> ## 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. # Why packaging data has become a shared priority - URL: https://www.packagingeurope.com/why-packaging-data-has-become-a-shared-priority/ - Published: 2026-10-14T14:26:40.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-14T14:26:40.000Z - Author: Packaging Europe staff writers - Tags: Recyclability, News, Sustainability, Comment **Leaders from across the packaging industry, approaching the issue from very different positions, are converging on the same diagnosis: nobody yet has a clear enough picture of what actually happens to packaging once it becomes waste.** **In this article, Yoni Shiran of Systemiq and Sarah Perreard of Earth Action (along with contributions from Ellen MacArthur Foundation, WWF, The Consumer Goods Forum, and WRAP), discuss a potential solution to this problem.** --- The packaging system has a common blind spot: what actually happens to packaging once it becomes waste. Packaging can be designed to meet every recyclability guideline and still end up nowhere near recycled - landfilled, openly burnt or leaked into the environment. PET thermoform packaging in the United States is a case in point: in practice, it is designed to meet the Association of Plastic Recyclers’ (APR) Design Guide for Plastics Recyclability, yet only 14% of the roughly 1.5 billion pounds generated each year is actually recycled, according to the Recycling Partnership's PET Recycling Coalition. The figure is specific to one market and format, but the gap it reveals is not. That blind spot is blocking action on circularity across the system. That gap exists in part because organisations focus on what they can measure. “Companies naturally focus on the parts of the system they can see and directly control,” argues WWF’s Director of Plastic & Material Science, Daniel Håbesland, “including packaging design and material sourcing.” Poor end-of-life data leaves them with far less visibility over what happens once packaging has been placed on the market. “As a result, effort and investment aren’t always directed toward the interventions that would most effectively reduce packaging waste and plastic pollution,” he says. When organisations do not have visibility over what happens after packaging enters the waste system, the circularity agenda naturally defaults to the part they can see and control: design. The result is a systemic data gap that affects everyone who relies on packaging data. Brands use it to inform design and investment, policymakers to shape regulation and infrastructure, investors to assess and price risk, and civil society to hold the system accountable. This gap belongs to the whole system, not to any single part of it. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, WWF, The Consumer Goods Forum and WRAP each approach packaging circularity from a different position, yet they have reached the same conclusion: better data is essential to closing it. That shared diagnosis is what brought them together through the Packaging Data Hub’s Steering Committee, alongside CDP and the Global Plastic Action Partnership. **From design intent to actual outcomes** For years, much of the packaging circularity agenda has focused, rightly, on design: eliminating problematic formats, increasing recycled content and making packaging technically recyclable. While better design is critical to drive better system outcomes, it doesn’t solve the entire system unless it is accompanied by better infrastructure and a more connected value chain. The next challenge is understanding what happens once packaging reaches end of life. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation sees direct consequences for investment and system development. According to Rob Opsomer, the Foundation’s Executive Lead for Plastics, businesses and policymakers often have to make packaging decisions using incomplete or incomparable information. That uncertainty can slow decisions or misdirect investment in innovation, redesign and infrastructure. In his words, better packaging data would enable “better, more confident decisions aligning innovation, investment and policy, helping create the lowest cost and fastest path towards a circular economy.” **Different actors, different decisions** The four organisations highlight that packaging data serves different purposes for different parts of the system. For companies, a lack of transparency and comparability creates practical business risk. Director of The Consumer Goods Forum’s Plastic Waste Coalition of Action, Cédric Dever, explains: “When data lacks transparency, comparability or granularity, companies cannot reliably assess cost, regulatory risk, or system performance, leading to misallocated investments and suboptimal packaging decisions.” For policymakers and organisations working on waste systems, the real question is whether data is detailed and consistent enough to reveal what is actually happening. As WRAP’s Packaging Specialist Thomas Baker puts it, “the devil is in the detail”. Broad figures can inform decisions, but they can mask very different trends underneath that policy has not accounted for - the difference will always surface eventually. Without more granular information on packaging and waste flows, opportunities for infrastructure investment, reuse and stronger secondary markets may be missed. WWF’s Håbesland makes the same point at the level of individual packaging formats. Recycling outcomes vary significantly by polymer, format and geography. Data that groups PET bottles and flexible films together cannot show what is recyclable in a particular market, or where investment and engagement should be targeted. Inconsistent definitions and methodologies can also undermine accountability, Håbesland argues: when actors can choose between competing approaches to what counts as recyclable or how mismanagement is measured, objectively assessing performance becomes harder and the risk of greenwashing increases. This challenge wasalso highlighted in [recent research](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aea6562?ref=packagingeurope.com) on the data gaps facing the Global Plastics Treaty. Every actor encounters the data gap differently, but all are missing the same thing: trusted evidence about actual end-of-life outcomes. **Why no organisation can solve it alone** Packaging moves between producers, brands, retailers, consumers, waste operators, recyclers and public authorities, often across multiple jurisdictions. Relevant information sits with many different actors, gathered for different reasons and organised around definitions that rarely match. That makes packaging data a collaborative challenge. “Through its lifecycle, packaging is used and managed by many different organisations across value chains and countries,” says Opsomer. “Only coordinated, system-level alignment can ensure data is comprehensive, comparable, and trusted across actors.” The Consumer Goods Forum similarly argues that packaging data is too fragmented across the value chain for any one actor to create a complete system view. Progress requires standardised metrics, aligned methodologies, integrated data and neutral, independent governance. WRAP adds a practical imperative: as reporting requirements multiply, packaging data increasingly moves between businesses, regulators and jurisdictions. Common taxonomies and data-sharing frameworks could also reduce the reporting burden, minimising duplication as companies gather and reconcile information across different internal and external requirements. **Moving from diagnosis to shared action** The formation of the Packaging Data Hub Steering Committee reflects this convergence. Its members bring different expertise and priorities, but share the same recognition: better end of life packaging data matters because it enables better design, regulation, investment and accountability. The [Packaging Data Hub](https://www.packagingdata.earth/?ref=packagingeurope.com) is one response. It is being developed alongside leaders from industry and civil society to combine and harmonise existing information, strengthen it through additional data partnerships, and make sources, processing steps and confidence levels more transparent. But the wider shift matters more than any single platform. Analysts and reporting teams used to be the only ones who cared about packaging data. Now the whole system depends on it to make increasingly consequential decisions. The first phase of circular packaging focused on what packaging is designed to do. The next must provide a much clearer account of what actually happens to it in practice. **If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:** [*The ultimate guide to global packaging sustainability regulation in 2026*](https://packagingeurope.com/features/report-the-ultimate-guide-to-global-packaging-sustainability-regulation-in-2026/14625.article/?ref=packagingeurope.com) [*PPWR timeline: the key dates to know*](https://packagingeurope.com/features/ppwr-timeline-the-key-dates-to-know/14377.article?ref=packagingeurope.com) [*A closer look at the most innovative packaging solutions*](https://packagingeurope.com/features/the-ultimate-guide-to-packaging-innovation-in-2026/13821.article?ref=packagingeurope.com) [*Strategic learnings from the Sustainable Packaging Summit*](https://packagingeurope.com/features/strategic-learnings-from-the-2025-sustainable-packaging-summit/13750.article?ref=packagingeurope.com)