-day collection and disposal/recycling of materials. This may look like running take-back programs or starting up new recycling and compost services. In EPR laws in the U.S. so far, we largely have seen programs set up for producers to have both some financial and operational responsibility for packaging’s end of life. However, the mix of financial and operational responsibility looks a little different in each state.

Remember: one of the main points of packaging EPR is to create incentives for producers to manage packaging’s end of life so that there are fewer externalities (costs from unintended negative consequences) that fall on taxpayers and the environment. So when producers have to take some responsibility – financial, operational, or both – for the packaging’s end of life, their incentives change. Firstly, they want to use less packaging because they’ll pay fewer fees into the system. Then, for the packaging they do use, they’ll want to use more recyclable packaging because it usually comes with lower fees (more on this later). Lastly, they’ll have incentives to design and use packaging that is compatible with take-back or recycling/composting programs that they’re responsible for funding or operating.

As of this writing, seven U.S. states have passed EPR for packaging legislation. Maine and Oregon passed first in 2021, with Colorado and California following in 2022. In May 2024, Minnesota signed the fifth bill into law. In 2025, Maryland moved from just having a study bill” in place to passing full EPR, and Washington state’s legislature passed EPR too.

Illinois has also passed a “study bill,” which is a “pre-EPR” law where the states decide to do extensive studies on what the state’s recycling system needs. Illinois does not have scheduled dates by which they will impose fees on producers. 

Now, we’ll dive more into some of the elements of packaging EPR that help create these incentives. 

Elements of Packaging EPR

The Producers

Who counts as a producer under EPR?

Typically, the “producer” of a piece of packaging is the brand whose name appears on the packaging, not the actual manufacturer of the packaging itself. The idea here is that the brand is the one that makes the decision about what kind of packaging to use, and thus, they have the market power to demand different packaging materials or designs. However, there are some exceptions to this rule, and different states/schemes may have slightly different criteria for producers based on whether they’re a U.S.-based company, if they’re a distributor or private label, their role as a retailer, etc. There are too many caveats to go into here for the different states’ laws, but just remember that typically, the producer is the one whose brand is on the package. To see if you’re an obligated producer for each state, you’ll need to consult the EPR statute (the bill that becomes law) in that state. There are often useful flow charts for each state that walk you through who the obligated producer is for a product.

It’s important to note that “producers” don’t need to be based in the regulated state: if they are selling product into the regulated state, they are likely an obligated producer under that state’s law.

States typically have small business exceptions. Each state has a minimum threshold based on the amount a company sells within the state. For example, if a company is selling over $1 million worth of product per year in California, they will likely be an obligated producer, but a company selling less than $1 million would be exempt, regardless of where that company is based. This threshold is different for each state.

What are the covered products/packaging types?

In the language of EPR laws, “covered materials” are the products that are subject to recycling targets and fees. Packaging that is considered “covered material” under EPR schemes in the U.S. typically includes any separable, distinct component used for the containment, presentation, and/or protection of a product from a producer to a consumer, especially single-use plastic packaging and, often, food service ware. This may include cardboard inserts, stickers, cardboard boxes, poly bags, food and beverage containers, foil and wraps, straws, utensils, and more. As such, covered materials typically include primary, secondary, and tertiary/logistical packaging, along with disposal food service ware. However, covered products may differ between states. For example, Colorado’s EPR laws don’t reference packaging used for the presentation of a product (stickers, etc.). Please see our resources at the end of this deep dive for links to state-specific covered materials.

Remember: producers are not paying fees on their actual product, but rather the packaging around that product. The “covered materials” refer to the types of packaging that are regulated.

The Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO)

An EPR program is managed by a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) (often said as “P-R-O” or as a word “pro”), which is typically a non-profit run by the producers. The PRO, which may also be called a Stewardship Organization, must be appointed by the state, and the PRO and the state agency work together to make the EPR program successful. Some key producers will start a PRO, and then other producers can join the PRO to comply with the law.

Each year by a deadline outlined in statute, producers submit data to the PRO about how much and what type of packaging they sold into the state based. Each state has its own list of covered materials as mentioned above, and the producers are prompted to provide the weight of each of those materials that they used to package all of their products sold into that state the previous reporting period. Based on those data, the producers each pay fees to the PRO according to a fee schedule negotiated between the PRO and the state.

The PRO then uses these fees to execute a “program plan” for that state, which is essentially an agreement between the PRO and the state about how funds will be used to reimburse municipalities for their costs and/or improve waste management infrastructure. The actual EPR law (statute) outlines some key performance targets that the PRO is responsible for achieving, such as a recycling rate target. While the PRO – run by the producers – has the license from the state to operate the program, theoretically powered by private sector efficiencies, the PRO is ultimately accountable to the state. If the state does not believe the PRO is sufficiently operating the program within the bounds of the law, the state can terminate the PRO’s role.

In the U.S., it is most common for the PRO to need to be a non-profit organization. This is not required as often in Europe. Additionally, in the U.S., typically there can only be one PRO per state, although not always. 

Who is the PRO?  

The PRO can theoretically be a different organization in each state. However, thus far, the  Circular Action Alliance (CAA) has been named as the PRO in each state that has appointed one. We expect it will continue to be named as the PRO in other states, basically operating a “franchise” model. CAA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit founded by 20 companies, including Amazon, Coca-Cola, Keurig Dr. Pepper, Mars, and many more in response to the rise of EPR laws. Again, to comply with the laws, producers must register with the PRO and sign state-specific addenda delineating their responsibilities. (There are often pathways for producers to report and pay fees directly to the state without joining the PRO, but this is rare in practice.)

Who is “the state”?

When we have mentioned “the state” or “state agency” thus far, we mean some state-specific agency ultimately reporting to the Governor of that state. Each EPR law delineates who the relevant agency is who will set regulations and administer the law. For example, in California, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (“CalRecycle”) is that agency. In Oregon, the Department of Environmental Quality (“Oregon DEQ”) does this.

The Advisory Board 

Each state typically selects a Producer Responsibility Advisory Board (though names differ between states) consisting of a variety of affected and knowledgeable stakeholders. The Advisory Board works to identify the challenges, opportunities, and nuances to developing EPR, advising the PRO and the state on law implementation. Atlantic Packaging’s President, Wes Carter, sits on the Advisory Board for the PRO in California, representing Atlantic as the only packaging company on the board. Advisory Boards will often feature voices from local governments, environmental justice (EJ) groups, recyclers, composters, producers of covered materials, and more. Advisory Boards are often responsible for reviewing the program plan.

The Fee Structures

What is meant by the “fee structure”?

Each state will eventually have a list of its covered material categories and the associated fees per pound of each. Typically, fees are assigned to materials based on how expensive they are to dispose of properly. For example, recyclable paper products like corrugated cardboard carry low fees, while difficult-to-recycle packaging like expanded polystyrene (EPS, or Styrofoam) carry high fees. These fees can change year to year as costs to manage different materials change. These fees are usually called base fees.

The base fees alone create incentives to use less packaging and to use more recyclable materials. Some EPR laws may also implement incentives for other sustainability attributes for packaging called eco-modulated fees. These systems can create bonuses for materials that incorporate post-consumer recycled (PCR) content, have life cycle assessments (LCAs), and more.

As such, these fee structures in and of themselves do not ban certain types of packaging, but rather create economic incentives not to use them. For example, as mentioned above, EPS often carries very high fees, but is not explicitly banned. However, many EPR laws will include additional language that creates constraints, directly or indirectly, on different packaging types. For instance, California’s EPR law, known as SB 54, banned EPS food service ware as of January 1, 2025 because it was shown not to meet recycling rates outlined in the law. Additionally, many states will set recycling and recyclability targets that can create constraints. For example, SB 54 requires that 65% of all single-use packaging be recycled by 2032, and also requires that all packaging be reusable, recyclable, or compostable by 2032. This can create de facto restrictions on packaging materials that don’t meet any of those requirements.

Overall, the EPR fees and other constraints, such as recycling rates, create incentives for brands to reduce the amount of packaging they use and to switch to more recyclable or compostable packaging. These fees and recycling targets also create upstream incentives to incorporate circular principles early in a product’s production, rather than as an afterthought, as is traditionally done in a linear system.  

Do we know what the fees are?

As of this writing, we have fee estimates in Oregon and Colorado, but not exact numbers. These estimates were released to help producers estimate their fee burdens.

To see Oregon’s fee estimates, look at their Program Plan starting on page 199. This schedule outlines a low and high base fee estimate. To see Colorado’s fee estimates, look at their Program Plan starting on page 184. This schedule presents a minimum and a maximum, but also shows averages for a low, medium, and high scenarios. See page 183 for more explanation of the different columns’ meanings.

Producers were required to submit their 2024 packaging usage data for Oregon to CAA by March 31, 2025. CAA will be invoicing producers based on these data by July 1, 2025, at which point we will know more about Oregon’s actual fees.

Producers need to submit data on their 2024 packaging usage for Colorado by July 31, 2025, and payments will be due by January 1, 2026. We will know more about Colorado’s actual fees by then.

What Brands Should Do Now

Immediate compliance tasks

The most important thing a producer can do is register with the PRO. At this time, it is free to join CAA, so if companies are unsure whether they should join, it would be better to go ahead and register. This will ensure the company will receive key information about deadlines and information on whether they will be obligated to pay fees. There may be a registration fee at some point. Producers can register at circularactionalliance.org/registration.  Registration is straightforward and will require companies to appoint a primary point of contact as well as an authorized representative who can sign agreements between the company and CAA.

Registering with CAA itself does not require any packaging usage data to be submitted. For each state for which a company determines it is an obligated producer, it will sign a state-specific addendum with CAA and be given access to a portal through which to submit data.

