Impact statement

Plastic pollution and packaging are daily, visible issues that impact human and environmental health and concern many people. This review article summarises what is known about the potential role plastic-free packaging systems based on reduction and reuse can play in reducing plastics production and pollution. These systems include innovations that can be adopted by producers and retailers to prevent packaging altogether or reinstate reusable packaging systems. The article outlines research that describes these systems, highlights the growing academic and civil society consensus that they can reduce plastics production and pollution, explains the barriers to getting them up and running and sets out the different approaches to supporting or requiring industry to overcome barriers to adopting these new packaging systems at scale. The latter may be especially useful for policymakers.

The interdependent fate(s) of plastics and packaging

Plastics and packaging have a historically symbiotic relationship, highlighted by Hawkins’ (Reference Hawkins2018) description of plastics as ‘the skin of commerce’. Plastics’ ability to form a cheap, versatile protective carrier for almost any product imaginable, revolutionised packaging in the mid-twentieth century. Over subsequent decades, plastic packaging facilitated the development of complex, global supply chains and new products, whose existence today locks-in ongoing demand for plastic packaging (Diprose et al., Reference Diprose, Lee, Blumhardt, Walton and Greenaway2023). The plastics–packaging symbiosis has allowed both partners to enjoy decades of successful growth together. However, their interlocking fate suggests any fall from grace may also be mutual.

Today, the social licence for unfettered plastics usage is eroding. A growing body of scientific knowledge is verifying that plastics release various pollutants across their lifespan, negatively impacting humans and other living organisms, ecosystems, biodiversity and the climate (Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Moore, vom Saal and Swan2009; Hamilton and Feit, Reference Hamilton and Feit2019; Lau et al., Reference Lau, Shiran, Bailey, Cook, Stuchtey, Koskella, Velis, Godfrey, Boucher, Murphy, Thompson, Jankowska, Castillo Castillo, Pilditch, Dixon, Koerselman, Kosior, Favoino, Gutberlet, Baulch, Atreya, Fischer, He, Petit, Sumaila, Neil, Bernhofen, Lawrence and Palardy2020; Bergmann et al., Reference Bergmann, Almroth, Brander, Dey, Green, Gundogdu, Krieger, Wagner and Walker2022; Lorang et al., Reference Lorang, Yang, Zhang, Lu and He2022, 92; OECD, 2022b). These pollutants include plastic waste in landfills, incinerated or in the natural environment; emissions produced when oil is extracted, refined and turned into polymers and products; and chemical additives and microplastics that can leach from plastic products while in use and following disposal. Recent studies also suggest that the scale and linear nature of plastics production, use and disposal is pushing humanity outside the safe planetary operating space, contributing to overshoot of the novel entities planetary boundary (Persson et al., Reference Persson, Almroth, Collins, Cornell, de Wit, Diamond, Fantke, Hassellöv, MacLeod, Ryberg, Jørgensen, Villarrubia-Gómez, Wang and Hauschild2022) and consuming an increasing share of the remaining carbon budget (Hamilton and Feit, Reference Hamilton and Feit2019; OECD, 2022b). Staying below 1.5°C of global warming could require plastics consumption to drop by 75% per capita by 2050 (Hann et al., Reference Hann, Brooke, Micski and Rowland2022). However, on current trajectories, plastics production will triple from 2019 levels by 2060 (OECD, 2022b; see also Lau et al., Reference Lau, Shiran, Bailey, Cook, Stuchtey, Koskella, Velis, Godfrey, Boucher, Murphy, Thompson, Jankowska, Castillo Castillo, Pilditch, Dixon, Koerselman, Kosior, Favoino, Gutberlet, Baulch, Atreya, Fischer, He, Petit, Sumaila, Neil, Bernhofen, Lawrence and Palardy2020). This untenable growth trajectory must be reversed (Lau et al., Reference Lau, Shiran, Bailey, Cook, Stuchtey, Koskella, Velis, Godfrey, Boucher, Murphy, Thompson, Jankowska, Castillo Castillo, Pilditch, Dixon, Koerselman, Kosior, Favoino, Gutberlet, Baulch, Atreya, Fischer, He, Petit, Sumaila, Neil, Bernhofen, Lawrence and Palardy2020; Hann et al., Reference Hann, Brooke, Micski and Rowland2022), with Bergmann et al. (Reference Bergmann, Almroth, Brander, Dey, Green, Gundogdu, Krieger, Wagner and Walker2022) advocating a cap on production to ensure absolute reductions.

