Packaging has a data problem, which can make it hard to prioritise resource allocation and assess the performance of sustainability-focussed projects. In this article, Sarah Perreard, Co-CEO, Earth Action and Packaging Data Hub Director and Yoni Shiran, Partner, Systemiq and Packaging Data Hub Director, discuss some potential solutions to this issue.
Ambition around packaging recycling has increased markedly in recent years. Targets are multiplying, regulation is tightening and investment in recycling infrastructure continues to grow. And yet, when you look at actual outcomes, progress remains uneven and it is often difficult to say with confidence what is improving.
Material complexity, weak infrastructure and unfavourable economics are part of the story. But there is also a more practical constraint. The data underpinning packaging decisions is often fragmented or too coarse to reflect what is happening in specific markets and formats.
Why is that? Without a clearer and more comparable basis for understanding the system, it becomes harder to prioritise action, justify trade-offs and scale what works.
When that foundation is weak, alignment becomes difficult. Different actors end up working from different reference points, even when their objectives are broadly similar.
The invisible infrastructure behind packaging decisions
Every decision about packaging relies on assumptions about what happens after use. Design choices, regulatory targets, investment decisions, infrastructure strategies, and disclosure frameworks all depend on some understanding of collection, sorting and recycling outcomes.
Because companies need to know whether a specific packaging format is actually recycled in a given market. Policymakers need visibility into waste flows. Investors need clarity on where infrastructure gaps are most acute. And civil society needs data to assess progress and hold actors accountable.
Why today’s packaging data falls short
Despite the proliferation of datasets, reporting platforms and analytical tools, many core challenges persist as the information available remains fragmented, inconsistent or based on assumptions that are difficult to verify.
The first challenge is that data is scattered across sources that are not designed to work together. Different organisations publish different figures for the same country or material stream, often using distinct methodologies and different taxonomies. Even something as basic as a national recycling rate can vary significantly depending on how it is calculated.
Definitions are another source of inconsistency. Terms such as “recycling rate,” “recyclability” or “end-of-life fate” are not always aligned across frameworks. So, in practice, companies and regulators may be forced to choose between competing numbers rather than rely on a shared baseline.
Another weakness is granularity – or the lack of it. Data is often grouped into broad material categories. For plastics, this typically means little more than a distinction between rigid and flexible. And many countries lack country-specific data, let alone local data. Yet compliance decisions, eco-design choices and capital allocation increasingly depend on format- and market-specific insight.
The consequences are visible
As regulatory scrutiny intensifies, these weaknesses directly translate into cost and risk.
Meanwhile teams spend time reconciling datasets, commissioning bespoke analyses and defending assumptions. Uncertainty makes it harder to assess which interventions are delivering results and where investment is most needed.
So we find ourselves in a situation where more data has not necessarily produced more clarity.
What decision-grade packaging data requires
It is widely acknowledged that data on packaging end-of-life remains inconsistent, incomplete and difficult to reconcile across sources. In many markets, even basic metrics are contested.
If packaging strategies are to withstand regulatory scrutiny and investor expectations, this foundation needs to improve. At a minimum, that means shared definitions that allow comparison across markets, sufficient granularity to reflect real packaging formats, and transparency around assumptions and confidence levels. Data must also be recent enough to reflect current conditions and structured so that it can be reused across reporting, regulation and investment processes.
The reality is that no single organisation can deliver this alone.
Building shared foundations
Momentum is building toward shared global packaging data infrastructure: a common reference layer that can be reused across regulation, reporting, investment and design.
The Packaging Data Hub is the emerging response to that demand. Co-led by Systemiq and Earth Action, and developed in alignment with organisations including the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, WWF, The Consumer Goods Forum, CDP, WRAP and the World Economic Forum’s Global Plastic Action Partnership, it is harmonising existing datasets and strengthening them through structured validation and in-country research.
Designed with a public-good baseline, the initiative is also working to better align data held by Producer Responsibility Organisations, technology providers, and other system actors. A dedicated data quality framework makes assumptions and confidence levels explicit, supporting the development of a harmonised reference layer that can be trusted – and continuously improved.
The importance lies less in any single platform than in the shift under way: from fragmented datasets toward shared system infrastructure.
This article marks the start of a broader examination of what it will take to close the packaging data gap. In the coming months, contributions from across the value chain – including brands, NGOs, policymakers, investors and technology providers – will explore how data quality shapes commitments, reporting, EPR design, infrastructure investment and consumer trust in practice.
If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:
The ultimate guide to packaging innovation in 2026
The ‘complex reality’ of reusable packaging in Europe
Everything you need to know about global packaging sustainability regulation
No comments yet