From there, companies should understand their obligations in the states whose initial reporting deadlines have passed and those that are coming soon. As mentioned above, the original deadline to submit 2024 data for Oregon was March 31, 2025. Brands should consult with a legal team or consultant to determine if they are obligated in Oregon. If so, they should contact CAA to determine how to report late.

We anticipate that the state agencies will prioritize legal action against producers who fail to register and report, rather than against those who report late. We recommend registering and submitting data as soon as possible. Oregon, for instance, has a fine of up to $25,000 a day for non-compliance.

The other upcoming deadlines for EPR reporting are:

• Colorado: report 2024 data by July 31, 2025
  • Companies will be invoiced based on this data by January 1, 2026
• California: report 2024 data in August 2025 (exact deadline TBD)
• Minnesota: register with CAA by July 1, 2025 (including signing Minnesota addendum)
• Maine: register with PRO and report data in May 2026

As of this writing, it is not yet clear when registration and data reporting will occur for Maryland and Washington.

Assign a point person at your company to register with CAA and stay on top of updates to EPR laws and implementation. Consider seeking legal counsel.

Long-Term Actions

While there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding packaging EPR laws and implementation, there are a few things companies can do now to prepare:

• Understand your packaging data availability. Many companies have information available about their actual product specs, but don’t keep detailed information about the specs of the packaging associated with those products. Determine what information you have available about:
  • What products you sell into specific states
  • What kinds of packaging are used for the SKUs you sell into those states
  • The weights of the packaging you use for those products
• You may not have all of the information necessary to calculate packaging weights. Consult internally about the most accurate way to estimate your packaging usage. CAA requires that you explain your calculation and estimation methodologies.
• Discuss how you can update your systems to account more precisely for what packaging each SKU uses. Consider using spec management software such as Specright to organize and export this information.
• Document all the ways you have reduced your packaging and/or made it more recyclable in the last 7-10 years. This could include recording any lightweighting, switching to recyclable packaging, PCR content use, etc. your company has done.
• Keep an eye out for any future opportunities to reduce your packaging and make it more recyclable – Atlantic Packaging can help with this! Check out our extensive sustainable packaging tools on our Sustainability page and on A New Earth Project’s website.

Keeping Up with EPR News

Several groups and media outlets maintain great information about the latest EPR news. Check out:

• Packaging Dive’s “EPR for packaging laws: Dates to know” maintains a list of upcoming deadlines and important dates
• CAA’s website’s state-specific pages have news and timeline updates – we recommend getting on their email list too
• Resource Recycling’s EPR coverage goes in-depth on the EPR news

Packaging EPR likely represents the biggest shift in packaging incentives in recent history, and we’ll help you stay on top of it here with more Deep Dives and resources in the future. In the meantime, here are some resources to dive even deeper:

• Link to our EPR one-pager
• EPR resource hub on our A New Earth Project website

State-Specific EPR Law Pages:

• California – “Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act” (SB 54)  
• Colorado – “The Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act” (HB 22-1355) 
• Illinois – “Statewide Recycling Needs Assessment Act” (SB 1555) 
• Maine – “The Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging Act” (LD 1541) 
• Maryland – “Environment – Statewide Recycling Needs Assessment and Producer Responsibility for Packaging materials” (SB 222) 
• Minnesota – “Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act” (HF 3911) 
• Oregon – “Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act” (SB 582) 
• Washington – “Recycling Reform Act” (SB 5284) (note: as of this writing, the Washington Department of Ecology does not yet have an EPR landing page. This summary presents the closest thing we have to an overview.)

Also, check out our Sustainability Terms Glossary, where we’ll add key terms from each of our Deep Dives over time. Bookmark this page for future reference!

In Part 1 of this Deep Dive, we gave an overview of store drop-off (SDO) programs for plastic films. In Part 2, we’ll discuss when it makes sense for companies to use SDO-eligible films and when it may not make sense.

As many brands have made commitments to using more sustainable packaging, a top priority tends to be shifting to recyclable or compostable packaging where possible. For brands who rely on flexible plastic films for their packaging, this can pose a challenge because of the lack of infrastructure in the U.S. to recycle these films through curbside programs. Given this challenge, companies are left with a few options to shift their packaging to:

1. Curbside-recyclable, fiber-based flexible packaging
2. Compostable flexible packaging
3. Rigid plastic packaging that is generally accepted for curbside recyclability
4. Store drop-off, mono-material PE plastic

In other words, switching to an SDO-eligible film is just one option companies have when considering how to make their plastic film packaging more circular. So, when does it make the most sense to switch to each kind?

Curbside-recyclable, fiber-based flexible packaging

An excellent option for applications with low performance requirements

Paper-based packaging can sometimes be an excellent replacement for flexible plastics when the technical requirements are minimal. The place we see this occur most often is in e-commerce, where paper mailers, cushioning, and dunnage now compete with plastic. We love these switches because they can often result in an e-commerce order where all the tertiary packaging is curbside recyclable. Oftentimes, fiber used in these situations can also be made with post-consumer recycled (PCR) material, which may help satisfy more sustainability goals.

Other places where fiber might replace plastic films may be more technical and require the paper to meet various performance requirements. For example, in trying to replace shrink bundling film with a curbside-recyclable fiber with our Canopy ™ solution, we have needed to source special types of paper and apply special adhesives that keep the bundle contained, all while maintaining recyclability.

Sometimes these switches are feasible, but other times they are not. This is particularly true when the paper requires substantial coatings to meet performance requirements, which occurs often with food-contact packaging. The packaging is doing substantial work to maintain shelf life and food safety, and today’s fiber-based options typically don’t satisfy the desired performance requirements. A prime example of this is with raw meat, where we often see plastic films used to maintain food safety and increase shelf life. Using a paper alternative for raw meat would be extremely challenging because substantial engineering with coatings would need to be done to even approach the freshness plastic is able to achieve, not to mention that those coatings and the food residue would almost certainly render the paper unrecyclable.

While raw meat is an extreme example, there do exist some food applications where fiber may be a suitable replacement for plastic films. Dry goods such as nuts, which often come in plastic pouches, may be able to be packaged effectively in fiber that doesn’t require substantial coatings and may be able to be curbside recyclable. The ability to use fiber-based packaging, particularly recyclable fiber-based packaging, is entirely dependent on application.

Compostable flexible packaging

Promising, but needs much more innovation and development

The examples above raise the question of where compostable plastic films may be good solutions instead, and indeed, there are compostable films on the market today to replace stand-up pouches, shrink bundling films, and many others. As we covered in our Deep Dive series on compostables and bioplastics, however, it is generally understood that the most appropriate use of compostable packaging is in food-related applications since the packaging helps to divert food scraps to compost, and that packaging would likely not be able to be recycled anyway.

So, should we be replacing all films in food packaging with compostable versions? Many sustainability advocates would say this is a great goal, especially if composting infrastructure and access can be scaled substantially. The main issue we face today, though, is the performance of compostable films. Most available on the market today don’t provide the same barrier properties that traditional plastics do, and/or there are issues running the films on today’s equipment. To go back to our raw meat example, a compostable film may not give the same shelf life as traditional plastics, which would cause disruptions in the supply chain and, likely, more food waste as food spoils faster. Knowing that food waste is one of the most harmful sources of methane emissions, we want to avoid this outcome. That said, there may be other food applications, such as with dry goods or produce, where compostable films work just fine, and these should be examined.

Compostable films for other non-food applications present a challenge in assessing the sustainability benefits. There are several compostable films on the market for things like air pillows for e-commerce, poly bags for apparel, and shrink bundling film, and these films may meet the technical requirements the brands need. Assessing whether they are more sustainable than their traditional plastic incumbents depends entirely on what you are optimizing for (e.g., global warming potential, water use, prioritization of using renewable feedstocks, etc.).

Our priority, and often that of our customers, is to prioritize circularity, or keeping the material out of landfills, incinerators, and the environment while using as many renewable resources as possible. While using compostable materials often helps use more renewable resources, it would be difficult to claim today that a compostable film used in a non-food application is destined for a better end-of-life (EOL) than traditional plastic. This is because compostable packaging only becomes compost if it’s composted, and this is not very likely for these applications. BPI, the certifying body for compostable packaging in the U.S., does not even certify packaging for non-food applications, and composters are quick to say that they do not want to take non-food packaging anyway. As such, much of the compostable film for non-food applications is destined for landfill anyway, where it will degrade and release methane — a greenhouse gas that is 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide. If leaked into the environment, it may or may not have a better EOL than traditional plastic. (For more information, check out our Deep Dive on the most appropriate uses of compostable packaging.)

For all these reasons, we see some applications, particularly in food, where compostable films may be a great replacement for traditional plastic films, but there needs to be much more development and investment in the technologies to have the films perform adequately.

Rigid packaging that is generally accepted for curbside recyclability

Will increase recyclability but also increase total material usage

Another path some companies take, rather than using plastic film, is to switch to another kind of rigid packaging that is generally curbside recyclable. For example, a brand selling screws in a plastic pouch, perhaps with a paper hang tag, may decide to eliminate the difficult-to-recycle film by putting the screws in a PET thermoform clamshell. PET thermoforms are sometimes, but not always, curbside recyclable today, but they are substantially more recyclable than plastic film. However, the trade-off here is that the brand would almost certainly be using more plastic with a PET clamshell than they would to use a plastic film.

Ironically, many companies moved to plastic films to reduce material usage away from rigids, so some sustainability advocates see a move to rigids as a regression. It is, of course, also an option to switch to a rigid container that is not made of plastic, such as a paper carton or glass jar, depending on the application. Regardless, a plastic film tends to be the lightest weight, so companies trying to reduce their packaging material usage have a difficult time moving away from plastic films if they have goals surrounding material reduction. If their goal is specific to plastic reduction, they may find it is worth switching to another rigid material that isn’t made from plastic even though the packaging will likely be heavier.

