> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.packagingeurope.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Systemiq & Earth Action launch Packaging Data Hub at the Sustainable Packaging Summit - URL: https://www.packagingeurope.com/systemiq-earth-action-launch-packaging-data-hub-at-the-sustainable-packaging-summit/ - Published: 2026-11-10T22:21:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-11-10T23:06:26.000Z - Author: Victoria Hattersley - Tags: Headline News, Systemiq, Sustainability, Circular economy (Sustainable Packaging Summit), Regulation & Compliance We are delighted to report that today, November 11th 2026, Systemiq and Earth Action are launching the [Packaging Data Hub](https://hub.packagingdata.earth/trial) at the Sustainable Packaging Summit. We explored the platform ourselves pre-launch and it provides a shared source of credible, comparable recycling data for plastic packaging, harmonized across 50 countries and 12 formats, using common definitions and a taxonomy aligned with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation Global Commitment. Every figure, according to Systemiq, is supported by sources and a confidence level. We put some questions to several parties involved in the Packaging Data Hub. Here, exclusively, is what they had to tell us: ### Why does the industry need a shared picture of what happens to packaging after use, and why now? ***Yoni Shiran, Partner and Plastics Lead, Systemiq, and Director, Packaging Data Hub*** For years, the industry’s circularity effort has rightly focused on design: removing problematic formats, adding recycled content and making packs technically recyclable. Regulation is now increasingly asking a harder question, which is whether packaging is actually recycled, in practice and at scale. Under the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), packaging placed on the EU market must be recyclable from 2030, and from 2035 at the earliest it must also be recycled at scale. California’s SB 54 requires covered plastic packaging to reach a 65% recycling rate by 2032, and dozens of other countries are setting up or reforming extended producer responsibility schemes. The global plastics treaty raises a similar question for governments: how will they know whether their measures are working? Negotiations resume in March 2027, and whatever countries agree, they will need comparable national data to set baselines and track progress. A [policy paper published in *Science*](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aea6562) in July, by researchers at Tsinghua University and the University of California, called for harmonised definitions and reporting under the treaty. As the authors put it, “data alone do not guarantee progress toward ending plastic pollution, yet a lack of data almost guarantees no progress.” In other words, high-quality data is a critical enabler of the transition to a circular economy. Yet today, few companies can say with confidence how their packaging performs after use, market by market. Published recycling rates for the same packaging in the same market often differ widely, because sources count different materials, from different places, at different points in the recycling chain. That leaves stakeholders across the system without a reliable baseline for decision-making and reporting. Timing matters because the packaging chosen today will still be on shelf when these rules apply. A company that knows today how its packaging formats perform after use in each market has time to redesign, switch formats or invest in collection and recycling. One that finds out in 2030 will face harder and more expensive choices. The need also reaches well beyond industry. When policymakers, industry, investors and civil society work from the same trusted data, each can make better decisions, and all of them can see whether design changes, investment and policy are actually raising recycling rates. That only works if everyone uses the same numbers. ### Why did Systemiq and Earth Action set up the Packaging Data Hub? ***Yoni Shiran, Systemiq, and Julien Boucher, Earth Action*** **Yoni Shiran:** Systemiq has spent the last decade working with governments and companies on how to end plastic pollution – from the first global model of pathways to reduce it, *Breaking the Plastic Wave*, to supporting the Global Plastic Action Partnership on the design and delivery of national plastic action roadmaps in 25 countries. A recurring challenge was getting reliable, comparable and granular data on how much volume is placed on the market, what was actually collected and recycled – at market and format level. When we helped packaging teams in Brazil and Indonesia bring end-of-life data into their decisions, a dedicated team needed six months to reach the quality we required, partly because neither country had an officially accepted recycling rate. No existing tool could have saved us that work, and every time we started work in a new market, we had to rebuild much of the same evidence. **Julien Boucher:** Earth Action came at the same problem from the other direction. We have nearly 20 years of experience in footprint science and have published 12 peer-reviewed reports on plastic pollution since 2017\. In 2021 we launched Plasteax, which standardises plastic waste and leakage data for every country in the world. Building Plasteax, running the Plastic Footprint Network and calculating Plastic Overshoot Day each year means gathering and reconciling national data on plastic waste, country by country. Again and again, we found that figures for the same market could not be compared because they measured different things. So we each brought half of the answer. Earth Action had a model that turns inconsistent national figures into comparable data, and Systemiq knew from its work with packaging teams and policymakers which decisions that data needs to support. **Yoni Shiran:** Progress on circularity depends on harmonised, trusted packaging data. It has been the missing piece for years, and no single organisation can build it alone. That is why we built the Packaging Data Hub together as shared infrastructure, with a Steering Committee of NGOs and industry bodies and corporate partners from across the value chain. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/61/60/61607b5b-1c0b-4249-a886-4bc4c284c107/content/images/2026/11/PDH---Still---Data-Explorer.png) ### What does the Packaging Data Hub show about plastic packaging today? ***Yoni Shiran, Systemiq*** Our first results show a system that is progressing but remains off track. The 50 countries in the Hub today account for around 80% of the world’s plastic packaging waste. Across those countries, 18% of plastic packaging is recycled in practice. That is an improvement on where we stood a decade ago, but still well short of where it needs to be, and of the targets regulators have set. Even the EU, which usually leads on recycling, has a long way to go. We estimate that the EU recycles around 35% of its plastic packaging in practice, against a target of 55% by 2030 under the PPWR, and progress has slowed in recent years. This ‘recycled in practice’ figure counts only the material that leaves the recycling process as recyclate, so after losses at collection and sorting. It is therefore lower than official EU figures. \[See the full methodology at \] Flexible packaging needs the most attention. Films, pouches and wrappers make up around 40% of plastic packaging waste, yet in the markets covered by the Hub today, only around 10% of them are recycled in practice. Companies and governments will not meet their targets without a specific plan for flexibles. However, the data also shows what works. In low- and middle-income countries, plastic packaging recycling rates are around twice as high where EPR schemes are in place. This comparison does not isolate the effect of EPR alone, but it points to the difference well-designed policy can make. ### Why is it so hard to know whether packaging is recycled in practice? ***Julien Boucher, Co-founder and Head of Research, Earth Action, and Director, Packaging Data Hub*** Recyclable describes how a pack is designed. Recycled describes what happened to it, and that depends on whether it was collected, sorted and reprocessed in the market where it was sold. PET thermoforms show the gap: most are designed to be recyclable, yet The Recycling Partnership puts their recycling rate in California at only around 14%. The data makes the gap hard to see. One national source reports what is collected for recycling, another what enters a recycling facility, and a third what comes out as recyclate after sorting losses. Reporting years differ, and most figures do not separate a PET bottle from a PET tray. As a result, published recycling rates for the same packaging in the same market can differ widely. One of the most common problems we see is that recycling rates get confused with collection rates, or with recycling input rates, the share of recycled material in new production. Without shared definitions, nobody can tell whether two figures are even measuring the same thing. In the Packaging Data Hub, we map every source figure to common definitions and to a shared taxonomy of 12 plastic packaging formats, mapped to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation Global Commitment, so a PET bottle and a PET tray are counted separately. We also convert every recycling figure to output recyclate, the material that actually leaves the recycling process, by applying assumed loss rates. Where a source does not say whether its figure refers to collection, sorting or recyclate output, we treat it as collected material and apply loss rates from that point, which is the most conservative assumption. That lets users compare markets and formats on the same basis. ### What does reporting on packaging end-of-life involve today, and what changes with the Packaging Data Hub? **Rob Opsomer, Plastics Executive Lead, Ellen MacArthur Foundation: “**In 2016, The New Plastics Economy mapped global plastic material flows for the first time. It also found that many core aspects of those flows were still poorly understood and called for a stronger evidence base, including a repository of global data. Since then, our work with more than 1,200 organisations through the Global Commitment, launched with the UN Environment Programme in 2018, has only strengthened that case. Businesses have shown what they can change in the packaging they put on the market, but without comparable data on what happens to it afterwards, it’s hard to tell whether design progress is translating into higher recycling rates, or to distinguish between formats and markets. The Packaging Data Hub is a valuable effort that can close that gap by bringing together consistent, granular data on packaging end-of-life.” **Nathan Cole, Head of Sustainable Business, CDP:** “More than 4,200 companies disclosed plastics data