Plastic sustainability goals face headwinds

By Karen Hanna 

Corporate goals set for this year and the next few years to increase the use of recycled content and reduce waste are colliding with a reality few could have expected when they were established: a political climate dominated by news of cuts and regulatory backlash. But experts say work on recycling is moving ahead — because it makes business sense.  

“I am confident in where recycling is headed, and I think that the message nationally, as well as globally, is very clear that governments at all levels are committed to improving recycling and reducing plastic pollution; so, that sort of long-term goal, everyone’s on that page,” said Kate Bailey, chief policy officer for the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR). “How fast we get there, and how coordinated and efficient we are in getting there, that’s a whole different ball game.” 

Movement on recycling initiatives is mixed.  

As goals for 2025 and 2030 — long deadlines set by various corporations — meet current conditions, some corporations have announced they’re scaling back. For example, in a February update, Walmart said it expected to fall short of using 100 percent recyclable, reusable or industrially compostable packaging for its private brands this year. Meanwhile, Coca-Cola, which in 2018 announced its hope that post-consumer resin (PCR) would make up half of the materials in its packaging by 2030, has both lowered that expectation and extended its timeline. In a December announcement, the beverage company giant said it’s now aiming for 35 to 40 percent by 2035. 

But as experts like Bailey pointed out, no one’s giving up. 

“It’s not a complete collapse. It’s not a complete abandonment,” said Anthony Schiavo, who as a senior director and principal analyst for advisory firm Lux Research, has provided research for the chemicals, materials and recycling segments. “It’s not a situation where no progress has been made or those goals were fake. ... It’s messy, and right now, there’s a ton of risk in the environment. ... But I don’t see companies fully pivoting away from their sustainability goals.” 

Government support of recycling 

Schiavo spoke to Plastics Machinery & Manufacturing in March. Around the same time, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency had cut more than 400 grants as it turned its focus to energy access and the economy. Among grants in limbo was money for recycling infrastructure, he said.  

Around the world, however, Bailey said support for sustainability programs remains high — providing urgency for companies to continue striving. 

She pointed out the federal government’s role in recycling is only part of the story.  

“The biggest impact right now is the uncertainty, the projects that may be on hold, especially with the EPA grants, the questions around some of the work that federal agencies have been doing and whether that will continue to be staffed,” she said. “The federal government, they have awarded some grants; they have awarded some loans and R&D into recycling. But that’s not what’s buoyed the industry for the past 30 years. It’s really been about states and private investment.” 

She said state legislatures are working on hundreds of bills related to recycling, and localized support remains strong.  

“The most positive changes we are seeing is that U.S. states are taking big steps toward improving recycling, not just for plastics, but for all materials, by passing really game-changing policies,” she said. 

She said she is especially encouraged by growing acceptance of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws— which impose fees upon the makers or distributors of specified products to help cover the costs of their disposal or environmental mitigation. So far this year, 12 states have introduced EPR legislation dealing with packaging, and five packaging bills have passed, according to the Sustainable Packaging Coalition. 

Bailey called EPR “the biggest change that has happened in recycling in 30 years.” 

“This is really a fundamental rethinking of how we fund recycling programs throughout the U.S., and a real commitment to improving recycling, not just for plastics, but for all materials,” she said. 

However, the state laws represent only a patchwork approach, which Bailey characterized as “a hodgepodge of state laws or a hodgepodge of global laws that makes it more difficult for businesses to comply when there’s too much difference.” 

Bailey and Schiavo both noted that standardization would boost sustainability efforts, but Schiavo didn’t offer much optimism.  

“Certainly, we don’t see the Trump administration as moving quick on implementing standardized recycling policy,” he said. “It’s maybe less impossible than you might think, but even if they do, they’re in the process of gutting the EPA, so it’s a little hard to understand how that would be effectively implemented.” 

Implications of tariffs 

While the U.S. has largely handled waste and recycling locally, global politics also play a role. As the trade war began heating up, Schiavo and Bailey were keeping tabs on the effects of tariffs on the industry, which could help drive demand for both domestic recycling and recycled material.  

If tariffs level the playing field for more domestic manufacturing of plastic products, as some hope, Schiavo said, “recycled material is a uniquely domestic resource, and more manufacturing in the U.S. means more waste, means more opportunities for waste management.” 

Emily Friedman, recycled plastics senior editor for ICIS, a leading chemicals and energy intelligence provider, told Plastics Machinery & Manufacturing shortly after Trump took office that tariffs could be one step “in cementing the idea that we need to process our waste locally.” 

“You have to remember that scrap is regional. It’s local. Sometimes it is easier to pull from what’s closest,” she said. “Those recyclers and processors [who import plastic scrap] are going to have to find new sources of scrap or bale material because that 25 percent [tariff] will ultimately make that material uneconomic, if I had to guess.” 

