Retailers facing 2028 and 2030 sustainability targets may not always need a completely new packaging platform to make measurable progress.

Sometimes the larger opportunity is already sitting in a specification that has been used for years.

A plastic fitting inside a display.

A secondary sleeve that performs little useful function.

A disposable transit pack that could circulate several times.

A point-of-sale structure combining materials that stores struggle to separate after a campaign.

Andrew Young, Head of Sustainability at APS Group, argues that retailers are increasingly examining these relatively ordinary components as environmental targets move closer to day-to-day business planning.

In one example, APS says replacing a disposable packing format within its own operations with a reusable solution has reduced plastic packaging consumption by more than 11 tonnes annually. The company has also worked with a retailer to review in-store point-of-sale materials and replace several plastic components with fiber-based alternatives while retaining required appearance and durability.

The individual changes may appear small.

Across thousands of stores, campaigns or product units, they may not be.

That is an important shift in retail packaging sustainability.

The next gains may come not only from major material innovation, but from finding waste hidden inside specifications that are repeated at industrial scale.

2030 Is No Longer a Long-Term Packaging Deadline

Many companies originally established packaging and carbon targets several years ago with 2028 or 2030 implementation dates.

Those dates once sat outside normal commercial planning horizons.

They do not anymore.

Capital projects being approved now may still be operating in 2030.

Packaging contracts signed today can extend into future regulatory requirements.

Retail fixtures, transit systems and reusable assets may remain in circulation for several years.

This is changing the discussion between sustainability and procurement teams.

The question is becoming less:

“What is our sustainability strategy?”

and more:

“Which material specifications can we change this year without disrupting the business?”

That may sound less ambitious.

Operationally, it can be more useful.

PPWR Makes Packaging Review More Immediate

Regulation is adding urgency.

The EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation began applying on August 12, 2026, establishing a harmonised framework covering packaging placed on the European market.

Requirements will be introduced progressively, with major provisions approaching from 2030 around recyclability, recycled plastic content, packaging minimisation, empty space and selected single-use formats.

This creates a practical reason to review packaging before the deadline arrives.

A retailer does not want to discover in 2029 that thousands of packaging specifications need simultaneous redesign.

Likewise, packaging suppliers need time for:

material development;

testing;

tooling;

customer approval;

production trials;

and sourcing changes.

Incremental work completed now can potentially reduce the amount of urgent work required later.

That does not mean every existing package needs to change.

It means companies need better visibility over which specifications are likely to remain suitable.

EUDR Adds a Different Type of Data Requirement

Fiber-based products introduce another regulatory consideration.

The EU Deforestation Regulation covers wood and a range of products derived from wood, subject to its detailed scope and exemptions.

Following amendments agreed in 2025, the EUDR is scheduled to apply from December 30, 2026 for large and medium operators, while most micro and small businesses receive until June 30, 2027.

For packaging and point-of-sale procurement, this reinforces an important lesson:

Replacing plastic with paper is not the end of the sourcing discussion.

The buyer may also need reliable information about:

material origin;

supplier documentation;

chain of custody;

product classification;

and regulatory responsibilities.

Sustainability therefore increasingly involves better material data, not merely different materials.

The POS Display Is an Overlooked Waste Stream

Retail sustainability conversations tend to concentrate on the package taken home by the consumer.

Point-of-sale materials receive less attention.

But a large retailer can deploy displays, signage, promotional stands, shelf components and launch materials across hundreds or thousands of locations.

Many are temporary.

A display may support:

a product launch;

a seasonal promotion;

a beauty campaign;

a holiday event;

or a limited retail activation.

When the campaign ends, the materials need somewhere to go.

This can become difficult when a display combines:

paperboard;

PVC;

acrylic;

foam;

plastic clips;

laminated graphics;

metal fittings;

and adhesives.

Each individual component may represent relatively little material.

Multiply the same design across several thousand stores and the volume changes substantially.

That is why APS’s example is more significant than simply “replacing plastic with fiber.”

The more useful objective was to simplify the material system and make disposal easier at store level.

Material Simplification May Matter More Than Material Substitution

This distinction deserves attention.

A company can replace one plastic component with a fiber component and describe the project as progress.

But if the redesigned display still contains six incompatible materials that need manual separation, the end-of-life problem may remain.

The stronger approach may be:

remove a component entirely;

reduce the number of material types;

design components for easy separation;

reuse structural parts;

or use materials that fit established recovery streams.

That is a different design philosophy.

Instead of asking:

“What can replace this plastic?”

ask:

“Why is this component here at all?”

If it performs no necessary structural, protective or presentation function, elimination may provide a cleaner result than substitution.

This is particularly relevant to retail displays, luxury packaging and promotional packs, where additional components are often used primarily for visual effect.

Fiber Is Not Automatically the Better Answer

The current interest in paper and molded fiber creates obvious opportunities for the paper and board industry.

But a credible packaging strategy should avoid assuming that every switch from plastic to fiber reduces environmental impact.

The alternative still needs to perform.

A plastic component may be extremely lightweight.

Replacing it with a thicker fiber construction could increase total material consumption.

A fiber display may require a coating for moisture resistance.

A paper-based component may have to withstand months inside a retail environment.

And some products may need transparency or mechanical properties that paper cannot efficiently provide.

The correct comparison is therefore not:

plastic bad, paper good.

It is:

Which structure provides the required performance with the least unnecessary material and the most workable recovery route?

That is a much stronger procurement standard.