to CDP in 2025, up 44% since 2023\. In the disclosures we receive, end-of-life figures for the same packaging often rest on different sources, definitions and reporting years, which makes them hard to compare across companies and over time. Consistent, traceable data would reduce the effort companies spend assembling these numbers and give the people who use disclosures more confidence in what they show.” **Julien Boucher:** Every year, packaging and sustainability teams need end-of-life figures for CDP, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation Global Commitment, Scope 3.12 calculations and, where in scope, mandatory sustainability disclosures. Much of that work is done by hand, and it is time-consuming and costly. One global consumer goods company told us it keeps its own evidence database, built on a commissioned study and input from experts in each market, so it can show auditors where every figure comes from. Others combine generic global datasets without format detail, public figures that can be years out of date and national statistics built on different definitions, and then have to explain the result to auditors. The Packaging Data Hub gives them one documented source to replace or check that work. Figures are harmonised across markets and formats, and each one shows its sources, assumptions and a confidence level, so teams can explain where a number comes from and how far to rely on it. The same evidence can serve each of those reporting needs and stand up in audit and assurance. Because the data downloads in a structured format, teams also spend less time sourcing, cleaning and reconciling datasets each reporting cycle. ### How can comparable data change where packaging teams focus action and investment? ***Lucie Charbonnel, Sustainability Director, Amcor*** Our customers sell the same pack format into many markets, and its recycling performance can differ sharply from one market to the next. Until now, comparing those markets meant piecing together figures that measure different things. There are still many myths about which formats are actually recycled. Our work with local recyclers showed, for example, that flexible PP is already recycled in practice in some countries, and that sorting can hold back recycling even where packaging is designed for it. With format-level data on a common basis, we can see how a specific format performs in a specific market, and whether the gaps lie at collection stage or later in the chain. That helps us and our customers decide which parts of a portfolio to look at first. In some markets, redesign will make the biggest difference. In others, the constraint is local collection and recycling infrastructure, and that calls for a different conversation, with PROs, recyclers and investors. **Julien Boucher:** A national recycling rate for PET or PE tells a packaging team very little, because bottles, trays and films within the same polymer can perform very differently. One global beauty company told us its PET bottles are well recycled while its PET jars are not, even though both are the same material. Another brand wants to see where material is lost, at collection, sorting or reprocessing, so it can choose the right partners to work with. The Packaging Data Hub reports 12 plastic packaging formats across 50 countries, so teams can compare, for example, PET thermoforms across five key markets and see whether material is lost at collection or at recycling. That points them to the formats and markets to investigate first, and to whether the answer lies in redesign or in investment in collection and recycling. ### Why are brands and packaging producers backing a shared evidence base? **Ann Tracy, Chief Sustainability Officer, Colgate-Palmolive:** “At Colgate-Palmolive, we are focused on value-creating sustainability as we reimagine a healthier future for all. As part of our 2030 strategy, we are committed to ingredient and packaging transparency. Standardizing packaging measurement across the industry is vital, which is why we are proud to support the Packaging Data Hub as a founding partner.” ### Why is the full platform free for non-commercial users, and what difference could that make? **Yoni Shiran:** Companies are only one part of the system that decides what happens to packaging. PROs set fees, and policymakers set targets and plan infrastructure. When they work from different figures, it is hard to agree on effective fees or realistic targets. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes have driven much of the progress on packaging recycling in Europe over the past two decades. Many of the jurisdictions now introducing EPR, however, are setting fees and targets without a reliable baseline. Schemes work where they are well designed and well targeted, and that depends on good data. That is why academic institutions and policymakers receive free access to the full platform for non-commercial use, with the same data and methodology as subscribing companies. Requests from other independent non-commercial organisations will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Company subscriptions sustain the platform, and that is what makes free access possible. Anyone can explore a [free sample country](https://hub.packagingdata.earth/trial) from the Packaging Data Hub website. The same organisations have a voice in how the Packaging Data Hub develops through its Steering Committee. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, The Consumer Goods Forum, CDP, the Global Plastic Action Partnership, WRAP and WWF each [see the data gap from a different side of the system](https://www.packagingeurope.com/why-packaging-data-has-become-a-shared-priority/), from business commitments and design rules to disclosure, national action plans and accountability. Their oversight keeps the Packaging Data Hub useful to all of them. **WWF, Daniel Håbesland, Director of Plastic & Material Science:** “Companies often have limited visibility into what happens to their packaging once discarded, making it difficult to focus their efforts and investments where they would be most effective at reducing waste and preventing plastic pollution. Harmonized packaging data can close that gap for companies, and making it open access extends that same visibility to NGOs, researchers, and policymakers, allowing them to see what is working and what needs to change. Keeping sources and data quality open to scrutiny is what builds trust in the data, and the more widely it is used and checked, the more confidently every stakeholder can act on it. That shared confidence is what enables real accountability, making it easier to determine whether commitments are being kept and whether the system is actually shifting.” ### **How does the Packaging Data Hub handle gaps and weak evidence?** ***Julien Boucher, Earth Action*** We draw on more than 100 vetted public and proprietary sources, building on the Plasteax model developed by Earth Action. Our team also works directly with people in each market, such as recyclers, sorters, PROs and local industry associations, to check sources and results. Data-sharing partnerships with PROs, recyclers, materials recovery facilities and other operators add evidence that is often not publicly available. We will update the data every year and record previous versions in a change log, so users can see what has changed. Each source is scored for quality, based on how recent, market-specific, transparent and detailed it is, and the stronger evidence takes priority. Where data is missing, the model still has to account for every tonne placed on the market, so it estimates the figure and gives it a lower confidence level. In some markets, an independent in-country expert has also reviewed the results, and those figures carry an expert-validated badge. A Technical Advisory Board of consumer goods companies and a packaging manufacturer also reviews and challenges our methods, from data sourcing and validation to the final datasets before publication. No packaging dataset is complete, and we would rather users see where the evidence is thin than rely on a number more than it deserves. Every figure in the Packaging Data Hub carries one of four confidence levels (high, good, moderate or limited), which reflects both the quality of its sources and how much the model had to estimate. The sources and assumptions behind each figure are visible. \[See the full methodology at \] ### **What comes next, and what does the Packaging Data Hub need from others?** ***Yoni Shiran, Systemiq*** The platform we are launching today is a starting point. In 2027, we plan to add more countries and US state-level data, paper and cardboard packaging, and end-of-life pathways such as landfill, incineration and mismanaged waste. We also plan to introduce forecasts of how collection and recycling rates could change over time. Timing and scope will depend on data availability and funding, and we will be clear about what is ready and what is not. We ultimately want the Packaging Data Hub to become the single source of truth for packaging data, bringing companies and non-commercial organisations together to improve how data is collected, reported and used. To get there, we are inviting more organisations to join and use the Hub, with subscribers helping to shape its development, as our corporate partners do today. We are also looking for more philanthropic partners, building on support from the Röchling Foundation and the EU’s EIT Food programme, to fund research and improve data in countries where data is weakest and plastic pollution is often highest. The Packaging Data Hub is only as good as the evidence that goes into it, and much of the most useful data sits with PROs, recyclers and waste operators. We are keen to enter data-sharing partnerships with more of them. We also want users to challenge any figure that does not match what they see on the ground. We review new evidence and, where it improves a figure, include it in the next annual update. Our longer-term aim is a packaging system that runs on evidence of outcomes. That means a legislator setting recycling targets grounded in real performance data, a regulator able to see whether a policy is working, investors putting money into the formats, markets and infrastructure where it will do most good, and civil society tracking progress with independent evidence and holding the system to account. For companies, shared evidence also makes it easier to align packaging choices within a market and co-invest in collection and recycling, so new facilities receive enough material to run well. Each of those decisions is easier when everyone starts from the same numbers. The Packaging Data Hub will not reduce plastic pollution by itself. But closing the gap between today’s commitments and what proven solutions could achieve means putting policy and investment where they work, and that starts with knowing what actually happens to packaging after use.