South Kesteven District Council Shocks Residents With New Recycling Bin, Otherwise Known as The “Purple-Lidded Bin”.

Bourne, situated in South Lincolnshire with a growing population that is now 18,000, used to have three bins for kerbside collection. As for the whole South Kesteven District Council (SKDC), these were: Black for general waste, silver for co-mingled recycling materials, and an optional green for garden waste at an extra cost. In February 2024, the council introduced another bin for its households, exclusively for paper and card, called the “purple-lidded bin”. This change was supposed to improve the way paper gets recycled and save approximately “five million trees each year”, according to the council’s website. Sounds like a great idea, right? Some SKDC residents did not think so.

Upon receiving the initial letter back in December 2023 informing us about the change, it was clear that should we get this wrong, our bins will not be emptied. Some saw this to be a bit of a harsh approach, nonetheless, some chose to ignore the warning. The letter stated some of the benefits that this change would bring, however, not enough to get full public buy in, which is crucial, because it is the public that the council is relying on to get this right. In the council’s defence, Bourne residents have had plenty of warning that the change was about to happen, so it should not have been a shock to them.

One of the most obvious benefits of separating waste is making sure that as much material gets collected for recycling as possible. With the council stating on their website that the “average family throwing away around 6 trees worth of paper every year”, if we improve our recycling methods, we can conserve natural resources and forest habitats – and I don’t need to explain why those are important! But instead, the council got blamed with phrases like “wasting taxpayers’ money” and “filling their own pockets”, according to Facebook comments. I believe it is more of a cost saving method rather than generating revenue, but even so, if this method can be financially viable and environmentally responsible, why wouldn’t we do our utmost to make this possible?

For about a month after the launch of the purple-lidded bin, there was not a day where a post about it would not appear on local Facebook pages – and there are still new ones appearing to this date. It mentioned householders complaining about lack of space due to having another bin (4th in some cases). The second negative outlook on social media was raised when we learnt that the recycling bin should have loose recycled items inside without the bin liner. SKDC says that this has always been the case, but to be fair, I did not know this? Nonetheless, because I always recycled, neither of these changes have affected me; in fact, I welcomed the change because I do not have to worry about buying the white bin liners anymore! The weather however is not always on the councils’ side with heavy winds and storms on the silver bin collection day – it is safe to say that plastic waste was scattered and blown around the streets of Bourne. Of course, residents made sure that this did not go unnoticed and fuelled the recycling bin Facebook negativity even further.

SKDC have followed up with their warning about not emptying bins that are contaminated and subsequently noted on their website that they have “left 9,000 bins unemptied”. The public responded again, with some residents warning the council that they will be placing all their recyclables into the general waste bin; which is super counterproductive and the complete opposite to what the authority is trying to achieve. What topped it off was the residents’ aggression towards bin collectors, that has followed on the day that bins did not get emptied. This has triggered some bad publicity, but what shocked me the most is the fact that Michael Gove told SKDC to apologise to their residents and go ahead with collecting the same, contaminated bins. I think the question that remains is; apologise for what? For people not following recycling procedures correctly? Would this type of response from the council suggest that future abuse towards council members of staff is acceptable?

Who is to blame for this chaos? A lot of the public posts suggested that the general lack of trust is to blame. SKDC’s website promises a member of staff walking with the bin crews to chat to householders on collections days and advise on putting the “Right Thing in the Right Bin”. I am yet to see this happen. Another contributing factor could be the current cost of living crisis. With the council tax rates going up, is the financial blame game assumption just an expression of public frustration? Many other neighbouring councils acquired purple – lidded bins before South Kesteven, so why have our residents reacted in such a way?

I personally found the purple – lidded bin a welcoming change. It should not affect overall spaces in the recycling bin as we are separating cardboard from the remaining recyclable materials. There were so many of us that were recycling wrong for such a long period of time, without any consequences; to have someone tell us how to do it correctly and introduce a punishment to go with it, was a situation that many could not handle. I applaud the council for trying to recycle better, however it is not enough to send one letter and add an article on a website. It was not just residents that were getting it wrong all these years. Council is as much to blame for ignoring contaminated bins in the past and therefore, should have taken more care into educating residents first. Be that as it may, I do not condone any violence against the poor bin men that were merely following orders.

Wash Your ‘Green’ Mouth Out! Are We Finally Seeing The End Of Greenwashing?

Throughout my 14 or so years, working in and alongside the packaging industry, extravagant and incorrect green claims around the environmental characteristics of packaging has pretty much been a constant theme. But is common sense finally starting to avail? (Albeit with a bit of regulatory influence!)