Whether or not to switch to a rigid container from a plastic film depends, again, on what one is trying to optimize for from a sustainability point of view, so this is ultimately a subjective decision balancing between the desire for curbside recyclability and material usage. While there is much we do not yet know about what incentives packaging EPR will create, we do think it will ultimately reward source reduction over all else, so it will likely be in companies’ best interest to stick with the package that uses the least materials.

Store Drop-Off, mono-material PE plastic

Makes sense in niche situations

This leaves us with our final option: using a traditional plastic that is eligible for SDO. As covered in Part 1, a film eligible for SDO would be a mono-material PE film.

In some cases, switching from whatever film the brand was using before to a mono-material PE film is an easy replacement with few issues of lower performance. Like the switch to fiber, we see this often with less “technical” packaging applications such as air pillows and dunnage. There is a plethora of SDO-eligible options on the market for these. Our perspective tends to be that, if a brand can switch to a curbside recyclable fiber-based option for these, that is preferable to an SDO-eligible film since curbside recycling is more convenient for consumers than SDO. However, if brands cannot make the switch to fiber for whatever reason, moving to an SDO option, particularly one that has some PCR in it, may be a good back-up.

There are other cases where the mono-material PE film might perform as well as the incumbent film but the application does not lend itself to SDO eligibility. This happens most often with food-contact applications where residue is left on the film. Residue can render the material unrecyclable, and How2Recycle may decline to label the material for SDO as a result. This may also be the case where product residue requires substantial effort for the consumer to clean off, so realistically, How2Recycle will be reluctant to grant it an SDO label. In these cases, we do not think it makes sense to switch to a mono-material PE film if it can’t be eligible for SDO unless there is some other compelling reason to do so, such as if the mono-material film resulted in lower material usage. However, we rarely see instances in which moving to mono-material PE results in lower material usage than whatever the incumbent material is. Changing to an SDO-eligible film, in our experience, almost always results in needing to increase the gauge of the film.

This leads to another scenario we often see where the switch to a mono-material PE film would result in (1) higher material usage, (2) more product waste, and/or (3) worse runnability on machines. We have had several situations where customers have wanted to move to an SDO-eligible film but doing so would require a thicker film or one that doesn’t run well on their existing machinery, resulting in more waste in production. In these situations, we tend to lean toward sticking with the lowest-gauge, best performing material possible rather than switching to an SDO-eligible film. Ultimately, the number of consumers who will bother to recycle the film in-store is likely not worth the additional material needed and waste created in production. Sometimes, a helpful middle ground for companies trying to achieve their sustainability goals is to instead incorporate some PCR into the film rather than aim for SDO, assuming that adding the PCR does not result in higher material usage, worse runnability, etc.

It is important to mention that part of our rationale for prioritizing the film that results in the lowest material use, even if it’s not eligible for SDO, is packaging EPR. Thus far, the packaging EPR regulations in the U.S. seem that they will first and foremost prioritize source reduction. We don’t yet know the fees on various materials, but we do know that that the top way to avoid paying unnecessary fees is to avoid unnecessary package weight.

In summary, this leaves a pretty niche checklist of when SDO-eligible films make sense, from our perspective. If switching to an SDO-eligible film does the following, it may be worth considering:

• The switch is for an application that could not switch to a curbside-recyclable option instead
• The change still allows the packaging to perform at the minimum threshold required (e.g., maintaining product shelf life)
• The new mono-material PE film requires a similar gauge of film (i.e., so more material doesn’t need to be used to accommodate the change)
• The new film runs on existing machinery in a way that does not create more waste in production
• The application is for a product that does not leave oily/greasy/powdery residue

Also, check out our Sustainability Terms Glossary, where we’ll add key terms from each of our Deep Dives over time. Bookmark this page for future reference!

From packaging food to online shopping, we commonly encounter flexible plastic packaging and films in our lives. Despite its abundance, flexible plastic packaging is not easily recycled. In our previous two-part Deep Dive on recycling, we covered different recycling programs and streams, and we described the problems flexible plastics and films cause for Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) (Part 1, Part 2). We also briefly touched on the store drop-off (SDO) system for recycling flexible films, but you still may be wondering, “what really is the SDO system, and how effective is it?”

In this Deep Dive, we will describe the SDO system and dive into its effectiveness, where the material ends up, how this recycling system was created, and how it can be improved.

What is the Store Drop-Off (SDO) System for Flexible Plastics?

When we refer to the store drop-off system here, we are referring to the U.S.-based recycling method where specific types of recyclable plastic materials, typically plastic films and flexible packaging, are collected at designated retail or grocery store locations for recycling. Unlike curbside recycling where consumers place their commonly collected recyclables into their household bins, this system provides a solution for items that are not accepted by most municipal recycling programs due to their lightweight, flexible nature. As we covered in our previous Deep Dive, these films present problems in MRFs so are generally not accepted there and need to be recovered through other means. The idea behind SDO is to collect specific plastic materials that cannot be processed effectively in curbside recycling programs and provide an alternative collection system to reduce landfill waste and plastic pollution.

In the U.S. SDO system, consumers bring clean, dry plastic film items — such as grocery bags, bubble wrap, and shrink bundling film — to designated drop-off points. These drop-off points are typically found at retail and grocery stores that choose to participate in plastic film recycling programs. Participating stores have collection bins for these specific materials, usually near the entrance of the store. The store periodically collects the materials from the bins and sends them to qualified recycling facilities to be processed into new products. We will dive deeper into the types of products these materials can be recycled into later.

This system for recycling flexible packaging was based on earlier plastic bag recycling programs. Many large retailers, such as grocery chains and department stores, started offering plastic bag recycling programs in the 1990s and 2000s. Like the current SDO system, customers were encouraged to return used plastic bags to collection bins at the store, which would later be sent to specialized recyclers. Over time, the program expanded to include other types of flexible plastic films (e.g., shrink wrap, bread bags, etc.). The SDO system was also based on the understanding that certain flexible packaging materials, like low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE), can be recycled if collected properly (“source-separated”). Partnerships between retailers and specialized recyclers enabled these materials to be diverted from landfills and turned into new products. The initial plastic bag recycling program provided the infrastructure and consumer habits needed for store drop-off systems. It also demonstrated that a take-back model could work outside traditional curbside recycling.

Most drop-off points accept and collect films and flexible packaging made from polyethylene (PE) labeled as #2 or #4 plastics. Flexible plastic packaging and films are often made of materials such as PE, which can be recycled if collected and processed correctly. Specific plastic products accepted by the SDO system include:

• Plastic shopping, bread, and produce bags
• Newspaper sleeves
• Flexible plastic overwrap (e.g., around toilet paper or paper towels)
• Shrink wrap (e.g., around a case of water bottles)
• Shipping and packaging materials (e.g., compatible mailers, deflated air cushions, and bubble wrap)
• Plastic product wrappers (from toilet paper, diapers, etc.)
• Dry cleaning bags
• Ziplock and other re-sealable bags (clean and dry)

Like curbside recycling systems, the store drop-off system deals with contamination that can negatively impact the recycling process and end products. One of the largest sources of contamination for SDO includes films with food residue on them and films that are multilayer or have metalized layers. Before they are dropped off, items should be cleaned and dried to prevent contamination; in some cases, you may need to remove labels or tape from the packaging. These contaminates can make the material harder to recycle (by burning in the recycling process, causing black spots or darkening of resin), and this ultimately reduces the PCR resin quality.

Some products to avoid recycling through SDO altogether include food wrap or cling wrap, rigid plastics, prepackaged food bags, biodegradable or compostable plastics, chip bags or candy wrappers with mixed materials, and plastic film that has excessive glue residue.

In an effort to help consumers decide how to properly dispose of these flexible materials and reduce confusion, How2Recycle released a “Store Drop-Off Label” to put on compatible flexible plastic packaging. Here is an example of what an SDO label on a package may look like, although as of this writing, How2Recycle is currently in the process of revamping the labels (drafts below).

The End Markets for SDO Materials

Materials collected through store drop-off recycling programs go through a specialized recycling process that is distinct from curbside recycling. These materials are consolidated and transported from drop-off points to recycling centers or plastic film recycling facilities that are equipped to handle flexible plastics. Retailers usually work with these recycling partners to manage transferring the materials. At these recycling facilities, the plastic is usually melted down and the resin is used to create various new products.

Before we dive into some of the common end products for these materials, it’s important to describe how their value may differ in terms of upcycling or downcycling the material. Upcycling involves converting materials into products of higher value or quality, often adding new functionality or improving their aesthetics. Upcycled products are typically more durable, valuable, or innovative than their original form, extending their use in a meaningful way.

Upcycling can be as simple as using a glass jar as a storage container or flower vase, or as complex as taking wooden pallets and turning them into functional furniture like coffee tables. In the context of SDO materials, possible avenues to upcycle these recyclables include products like filament for 3D printing, handicrafts like jewelry and bags, high-end product packaging, art installations, outdoor gear (weather-resistant backpacks and tents), and more. However, the end markets for these applications are niche and not very scalable or widely available currently.

Downcycling, on the other hand, converts materials into items of lower value or quality, and the end products may not be recyclable again after their new use. The most common end market for SDO materials is currently to send recycled material to a company like Trex, which uses the material to create lumber for decking, roofing, and other related applications. Other examples of downcycling SDO materials include turning the material into durable goods (outdoor furniture, trash cans, car parts like mud flaps, etc.), liner bags for trashcans, and plastic shipping pallets, to name a few.

Ultimately, upcycling aims to enhance the material’s worth, while downcycling tends to reduce it and lead to products with limited future recyclability. Upcycling contributes to a more circular economy, ensuring materials maintain their highest and best use, whereas downcycling can be seen as simply temporarily delaying their path to landfills. Even though the secondary product is often not recycled, downcycling still provides important avenues to divert these materials from landfills and provide a second use for them. Flexible plastic packaging and films are most often “downcycled” into products of lower quality because the current recycling infrastructure, economics (cost to produce products and available end markets), and the materials themselves don’t lend well to upcycling into higher-value or more reusable materials. Contamination from food residue or non-recyclable materials (e.g., labels, adhesives, inks, and metalized coatings) makes it more difficult to process materials into high-quality recycled products and pushes them toward downcycling, reducing their chances of being recycled again after their second lives.