One logical pathway for realising dramatic reductions is to decrease reliance on plastics for the purposes to which plastics are currently put. Such an inquiry automatically spotlights packaging. Packaging is plastics’ single biggest market, consuming 36% of global plastics production (Geyer, Reference Geyer and Letcher2020), and roughly 4% of world oil production (Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Moore, vom Saal and Swan2009, 2153). Downstream packaging contributes a disproportionately large 46% of total plastic waste generation (Geyer, Reference Geyer and Letcher2020), and is a primary contributor of plastic pollution in the natural environment (Sherrington, Reference Sherrington2016; Morales-Caselles et al., Reference Morales-Caselles, Viejo, Martí, González-Fernández, Pragnell-Raasch, González-Gordillo, Montero, Arroyo, Hanke, Salvo, Basurko, Mallos, Lebreton, Echevarría, van Emmerik, Duarte, Gálvez, van Sebille, Galgani, García, Ross, Bartual, Ioakeimidis, Markalain, Isobe and Cózar2021). Packaging’s ubiquity also makes it a potential vector for harmful chemical additives into the human population (Muncke et al., Reference Muncke, Andersson, Backhaus, Boucher, Carney Almroth, Castillo Castillo, Chevrier, Demeneix, Emmanuel, Fini, Gee, Geueke, Groh, Heindel, Houlihan, Kassotis, Kwiatkowski, Lefferts, Maffini, Martin, Myers, Nadal, Nerin, Pelch, Fernández, Sargis, Soto, Trasande, Vandenberg, Wagner, Wu, Zoeller and Scheringer2020). The OECD (2022b, 26) has earmarked packaging as one of three sectors that will drive strongest projected growth in plastics production by 2060.

Packaging’s ongoing contribution to rates of plastics production and waste relates to the speed with which it moves through the economy, as a mostly single-use, short-lived product (Geyer et al., Reference Geyer, Jambeck and Law2017, 23; Rubio et al., Reference Rubio, Ramos, Leitao and Barbosa-Povoa2019, 218; OECD, 2022b, 84). These factors, combined with its light weight, exacerbate its propensity to leak into the environment, and strongly suggest that efforts to reduce the number of packaging units on the market and increase packaging lifespans by disrupting single-use systems could help to stem both demand for plastics and plastic waste generation.

From neglect to recognition: source reduction strategies to address plastic packaging

Evidently, while plastic packaging has performed many useful functions, it also carries numerous ‘shadow responsibilities’ that extend beyond intended functions and have become impossible to ignore (Hawkins, Reference Hawkins2020, 409):