Green claims, also known as eco-labelling or environmental marketing claims, refer to statements made by companies about the environmental attributes of their products or practices. These claims can range from assertions of recyclability and biodegradability to claims of reduced carbon footprint or use of renewable materials.

While some companies genuinely strive to reduce their environmental impact, others may engage in “greenwashing” – the deceptive practice of presenting products or practices as more sustainable than they actually are. This can mislead consumers, and other businesses, and undermine efforts to promote genuine environmental efforts.

My personal favourite green claim is the ambiguous term ‘environmentally friendly’ (without any context or evidence attached). Is it just me that cringes every time they read or hear this term?

When we take a closer look at it, what does it mean? Can anything really be considered ‘environmentally friendly’? Personally, I don’t think so, and
especially not when we are applying it to packaging or products. The production of goods still uses various resources to make it – material extraction, energy, transport, end of life processes etc. However environmentally mindful you are about a products impact throughout its lifecycle, its production is still impacting the environment and depleting resources from our planet.

In 2023, Earth Overshoot Day fell on the 2nd August, marking the date when humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services in a year exceeds what the earth can regenerate in that year. Does that really sound like we are environmentally friendly to you? We can certainly be environmentally conscious with our decisions and strive to make the most beneficial choices for the environment, but until the concept of an earth overshoot day is a distant memory and we are really on top of and in control of our resource efficiency, I don’t think we have the right to claim anything as environmentally friendly.

In today’s world, consumers are increasingly conscientious about the environmental impact of the products they purchase. As a result, many industries, including the plastics industry, are under pressure to adopt more sustainable practices and provide products that align with green values.

However, amidst the growing demand for sustainable solutions, there’s often confusion and scepticism surrounding “green” claims made by companies. In the plastics industry, where concerns about pollution and waste are particularly pronounced, navigating these claims becomes even more critical.

In most cases, the use of green claims (and greenwashing) is used as a tool to try and market a product to busy consumers, who are often trying to do the right thing and make more informed buying choices, but don’t have time to analyse the detail to truly understand the claims on what they are buying. That’s not to say that greenwashing doesn’t occur in the B2B sector too, because it does.

So what is being done about this issue?

In 2021, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) issued guidance and a green claims code. Green Claims Code – Get Your Green Claims Right – Green Claims Code

According to the CMA principles:

• Claims must be truthful and accurate;

• Claims must be clear and unambiguous;

• Claims must not omit or hide important information;

• Comparisons must be fair and meaningful;

• Claims must be substantiated;

• Claims must consider the full life cycle of the product or service.

Since these principles were introduced, we have seen some examples of the CMA, and other authorities such as The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) , holding organisations accountable for potentially inaccurate green claims. A couple of examples include:

Innocent drinks ads banned over environmental claim – BBC News

ASOS, Boohoo and Asda investigated over fashion ‘green’ claims – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

To strengthen this objective further, on the 17th January 2024, the European Parliament announced the ‘Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition’ directive, that will aim to bring clarity and transparency to green claims. Under this directive companies will be obligated to substantiate their claims with verifiable evidence.

While the directive hasn’t yet had the final go ahead, once this has been passed the member states will then have 2 years to transpose this into national law. Hopefully the UK will follow suit.

What can we do?

You might be asking what can I do as an organisation selling goods or as a consumer making purchases. There are a few simple actions we can all take to avoid greenwashing.

1. Look for third-party certification: Independent certifications from reputable organisations can provide assurance that a product meets specific environmental standards. Examples include Recyclass, ISCC etc.
2. Don’t feel afraid to scrutinise green claims and evidence: Don’t always take green claims at face value. Look for evidence to support these claims, such as life cycle assessments (LCAs) or third-party studies. Companies should be transparent about the methodologies used to substantiate their environmental claims.
3. Consider the entire lifecycle: Assessing the environmental impact of a product requires considering its entire lifecycle, from raw material extraction to disposal or recycling. Look for products which address all lifecycle stages and are not just focussed purely on one component.
4. Encourage transparency and accountability in our own organisations and others: Advocate for greater transparency and accountability. Companies should disclose relevant information about their environmental practices and engage in honest dialogue with consumers and stakeholders.

Ultimately, navigating green claims requires diligence, critical thinking, and a commitment to supporting genuine sustainability efforts. Using guidance and holding ourselves and others accountable (sometimes with the help of regulating bodies), we can collectively drive positive change towards a more sustainable future in a clear and transparent way.

Should Refill Be Cheaper?

Plastics resource efficiency and recycling charity, RECOUP, raises the question ‘why should refill be cheaper?’ Whilst attending a conference recently, one of the speakers discussed innovation in reuse and refill packaging. Towards the end of the presentation, the presenter made a joke about a comment his wife had made about the cost of refills and the fact they are seldom cheaper, and in some cases, more expensive. The joke raised some chuckles from the delegates but got me thinking about the topic at hand.