While upcycling flexible plastics from store drop-off systems is less common than downcycling, there are several methods in development that may be promising paths to recycling and offer exciting potential for transforming flexible plastics into higher-value, more functional products. It will be important to continue building and supporting end markets that upcycle these materials and keep them in use. Specifically, recycled content should be incorporated into more consumer flexible film products where possible to prop up these end markets.

Is SDO Effective & Sustainable?

In theory, the SDO system for flexible packaging sounds like a great outlet for a material that rarely makes it through a MRF. However, recent investigations have revealed a severe lack of transparency about what happens to the collected material from SDO bins. The system is effective in the sense that it provides a source-separated stream that is cleaner than your typical curbside bin; however, it is not effective in the sense that many people don’t know about it or where to find SDO locations, and whether their materials make it to recycling facilities is unclear.

The biggest gap for consumers with SDO is they don’t know that it exists, and/or they don’t know how to find active drop-off locations. To try and close this gap, the first nationwide film recycling directory was launched in 2007, which showed consumers where they could find local drop-off points and the accepted materials for each location. The directory was maintained by Stina Inc., a longtime recycling consulting firm, since its creation and up until its removal in November 2023. The directory also intended to verify that the collected plastics were sent to processors and end markets outside of landfill and incineration. However, this verification was a labor-intensive process that Stina could not maintain. The removal of the directory followed several high-profile indictments of drop-off film recycling, specifically questioning whether SDO materials made it to an end market. These investigations revealed an alarming amount of SDO plastics ended up at landfills or trash incinerators, and some of the listed collection points were not accurate. On top of unreliable disposal, there were various locations listed on the directory that did not actually have SDO bins in their store for consumers to drop materials in. As a result of these findings, and to avoid amplifying inaccurate information around the SDO system, Stina decided to take down its directory altogether.

It’s important to make a distinction between the two main sources of flexible materials at most retail stores, the “front-of-house” (FOH) versus the “back-of-house” (BOH). BOH refers to all the areas where customers are not expected (delivery rooms, stockrooms, etc.), while FOH represents the public-facing area of a business where, if the store participates, SDO collection bins are located. Adding to consumer skepticism about the true recycling rates of their returned materials, the majority of plastic film material sent to specialized facilities to be recycled is usually generated from the BOH of participating stores not FOH, where consumers bring their materials via SDO. The recycling of plastic films benefits immensely from the amount of material generated at BOH from things like stretch film cut from pallets that is much cleaner than materials with more inks and residue on them collected FOH via SDO. This means the material collected from BOH is more likely to make it to a recycling facility than thrown away or incinerated compared to the consumer materials generated at FOH. Furthermore, there is simply much more volume with BOH items than FOH.

As a result of all these findings, some view SDO as a hollow greenwashing tactic used to satisfy corporate commitments and goals set around adopting recyclable, compostable, or reusable packaging in operations, without companies actually addressing the root causes of their plastic waste and the general overuse of plastic. Essentially, they make it look like they are tackling the plastic waste generated by their products by labeling them as recyclable via SDO. However, some critics say that customers are misled about the recyclability of these products and packaging because consumers tend not to understand the difference between SDO- and curbside-recyclable. Additionally, plastic films continue to be recycled at very low rates. Commercial films generated at BOH have an estimated recycling rate of 21%, while residential films and flexible packaging have a recycling rate of only 2-4% according to findings from Closed Loop Partners and the Flexible Packaging Association.

These suspicions around true sustainability benefits and greenwashing raise the question – is this system sustainable? As we mentioned, the main end market for SDO material has been, and continues to be, Trex decking. While this is by no means a horrible outcome, it still represents downcycling. To build a better sustainability case, it would be better if the material could return to its original use as flexible packaging. In other words, the end markets for this recycled material should be shifting toward incorporating PCR content from SDO materials into flexible packaging on a large scale. As recycling technologies and innovations improve, more opportunities for upcycling flexible films and plastics are expected to develop, helping reduce the environmental impact of these materials and creating more sustainable end markets.

How Recycling for Film and Flexibles Can be Improved

Like traditional curbside recycling, one of the biggest issues with recycling consumer flexible packaging is contamination. To minimize contamination levels, it is critical that consumers are well-informed about which items are accepted in store drop-off recycling programs, in addition to other limitations. For example, films that have food residue on them pose challenges, as do plastic films that are not PE, such as polypropylene (PP, #5 plastic) films. Brands must provide clear labeling on packaging to help combat that contamination, and substantially more effective consumer education about the existence of SDO must be done.

In addition to the hurdles around raising consumer trust and participation in SDO, the system faces challenges with participating retailers. Participating in SDO is something retailers do voluntarily, and managing this system is not easy, nor is it their first job. To be successful, organizations working to improve SDO’s effectiveness and transparency need to work around the retailer’s internal systems. They must accommodate the retailers’ busy times and seasons in a way that doesn’t disrupt operations or draw away resources, which is not an easy task! However, taking the time to make SDO easier and more manageable for retailers to participate in will ultimately help to increase available drop-off points for consumers and accurate data reporting.

All this information may have left you wondering, “so is the SDO system even worth it?” And, our answer is, yes, we think it is, although preferably as a short-term solution. Despite faith lost in the current SDO system, extensive work is being done to build a better system in which consumer materials are being recycled into new products, with greater levels of transparency, trust, and reliable data. Ultimately, the goal is to get to a system where films and flexible packaging can be recycled curbside, shifting the responsibility of managing these materials from retailers to municipalities, hopefully making it easier for consumers to participate. However, to get to widespread film recycling, we need to start with SDO because it is the only consumer-facing avenue we have to recycle film today. It will be necessary to first invest in SDO and build consumer trust in the system to demonstrate for households that there is a way to recycle their films if they can be collected. As new methods of collecting film and flexible packaging may develop, and as residential recycling pilots may graduate into widespread systems, it is important to keep supporting the store drop-off stream to try and divert these materials from landfills in the meantime.

To address the current need for an accurate nationwide directory, The Flexible Film Recycling Alliance (FFRA), created by The Plastics Industry Association, will be releasing a new SDO directory to empower consumers to accurately find their nearest participating retailers. With this new directory, launching this fall, consumers can confidently locate local retailers who participate in SDO and the specific materials each location accepts. The directory is accompanied by traceable data and validated store information. It will also be validated by GreenBlue with a methodology developed by Resource Recycling Systems (RRS), so consumers can be confident the locations offered by the directory are active and accurate and their materials are making it to reprocessors.

In the U.S., only 1% of consumers can recycle films and flexibles through curbside recycling right now, but a variety of stakeholders are working on changing this, notably The Recycling Partnership’s Film and Flexibles Coalition. The SDO system has been developed around retail infrastructure to manage their materials, but it can be used to step into a more municipal management of these materials with a curbside system. By establishing greater trust with both consumers and retailers, stakeholders like FFRA, The Recycling Partnership, and SPC can help to work toward a more efficient, transparent, and impactful system for collecting consumer flexible films and packaging.

Read Part 2 to learn more about when companies should consider using store drop-off-eligible films!

Additional Resources:

More info on the How2Recycle store drop-off label for flexible packaging: https://how2recycle.info/about-the-how2recycle-label/store-drop-off-us-only
Dive deeper into the new national Film Recycling Directory by FFRA: https://www.packagingdive.com/news/plastic-flexible-film-recycling-alliance-launches/710498
Read about ABC’s store drop-off investigation: https://abcnews.go.com/US/put-dozens-trackers-plastic-bags-recycling-trashed/story?id=99509422
Learn more about How2Recycle’s in-depth study on store drop-off recyclability and the future of SDO packaging design: https://greenblue.org/2024/01/05/report-the-future-of-store-drop-off-recyclability

Also, check out our Sustainability Terms Glossary, where we’ll add key terms from each of our Deep Dives over time. Bookmark this page for future reference! 

In part 1 of this Deep Dive, we walked through the multi-faceted definition of “recyclable.” One of those factors is that the product be sortable so that it will be baled and sold to reprocessors with like materials. For paper and packaging, this sortation occurs at a facility called a MRF. In this part 2 of the Deep Dive, we’ll explore what MRFs are and how they work.

What is a MRF?   

A materials recovery facility, or MRF, is a solid-waste management plant that receives, sorts, separates, and prepares recyclable paper and packaging materials to sell to end-user manufacturers (we call them “reprocessors”). The end-user manufacturer will then use the recovered material (“feedstock”) to make new products.  

Using both machines and people, materials flow through the MRF’s many steps and conveyor belts to be sorted by type of material (“stream”), further processed, and then similar materials are baled or compacted together to be sold and transported away from the MRF. As noted in part 1, MRFs almost always exclusively sort paper and packaging materials. Depending on the recycling facility, material streams usually include cardboard, mixed paper, aluminum and steel cans, and some kinds of plastic (most often, plastics #1, #2, and sometimes #5). As explained in part 1, the packaging material that a MRF chooses to collect depends heavily on their ability to effectively sort the material and whether there are strong end markets for those materials. MRFs usually need to be profitable in order to stay in business, so these end markets are critical.  

Glass is also a common material stream; however, because of its vulnerability to breakage, glass is sometimes viewed by MRFs as a contaminant. Broken glass easily makes its way into other material streams and reduces their quality or renders them unusable; it can also damage sorting machinery. Glass is heavy and expensive to transport, and some communities may not have end markets for recycled glass, making it difficult for MRFs to justify processing it. We will dive further into other forms of contamination in MRFs below.  

