How should recyclable packaging be labelled? This is also at the centre of the discussion about EU Packaging Ordinance, whose final draft has now been presented. In the latest packaging journal and interpack podcast, we talk to Stefan Munz, Head of Innovation and Sustainability at EKO POINT. Read excerpts from the interview here.

packaging journal: The final draft of the European Packaging Ordinance PPWR is here. Among other things, it provides for recycling quotas to be achieved by 2030 and 2040. StopDo you think these goals are realistic?

Stefan Munz: The quotas are challenging. We know from current studies that in order to fulfil the quotas of the PPWR, the use of recyclates must quadruple. You first have to produce these quantities. And the recycling industry is finding this relatively difficult at the moment, as competition for primary materials is fierce, market prices are low and recyclates are currently very difficult to sell. This means that all those who produce recyclates actually have an issue at the moment, and for them this PPWR and, in Germany in particular, Section 21 of the Packaging Act must come much sooner.

So you are hoping for a German regulation, as announced in the coalition agreement?

That's exactly what we're hoping for. I would rate the probability of this happening as relatively high. It is in the coalition agreement and we assume that this can still be achieved in this legislative period. Germany was a pioneer anyway and if we look at the quota requirements in the PPWR, for example, we have no issue at all in Germany in terms of recycling quotas or the necessary recycling infrastructure. So there is actually no reason for us in Germany to wait at all. This §21 requires the dual systems to create incentives for the use of easily regulated packaging and it could be amended in the very short term. That would give the issue another boost.

With a statutory fund model, we reward resource-conserving and recycling-friendly packaging design and the use of recyclates. We are introducing a recycling label.
Quote from the coalition agreement of the Ampel government

Stefan Munz: These are exactly the two points that we would really like to see

Strictly speaking, there has been such a label before. The Green Dot was introduced 30 years ago and many consumers still perceive it today as a kind of official label, even though the labelling obligation has not existed for a very, very long time. The Green Dot is etched in our memories. For many years, it was regarded as a waste disposal symbol and for many consumers it still symbolises packaging that is easy to recycle. In reality, however, the Green Dot was and is nothing more than a trademark of the former monopoly and this naturally leads to uncertainty.

How does this manifest itself in practice?

We recently had a citizen from Schwerin who also sent us photos of his property management company, which insists that only packaging with the green dot should be thrown in the yellow bin. The waste brochure of this municipal company also stated that only packaging with the Green Dot should be put in the yellow bin. This leads to packaging being incinerated and removed from the system for good. So many people are still looking for the Green Dot, but it rarely exists and has nothing to say.

This makes it all the more important to educate people about correct waste separation. In your opinion, is enough being done?

We have realised that knowledge about correct waste separation has been lost, especially among the younger generation. The „Waste separation works“ campaign does a really good job of raising awareness, even though the budget is still far too low. I would like to see this budget massively increased.

Let's take another look at the systems market. How is it divided up in Germany?

We currently have ten dual systems on the market. They are faced with over 900,000 companies that place packaging on the market. These include very large companies, including retailers with their own brands. But there are also beekeepers who only place a few jars of honey on the market each year.

When it comes to licence fees, there is still a perception that it is a kind of fee that is non-negotiable, as if it had been imposed by some authority, or how do you perceive that?

Exactly. The term fee alone is misleading, because these are not fees, but prices that can be freely negotiated on the market, and there is actually room for manoeuvre. So anyone who has not renegotiated their prices for a long time should definitely do so. Prices change every year and companies are well advised to review their contracts annually.

So if you compare costs, you can make significant savings?

That's how it is! Especially those companies that still have old contracts will be surprised at what is possible. Although prices have risen slightly at the moment, they have fallen significantly in a long-term comparison.

So if it's not a fee, it's not a notice that should end up in the legal department, but rather in the purchasing department?

Correct. These are participation fees and they belong in purchasing in order to negotiate conditions. It has nothing to do with a fee!

So that means that anyone who has a contract with the dual partner and has not reviewed it for years should do so now?

He should urgently check this because there is room for manoeuvre. It's very easy to save costs here.

Mr Munz, thank you for the interview!

packaging people, the podcast from packaging journal and interpack will be published from August onwards once a month. It can be accessed via all known podcast portals, such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Deezer or Google Podcasts and subscribed to. It is also available on the online pages of packaging journal and interpack.