RECOUP recently released their Refill Packaging Case Studies. The case studies looked holistically at the reusable packaging and refills, focusing on their suitability for purpose and end of life recyclability. As part of the study several cost analyses were conducted comparing the price per 100g of eight refill options. Of the eight products, six refill options were found to be cheaper, one was equal and only one was more expensive.

The price of many of the products investigated by RECOUP whilst researching the report is likely to have been subject to rising inflation. With that in mind the products included in the analyses were reviewed, and a further seven products were newly assessed. All the products had increased in price, though the rate of increase varied across the different product categories.

Of the original products assessed the balance did not change, of the eight products only one was more expensive to refill. The product, which was more expensive, however, had changed. Previously Kenco had been shown to be more expensive to refill, this time Nescafe had switched places, and their refills were priced at around £3.08/100 g, while the jars were £2.52 /100 g of product on average. The remaining price balance remained the same, with one roughly equal, if you don’t count a price difference of 0.04p worth shouting about. The remaining six were still cheaper. When you add in the seven new products we reviewed, all seven refill options worked out cheaper than the ‘new’ packaging. Across the fifteen products assessed it worked out to be around 13p cheaper per product to choose refill over buying new each time.

It might be worth mentioning that the product that was equal in price was cited as 1p per tablet online, but when you calculate based on price vs weight, the refill comes out at £12.47/100 g, and the new dispenser comes out at £16.47/100 g. With this bombshell taken care of, it means that of the fifteen products being assessed, fourteen were cheaper than buying new, with only one being more expensive to choose refill.

The price of refill is a popular topic and a recent study from the Retail Institute revealed some interesting consumer perceptions around packaging. 37% of respondents said they actively tried to avoid plastic packaging. The two most popular responses were to use less plastic at 60%, and to make packaging more recyclable at 57%. The survey also noted that consumers were rarely willing to pay more for sustainable packaging options.

It is not surprising with these statistics that many brands have been actively redesigning their packaging to reduce plastic and to appear more sustainable. In the push to appeal to consumer perceptions around sustainability and environmentally conscious design, sometimes the true reason for designing for reuse and refill is lost.

Reuse and refill is a great way to reduce single use materials. Dispensing packaging is often suitable for multiple uses, meaning that perfectly useful packaging is disposed of unneccesarily when it could have been refilled and reused. Dispensing packaging such as soap pumps and household sprays contain multiple components constructed from different polymers. These multi-polymer packages contaminate the recycling stream, by resuing the pumps and sprays, this can help to reduce unneccesary contamination in the recycling system.

Popular reuse options include pouches and fibreboard cartons, both frequently produced in the form of multi-layer, multi-material packaging. The recyclability of packaging increases in complexity as the number of layers increases. Design for Recyclability guidelines released by the Confederation of Paper Industries claim that the acceptable non-paper content of paper packaging, including plastic, should not exceed 10% , with the caveat that there needs to be clear instructions on the pack for consumers to take action to separate the components. The RECOUP opinion is that the recyclability of packaging should not place the burden of responsibility onto the consumer to make the pack recyclable. Currently paper reprocessing technology is designed to cope with 1.5% non-paper contamination, including plastics, and inks, a number far lower than the 10% stated in the guidelines.

Fibreboard cartons along with single use paper coffee cups are difficult to recycle and are not target materials for traditional paper recyclers and require specialist equipment for recycling. Currently in the UK there is only one facility in Halifax set up to handle double laminated fibreboard packaging, with the materials being reprocessed into products such as building materials and furniture.

Flexible packaging options have become more popular in recent years, with a lot of focus on switching from multilayer laminated packaging to mono-polymers as much as possible. In the UK flexible packaging is only collected by 12% of local authorities according to the UK Household Plastic Collection Survey conducted by RECOUP, meaning that very few people have access to flexible reycling at home. The only option for most people is front of store recycling, which it is unclear where or how this is sorted and recycled.

When making packaging choices for refill options it is important to remember that both the refillable packaging and the refills themselves need to have a sustainable end of life route. By designing for public perceptions of lower materials use, the brand runs the risk of increasing waste where packaging recyclability is reduced. Frequently, switching to paper packaging results in a reduction in overall paper recyclate quality, which in turn reduces the price per tonne generated for materials recovery facilities dealing with the packaging.