Traveling Through the MRF  

In a typical MRF in the U.S., the process of sorting and recycling materials involves several key steps: collection and delivery; receiving and pre-sorting; sorting; baling and compaction; quality control; and transportation to end users. While these overall steps are by and large the same from MRF to MRF, it’s important to note that MRFs often look quite different from each other. The biggest variance from facility to facility is in the level of sophistication of sortation equipment. Some have a lot of automation, while others are much more manual. Additionally, some are very large while others are tiny. Some are privately run, while others are operated by municipalities. The descriptions below describe the “average” MRF in the U.S., but significant variability does exist. 

1. Collection and Delivery: Recyclables are collected from residents’ curbside bins, designated drop-off locations, or commercial facilities (businesses, schools, etc.) and transported to the MRF. For curbside collection, residents separate recyclables – such as paper, cardboard, glass, plastics, and metals – from their general landfill-bound waste and place them in designated recycling bins. In the U.S., it is most common for recyclables to be collected “single stream,” meaning that all recyclables – paper, plastic, metal, etc. – are collected together (this is why we need MRFs – to do the separation!). The collection trucks, often equipped with compartments to keep trash and recyclables separate, pick up these recyclables on scheduled days and deliver them to the MRF.  

In areas without curbside collection, or for materials not accepted in curbside programs, drop-off centers provide an alternative. Residents transport their recyclables to these drop-off locations, where they are typically sorted into different categories (e.g., glass, paper, electronics). Commercial facilities often generate larger volumes of recyclables and may set up contracted collection services. Public spaces, such as parks, streets, and bus stations, may have recycling bins for people to deposit items like bottles and cans. These bins are regularly emptied by municipal or contracted services. 

In some cases, collected recyclables are first taken to a transfer station – a facility where materials are temporarily stored, sorted, and consolidated before being transported to a true recycling facility. This step is especially common in areas where MRFs are located far from collection points. In many cases, especially in urban areas, collection trucks deliver recyclables directly to the MRF, where the materials are unloaded and prepared for further processing. Once it arrives, the load of recyclables is typically dumped into a loading area, where it may be weighed and inspected. Weighing helps track the amount of material being processed, while an initial inspection allows for the identification of any obvious contaminants or non-recyclable items that may need to be removed before processing. 

2. Receiving and Pre-Sorting: After arriving at the loading area, materials often go through preliminary sorting to remove large contaminants and non-recyclable items. A mechanical shovel usually feeds the material onto conveyor belts that transport items through each step of the recycling process.  

At this stage, workers will observe the materials as they move along the conveyor belt and remove common contaminants like plastic bags, clothing, diapers, candy wrappers, expanded polystyrene (such as packaging foam), garden hoses, food scraps, holiday lights, hazardous materials like propane tanks and batteries, etc. Several of these items pose a danger to recycling facilities by potentially causing fires, tangling machinery, and disrupting operations. These contaminates interfere with the “good” recyclables and divert a lot of the MRF’s monetary and human resources toward sorting and disposing of these items. Another huge challenge at this stage includes products that tend to cross-contaminate streams (e.g., plastic products mixed with food residue). This cross-contamination can impair the efficiency of the sorting process, possibly hindering the identification of materials, and reducing the purity of the recycled material, making it less valuable or even unusable for recycling. Initial sorting ensures materials are ready for the MRF’s more detailed sorting and processing steps. 

3. Sorting: Once initial contaminants have been sorted out, the material will be carried by conveyor belts through various sorting stages. Sorting may be done by people, machines, or both. In many facilities, materials will run through multiple automated machines to be separated into their specific streams (e.g., plastics, metals, paper, etc.). Mechanical sorting can include screening and other types of separation:  

• Screens: Rotating or vibrating screens separate materials based on size. Larger recyclables will bounce across the top of the screens and continue traveling through the MRF to be further sorted. Any item under approximately three inches in at least two dimensions will likely fall through the gaps in the screens and be sent with other waste to landfill, as the item is too small to make it through the rest of the recycling process. (Click Here to See a MRF Screen in Action!)

• Air Classifiers: Air classifiers work by passing a stream of air through a mixture of materials and sorting them by density. The air flow causes lighter materials (paper and light plastics) to be lifted and carried away from heavier materials (metals, glass, and heavier plastics), which fall out of the air stream. The heavier items will fall into a specific collection chute, or they may be diverted to a separate conveyor belt to go through additional sorting technology. For example, heavy materials may run through magnets to sort any recyclable metals. Lighter items will undergo further sorting through optical sorters (detailed below) or manual quality checks.  

• Magnetic Separators: Magnets may be used to remove ferrous metals (metals containing iron like steel) from the heavier item stream. (Click Here to See a Magnetic Separator!)

• Eddy Current Separators: These use magnetic fields to separate non-ferrous metals (metals that do not contain iron, like aluminum) from other materials. 

• Optical sorters: One of the more recent innovations, particularly for plastics, is the optical sorter, which uses cameras or light-emitting near-infrared (NIR) lasers to automatically sort lighter solid items based on their color, shape, size, and other characteristics. Optical sorters may be used at multiple stages in the recycling process to separate paper and plastic materials from one another and ensure accuracy and quality. Some other advanced technologies use AI-empowered robotics to identify and separate materials. 

• Manual sortation: Workers are usually stationed throughout the long process to help with sortation. They may be supplementing the work that machines, like the ones above, are doing, and they may also be doing some quality control along the way, removing contaminants or re-sorting items that the machines mis-sorted. 

 A MRF will likely use a combination, if not all, of these technologies in one facility to thoroughly separate materials. At the sorting stage, any contaminants (like plastic bags and string lights) that were not taken out during initial sorting may tangle or clog the machinery, causing delays and posing a physical risk to employees that climb into the machinery to remove these items.  

By using these sorting technologies, recycling facilities can produce more uniform and uncontaminated material streams, which are easier to process in later recycling stages where the materials have reached their end markets. 

4. Baling and Compaction: Once fully sorted, materials are compacted into bales or other forms for easier handling and transportation. Each type of material is baled separately (e.g., paper, cardboard, plastics, metals). Paper and cardboard are typically baled into separate dense, rectangular blocks, while plastics are usually baled separately by type (e.g., PET, HDPE). Depending on the material type, heavier materials may be compacted into bales (in the case of metals) or crushed (in the case of glass) to reduce their volume and prepare them for transportation to end market processing facilities. 

5. Quality Control: Throughout the entire recycling process, from initial intake to inspecting finished bales, there are quality control checks to ensure that contaminants and non-recyclable materials are removed. Sometimes this QC is done by humans, and in some MRFs with newer technology, robots may also be helping with QC. This helps in maintaining the quality of the recyclables and avoiding contamination of the final products. This also allows MRFs to receive a higher price for their materials.

(See the Quality Control Process Here!)

6. Transportation to End Users: Baled materials are sold to various end users. Once materials are baled, they are loaded onto trucks or containers and transported to specialized recycling facilities or end markets where the recyclable materials are then processed to meet industry quality standards. For example, metals might be sent to smelters where they are melted down and reformed into new products, while glass might be sent to a glass recycling facility to be ground or melted and reformed into new glass products. Plastics may be shredded and melted down into pellets to be turned back into plastic products, like beverage bottles.  

Overall, MRFs use a combination of mechanical processes and manual labor to sort and prepare recyclable materials for further processing, making it possible to recover valuable materials and reduce waste sent to landfills. 

The Economics 

While MRFs can be funded by a mix of public and private sources, most MRFs rely heavily on the revenue collected from recyclables to support their operations and ensure they can effectively manage and process recyclable materials. Facilities that can effectively sort and process large volumes of recyclables and maintain high-quality output are generally more financially sustainable than those bogged down by contamination, or those who use more manual sorting methods. This is why MRFs tend to recycle very specific materials and avoid the difficult-to-collect and recycle materials, like glass. 

 To add to that point, MRFs pay a fee to landfills to dispose of their non-recyclable waste (contaminants) or residuals that could not be processed or sold, called a “tipping fee.” Essentially, the MRF’s trucks must pay to “tip” the trash off their trucks into the landfill. The fee will be higher if there are more bulky and hazardous items (propane tanks, batteries, etc.). Disposal fees like this create some of the highest costs for MRFs and divert tons of resources from actually recycling materials. If a bale becomes contaminated with something like broken glass, the MRF likely won’t receive any revenue, and instead, may pay a tipping fee to dispose of the bale because it is unusable. This exemplifies why consumer education is so important to avoid contamination upfront.  

The Future for MRFs: 

Based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2018 data, over 292.4 million tons of municipal solid waste is generated in the U.S., and about 94 million tons, or 32% of that, is recycled and turned into new products. For those who are skeptical if recycling actually happens in the U.S., this rate marks an improvement from our previous national recycling rate of less than 7% in 1960. To improve our rates even further, the EPA recently set a goal to reach a 50% national recycling rate by 2030. In order to reach that goal, there needs to be increased funding opportunities for MRFs, infrastructure upgrades to improve sorting accuracy and efficiency, and improved consumer education to ensure the right materials make it to MRFs in the first place. As we’ve described, the technology and efficiency of the MRF play a crucial role in sorting paper and packaging. Advanced MRFs with state-of-the-art sorting technology can handle a wider variety of materials and complex products, improving the recyclability of those items. Older or less advanced facilities may struggle to sort certain products, leading to lower recycling rates.  

Paper and cardboard make up the highest portion of recycled material in the U.S., while plastic has the lowest recycling rate. With these more efficient sorting technologies, we can increase the recycling rate of traditionally hard to recycle materials, like plastic, which will ultimately bring us closer to the EPA’s 50% recycling goal and divert these materials from wreaking havoc in landfills and our environment.