As awareness of these problems have grown, so have efforts to identify and implement mitigations. These can be targeted upstream (pre-consumption) or downstream (post-consumption) (Lau et al., Reference Lau, Shiran, Bailey, Cook, Stuchtey, Koskella, Velis, Godfrey, Boucher, Murphy, Thompson, Jankowska, Castillo Castillo, Pilditch, Dixon, Koerselman, Kosior, Favoino, Gutberlet, Baulch, Atreya, Fischer, He, Petit, Sumaila, Neil, Bernhofen, Lawrence and Palardy2020). Traditionally, practical efforts have focused on downstream actions, such as recovering packaging for recycling, improving plastic waste management and clean-up campaigns (Massarutto, Reference Massarutto2014; Tencati et al., Reference Tencati, Pogutz, Moda, Brambilla and Cacia2016; Kunamaneni et al., Reference Kunamaneni, Jassi and Hoang2019; Rubio et al., Reference Rubio, Ramos, Leitao and Barbosa-Povoa2019; Tangpuori et al., Reference Tangpuori, Harding-Rolls, Urbancic and XPB2020; Bocken et al., Reference Bocken, Harsch and Weissbrod2022; Global Plastics Policy Centre, 2023, 19). Until recently, academic commentary on suggested measures to address plastic pollution has also often emphasised recycling, waste management and even waste-to-energy (Lohr et al., Reference Lohr, Savelli, Beunen, Kalz, Ragas and Van Belleghem2017; Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Moore, vom Saal and Swan2009; cf. Lau et al., Reference Lau, Shiran, Bailey, Cook, Stuchtey, Koskella, Velis, Godfrey, Boucher, Murphy, Thompson, Jankowska, Castillo Castillo, Pilditch, Dixon, Koerselman, Kosior, Favoino, Gutberlet, Baulch, Atreya, Fischer, He, Petit, Sumaila, Neil, Bernhofen, Lawrence and Palardy2020). These trends are not unique to packaging, and reflect the dominant approach for most waste streams (Bartl, Reference Bartl2014).

Where upstream prevention has been considered, actions often constellate around narrowly framed single-use plastic bans, consumer-focused campaigns to refuse plastics or voluntary industry initiatives (Schnurr et al., Reference Schnurr, Alboiu, Chaudhary, Corbett, Quanz, Sankar, Srain, Thavarajah, Xanthos and Walker2018; Tangpuori et al., Reference Tangpuori, Harding-Rolls, Urbancic and XPB2020; Dixon and Geßner, Reference Dixon and Geßner2022; OECD, 2022a). These actions often generate prevention strategies at the material, rather than product, level (e.g., lightweighting packages to reduce material intensity, or substituting plastics with other materials, such as paper, glass or metals) rather than methods that fundamentally alter packaging or business models to reduce individual packaging units put to market (Worrell and van Sluisveld, Reference Worrell and van Sluisveld2013; Massarutto, Reference Massarutto2014, 14; Kunamaneni et al., Reference Kunamaneni, Jassi and Hoang2019; Rubio et al., Reference Rubio, Ramos, Leitao and Barbosa-Povoa2019, 225–226; Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Corona, ten Klooster and Worrell2020a, 2; Bocken et al., Reference Bocken, Harsch and Weissbrod2022, 4; EMF, 2022; Wildwistle, Reference Wildwistle2022; Bradley and Corsini, Reference Bradley and Corsini2023). In 2016, Tencati et al. reviewed packaging prevention policies in 11 countries identified as leaders in this area. Even amongst these jurisdictions, prevention policies were often voluntary, involved targeted consumer information campaigns or were non-specific about how packaging reductions should be achieved. The authors highlighted very few policies focused on innovating product delivery methods or packaging reusability, noting ‘incentive policies for reuse of packaging are not commonly adopted’ (42).

Retrospective analyses of the commonly-applied approaches to reduce and recycle plastic packaging to date suggest that while they can produce material efficiency gains, these are outstripped by growth in plastics and packaging production, waste and pollution (Worrell and van Sluisveld, Reference Worrell and van Sluisveld2013; Tencati et al., Reference Tencati, Pogutz, Moda, Brambilla and Cacia2016; Rubio et al., Reference Rubio, Ramos, Leitao and Barbosa-Povoa2019, 218; Bergmann et al., Reference Bergmann, Almroth, Brander, Dey, Green, Gundogdu, Krieger, Wagner and Walker2022; Bocken et al., Reference Bocken, Harsch and Weissbrod2022; EMF, 2022, 18). Plastic packaging recycling presents ‘a major bottleneck’ (Lorang et al., Reference Lorang, Yang, Zhang, Lu and He2022, 101); low recovery rates and technical capacity and capability gaps mean recycling cannot effectively displace virgin materials nor ensure closed-loop recycling of plastic packaging into more plastic packaging (Bartl, Reference Bartl2014, 7–8, 100–101; WEF and Kearney, 2021; Lorang et al., Reference Lorang, Yang, Zhang, Lu and He2022; Global Plastics Policy Centre, 2023, 19). Even if recycling bottlenecks can be overcome, emerging research suggests that recycled food and beverage contact material increases potential exposure to hazardous substances, which themselves can also inhibit recyclability (Geueke et al., Reference Geueke, Groh and Muncke2018; Gerassimidou et al., Reference Gerassimidou, Lanska, Hahladakis, Lovat, Vanzetto, Geueke, Groh, Muncke, Maffini, Martin and Iacovidou2022; Johansson, Reference Johansson2023).