All materials need to have an end market in order to drive demand for the recycled materials. Material recovery facilities are businesses and need to generate income from the materials they sort, by designing packaging for recyclability the value and end market options increase. Whichever format you choose to package a product has a carbon and environmental footprint and a need for resources obtained from the natural world. Whether it is oil for plastics, wood for paper, or sand for glass, all of these options require natural resources. When using these resources there is no best option, it is important to weigh up the environmental impacts throughout the life of the packaging from extraction of materials, to end of life. By designing for end of life recyclability or compostability, the simplicity of the packaging benefits the waste management process by ensuring packaging if not suitable for reuse is either recyclable or compostable without leaving any traces such as chemicals or microplastics.

Most importantly though coming back to the original question ‘should refill be cheaper?’ If you are asking that question the reasons behind refill seem to have beem lost in translation. Refills are designed to reduce packaging waste and lessen our impact on the environment. The question we should be asking instead are ‘is this reusable, recyclable, or compostable?’ If the answer isn’t yes then in our attempts to be better, we may actually be making things worse by increasing our packaging waste.

RECOUP produced the Recyclability by Design and Reusability by Design guidelines which are available to download at the RECOUP website and contain guideance to help packaging designers and brands to make the most sustainable decisions when it comes to designing recyclable and reusable packaging.

You Mean I’ve Been Doing It Wrong!

Until 6 months ago I had no prior experience of the waste and recycling industry. I was your average at home recycler thinking I was doing pretty well on that side. As a household of 3 we have very little general waste compared to others and were putting most items in our 2 mixed recycling bins except for those items that we know we cannot recycle such as Polystyrene, Black Plastic, Fabrics, and Batteries ( a danger I have witnessed first hand after working in the battery industry). However, after a short while of working at RECOUP, seeing our case studies and reports, talking to a variety of people both at work and further afield, and going on a few site visits, I realized just how wrong we have been approaching our daily at home recycling. Especially in the following two areas:

Lids on bottles – I recall briefly seeing something about lids being put back on bottles before you recycle them but with no context as to why, it was more of a suggestion, and unfortunately I am one of those people that needs an answer to the why part or at least for this messaging to come from the local authority who actually manage my bin collections, a source that on this topic I would not query. Therefore, the reasons I had as to why I was not putting lids back on bottles were winning. Firstly the lids of bottles are different colours so am I not doing everyone a favour by separating them. My other point of reasoning was that will the bottles not pop when they are crushed if the lid is on and potentially be a danger as well as taking up more space in the lorry because they are perhaps a little harder to squash. All ideas that seem utterly ridiculous all of a sudden after being informed at work that the reason we should put lids back on bottles to recycle them is because they are too small and light to be picked up in the recycling stream. Before this I don’t think I had ever considered the size and weight of recyclable items being a problem.

Carrier Bags – I’m sure there are many people that unfortunately do the same thing but we were very guilty of being lazy and using a carrier bag to collect recycling when our small kitchen recycling bin was full, rather than venturing outside to the wheelie bin and emptying it. I never thought anything of it until I learnt that that particular carrier bag should actually be going in our general waste bin to decompose as it is compostable and we don’t have a compost bin or food waste collection. Equally, when I look back at it now I cannot understand how I thought that carrier bag of mixed recycling would be efficiently emptied when it reached its destination.

There’s Plastic in Kitchen Sponges?!

Do you ever get sucked into the wormhole of videos on social media channels? I do, and one night I saw someone saying how you could grow your own kitchen sponge out of loofah. I then found myself wondering if there is plastic in kitchen sponges and was totally surprised to find out that there is. It makes sense because I doubt there are many other materials we would be able to make kitchen sponges out of, I just never thought about it.

In fact, I never really knew that there was more than one type of plastic or just how many everyday items plastics are a part of. I have noticed that my primary school aged daughter and much younger than me, secondary school aged sister, both learn about recycling and the environment much more than was ever taught when I was in school. But it is never too late to learn! I find that I am now more aware of my purchases and more inquisitive as to what materials they include, I also find myself making more of a conscious effort to recycle correctly rather than just wishcycling.

Will I Ever Get it Correct?

I’m not sure I will ever get it 100% correct but I am at least becoming more aware of what I should be doing. My opinion of the industry so far is that everyone in general is so helpful, wanting to help you understand, wanting to make a difference in the world, and being very welcoming of people like me with no industry knowledge at all. The longer I spend in this industry the more I am learning and the more my actions are changing, however, I never realised just how technical and confusing it would be. With some things such as the bottle lids, all it took was meeting people who could quite simply say to me – this is why you should do that. Yet as someone who does not yet understand all the technicalities like many people in the country possibly never will, all it takes is one technical comment on what is supposed to be an easy to understand message to make me query what I am actually supposed to do all over again.