Additional Resources: 

• How2Recycle label information 

• YouTube video of a virtual MRF tour – Skip to 1:10 for the beginning of the virtual MRF tour (please keep in mind that each MRF is different and may not go through the same exact steps or handle the same materials as the one shown in the video)  

• Dive deeper into EPR’s role, recycling laws and incentives, and regulatory information 

Also, check out our Sustainability Terms Glossary, where we’ll add key terms from each of our Deep Dives over time. Bookmark this page for future reference! 

The U.S. recycling system generally gets a bad rap. Many consumers never know what actually happens to a product once it leaves their recycling bin, which has led to misconceptions about whether or not materials get recycled. Additionally, scary headlines that say things like “only 5% of plastic is recycled” can make people feel like all recycling is greenwashing. However, a lot of packaging waste is being recycled in the U.S. – we promise!  

In this two-part Deep Dive, we are pulling back the curtain on what it means for something to be “recyclable,” as well as talking about the recycling process and diving into how materials are recycled, the challenges to recycling, and what material recovery facilities, also known as MRFs, are doing to upgrade their facilities and improve recycling processes to raise their rates. (Want to jump straight to how a MRF works? Go to part 2 here). 

Before we jump in: this Deep Dive is focused on the recyclability of packaging products. While the definition of “recyclable” that we’ll walk through is more or less standard, the system to collect, sort, and reprocess other products – anything from tires to mattresses to electronics – will look very different than the process for packaging. At the end of this Deep Dive, we’ll touch briefly on some of the consumer confusion this can cause.  

Recyclability – What Does It Mean?  

In general, the term “recyclable” refers to materials or products that can be collected, processed, and transformed into new products instead of being sent to a landfill as trash. However, there are several factors to consider when determining a material or product’s true recyclability.   

Before we dive into those factors, it’s important to note that packaging can end its life either with consumers or businesses. What might be deemed recyclable in one setting may not be in the other.  

Typically, when a consumer hears that something is “recyclable,” they assume this means that they can place it in their recycling bin at home, and someone is going to turn it into a new product. This mainstream process of recycling is generally referred to as “curbside recycling.” For the sake of most packaging that reaches a consumer’s home, this is the recycling stream we try to strive for since it’s what most consumers are familiar with, and one that many have easy access to.  

Keep in mind, though, that something may be recyclable that doesn’t wind up at a consumer’s home – think about business-to-business packaging that’s disposed in a distribution center, for example. The collection and sortation methods in those cases are completely different than for consumer-bound packaging.  

Regardless of who the end-user of the product is, let’s talk about the factors that can influence recyclability. These are generally the factors that groups such as the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, How2Recycle, and The Recycling Partnership use to define recyclability. 

Applicable Law  

Laws often set standards for what materials can be recycled, how they are labeled for disposal, and how they should be processed. Regulations may require that certain materials be separated from the waste stream to ensure they are recycled properly. For example, New York has a recycling mandate that requires residents and businesses to place recyclable materials in designated bins or containers and dispose of non-recyclable waste in separate trash bins. By requiring the separation of materials, the law helps ensure that recyclables are not contaminated with non-recyclable waste, making them easier to process and increasing recycling rates. Additionally, regulations that dictate how waste is managed, including landfill bans or restrictions on the disposal of certain materials, can influence the recyclability of materials. For example, some laws prohibit the disposal of electronics or hazardous materials in regular trash streams, which encourages them to be properly disposed of and recycled.  

Laws and regulations may also play a part in what items can even be labeled as recyclable. For example, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s Green Guides set standards about when it is and is not appropriate for an item to be labeled “recyclable.” These laws are designed to reduce consumer confusion and deception. Groups like How2Recycle are constantly working to align their labeling guidelines with the Green Guides and other such laws in Canada. 

Laws can also provide certain incentives to increase the recyclability of a material. The most popular example of this you have likely heard of is deposit return schemes (DRS) for beverage bottles and cans. A DRS encourages the return and recycling of certain materials by charging a small, refundable deposit when something like a drink is purchased in a container and then refunding the deposit when the container is returned empty and undamaged to a designated collection point. The goal of a DRS is to increase recycling rates, reduce waste, and prevent containers from ending up in landfills and the environment. Legislation with this type of monetary incentive has been shown to improve recycling rates for covered materials. Similar incentives can stem from other extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws, such as those we’re seeing implemented in the U.S. (want more on EPR? Check out our Deep Dive).  

Conversely, the absence of strong legal frameworks may lead to inadequate recycling systems, resulting in lower recycling rates and increased environmental impact. Thus, applicable laws shape both the opportunities and limitations of material recyclability by establishing the regulatory environment in which recycling occurs. 

Collection 

Collection is the first step in the recycling process, so the ability of a product to be collected is crucial to its overall recyclability. Collection of certain materials can be limited depending on access to recycling infrastructure, consumer participation, material composition, and collection costs.  

In areas where recycling infrastructure is sparse or non-existent, even products that are technically recyclable (see “reprocessability” below) may not be able to be collected effectively, reducing their actual recyclability. Products are easier to collect and gather in sufficient quantities to create a legitimate market when there are existing waste management systems like curbside recycling programs or accessible store drop-off (SDO) recycling programs. For example, many areas or types of homes still do not have access to basic curbside recycling programs, or if they do, they only can include some kinds of packaging. This is particularly common in rural areas and multi-family homes. If a packaging product is only collected by recycling programs in the most urban areas, for instance, it would be difficult to claim that it’s really “recyclable” nationwide. Typically, the threshold we see used is that if 60% of the population has convenient access to a program that collects a material, it checks the box as being commonly collected. Groups like The Recycling Partnership and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition conduct surveys to assess these access rates. 

Some products simply don’t make sense to collect because there is minimal economic value for recyclers to collect and sell the material. A common misconception about recycling is that it’s done as a public service because it’s good for the environment. Municipalities often support recycling for this reason, but recycling is ultimately driven by economics. Companies that collect and sort recyclables do so because they can sell the material to a reprocessor at some profit. If a material does not carry enough value for them to do so, it is rarely collected. This can create another barrier to ensuring that products are collected for recycling. 

Sortability  

Typically, at least in the U.S. and in residential systems, we co-mingle our paper and packaging recyclables in “single stream” recycling – i.e., your bottles, cans, paper, and glass all go in the same container. However, for companies to sell the materials to reprocessors, they need to be sorted by material. Household curbside recycling – which, again, is made up of paper and packaging products only – usually heads to a MRF to be sorted and baled for sale.  

Again, remember that the success of recycling ultimately comes down to economics. A MRF needs to be able to sort materials by type with the least amount of contamination possible, because the amount of money they can sell a bale of any given material for depends on its cleanliness. For instance, if a MRF is trying to sell a bale of #1 plastic (PET, what you typically find in beverage bottles), they will receive less money from a buyer if there is contamination from other kinds of plastics, paper, leftover food, etc.  

So, when all those materials wind up at a MRF, how are they sorted?  

The proper sortation of items at a MRF depends on certain design considerations and material identification. Products designed with recycling in mind (considering material type and purity, size, shape, and ease of disassembly) are more likely to be effectively sorted and recycled, reducing waste and contributing to a more efficient recycling system. Complex products that require a greater effort to disassemble won’t be sorted effectively. Also, small items like bottle caps or plastic straws can fall through the sorting machinery, ending up in the wrong material stream or being discarded altogether. Conversely, products that are too large or irregularly shaped can jam equipment, leading to inefficiencies or contamination. Flat objects like paper or thin plastics might be mistaken for each other, leading to sorting errors. For example, a flat plastic lid might be sorted with paper, contaminating the paper stream and reducing its recyclability. 

Products designed with a single material type are also generally easier to sort and recycle. Multi-material products, such as laminated packaging, can be challenging to separate at the MRF. Additionally, products with labels, adhesives, or some inks that are difficult to remove or that interfere with the sorting process can reduce recyclability. For example, picture a beverage container, like a plastic chocolate milk bottle, that has a shrink-wrapped sleeve around it. This sleeve is usually a different kind of plastic than the bottle itself, which poses a problem. This sleeve can make it difficult for the MRF’s sorting equipment to distinguish between the label material from the bottle material and potentially mis-categorize the material. While automated sorting is efficient, some products require manual sorting due to their complexity. Products that are easy for workers to identify and separate will have higher recyclability.  

The physical mechanics of how items are sorted at MRFs is so complicated that we’ll talk more about it in part 2 of this Deep Dive.  

Let’s quickly revisit recyclables that don’t go to consumer’s homes. If a material ended its life at a business and was disposed of there (for example, in the back of a warehouse), it is unlikely that it would go to a MRF to be sorted and recycled. Instead, many recyclables at places like retail stores, distribution centers, and warehouses are at least somewhat sorted there and may be picked up by different companies. For example, a big-box store may have one company come pick up their cardboard waste, while another comes to pick up their stretch and shrink film. Typically, these materials are then baled and sold to reprocessors without ever seeing a MRF. They have been what we call “source separated” – sorted before collection – which usually results in cleaner waste streams and higher-quality bales to be sold. 

Reprocessability  

After materials are sorted and baled, whether at a MRF for residential recyclables or elsewhere for commercial recyclables, the bales are sold to reprocessors who then use the material to make new products. This may happen at a single place, or the material may travel through a whole new supply chain on its way to becoming a new product. 

Just like a manufacturer wants high-quality raw materials to make their products, reprocessors want the cleanest material possible to make new products with recycled content. Products designed for easy reprocessing (using single materials, avoiding contaminants, and facilitating disassembly) are more likely to be successfully recycled. Effective reprocessing often requires materials to be relatively pure and made of just one kind of material, since items with multiple substrates can be difficult or impossible to separate. Contaminants (like food residues on packaging or mixed materials) can complicate reprocessing, reducing the quality of the recycled material or necessitating additional cleaning steps. Simplified designs allow for more straightforward and effective reprocessing.  