Lightweighting and material substitution can exacerbate these issues if they reduce downstream recyclability, for example, use of plastic pouches or compostable plastics over more readily recycled containers made of conventional polymers (Tangpuori et al., Reference Tangpuori, Harding-Rolls, Urbancic and XPB2020, 38). Furthermore, simply swapping plastics in disposable packaging for other materials does not remove the environmental burdens of the extractive, ‘take, make, dispose’ single-use system, in which most materials produce adverse outcomes (Gordon, Reference Gordon2021; UNEP, 2021; Jacobsen et al., Reference Jacobsen, Pedersen and Thogersen2022, 64; Global Plastics Policy Centre, 2023, 19). Also, material substitutes are not necessarily always ‘safer’. For example, compostable packaging not only presents logistical challenges for collection and processing, it also risks contaminating soils with harmful and persistent pollutants (Wildwistle, Reference Wildwistle2022, 1–2).

As mainstream actions have not created desired reductions in material extraction, production or toxicity, some commentators have begun exploring the potential to combine downstream initiatives with more radical upstream actions. These involve redesigning how products are made and consumed, with a focus on transforming business models to enhance prevention, reduction and reuse activities, that is, ‘source reduction’ (Worrell and van Sluisveld, Reference Worrell and van Sluisveld2013, 1; Lau et al., Reference Lau, Shiran, Bailey, Cook, Stuchtey, Koskella, Velis, Godfrey, Boucher, Murphy, Thompson, Jankowska, Castillo Castillo, Pilditch, Dixon, Koerselman, Kosior, Favoino, Gutberlet, Baulch, Atreya, Fischer, He, Petit, Sumaila, Neil, Bernhofen, Lawrence and Palardy2020; The Pew Charitable Trusts and SystemIQ, 2020; WEF and Kearney, 2021; Bocken et al., Reference Bocken, Harsch and Weissbrod2022; Hann et al., Reference Hann, Brooke, Micski and Rowland2022; Lorang et al., Reference Lorang, Yang, Zhang, Lu and He2022, 100). For packaging, source reduction involves eliminating unnecessary packaging altogether, or replacing single-use packaging with reusable packaging systems via new circular business models (Tencati et al., Reference Tencati, Pogutz, Moda, Brambilla and Cacia2016; Lendal and Wingstrand, Reference Lendal and Wingstrand2019; EMF, 2020; Gordon, Reference Gordon2021; Bocken et al., Reference Bocken, Harsch and Weissbrod2022; Long et al., Reference Long, Ceschin, Harrison and Terzioğlu2022; Patreau et al., Reference Patreau, Bernard, Leroux, Bellemare and Morisette2023).