Having different rules in different counties is another thing making recycling so complicated. It feels as if you need to start becoming an expert on different councils recycling collections . For example, when I visit family in various parts of Wales, yet again I am supposed to know what item to put in what bin. Just imagine the time you would have to spend looking up the do’s and don’ts of each different county you visit to be able to get it 100% correct, it all seems much more complicated than it needs to be. In hindsight, these things I have been doing wrong make so much sense and for many people are not the most difficult behaviours to change. It shows the effect that easy to understand and consistent messaging like RECOUP are trying to achieve through Pledge 2 Recycle could have on many households.

The thing that has had the most impact in my 6 months is hands down the 2 visits I have been lucky to go on so far to a Materials Recovery Facility and an Energy Recovery Facility. Until then after our bins are collected I never once thought about what happened next. They were places I never imagined I would one day be visiting but they have been so fascinating but places that would perhaps be a benefit for everyone to see. To start seeing what happens to items after they leave the house has been a huge eye opener and has really helped me to understand the wider processes and problems faced. It has also started to make me wonder what happens to my household waste, where does my council take it and what happens to it.Maybe someday I will get to find out!

Small Changes For a Big Impact

Designers of plastic packaging need to make decisions on materials, colours, sleeves, and other components to maximise the opportunity for recyclability. RECOUP’s guidelines, Recyclability by Design (RBD) have been devised to cover all forms of rigid plastic packaging. It includes polymer specific tables, listing which closures and decoration are suitable for each. The current version includes separate tables for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles and PET trays, and flexible packaging guidelines and specifications.

The publication has evolved since its inception in 2001, including a summary version produced with The British Plastics Federation, and an easy-to-read version produced with the help of the Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) and The Plastics Pact.

For 2024 RECOUP have released a new reference document, Packaging Design Principles. This is a basic quick reference guide that answers some of those common questions that arise when designing packaging with recyclability in mind. The publication gives an overview of colours, additives, and barriers and what some on-pack logos mean.

It is aimed at a non-technical audience who may not be experts in packaging but need to know more about plastic packaging recycling principles and the process of recycling.

A Fresh Start

The origins of RBD began as a training course back in 2001 for the wider RECOUP team. The information and content were well received internally, so it was decided that a document should be produced as a reference for new starters in the packaging industry.

In 2001, kerbside recycling in the UK was relatively new, and, as a country, the UK was not recycling same quantities as its neighbouring countries. There was also little interest from consumers around plastic food packaging and its end-of-life. At this time, the first RBD was fairly basic, its focus being the polymers used for bottles and what benefits each had for various types of packaging.

The full technical document was first published in 2006 and is now in its 10th version, and the focus has certainly changed.

Manufacturers and brands are under increasing pressure to place sustainable packaging on the market. Therefore, they need to understand about the recyclability of other packaging components as well as the main body of the pack. For example, it is crucial they understand which polymer is recommended for lids and caps on PET bottles.

As such, it became apparent that the guidance needed to adapt and be more specific on individual components, giving clear, concise recommendations based on industry facts and regulations. For example, each of the tables in the document now include recommendations on barriers and additives.

In-depth research is carried out with the help of the RECOUP Recyclability Steering Group, which is formed of industry experts from across the supply chain, including waste management and brand owners and not just the packaging industry, who meet regularly to discuss the document’s evolution.

Transparent Messaging

Comparing tables and processes while sharing information is important to ensure we are conveying the correct message.

In addition to the guidelines, RECOUP assist members with technical queries, and pack recyclability tests to include sorting and reprocessing. The packaging tests involve sample packaging being evaluated through appropriate sorting and reprocessing sites and judged against accepted recyclability criteria. Based on the results of these trials and the guidance in RBD, recommendations are provided to improve recyclability. Typical technical enquiries can include questions on labels and sleeves, adhesives, multilayer laminates, and additives, for example.

In addition to onsite pack testing, RECOUP have an in-house laboratory which includes equipment and facilities to test plastic packaging in a controlled setting. This includes polymer identification and wash tests for labels and adhesives.

Alongside RBD, sector-specific case studies are also produced. These include on-the-go packaging, the DIY and gardening sector, beauty, and cosmetic packaging, off-the-shelf medical packaging, and material substitutions,

All studies look at how items are packaged, what materials are used and how they can be improved and how packaging from specific sectors would perform through the process of mechanical recycling. The case studies highlight obstructions to recycle, such as the size of packaging and the lack of sufficient labelling of recycling instructions. This will assist brand owners in considering how their products are disposed of in the home.

All the suggestions and recommendations in the case studies are based on the guidance and tables from RBD.

Also included are contributions and case studies from RECOUP members, which gives them the opportunity to showcase their success stories and highlight the changes made to both packaging and processes in all aspects of the supply chain. Such stories are intended to provide information for the benefit of others.