Another aspect of reprocessing for plastic packaging is the vast difference in various types of plastic. For most consumers, plastic is plastic, but packaging folks will be the first to tell you that there are many different types that have different chemistries. For the most part, certain types of plastics need to be separated from each other to be reprocessed efficiently. Many reprocessors are challenged by contamination from other kinds of plastics in the bales they buy, which can lower the quality of the material they’re able to make from the recyclables. Folks who assess plastic’s recyclability often consult the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR)’s Design Guides to understand reprocessing challenges or to design plastic products for later recyclability. 

The availability and sophistication of reprocessing technologies also impacts an item’s reprocessability. Materials that can be easily processed with current technologies (e.g., repulping for paper, or melting, shredding, or chemical recycling for plastics) are more recyclable. Not all products are compatible with standard reprocessing techniques. Multi-layered materials, composites, or items with mixed material components (like plastic-metal hybrids) can be challenging to efficiently reprocess. For example, paper that is coated with plastic can be challenging to reprocess because the two materials may be near impossible to separate, even though both materials by themselves might be reprocessable. When papers are coated or combined with other materials, it can be useful to have repulpability and recycling testing done to see how recoverable the fiber is. Test standards exist to assess this. Many companies have made major efforts to design packaging that doesn’t require multiple materials to address this issue, but some kinds of packaging simply require more complexity to offer things like food safety.  

End Markets  

Even if a material can technically make it through the recycling process without any issue, it might not always be recycled in practice due to economic factors like the market demand for recycled materials and the price a MRF can get for the material it sells, or the availability of recycling infrastructure in that region. For MRFs to maintain their operations, their “product” (baled recycled materials) must be profitable and in demand. “End markets,” the buyers of these recyclables, that offer stable and high prices for recycled materials make recycling more economically viable. MRFs are more likely to process materials when they can expect a good return on their investment because if the prices of recycled materials fluctuate significantly, recycling can become less predictable and profitable. When deciding which products to recycle, MRFs essentially must ask themselves, “Does the material have a viable end market with willing buyers? Is there a market demand for this material/product in my region?” 

End markets also often have strict quality requirements for recycled materials. If the recycled material does not meet these standards (due to contamination, degradation, or improper sorting), it may be rejected by buyers. These varying levels of quality, often delineated by “grades,” impact the price MRFs or collectors receive for the recyclables they bale. If a bale is a lower-grade, meaning lower quality, this can result in materials being downcycled into lower-value products or not recycled at all.  

Regarding recycling infrastructure, technological innovations that improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of reprocessing materials can enhance their recyclability by opening paths to end markets. For example, advancements in new technologies, including those under the umbrella often called “chemical recycling,” can create new end markets for traditionally hard-to-recycle plastics, expanding their recyclability. 

What is clear after going through all these steps is that a piece of packaging needs to check a lot of boxes to be considered truly recyclable. This can create challenges for brands and packaging designers who are trying to design for recyclability. For example, they may be able to take a product with multiple material types and redesign it to use only one so that it is reprocessable, but if that package still won’t travel through a MRF effectively, it still can’t really be called recyclable. To complicate matters further, each of these five factors can vary for the same material depending on what state or city you are in, and the capabilities of the specific MRF that material is sent to. Next, we’ll dive into how a MRF works. 

A quick epilogue on non-packaging products: you may be wondering, having read that MRFs only sort paper and packaging materials, how it is that other products can be considered “recyclable.” For example, you may have seen things like tires, mattresses, electronics, or even clothes marketed as recyclable. These items can still be considered recyclable under the definition we walked through in this piece, they just go through different collection, sortation, and reprocessing than packaging products do.  

For instance: say that you buy a piece of clothing from a company that says that you can recycle the piece when you’re done with it. Chances are that that company is offering their own take-back program or partnering with a special collection group that is specific to textiles. This process would allow the product to still fit the definition of recyclable because the company is collecting, sorting, and finding a reprocessor/end market for that clothing. It wouldn’t go through a MRF, but that’s because MRFs specifically handle paper and packaging for curbside programs. This is why labeling non-packaging items as “recyclable” can be perfectly legitimate but still cause consumer confusion. Many consumers see something labeled as recyclable and assume they should place it in their curbside bin, but a MRF will not sort and bale that material. It is critical that we better educate consumers about how to recycle non-packaging products too. 

Also check out our Sustainability Terms Glossary, where we’ll add key terms from each of our Deep Dives over time. Bookmark this page for future reference!

If you’ve been in the conversation about sustainable packaging at all in the last few years, you’ve seen the rise in use of recycled content in plastic packaging. But what exactly is post-consumer recycled (PCR) content, and where does it fit into the sustainable packaging landscape? Is it really sustainable? In this Deep Dive we’ll focus on PCR in plastic packaging.

Defining PCR and PIR

Post-consumer recycled content refers to materials that have already been used by consumers, recycled, and then repurposed into new products, including packaging. A piece of packaging is said to have some percentage of PCR – if for example, a plastic bag with 20% PCR was made of 20% recycled content, and the other 80% was virgin (new) content.

In the world of sustainable packaging, PCR is most commonly part of the discussion in plastics (you may also hear PCR spelled out as “post-consumer resin” in the context of plastics), but most kinds of packaging can have recycled content – glass, metal, paper, and more. For whatever reason, the term PCW (post-consumer waste) is sometimes used, especially in paper products, but the concept is the same.

What about PIR, or post-industrial recycled content? PIR basically refers to the capturing and recycling of “scrap” material on a manufacturing floor to be put into a product. For example, if a plastics manufacturer generates scrap, they can recapture that material immediately and put it back into their manufacturing process. The PIR material never actually leaves the building before it’s recycled into its original product.

Many sustainability advocates find claims of PIR content hollow, or even greenwashing. Most packaging manufacturers are collecting and recycling their production scrap as just a matter of doing good business. Because PIR never left the building, it tends to be very clean material to recycle into something else. It’s convenient and financially savvy to use PIR most of the time; it has simply become in vogue to claim “recycled content” in products, so some manufacturers are touting their use of PIR as a sustainability attribute of their product.

In contrast, PCR comes from material that has accomplished its end use by a consumer and has been collected to turn back into a product. Because PCR comes from material that is being collected by consumers, it tends to have a greater diversity of materials in it and likely has higher levels of contamination.

Why use recycled content, particularly PCR?

From an environmental sustainability lens, there are four main reasons to incorporate PCR into packaging, plastic or otherwise:

• Reducing use of virgin materials: Incorporating recycled content reduces the demand for virgin raw materials. By reusing materials that have already been extracted, processed, and used in a previous product, companies contribute to the conservation of natural resources. This is crucial for materials like paper, plastics, glass, and metals, where extraction and processing can have significant environmental impacts.
• Reducing energy use and lowering emissions: The production of recycled materials generally requires less energy compared to creating products from virgin materials. Manufacturing goods from recycled content often results in lower greenhouse gas emissions and helps conserve energy resources. This aligns with the broader goal of reducing the environmental footprint associated with industrial processes.
• Landfill avoidance and waste reduction: Incorporating recycled content promotes a circular economy by diverting materials from the waste stream and landfills. Instead of being discarded, recycled materials are given a second life, extending their usefulness and minimizing the need for new raw materials. Landfill space is limited, and excessive dumping contributes to environmental degradation and poses many long-term challenges.
• Regulatory pressures: Several states, such as Washington and California, have instituted or proposed laws that plastic products must contain a minimum percentage of recycled content. Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws passed in the U.S. may also incentivize or mandate the use of PCR.

So why not just put PCR in all plastic packaging?

If only it were so easy! PCR clearly has environmental benefits, and consumers are demanding it in their packaging. However, there are challenges associated with producing and integrating PCR on a large scale.

Cost

Generally, PCR does cost more than a similar package that contains no PCR. There are specific marginal costs associated with producing a PCR product. For example, as more companies want to develop and produce products with PCR content in them, we have seen a lack of availability of PCR feedstock. This lack of availability drives up the price of materials used to make PCR. There are also costs associated with sourcing and sorting the feedstock material, handling and transporting materials, and manufacturing PCR products. In addition, there are also costs associated with the testing and development of these products. On the other hand, there is an argument to be made that PCR demands have increased as oil becomes more expensive and generally not preferred due to its negative environmental impact.

However, the upfront cost of PCR materials is not the main driver of companies deciding to make this change. The main driving force for PCR demand is its lower environmental footprint, in addition to an increased consumer desire for more sustainable products.

All of this said: part of the promise of a circular economy is that it should be cheaper to use recycled content than virgin. Our hope is that as availability improves and R&D for items with PCR in them progresses, PCR’s costs will be on par with, if not cheaper than, virgin.

Availability

In addition to an increase in demand for PCR materials by companies, the lack of availability of these materials highlights large-scale issues in our recycling system. On a broad level, there is not enough plastic of virtually every type that is properly recycled by consumers and businesses, and there can be a lot of contamination in these streams, leading to a decrease in availability. This lack of availability is cause for concern as the supply of PCR plastics today only meets about 6% of demand, which is predicted to increase by 5 million metric tons by 2030 (for more information see here).

The issue is clear: today’s recycling system is not equipped to handle the volume of plastics needed to meet this rising demand. Challenges to our current recycling model range from contamination by improperly cleaned or discarded materials, to improperly sorted materials, to limits on the types of plastics that certain facilities can process. After use, if a consumer recycles their plastic packaging, it enters a material recovery facility (MRF) to be sorted and baled with like materials. Since the quality of plastic and level of contamination can vary coming out of a MRF, it can be difficult to find a consistent stream of high-quality material to be turned into feedstock for PCR products. Additionally, typically consumers can only recycle rigid plastics #1 (PET), #2 (HDPE), and #5 (PP) through curbside systems, so PCR for other kinds of plastics, especially flexibles, is especially hard to source.