Packaging prevention or reuse systems are heterogeneous. They can be arranged in various ways, along different points of the supply chain, and require differing levels of investment, commitment and logistical complexity; and are described using taxonomies and terminology with varying degrees of technicality and consistency (Lofthouse et al., Reference Lofthouse, Bhamr and Trimingham2009; Beitzen-Heineke et al., Reference Beitzen-Heineke, Balta-Ozkan and Reefke2017, 1528–1529; Lendal and Wingstrand, Reference Lendal and Wingstrand2019, 12–21; Marken and Horisch, Reference Marken and Horisch2019, 167; Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Corona and Worrell2020a, 3; Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Corona, ten Klooster and Worrell2020b, 12–13; EMF, 2020; Greenwood et al., Reference Greenwood, Walker, Baird, Parsons, Mehl, Webb, Slark, Ryan and Rothman2021, 1689–1690; Bocken et al., Reference Bocken, Harsch and Weissbrod2022, 4; Kachook, Reference Kachook2022, 9–11; Moss et al., Reference Moss, Gerken, Youngblood and Jambeck2022; Schneider and Copello, Reference Schneider and Copello2022, 4; Diprose et al., Reference Diprose, Lee, Blumhardt, Walton and Greenaway2023, 271–272; Global Plastics Policy Centre, 2023). At a high level, these systems can include:

• • Redesigning products to avoid packaging altogether (e.g., toiletries in a bar rather than liquid form);

• • Reformatting retail contexts and business models to support more sale of ‘loose’ products, for example, unpackaged produce or bulk dispensing systems, so consumers can fill their own containers or borrow empty containers provided at refill stations;

• • Pre-filling/pre-packing products into durable packages that businesses take back, prepare for reuse through sanitisation and/or repair and then repack/replenish with the same or similar type of product, so that the packages complete multiple cycles, displacing equivalent numbers of single-use packages. These systems can include consumer-facing packages (e.g. reusable bottles for beverages) and business-to-business packages (e.g. returnable kegs for hospitality beverages, or reusable secondary and tertiary transport packaging like pallets or crates).

While unpackaged and reusable packaging systems are often material agnostic, for advocates of plastic-free systems, the preferred materials for reusable packages could be glass, ceramic, metal or wood.

The benefits of a source reduction approach to plastic packaging over a material substitution or recycling-first approach reflects the logic of the waste hierarchy and circular economy theory (Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Corona, ten Klooster and Worrell2020a, 1–2; Lugo et al., Reference Lugo, Ail and Castaldi2020; Greenwood et al., Reference Greenwood, Walker, Baird, Parsons, Mehl, Webb, Slark, Ryan and Rothman2021, 1688; Dixon and Geßner, Reference Dixon and Geßner2022, 2; Moss et al., Reference Moss, Gerken, Youngblood and Jambeck2022; Wildwistle, Reference Wildwistle2022, 3; Diprose et al. Reference Diprose, Lee, Blumhardt, Walton and Greenaway2023, 270–271; Patreau et al., Reference Patreau, Bernard, Leroux, Bellemare and Morisette2023) The waste hierarchy sits at the core of zero waste/waste minimisation/waste management approaches, and features in numerous laws, strategies and policy documents relating to waste and packaging, globally. It prioritises source reduction approaches as more resource efficient (i.e., more effective at reducing both waste and greenhouse gas emissions) than lower-order activities, such as recycling (Bartl, Reference Bartl2014, 3–5; Diprose et al., Reference Diprose, Lee, Blumhardt, Walton and Greenaway2023, 270–271). Similarly, circular economy theory prioritises business models that reflect small, closed loops, such as reuse, which keep products circulating in their original form, for their original purpose, in order to reduce demand on resource extraction and preserve a product’s value and embodied energy (Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Corona, ten Klooster and Worrell2020a, 1; Blumhardt, Reference Blumhardt2023, 8–9).

Until recently, scepticism surrounded the potential of unpackaged/reusable packaging to displace plastic consumption and influence meaningful reductions in plastic pollution (see, e.g., Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Moore, vom Saal and Swan2009). However, attitudes are shifting; influential NGOs have projected that reuse models could replace 20%–30% of single-use plastic packaging (Lendal and Wingstrand, Reference Lendal and Wingstrand2019; The Pew Charitable Trusts and SystemIQ, 2020, 9–10), with even greater replacements possible for key target sectors and products, like beverages, takeaway packaging, e-Commerce and transport packaging (Copello et al., Reference Copello, Porteron and Schweitzer2021; WEF and Kearney, 2021, 5; Potting et al., Reference Potting, Honig and Wilcox2022). This replacement effect is projected to translate into downstream reductions in plastic pollution (Schroeer et al., Reference Schroeer, Littlejohn and Wilts2020; UNEP, 2022 62).