The document has been the backbone for much of the project work carried out for RECOUP members, including help on decisions around removing full sleeves from bottles, changing from coloured bottles to clear to allow for better circularity, and changing non-recyclable plastic laminates of more than one polymer to a mono-material.

Evolving Design

RBD has come a long way since its origin and continues to develop with the support of RECOUP members, its importance lies in its basis of facts, onsite testing, member input and guidance from the industry. It aims to reflect the current recycling industry and will continue to evolve with the sector as new technologies become available.

The full Recyclability by design document can be downloaded: https://www.recoup.org/research-and-reports/recoup-recyclability-by-design-2024/

Growth in UK Export for Plastic Packaging Recycling in 2023 Shows Need for Rethink on Use of Non-OECD

RECOUP has found that new data reveals an increase in the amount of plastic exported for recycling in 2023, and significant quantities are now going to developing, non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.

Year-on-year, despite increases in material being recycled in the UK, quantities of plastic waste exported for recycling from England have increased by more than 10% to just over 600,000 tonnes. Of this, more than 25% was sent to Turkey, 25,000 tonnes more than in 2022. This also means that just short of 1 million tonnes of plastic has been sent to Turkey for recycling since 2017.

The next largest destination, Germany, received just under 10%, whilst material sent to Asia, overall, increased from around 9% in 2022, to almost 20% in 2023. Malaysia and Vietnam, two non-OECD countries that had received decreasing volumes of UK waste in recent years, took around 8% each. Indonesia took a further 3.4%, and Taiwan 2.5%.

A map showing the receiving destinations of plastic waste from England for recycling.

Material to non-OECD Countries

More than 26% was sent to non-OECD or developing countries. This is significantly more than the 16% in 2022, and 6% in 2021, when overall quantities were also lower, resulting in an increase of 500% in three years. This amounts to 155,000 tonnes sent to non-OECD countries, 15,000 of which was to European Union (EU) Member States Bulgaria and Romania, and the remaining sent to a combination of countries in non-EU Europe, Asia and Egypt.

Whilst discussions take place around a ban on export to non-OECD countries, these figures show the market’s resilience and flexibility at a time when recycled plastic demand was at a low across Europe, not least in part due to low virgin oil prices and high virgin plastic production, particularly outside of Europe. As such, this material exported for recycling would likely have otherwise gone to landfill or incineration.

Split of plastic packaging exported for recycling by receiving country’s OECD or non-OECD status.

A ban on export of waste from the UK to non-OECD countries is expected, being part of the Conservative party’s manifesto, but a consultation on this did not materialise as expected in 2023. Whilst the non-OECD EU Member States are not included in the proposed ban (Malta, Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania), this still leaves around 140,000 tonnes of plastic exported that would need new receiving destinations.

On top of this, the EU is in the midst of various changes to legislation. These include restrictions on import and export of waste into the bloc, its own ban on exports to non-OECD countries, and requirements for export to any country outside of the EU and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) being notifiable waste.

As background, the OECD is made up of 38 countries and is often used as a synonym for high-income or ‘developed’ countries. Membership has therefore been considered a suitable measure for if a country has the infrastructure and regulation in place to receive and process plastic waste for recycling. However, it should be noted that the OECD’s remit relates to a broad range of topics, including policy and trade.

Furthermore, non-OECD countries China, Indonesia and India are all considered ‘key partners’ of the OECD, with Indonesia having expressed an interest in joining in late 2023. Bulgaria and Romania are also both applicants to join the OECD.

Comparison of export to OECD and Non-OECD countries between 2021, 2022 and 2023.

The Metric for UK Waste Export Policy

It is known that whilst countries seen in the news with poor quality waste management and incidences of illegal burning or burying of waste are more often non-OECD countries, there are high quality reprocessing facilities in a number of these countries. Equally, being an OECD country does not guarantee that all facilities and national waste and environmental policies are of a sufficient quality.

This follows on from RECOUP’s Plastic Waste Exports Position that material should only be exported as long as there is robust evidence that the infrastructure is in place to handle it, and to help that ensure illegal, unethical or unnecessary exports are stopped.

All of these factors bring into question the use of OECD membership as the sole metric for whether a country is suitable for accepting plastic waste for recycling.

To help address these issues, the UK requires development of its recycling infrastructure, as well as its policies, to limit the need for exporting of material in the first place, regardless of where to. An outright ban does not feel an appropriate course of action, at least not without sufficient time and planning to develop domestic infrastructure to compensate for the loss of available markets. A sudden ban would likely result in more material being sent to landfill, incinerated or exported to other markets. Worse still, this may increase the likelihood that these countries merely act as a transfer station for the material to move on to other markets.