To make matters worse, virtually no consumers in the U.S. can recycle their flexible plastic packaging (FPP) through curbside systems that are headed to MRFs, in part because FPP can disrupt the recycling process by clogging machinery. Consumers can often bring their polyethylene (PE) films to store drop-off programs in the U.S., but participation is low and the typical destination for those films is into more durable products like plastic decking rather than into new films. Since it’s currently quite challenging to gather enough recycled film from consumers to turn into PCR, a lot of PCR for films is likely coming from business-to-business collection of films that does not need to go through the consumer collection and sortation process.

Ultimately, the demand for recycled plastics is quickly surpassing the supply available due to these challenges and emphasizes the need to develop more efficient recycling infrastructure and collection for materials such as FPP. The hope is that investments driven by EPR will improve recycling collection, education, and infrastructure to support clean and high-quality streams of recycled material.

Performance

PCR can differ from virgin materials in its color, transparency, texture, and durability. These differences can raise concerns for production where consistent color, transparency, and texture are crucial. These outcomes depend heavily on the quality of recycled plastic used in production and levels of contamination with other materials (inks, dirt, paper labels, non-recyclables, etc.).

While PCR can affect the performance of plastics, it can be helpful to differentiate between performance characteristics such as durability and more aesthetic differences such as transparency. Some recycled films, for instance, will have a gray-ish or spotted look but may perform completely adequately for their purpose, such as poly bags for apparel. Some potential users of PCR may shy away from integrating PCR purely for aesthetic reasons, but if the packaging still performs its intended purpose, it is likely worth questioning whether the aesthetic differences are significant enough to warrant avoiding PCR.

Ideally, a packaging product has recycled content in it and can be recycled again, creating true circularity. However, there are instances in which the addition of PCR may affect the recyclability of the product it is going into. This is also determined by the quality of recycled plastic used. A lower-quality PCR may mean a reduced ability to be recycled again, whereas a higher-quality PCR content yields a product that can be recycled multiple times after its production and use. To ensure a higher performance and quality of PCR material, investments need to be made in more effective recycling methods, such as sorting and cleansing techniques to minimize contaminants.

Food Contact Challenges

A big concern in the use of PCR has been using recycled plastics in food packaging. Specifically, concerns are raised around the possibility that some PCR products may contain contaminants that do not comply with regulations for food-contact use. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established that these concerns should be addressed on a case-by-case basis and has issued general guidelines for producers and suppliers to consider when integrating PCR content into food packaging. In lieu of approval, the FDA will issue a “Letter of Non-Objection” (LNO), certifying that the collection, cleaning, and processing of the PCR materials meets their standards for food-safe plastics. Producers and suppliers must account for a variety of unknowns, including that:

• A PCR package or product may be initially produced with non-food grade feedstock
• Converters may add non-food safe additives during production
• Contaminants could migrate into food from the PCR package

Additional considerations include the possibility of microbial contamination and structural integrity, depending on the quality of the PCR content used.

The FDA oversees the premarket evaluation of the safety of substances in food packaging and has a method for reviewing recycling processes used by PCR feedstock producers. These measures help to ensure food-related PCR packaging products do not have contaminant concentrations that would migrate into food.

Despite these challenges, norms around recycling and packaging are changing, leading to a push for PCR materials by consumers and suppliers. The hope is this will lead to more investments in the technology and infrastructure to support this demand and the processing of traditionally difficult to recycle plastics. Ultimately, PCR packaging opens new opportunities to reduce the demand for raw materials and the volume of plastics sent to landfills.

If a piece of plastic packaging has PCR, is that the most sustainable option?

Like most discussions around sustainable solutions, the answer is: it depends!

When assessing the “sustainability” of a plastic packaging material, there are three main factors to look at: The material’s recyclability, its potential to be littered after use instead of recycled, and its content or make-up (e.g., is it made with renewables resources; is it helping to reduce reliance on virgin material thanks to PCR).

As discussed, plastic packaging with PCR in it represents an improvement from completely virgin content. However, moving toward a circular economy means that we also want to be able to recycle the product again. We prefer a piece of packaging with PCR in it that remains recyclable. If the product cannot be made to be recyclable, we may prefer another option that is.

It is important to distinguish between flexible film plastic (FFP) and rigid plastics, and how each are dealt with at their end-of-life stages. Rigid plastics have a higher recycling rate compared to FFP because they are more often curbside recyclable, whereas FFP can only be collected through store drop-off, if at all. For this reason, rigid plastics like PET, HDPE, and PP with PCR in them may be relatively sustainable options because they can be recycled again. There may also not be very good alternatives to these. For example, when packaging yogurt, a recyclable PP tub with PCR content may be the best option available today.

On the other hand, flexible plastics like LDPE with PCR in them won’t be curbside recyclable, and thus are likely to end their lives in landfills, with the small exception of some flexible films that are collected via store drop-off. While using PCR is a helpful step, from a circularity point of view, there may be more sustainable options such as paper. For example, when choosing between e-commerce mailers or air pillows, we prefer recyclable paper over a flexible poly with PCR.

Asking what option is the most sustainable depends heavily on what impact category you are optimizing for (e.g., carbon footprint, water, energy use, waste impact, etc.). We optimize for reducing waste impacts wherever we can, and ensuring we are prioritizing recyclable options drives our recommendations.

Ultimately, the “most sustainable” option from our perspective will probably be the one that is able to be collected and recycled again, instead of littered or tossed in the trash. Specifically, a material like curbside recyclable paper-based packaging with no PCR content will likely be better than a FFP with PCR content because it can be recycled after use.

Also check out our Sustainability Terms Glossary, where we’ll add key terms from each of our Deep Dives over time. Bookmark this page for future reference!

Looking for information on CDP? Check out our Deep Dive on CDP here.

In March 2023, the Science-Based Target initiative (SBTi) approved Atlantic’s SBTs for climate action, including our goal to reach net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2046. As more companies are setting SBTs and submitting climate action information through CDP, we wanted to provide more background on the alphabet soup of climate disclosure and action. In Part 2 of this Deep Dive, we’ll dive into what SBTs are and why they’re important both to Atlantic and our customers. Check out Part 1 on CDP here. 

What are Science-Based Targets, and why are they important? 

For several decades, the United Nations has convened countries to try to come to various agreements to mitigate climate change. In 2015, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)’s Paris Agreement helped governments around the world commit to limiting global temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. This was a huge deal — the agreement represents some of the most significant global cooperation on climate change made to date and creates a clear line in the sand demarcating the level of warming we want to avoid. 

To stay below 2°C, the necessary reductions to limit the warming are dramatic: as a global community, we need to cut GHG emissions in half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050.  

Many companies have made various pledges over the previous years to limit their emissions, but they were difficult to compare to each other and often intentionally vague. If we are going to truly limit emissions in line with the Paris Agreement, we need a way for companies to make data-driven, verified, meaningful commitments that are comparable to each other.  

CDP teamed up with the UN Global Compact and other leading environmental organizations to create the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Its goal is to help companies determine how much and how quickly they need to reduce emissions. As the name suggests, science-based targets are validated, data-driven commitments showing that a company is doing its part to reach net zero in line with the Paris Agreement.  

What makes SBTs different from previous kinds of climate commitments? 

Historically, many companies’ climate commitments have focused heavily on carbon offsets. A carbon offset is a reduction in GHG emissions made by one party to compensate for the emissions produced by another party. This is typically achieved by investing in projects that reduce or remove GHGs from the atmosphere, such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, or reforestation projects. The reduction in emissions is then quantified and can be purchased as a carbon offset by companies or individuals looking to offset their own emissions.   

One of the main criticisms of carbon offsets is that they are sometimes seen as a way for companies to continue emitting GHGs without actually reducing their carbon footprint. In other words, carbon offsets can be seen as a “license to pollute,” allowing companies to offset their emissions rather than making the necessary investments in renewable energy or energy efficiency measures to reduce their emissions.  

In this way, many companies are more focused on the “net” part of a “net zero” GHG emissions goal – they can continue emitting GHGs so long as they pay to offset those emissions elsewhere. Carbon offsets have a role to play in mitigating climate change, but if we are going to make the amount of change needed, we need companies to actually focus on reducing their absolute emissions. 

Science-based targets are considered the gold standard in corporate climate action because of the level of validation and the kind of climate action required. SBTi’s net-zero actions focus more on the “zero” and less on the “net.” SBTi has strict requirements that only 10% of net-zero reductions can be achieved through offsets, meaning that companies with science-based targets must truly reduce their operational and supply chain emissions to meet their goals. 

What is the relationship between SBTs and CDP? 

CDP and SBTi are closely interrelated: CDP provides the data and insights that companies need to set science-based targets and track their progress toward achieving them. Companies that disclose their environmental impacts through CDP can also receive guidance and support from the SBTi on setting and achieving science-based targets. Moreover, companies that set science-based targets are often recognized by CDP for their environmental leadership and performance.  

You can think of CDP as the “grade” for how well a company is doing in taking climate action. A company’s SBTs are its goals to improve its climate impact. Having an SBT and working to achieve it usually means a better CDP score.  

What are Atlantic’s SBTs? 

Atlantic set ambitious targets for climate action that were approved by SBTi in March 2023. Atlantic is the first packaging and containers company in North America to have a net-zero target approved by SBTi. 

Overall Net-Zero Target: 

• Atlantic commits to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across its value chain by 2046, which is Atlantic’s 100th birthday. 

 Near-Term Targets: 

• Atlantic commits to reduce Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions 70% by 2030, from a 2021 base year. 
• Atlantic also commits that 55% of its suppliers by spend, covering purchased goods and services, will have science-based targets by 2027. 
• Atlantic further commits to reduce 25% of its Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions from purchased goods and services by 2030, from a 2021 base year. 

Long-Term Targets: 

• Atlantic commits to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across its value chain by 2046. 
• Atlantic commits to reduce Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions 90% by 2046, from a 2021 base year.