Lifecycle analyses (LCAs) have further strengthened the case for source reduction approaches to plastic packaging, finding that reusable packaging generally outperforms single-use packaging on most environmental measures, provided it is reused enough times to outweigh its initial manufacture and that of the single-use equivalents replaced (Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Corona, ten Klooster and Worrell2020a, 7; Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Corona and Worrell2020b; Gordon, Reference Gordon2020; Zimmerman and Bliklen, Reference Zimmerman and Bliklen2020; Greenwood et al., Reference Greenwood, Walker, Baird, Parsons, Mehl, Webb, Slark, Ryan and Rothman2021; UNEP, 2021, 2022; Bocken et al., Reference Bocken, Harsch and Weissbrod2022, 4). Accordingly, replacing single-use plastic packaging with systemic solutions like reusable packaging can help to deplasticise the packaging system, while mitigating potential increases in greenhouse gas emissions (or other environmental impacts) that the plastics industry commonly argues might otherwise result from simple material substitution scenarios (Farrelly et al., Reference Farrelly, Blumhardt and Chitaka2020).Footnote ¹ However, it is important to note that the environmental benefits of reuse/refill packaging systems cannot be assumed; systems should be designed according to best practice to harness these benefits and avoid unintended consequences (Bradley and Corsini, Reference Bradley and Corsini2023).

Approaches to shifting businesses towards plastic-free packaging systems based on reduction and reuse

Deplasticising the packaging system by moving up the waste hierarchy is a systemic change from business-as-usual, with social, economic and practical implications for producers, retailers, governments and consumers (Tencati et al., Reference Tencati, Pogutz, Moda, Brambilla and Cacia2016, 36; Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Corona, ten Klooster and Worrell2020a, 8; Hawkins, Reference Hawkins2020; WEF and Kearney, 2021, 4; Prindiville, Reference Prindiville2022; Bradley and Corsini, Reference Bradley and Corsini2023; Global Plastics Policy Centre, 2023). Single-use packaging systems are deeply entrenched, and the market share of unpackaged/reusable packaging systems has shrunk dramatically since the 1950s (Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Corona, ten Klooster and Worrell2020a, 2; Copello et al., Reference Copello, Porteron and Schweitzer2021; Wilcox and Mackenzie, Reference Wilcox and Mackenzie2021; Bocken et al., Reference Bocken, Harsch and Weissbrod2022; EMF, 2022). Today’s systems are often niche and lack economies of scale, translating to higher prices or increased inconvenience, which consumers may be reluctant to accept (Lofthouse et al., Reference Lofthouse, Bhamr and Trimingham2009; Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Corona, ten Klooster and Worrell2020a, 9; Brown et al., Reference Brown, Conway and Robshaw2022; Long et al., Reference Long, Ceschin, Harrison and Terzioğlu2022; Moss et al., Reference Moss, Gerken, Youngblood and Jambeck2022; Bradley and Corsini, Reference Bradley and Corsini2023; Patreau et al., Reference Patreau, Bernard, Leroux, Bellemare and Morisette2023).

Returning to reuse will require radical reorganisation of producer and retailer business models, supply chain logistics and waste and resource recovery systems, which are currently designed for single-use packaging (Bartl, Reference Bartl2014, 12; Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Corona, ten Klooster and Worrell2020a, 8; Hawkins, Reference Hawkins2020; Bocken et al., Reference Bocken, Harsch and Weissbrod2022; Prindiville, Reference Prindiville2022; Global Plastics Policy Centre, 2023). This will demand significant upfront capital expenditure in new infrastructure, logistics and retail settings (Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Corona, ten Klooster and Worrell2020a, 8–9; Moss, Reference Moss2021, 51; WEF and Kearney, 2021, 12; EMF, 2022, 23; Schneider and Copello, Reference Schneider and Copello2022, 7; Global Plastics Policy Centre, 2023). Local and national governments must also rethink dominant waste management and recycling-first approaches to packaging issues, which, along with the publically funded waste and recycling services they produce, are complicit in perpetuating single-use plastic packaging systems (Kunamaneni et al., Reference Kunamaneni, Jassi and Hoang2019; Diprose et al., Reference Diprose, Lee, Blumhardt, Walton and Greenaway2023; Global Plastics Policy Centre, 2023, 38).

