Embracing Nuance to Profitably Address Plastic

I recently joined the ESG Currents podcast, hosted by Gail Glazerman for Bloomberg Intelligence, to unpack the plastic crisis, discuss potential KPIs to use to assess plastic mitigation, and strategies to make solutions profitable enough to attract an estimated $5 trillion in capital required by 2040. This episode was recorded February 18th. Listen to this episode on the Bloomberg website or on Spotify.

That conversation focused on how to think clearly about trade-offs in a sector where materials, infrastructure, regulation, customer behavior, and economics are deeply entangled. Bloomberg framed the episode around three practical questions - the scale of the problem, the KPIs that matter, and how to make solutions profitable enough to attract capital. 

I have spoken often about the importance of framing the plastics conversation as a financing issue (rather than an environmental issue) - we have all the right solutions, but the challenge is in making them truly economical as a growth driver for businesses. 

In this article, I spotlight 3 ideas that we covered during the course of the conversation. 

1. Reuse systems continue to be severely under-invested

A lot of the packaging conversation still starts with material replacement, but that is only part of the answer. Even if companies move away from plastic, the production of any material - plastic, paper, glass, aluminum, or otherwise - still uses energy, water, labor, and capital. 

If the system stays single-use, we risk shifting the waste burden rather than reducing it. Reuse changes the equation by reducing the need to repeatedly manufacture packaging in the first place. We unlock bigger impact opportunities by building the reverse logistics, refill models, and customer incentives that help packaging stay in use longer. 

A good rule of thumb hierarchy for companies could look something like this: first, determine whether a format can be eliminated or reused; second, where reduction or reuse is not feasible, design for the most credible recycling pathway available in the actual markets served; third, address residual formats through regulation, cost signals, or phaseout strategies. 

2. The hardest part is financing the transition to a circular economy before the savings are obvious

The long-term challenge is not whether better and more profitable systems are possible. They are. The challenge is whether companies, governments, and investors are willing to fund the transition early enough. In sustainability, every impact gap eventually becomes a financing gap. It is not enough to set long-term ambitions if organizations are not also prepared to commit real capital to the changes required. Whether we are scaling promising pilots, redesigning supply chains, or building circular infrastructure, progress depends on investment.

Through our work convening the Innovation Alliance for the Global Plastics Treaty (www.iagpt.org), alongside Earth Action and other industry experts, rePurpose Global sought to quantify that need. The conclusion was sobering: reducing mismanaged plastic waste by 90 percent by 2040 will require roughly $5.2 trillion invested across the circular economy value chain.

A shift from a linear economy, built on take, make, and waste, to a circular economy, built on keeping materials in use for as long as possible, should reduce waste across the system and create long-term economic value for everyone involved. But the real question is whether we are willing to invest early, and invest wisely, before those savings are fully visible.

3. New regulations like EPR are starting to bring more financial alignment, even if the system is still fragmented

For a long time, packaging strategy has been highly disconnected. Each company has largely made its own decisions about materials, reporting, and sustainability priorities. 

New regulations like EPR (read more about our Extended Producer Responsibility coverage here) are beginning to change that by putting a price on packaging choices and creating stronger incentives around recyclability and reuse. Importantly, mechanisms like eco-modulation — where EPR fees are adjusted based on the environmental performance of a packaging format, so materials that are easier to recycle, reuse, or recover generally carry lower fees than those that are harder to manage — give businesses a direct financial incentive to make better packaging choices.

The system is not perfect yet - it is still fragmented across states, timelines, and reporting requirements, but we have definitely taken many steps in the right direction. 

The rePurpose platform helps brands treat EPR compliance as more than a reporting exercise. It brings together the core workflows companies need to measure, report, and act on packaging data, with tools like a Packaging Library, Compliance Studio, and rePack built to support both compliance and packaging optimization. 

Internally, rePurpose’s strategy is to help policy, sustainability, and packaging teams work from the same data layer so brands can centralize packaging information, manage reporting across markets, and make smarter design choices in response to regulations. 

That includes helping companies identify where better material choices, reuse or refill formats, and stronger recyclability can reduce fee exposure through eco-modulation, while also supporting broader sustainability goals and potential rewards tied to PCR use, reduction, reuse, and packaging performance.

Reach out to the rePurpose team for a free consultation here.