The consultation on a ban to non-OECD countries will be welcome, though should not be a foregone conclusion. Further consideration is needed to ensure that this is not implemented at the expense of countries like Turkey merely taking more material instead, or material making its way to developing countries by unregulated and illegal means. Worse still, if existing countries that currently receive plastic waste for recycling can join the OECD without evidencing suitable infrastructure or practices in relation to imported plastic waste for recycling, then this calls into question the use of OECD as the sole criteria for being permitted as a destination.

Graph showing the total tonnages of plastic sent to countries for recycling 2017 to 2023.

Importance of Digital Waste Tracking and Reviewing the PRN System

Digital Waste Tracking will be a vital policy, albeit one that may not come to fruition until 2025. A system that should allow a live, accurate and, most importantly, transparent reporting of material transportation both in the UK and overseas, replacing the archaic paper-based system that is currently in place. This much needed update will help ensure confidence in exports and material end destinations. This is especially important for import and export out of England, where the lion’s share of UK material is exported from, and Wales. Historic legislation means that Annex VII and Green List export data is not necessarily provided to the EA and Natural Resources Wales (NRW), unlike for material going out of Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Furthermore, revisions should be made to the Packaging Recovery Note (PRN) systems first designed in the late 1990s, as they have financially incentivised the export of waste over processing domestically. A formal review of the system was called for following the 2021 packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) consultation in 2025. These notes act as the current packaging producer responsibility scheme, purchased based on the amount of packaging placed on the UK market, with the money then intended to be reinvested into the infrastructure to manage the waste at the end of life. However, PRN prices are volatile, fluctuating based on recycling rates and demand, making them unsuitable for business planning.

At present, material recycled in the UK is measured at the point that the recycling has taken place once any contamination or non-target material has been removed and material yield losses in the recycling processes have taken place. Material that is exported using Packaging Export Recovery Notes (PERN) includes the weight of any contamination or non-target material that may be lost in the recycling steps that take place overseas, prior to reaching any end-of-waste status. Removing the economic variable between PRNs and PERNs based on the point the note is claimed would make UK recycling more economically attractive to recyclers and help balance the market.

Whilst data for overall recycling quantities for 2023 will not be available for a few months, the amount sent for export appears likely to have increased. Whatever the solution, the UK cannot continue on its current trajectory, and efforts must be made from the legislators to the exporters, and everyone in between, to help turn the tide in effectively, ethically and transparently managing our nation’s own waste.

What Cup and Where?

Reusable cups at London events

Which venues are taking a stance against single use waste and implementing circular economy models?

What are the biggest environmental factors to consider when attending events? Travel? What to eat or drink? Which merchandise to buy? It is not always the first thought at the forefront of everyone’s mind, but there has been growing interest and increased awareness on the amount of single use packaging produced from large scale sporting, festival, and concert events. This is in part due to the increased interest in the circular economy model, combined with public pressure to reduce the amount of single use packaging produced from the events industry.

Over the course of 2023, I visited several sporting and music venues in London (for pleasure not work!) and took some time to understand each venue’s approach to reusable cup schemes and sustainability in general.

Twickenham Stadium:  

I had been made aware before attending the event that Twickenham operate a reusable cup system on event days instead of single use. When arriving at Twickenham, it was evident that they had removed the returnable cup system, in place of ‘self-destructing’ cups. Twickenham advertised on their website about designated cup collection points (although I only saw a few). They mention that the cups could be recycled, and if not recycled will degrade into a natural wax in two years. The move away from reusables to single use still creates vast amounts of single use waste and littered the surrounding areas of the stadium. These cups also create a false sense of environmental complacency as most normal consumers aren’t aware these types of cups are still plastic, with an added additive to aide breaking down, but can still have the same negative environmental effects as standard littered plastic. Twickenham stadium have taken more strides to improve sustainability, such as a minimum of 80% of fruit and vegetables being British seasonal produce, 25% of the menu offered being plant based and have a zero waste to landfill policy.

The O2 Arena:  

Visiting The o2 arena in October, I was pleasantly surprised to see they had implemented a reusable cup system. Once you were past security and in the arena vicinity, certain alcoholic drinks (draft beers and spirit/mixers) came in reusable One Planet Cups they had clear signage for return points in the arena, on the surrounding concourses and on the bins (with clearly labelled signs for cup collection). The soft drinks were still served in single use paper cups, which were then collected separately for recycling.  The wristbands used for standing concerts are also made from recycled PET. The o2 also uses certified green energy and has an onsite wormery and bio-digester for any food waste, with any surplus food being donated to those in need. The o2 have also announced the first carbon removal concert next year at The 1975 concert in February 2024. The o2 are partnering with CUR8 and green events specialist A Greener Future through “ A portfolio of carbon removal methods to physically extract the carbon generated by the events from the atmosphere and durably store it”  a leading example of improving event sustainability.

