Back to Basics: Defining “Reuse” for Policymakers
Summary & Key Takeaways
Listen to the podcast version:
Summary & Key Takeaways
Even as we see increased momentum behind EPR, DRS and other policies involving reuse, the definitions of “reuse” are scattered and often ill-conceived. Now is the time to properly define reusable packaging—and especially differentiate between returnable and refillable packaging—in the policy context.
In this installment of Indisposable Live,® we dug into this important topic. We learned from Zero Waste Europe’s Nathan Dufour about the recommendations outlined in ZWE’s Packaging Refill vs. Packaging Prevention report, as well as from Oceana’s Matt Littlejohn about international examples of returnable packaging systems. And Upstream’s Policy Director Sydney Harris shared Upstream’s own recommended definitions—in hopes of moving us all forward in passing truly effective reuse policy.
Here are some key takeaways from this rich discussion. For a full roundup of the resources mentioned, jump to the bottom of the page.
Upstream’s recommendations
Upstream’s key message to policymakers is to distinguish between “returnable” and “refillable,” in order to ensure companies are taking meaningful steps to reduce packaging waste:
Returnable Reusable Packaging is designed to be recirculated multiple times for the same or similar purpose in its original format in a system for reuse, and is owned by producers or a third party and returned to producers or a third party after each use. We say “returnable-reusable” to avoid confusion with other types of returnables, like returnable cans in a bottle bill system, which are returnable, but not reusable.
Refillable Packaging is designed to be refilled by consumers multiple times for the same or similar purpose in its original format, and is sold or provided to consumers once for the duration of its usable life.
The core idea here is that refillable packaging is owned by consumers, while reusable packaging is owned by producers or a third party. Refillables as defined above are business models that include bringing your own container to a bulk aisle or purchasing a refillable bottle and buying concentrate to refill it with. These are great business models for many products, and they likely result in waste prevention (though that is hard to measure).
But there are challenges with these models. Refill-at-home requires continuous purchasing on the part of the consumer, usually involving single-use, disposable packaging; BYO and refill-at-home both require behavior change on the part of consumers; bulk aisles take up space and can make a mess in retail settings; and overall it’s tough to guarantee waste reduction with these models since it’s left to consumer choice.
Returnables as defined above eliminate many of these challenges. They more closely map to our current patterns of consumption and sales because they can mimic single-use packaging. In addition, they involve industrial cleaning, rather than at-home cleaning, which can alleviate health-code concerns. Ultimately the biggest advantage of returnables is that they take most of the work away from consumers and put it back into the hands of producers—and they can fully replace disposable packaging, ensuring waste prevention.
The way to ensure a focus on returnables is through policy, like EPR and DRS, that creates a mechanism for brands to share financial and operational responsibility for their packaging. If we want EPR and DRS to enable the returnable reusable systems of the future, then we need to distinguish between returnables and refillables in these bills.
“The biggest advantage of returnables is that they take most of the work away from consumers and put it back into the hands of producers—and they can fully replace disposable packaging, ensuring waste prevention.”
Global models at scale
Outside of the US and Europe, the concept of returnable reusables is nothing new. Ocean’s Matt Littlejohn reports that 14% of Coca Cola’s current international volume comes in returnable packaging, while the beer brands AB InBev and Heineken both sell their products in 35-40% returnable packaging. And these companies are already trialing efforts in the US: for example, in El Paso and San Antonio, TX where Coke offers returnable bottles at restaurants—and it’s working well.
Larger businesses are well positioned to put these systems in place. The delivery trucks have to come back to the plant. Companies need only to buy washing machines and store the packaging. Littlejohn says, “Don’t accept that they can’t do this or make it work, because these systems work and they are around.” Policymakers should encourage them to come to their states.
It’s important to note that these systems particularly work and exist in lower-income countries because they provide equal access—when the consumer doesn’t need to purchase a refillable container, everyone can participate.
“Don’t accept that they can’t do this or make it work, because these systems work and they are around.”
Measuring & Tracking
One of Upstream’s recommendations for baking reuse into EPR and DRS is ensuring producers report on the number or percentage of products they place into the market in returnable and refillable packaging each year; ideally this number should increase over time. They should also have to report on their average return rates for all returnable packaging. Nathan Dufour takes lessons from Europe to recommend also measuring rotation time—how long it takes a package to circulate through the system—which should be short for maximum efficiency and ROI.
Further, if BYO and consumer refill is promoted over returnables, there is not much evidence it has influence in terms of waste reduction. This is why we need to shift the burden to the producers—where there is more control. If focus stays on consumers, we will never get the full picture of what has worked, because it is impossible to accurately measure. And then companies can point the finger at the consumer when reuse doesn’t appear to result in waste reduction.
Challenges, and the importance of collaboration
While there are many perceived barriers to companies implementing returnable refillables, there are also real obstacles and confusion. Cultural differences and differing consumer habits bring a complexity to creating solutions at scale. As Nathan Dufour points out, “We need to incorporate that complexity and have universal principles—but then localize.”
Often, it is easier as a company to try a refillable option rather than go to a returnable system all on their own. We can’t expect all of them to build these systems individually, which is why pooled infrastructure is so important. A collaborative process that brings together the right stakeholders is key to successful scaling.
Local and regional municipalities play a critical role in this collaboration. Because of differences between demographics and geographies, it is important for local authorities to get involved and to weigh in on possible solutions to challenges. Cities can also be supportive of local businesses that are trying to set up the right system, and they can do a great deal in communicating about and promoting these systems.
This is a summary of a livestream which aired on February 15, 2024. Visit our livestream page to explore other livestreams, and sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date on future events and news.
Resources
From Upstream:
From Oceana:
Well managed designed systems are easy for consumers. Here are two videos exemplifying this:
