Hear from Packaging Suppliers on What's Actually Working for Source Reduction: Your Questions, Answered

Swapping a material sounds simple on a slide: cut the plastic, hit your number, move on. It rarely works that way once a supplier, a cost sheet, and a shelf-life requirement get involved. In our latest session of unPacked: Real packaging expertise & lessons from the field, four packaging suppliers gave candid answers to what's working, what isn't, and what they wish more brands knew before starting.

The panel: Saloni Doshi (Eco-Enclose), Brandon Frank (Pacific Packaging), Lev Girshfeld (STNBL), and Leo Chao (Zenpak), moderated by rePurpose's Lowell Huffman.

We're sharing the audience Q&A here for attendees and any brand working through the same decisions. These reflect what's working for these suppliers' customers right now, not a guarantee for your own product or timeline.

Material Switches: What's Actually Working

If we move from a multi-laminate plastic to a multi-laminate with a paper layer, does this help with ISR? Is this any more recyclable?

Most multi-layered films with a paper layer are still unrecyclable, though one proprietary-coated version is curbside recyclable. The ISR benefit comes from reduced plastic weight when paper or foil replaces some of the plastic layers — recyclability and source reduction are two different wins, and this switch is mostly the second. However, it's good to note that under Source Reduction, moving from a recyclable to non-recyclable format is not permitted. In this example, if both are non-recyclable to begin with, and plastic is reduced, it will result in a source reduction benefit.

Pros and cons of PP vs. molded fiber?

A cradle-to-cradle LCA comparing the two found paper "better" than PP at end-of-life, but "worse" during production and conversion, driven by water use and eutrophication impact. A material's environmental story doesn't end at the recycling bin; production impacts count too.

Does mono-material plastic generally provide positive ROI vs. multi-layer, considering EPR fees, line speeds, and shelf life for foods?

Mono-material's advantage is recyclability, not an automatic fee cut — EPR fees track plastic weight and component count, not layer count. But because states break multi-layer laminate into its own penalized category, a genuine laminate-to-mono switch moves you to a lower-rate category: roughly a 35–55% per-pound base-fee reduction on average in the US, plus eco-modulation bonuses in states that offer them.

The trade-offs sit on the operational side, which the fee schedules don't speak to. Mono-materials typically have a narrower heat-sealing window, so lines often slow down without recalibration, and they lack the robust oxygen and moisture barriers that aluminum or PVDC layers provide in multi-layer packaging — so shelf life can suffer for higher-barrier foods. ROI is fastest when the switch also trims weight or holds line speed, and slowest for high-barrier products that still need a laminate.

Any examples of switching to recycled paper/fiber and lessons learned for the business case?

Resin prices climbing sharply over the last several months have made paper more affordable by comparison, and more brands have been able to replace plastic with paper at a lower cost than before, in certain industries. Recycling infrastructure for paper is already in place in a lot of categories, so the real constraint is usually design time rather than material availability.

Have any of you performed LCAs on packaging changes to see environmental impact when moving from plastics to other materials?

Yes. The first step is usually asking a brand what matters most: carbon emissions, or curbside recyclability, since those goals can pull in different directions — moving from plastic to glass or aluminum can carry a much higher carbon footprint even when it's a recyclability win. LCA methodology varies too, so two LCAs on the same swap aren't always measuring the same thing.

Where Paper and Compostables Still Fall Short

What are the requirements surrounding compostability, and is the infrastructure to process compostable materials ready?

Under California's AB 1201, a product labeled compostable in the state needs third-party certification and needs to become organic compost, not just break down. Most bioplastic inputs don't count as organic under existing federal rules, which puts a lot of "compostable" claims in a holding pattern, and AB 1201 itself has been delayed roughly a year for rulemaking complexity. Where infrastructure isn't built out yet, think of related fees as funding that infrastructure rather than a penalty, with 2030 and 2032 as the targets the system is working toward.

Are there opportunities for "clear" tape in consumer packaging, or is compostable the only option?

No clear tape alternative has held up yet. Every clear tape on the market is either fossil-fuel-driven plastic or a cellophane-type film that still counts as plastic even when marketed as dissolvable or compostable, so it doesn't count toward plastic reduction. For brands that need security tape, water-activated tape is the practical swap, even though it isn't clear.

Refill, Reuse, and Retail Partnerships

How can the food industry participate in refill/reuse requirements?

Food brands have two paths under SB 54: producer-managed returnables, or consumer-managed refill models. Reusable food-contact packaging needs a safety check every cycle, so most food brands are better off starting with secondary or transport packaging, or a closed-loop setting they control end to end.

Ideas for brands setting up refill/reuse systems: are certain industries easier than others?

Beauty is furthest along. Those customers are often already willing to pay more for a product that sits on a shelf at home for a while, which makes a permanent, reusable vessel feel like an upgrade, a harder sell in categories where packaging is purely disposable.

Have large retailers (Amazon, Walmart, Target) partnered with brands or their supply chain to align vendor standards with EPR?

Yes, and it's already reshaping decisions from the top down: major retailers dictate a lot of the packaging materials their vendors use. Amazon, for example, eliminated plastic air pillows after partnering directly with a large paper manufacturer, pushing that change through its whole vendor base at once. If you sell through major retailers, part of your packaging roadmap may get set on their timeline, not yours.

Source Reduction Plan Mechanics

What are the legal implications of not meeting the source reductions outlined in the legislation, and how binding are submitted plans?

The 25% target applies collectively across all producers, not to any single business, so missing it doesn't put your company on the hook alone. The incentive system is net-neutral: CAA pays bonuses for reduced plastic, funded by a malus on virgin plastic, though exact rates aren't finalized. Submitted plans are non-binding forecasts, but treat them as credible commitments, and note they're subject to public disclosure, so route any trade-secret data through the Producer Portal's Confidentiality Claims fields.

Any updates on the lawsuit brought by 17 states against California, and what it might mean for compliance?

Guidance hasn't changed: keep preparing for your deadlines as the program proceeds. A lawsuit filing isn't an injunction, so there's no basis to slow down compliance work while it plays out.

Can you discuss the move from the August 1 ISR Plan to the year-end deadline for "agreements with CAA," and can the ISR Plan be revised afterward?

The August 1 ISR Plan is your forecast of reduction pathways, a one-time submission you don't resubmit each year. It's not final, but CAA uses it to help set fees and bonuses. What's binding is the ISR Agreement you sign by year-end, covering your annual report submissions and participation in the fee and incentive system. Ongoing progress is tracked separately, through Annual Source Reduction Reports against your 2023 baseline.

If a product is "dissolvable," is it a covered product needing reduction, or is it excluded?

This comes down to the material, not the label. Most dissolvable films are synthetic polymers, which SB 54 treats as plastic, so they may well be in scope. There's a narrow carve-out for components integral to the product itself, but it's aimed at the product, not its packaging — worth confirming scope directly with CAA.

---

Between resin prices, retailer mandates, and rules still being written, a material decision now has to account for cost, compliance, and your own supply chain at once. Want help sourcing a specific packaging change, or a compliance expert to walk through your ISR Plan? Book a demo with our team.