Emirates Stadium:  

In the lead up to visiting the Emirates stadium in June, on their website I found that they had launched a reusable cup scheme in 2019 to reduce their single use cup usage. It is unclear if they have a different policy for non-football events, but when at the football stadium for a concert, it was evident that there was no returnable cup scheme in place (on this occasion). It was advertised around the stadium and there were the collection points that had been marked out, but strangely, it looked like they had been removed. It is unclear whether this was just for external events (such as concerts) or whether it had been removed entirely. The drinks in the stadium were served in single use R-PET cups and many were littered around the stadium once the concert had finished although there were a number of recycling points. Other things that Emirates Stadium are doing in the realms of sustainability include: sending all food waste for anerobic digestion, composting the grass trimmings from the pitch, installing water fountains to cut down on plastic waste and installing a monitor for a month long trial with UCL to monitor the air quality around the stadium.

Some thoughts on what can be done:  

There are many different actions that can be taken by stadiums and venues to minimize waste. While moving away from single use to reusable cups is a good first step, to increase uptake and keep as many cups in the system as possible, it would be strongly recommended to implement a deposit system with reusable cups. This can cause potential queuing at the end of events (although this could be reduced with a digital return system). However, the return is likely to be much higher than without a deposit, due to the added financial incentive. This would also aid in keeping the cups in the system, rather than being kept by the consumer or littered in the natural environment. In a study by Kaunas University of Technology[1], it was found that at several Lithuanian music festivals, the most effective reuse method was a refundable deposit model. This had lower rates of damaged and lost cups compared to non-refundable reusable cup reuse models. This can be further supported by a study in Turin (Italy) which found that 70% of people would be incentivised to return their cup and collect abandoned cups in the street if a Deposit-Return System (DRS) for both, single-use and reusable cups was used.[2]

It is evident that although progress has been made and there is more incentive for venues to implement environmental actions, there is still more to be done and it seems that progress is inconsistent and differs greatly between venues. Arguably, this could be due to changes mostly being down to public pressure and perceived image, rather than being policy driven.

[1] Sustainability | Free Full-Text | Improvement of Packaging Circularity through the Application of Reusable Beverage Cup Reuse Models at Outdoor Festivals and Events (mdpi.com)

[2] Procedia (unito.it)

Bathroom Bin – What Goes in?

This year’s Recycle week 2023 focuses on “missed capture”: the items that can be recycled but are commonly missed in the home. To support Recycle week RECOUP talk about packaging commonly found in bathrooms.

Toiletries

“Articles used in washing and taking care of one’s body, such as soap, shampoo, and toothpaste”.

We all buy them; we all use them but what happens to them. On average we spend around 22 minutes each day in the bathroom and one person can produce up to 527 items of toiletries and cosmetic waste each year, but where does this packaging go.

Like food, toiletries are an essential part of our weekly shop with many items being packed in plastic, and two items that are used daily are shower gels and shampoos. These are mostly in bottle form, made from plastics of Polyethylene and/or Polypropylene, both plastics can be mechanically recycled and have recognised end markets.

But not all this material is captured for recycling. It is fair to say that most have mastered the kitchen bin sorting by general waste, food waste and recycling, however the bathroom bin often gets missed out of this routine with many items being placed in general waste that could have gone into recycling. Toiletries come in a variety of materials, colours and uniquely shaped packaging which could be confusing when it comes to disposal and not all toiletry packaging carries disposal instructions making it difficult for the user to decipher.

What can be done to help capture plastic packaging from the bathroom:

A new study from Sheffield University highlighted that on average a person spends up to 10 seconds reading a label on package, with this in mind brands need to provide clear, simple messaging without using false or misleading claims. OPRL (on-pack-recycling-label) can be found on many food packaging items, and these provide simple actions required by the consumer, these logos are seen less frequently on toiletry plastic packaging and brands and manufacturers of products like shower and body wash, shampoo and conditioners should invest in these instructions for the consumer to assist recyclability.

RECOUP work with brands and manufactures to aid design for recyclability and can provide evidence-based testing and analysis of plastic packaging.

Industry has the responsibility to help increase recycling rates across the UK and, in turn, continue to educate and inform the consumer with clear guidance and instruction. While this sector (toiletries) tends to concentrate on appearance in a competitive market to help drive sales, consideration of sustainability and ­recyclability must be made at the design stage.