Because they can reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, by using PCR, companies concerned about the cost of tariffs might be more willing to turn to the material, Bailey said.  

Often, PCR costs more than virgin resin, which has traditionally dampened demand. 

But, in the current environment, she said, “PCR provides reduced risk against energy costs with tariffs. Now, you’re looking at a domestic supply chain that has more resiliency.” 

Corporate retrenchment 

For corporations trying to set and maintain goals for PCR use and other initiatives, patchwork regulations and inadequate supply of PCR have represented some obstacles. But both Bailey and Schiavo expressed optimism that companies will continue to push ahead.  

“2025 was a year where a lot of corporate goals had been set, and a lot of those are being missed, or being rolled back or being delayed," Schiavo said. “It’s undeniable that we are in a year of retrenchment for corporate sustainability. ... But, especially in the context of packaging sustainability in particular, and plastic sustainability, we’re really not seeing a wholesale retreat from these types of things.” 

Although some companies have extended their timelines on particular goals, Bailey said, “If you take the longer view, companies are increasingly adopting sustainability, not just as an environmental prerogative, but just about how they integrate this into their operations, and that has really solidified over the past 10 or so years. I do not see that trend changing.” 

The goals have become moving targets, but companies are still pursuing them. 

“What I think is most important is that those targets are still there. We see the companies that have targets are moving faster than the industry writ large,” Bailey said. 

In many cases, Schiavo said, companies’ struggles with their goals have come in completing the last mile. 

Some corporate goals might have been too ambitious. 

“I think what you see a lot of is companies who were targeting 100 percent elimination of certain types of problematic plastics have scaled those goals down to 90 percent because there’s a lot of difficulty in that last 10 percent,” Schiavo said. 

Other goals have proved “wrong-headed,” he said. Distracted by new materials, like compostable plastic, that seemed more eco-friendly but proved impractical, some companies might have lost a little focus when it comes to handling the more-traditional materials.  

Where companies have to count on outside partners for help in reaching their goals — for example, in sourcing PCR — they have had less success than with initiatives they could accomplish within their own ecosystem. 

For example, Schiavo noted Coke’s experience with lightweighting.  

“The blow molding process and the plastic that we’re using to achieve thinner bottles, that’s saving us, I think, 75,000 tons of plastic a year. ... Purely internal, doesn’t require any interaction with the system. The more these goals depend on this bigger sustainability system, the more likely they are, in our experience, to be missed or delayed or rolled back,” he said. 

Public support 

Underlying the corporate commitments is public sentiment that industry watchers say might be more resilient than any one policy or particular goal.  

“I think the most important message is that the world has committed to improving recycling and reducing plastic pollution,” Bailey said. “When we think about what is the role of the U.S. and what kind of actions should companies be taking, I really want to emphasize this is becoming about global competitiveness.” 

As the founder and president of X is Possible, a D.C.-based business consultancy focused on workforce and leadership issues, Erica Roberts has been eyeing the Trump administration’s pushback against both green and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. She thinks the benefits of the initiatives themselves will incentivize companies to continue them in some form, even if under a different name.  

One looming risk for companies that commit to DEI or green initiatives is legal arguments that so-called ESG (environmental, social, governance) programs compromise shareholder value.  

“Even if none of these lawsuits work out, it adds a cost to doing ESG, and it especially adds a cost to being public about doing ESG. Because if you say, ‘We’re going to reduce plastics by 50 percent by 2030 [by replacing them with paper, for example], someone could sue you and say that plastics are cheaper than paper,” Schiavo said. 

He is interested in how the current political climate will shape public sentiment going forward. Like Bailey and Roberts, he thinks there’s a throughline of support for recycling. 

“That’s the main question we really want to understand is, has Trump coming into power changed people’s views on sustainability? That’s a really fascinating question,” he said. “But what I can tell you is that, as of late year, sustainability in general is relatively popular. People like sustainability. I think what’s important to recognize is that sustainability is not a concept that lives in isolation in the minds of consumers. It’s tied into a lot of other concepts.” 

Consumer demand for green goods has been growing consistently. Whether presented as environmentally friendly or healthier or higher-value in some other way, the products have grabbed some of the market, he said. 

Their appeal is much broader than any one characteristic, such as “being woke,” and crosses political demographics, Schiavo said. 

Meanwhile, public concerns about plastics are growing, too. 

Bailey said those trends mean that sustainability is no longer a “nice-to-have.” In the marketplace, it will continue to be a must. 

“You’re really seeing a shift from recycling being more of an environmental message to it being more of a business opportunity, economic benefits,” Bailey said.