In an environment of increased packaging consumption and failures in the achievement of national packaging targets, the need for improvement is critical. In this article, John Bigley, CEO at Zipform Packaging shares his views on the proposed reforms.
At the initiative of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW), the independent Design Standard Working Group (DSWG) developed the first draft of the grading framework for kerbside recyclability late last year, with stakeholder consultation in March and April this year.
The Working Group had a relatively short timeframe to develop the draft recyclability grading, it was based on the present state of kerbside recycling. I think it’s clear that not only is there much more to consider, whatever the outcome of the consultation, the framework will then need to be adapted in future as packaging materials, recycling technology and infrastructure develop.
There were some out of scope items for the group such as Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and recycled content that weren’t addressed in this stage – I hope that they are still to come. I’m also interested to understand the impact of the reforms on product costs – such as eco modulated fees –that brand owners will be paying and likely passing on to the consumer.
It really is an issue that concerns everyone in the packaging supply chain, from raw materials all the way through to the recovery and reprocessing sector – the impact of the reforms will be far reaching, which is why it was critical that Zipform Packaging put their voice forward during the consultation process.
The importance of climate change
At a holistic level, we support an approach that will drive effective investment in infrastructure with an effective and consistent approach on a national basis. Fundamentally, any recycling solution must support Australia’s climate change targets relating to its international obligations.
It’s important that packaging regulations must not only acknowledge but also directly address rising community concerns about the adverse effects of packaging such as plastic packaging, the microplastics challenge and pollution of natural environments.
Australia ranks second globally in the generation of single-use plastic waste per capita, with each person generating around 60kg of plastic waste each year. These statistics whilst shocking, are not surprising, and it underlines the need for alternative forms of packaging to be developed and available for consumers.
Proactive or forced change?
It’s an interesting question – will brands proactively bring greater levels of recyclable packaging to market before the packaging reforms and associated fees are introduced? My experience tells me that most businesses wait until they absolutely must make any changes – and the willingness to change their packaging will also be driven by the scale of any fees related to the tonnage of packaging placed into the market.
We know that packaging transitions take time, and we constantly support our customers through this process. Whether it’s related to shelf-life testing or operational CAPEX requirements or even going through the process of broad stakeholder engagement, it can sometimes take around 1-2 years to make a change.
If significant fees for packaging placed on market are not introduced there is a high probability that it will result in delays to packaging format changes, stifle packaging innovation and in some cases maintain the status quo. We need change to drive improved recyclability outcomes.
What’s next for packaging reform in Australia?
It’s likely that the upcoming Federal election in May will delay the proposed packaging reforms, though we are expecting to see the roll-out in mid-2026 of the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation’s (APCO) “eco-modulated” fee structure for members. Replacing their current turnover-based system, the new model aims to incentivise sustainable packaging design and member contributions will be aligned to collection, sorting and reprocessing costs. The level of fees have not yet been published, however it is expected that we should learn more over the coming months. The indications are that the fees will be less than those in the United Kingdom and Europe.
Elections aside, we would like to see the inclusion of representatives from the packaging manufacturing industry, fibre converters, MRF’s and brand owners into an expanded DSWG would result in a total systems approach.
Instead of tackling the “here and now”, the group should also have the remit to determine what the future model would look like, which would help to encourage rather than stifle packaging innovation.
With access to scale and technical resources, most new material developments are coming out of Europe, which is exciting as they also face recyclability challenges. We see many examples of innovation in the Australian market utilising those technologies alongside some home-grown innovation.
Despite a somewhat uncertain timing of packaging reforms, the packaging industry aims to meet the challenges faced by keeping abreast of the rapidly changing technology developing in key supporting industries. We remain hopeful that ultimately the reforms will work to support and encourage the innovation that Australia needs to drive better recyclability outcomes, and there’s no doubt that the next two to three years will bring significant change to the packaging industry.