An additional complexity is that single-use plastic packaging has birthed consumer and business expectations that did not exist in reusable packaging’s heyday. New unpackaged/reusable packaging systems must now contend with: an eye-watering array and diversity of products; modern, convenience-based lifestyles, retail and consumption practices that suit single-use models (e.g., smaller portion sizes, supermarket systems, takeaway culture and online shopping); and packaging’s role as a key brand differentiator, which could obstruct the standardisation needed to ensure operational efficiency for reusable packaging systems (Worrell and van Sluisveld, Reference Worrell and van Sluisveld2013, 7; Tencati et al., Reference Tencati, Pogutz, Moda, Brambilla and Cacia2016, 35; Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Corona, ten Klooster and Worrell2020a; WEF and Kearney, 2021; Brown et al., Reference Brown, Conway and Robshaw2022; Jacobsen et al., Reference Jacobsen, Pedersen and Thogersen2022, 64). Seemingly unrelated policy areas, such as food safety and infection prevention control, can also create real or perceived conflicts with efforts to reduce or reuse packaging. If left unresolved, these conflicts can present an ongoing barrier to progress, or derail it entirely in the event of public health shocks, as seen with the disruption to plastic reduction policies during the COVID-19 pandemic (Silva et al., Reference Silva, Prata, Walker, Campos, Duarte, Soares, Barcelo and Rocha-Santos2020). Modern business models also implicitly rely on socialising the costs of single-use packaging waste, which makes single-use packaging economically attractive. Therefore, while unpackaged/reusable packaging systems are likely cheaper for society overall, because the systems internalise previously externalised costs, key producer and retailer participants may have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Corona, ten Klooster and Worrell2020a, 5–7; Long et al., Reference Long, Ceschin, Harrison and Terzioğlu2022, 15).

Overcoming the obstacles to unpackaged/reusable packaging systems requires a multipronged approach. While individuals have a role to play and campaigns to shift consumer preferences are valid, consumers do not make packaging decisions and cannot drive systemic changes towards reduce and reuse unless these are viable, accessible alternatives to choose over single-use packaged equivalents; businesses must shift to implementing these alternatives, and strategies are needed to incentivise or require them to do so (Tangpuori et al., Reference Tangpuori, Harding-Rolls, Urbancic and XPB2020, 152; Moss, Reference Moss2021, 51; Long et al., Reference Long, Ceschin, Harrison and Terzioğlu2022, 2). Several current and potential strategies have emerged in the grey and academic literature and in practice, which this article categorises as persuasive, legislative or enabling.

Persuasive approaches can be adopted by a wide group of actors, including governments, NGOs/civil society and industry. They are voluntary and help to create new norms that either trigger or bed-in binding measures. They can include information-provision, research, advocacy and campaigning, voluntary agreements and targets, cooperative support networks, grants/funding and piloting new packaging systems. Legislative actions are the purview of Governments (individually or multilaterally), and can include command and control measures (e.g., banning or mandating particular types of plastic packaging, setting packaging design standards or binding targets) and economic instruments (e.g. levies, subsidies and deposit/return systems) (Brouillat and Oltra, Reference Brouillat and Oltra2012). Enabling measures are complementary to the incentives generated by persuasive and legislative approaches. They seek to build the surrounding system conditions conducive to effective and efficient unpackaged and reusable packaging systems. They can include universal standard setting, and investment and procurement in necessary shared infrastructure and services. Enabling measures are most likely implemented by organisations with economic oversight, such as local or national governments and/or industry or sector groupings.