Packaging Reform Must Support – Not Stifle – Fibre-Based Innovation

The government’s latest packaging reforms are a welcome step towards a circular economy. But as is so often the case, the devil is in the detail. For fibre-based composites (FBCs), the current approach risks undermining the very goals it sets out to achieve. 

The Simpler Recycling legislation allows kerbside collection of fibre composites with up to 15 per cent plastic content – except, inexplicably, for paper cups. A paper cup with 5 per cent plastic is excluded, while a food container with the same composition is included.

This inconsistency will confuse consumers, reduce recycling volumes, and increase costs by eroding economies of scale. Excluding packaging that is 95 per cent fibre  –  often from sustainable sources  –  from kerbside collection is not just illogical, it’s indefensible.

FBCs are a critical part of the packaging transition. They offer a viable alternative to fossil-based plastics, combining renewable materials with minimal plastic to deliver performance and sustainability. This vital innovation combines paperboard with coatings, resulting in a product with similar properties to plastic packs.

These are particularly important within food packaging, which requires grease resistance, chilled display and heating. FBCs play a critical role in balancing functionality with sustainability and could replace much of the fossil-based plastic packaging on the market.

But the current pEPR fee structure punishes this innovation. The threshold for classification as a fibre-based composite is set at 5 per cent plastic content – an arbitrary line that results in a 235 per cent fee increase compared to paper and card. This is not just a technicality; it’s a barrier to progress.

The consequence will be forcing producers to choose between cost and sustainability. They may switch to fully plastic packaging or imported fibre products sourced from markets that do not offer the same traceability or food safety certifications. Rather than encouraging sustainable packaging, this system creates the incentives for a race to the bottom.

If the government is serious about fostering a circular economy, it must foster the conditions for innovation to thrive. Raising the threshold to 10 per cent would bring most FBCs into the paper and card category, encouraging manufacturers to reduce plastic content further while maintaining functionality. Instead, the current system risks pushing producers towards plastic or lower-quality fibre imports with weaker sustainability credentials.

The Alliance for Fibre-Based Packaging represents the full supply chain – from raw material suppliers to converters and brands. Its members employ 210,000 people across the UK and generate £24bn in turnover.

Furthermore, it provides investment in British packaging and helps to facilitate the UK’s net-zero transition. We endorse the principle that producers should pay - but not at the expense of sustainability, innovation, and homegrown manufacturing.

As an Alliance, we are committed to working with the waste management sector to improve collection, sorting, and recycling of fibre-based packaging. Some of our members are already investing in technology to enhance sortation and recovery. But we need policy clarity, not contradictions.

We also need better consumer engagement. Clear, consistent labelling is essential to drive behaviour change and improve recycling rates. The current mixed messages only serve to undermine public confidence and participation.

There is a real opportunity here: to create jobs, attract investment, and accelerate the shift to a circular economy. But that will only happen if government policy supports  – not stifles  –  the transition to sustainable materials. That means aligning fees with environmental outcomes, investing in infrastructure, and recognising the role of the entire supply chain in delivering change.

We’re ready to play our part. But we need a system that rewards progress, not penalises it.