Repetition Is What Makes a Small Change Important

Retail operates on multiplication.

Removing five grams from one pack means almost nothing.

Remove five grams from ten million packs and the result is 50 tonnes of material.

The same principle applies to POS.

One plastic fitting may be insignificant.

Use four of them across 3,000 stores and multiple campaigns each year, and the purchasing and waste volumes start to look very different.

This is why procurement data can reveal opportunities that sustainability teams might otherwise miss.

Companies should identify:

the most frequently purchased packaging components;

the highest-volume POS structures;

materials with short useful lives;

items disposed of immediately after delivery;

and products repeated across the largest number of locations.

Those are often better starting points than the most visually impressive packaging project.

Reuse Can Be Powerful When the Loop Is Controlled

APS says its own reusable packing change removes more than 11 tonnes of plastic use annually.

Reuse can be particularly attractive inside controlled business systems.

An internal transit container, for example, may move repeatedly between:

production;

warehouse;

distribution center;

and retail site.

If the business controls the return loop, it can potentially use the same asset many times.

That is very different from consumer reuse, where the company has limited control over whether a package actually comes back.

The economics depend on several variables:

purchase cost;

number of rotations;

loss rate;

return transport;

cleaning;

storage;

and damage.

A reusable format that survives 100 cycles can look very attractive.

The same asset lost after two cycles may not.

This means companies should calculate cost and impact per use, not simply compare the purchase price of reusable and disposable packaging.

Luxury Packaging Has a Different Challenge

Premium and luxury packaging presents another tension.

Brands want to reduce material use without making a high-value product appear cheaper.

Historically, premium presentation has often relied on additional components:

magnets;

plastic fitments;

foam;

ribbons;

multiple board layers;

decorative laminates;

and complex inserts.

The consumer experience matters, particularly in beauty, fragrance, gifting and luxury goods.

So simply stripping the package down may not work commercially.

The more interesting development is in structural design.

Paper engineering, molded pulp inserts and modular carton structures can sometimes preserve the reveal or presentation experience while reducing the number of material types.

The objective is not necessarily to make premium packaging minimal.

It is to reduce unnecessary complexity while preserving the function that creates perceived value.

That creates new opportunities for carton converters, rigid-box manufacturers and molded-fiber suppliers.

Procurement Can Find Savings Sustainability Teams Cannot See

The original APS commentary makes another useful point: sustainability and procurement are increasingly working together.

That relationship matters because procurement sees data sustainability teams may not.

Purchase volumes.

Specification frequency.

Supplier concentration.

Unit costs.

Order quantities.

Lead times.

Alternative materials.

A sustainability team may know that the company wants to remove plastic.

Procurement may know that one small plastic component is purchased 2.5 million times per year.

That changes priorities.

Likewise, the cheapest item may not offer the best improvement.

A component costing only a few cents may be responsible for significant material volume because of how often it is used.

The largest sustainability gains are therefore not always found in the highest-value purchases.

They may be hiding in high-frequency, low-value components.

Suppliers Need to Be Part of the Specification Review

APS says its retail project was conducted alongside material suppliers.

That is another important point.

Suppliers often understand material and production limitations that buyers do not see.

A converter may know:

which board weight can be reduced safely;

whether a coating can be removed;

whether two components can become one;

which tooling already exists;

whether a plastic fitting can be replaced structurally;

or how a display could be designed for faster separation after use.

This is why supplier collaboration can become more valuable than simply requesting a quote for a predefined specification.

If the specification is already frozen, much of the possible improvement has already been excluded.

The better question to suppliers is sometimes:

“How would you redesign this?”

rather than:

“How cheaply can you manufacture this?”

The Next Sustainability Project Does Not Need to Be Revolutionary

Packaging news naturally focuses on major breakthroughs.

A new barrier technology.

A new polymer.

A new molded-fiber process.

A new recycling plant.

Those developments matter.

But businesses approaching 2030 also need changes that can be implemented now.

Remove one unnecessary insert.

Reduce the gauge of a film where testing supports it.

Move from mixed-material POS to easier-to-separate construction.

Standardize three similar boxes into one format.

Replace a disposable internal transit pack with a reusable system.

Reduce a display footprint without reducing visibility.

None of those actions makes a dramatic headline.

Across a large retail estate, they can produce measurable results.

But Measure the Result Before Claiming Success

The final step is measurement.

A material change should not automatically become a sustainability claim.

If a company replaces plastic with fiber, it should know:

how much material was removed;

how much new material was added;

whether product performance changed;

what happens at end of life;

and whether the change affected transport or storage.

Similarly, a reusable solution should be evaluated using actual return rates and number of rotations.

Without those figures, sustainability can become a story about intentions rather than outcomes.

APS provides one useful number in this case: more than 11 tonnes of plastic packaging avoided annually through its reusable packing change. That figure is company-reported, but it demonstrates the type of measurable result businesses should aim to produce.

What Should Retailers Review First?

For retailers, brands and procurement teams, the fastest way to find opportunities may be to stop looking for a completely new sustainability project.

Start with what you already buy.

Export the previous 12 months of packaging and POS procurement data.

Then rank specifications by:

annual unit volume;

total material weight;

number of material types;

useful life;

ability to recycle or reuse;

and number of retail locations using the item.

The results may be surprising.

The biggest opportunity may not be the expensive luxury gift box everyone is discussing.

It could be a small plastic holder repeated four million times.

Or a disposable warehouse pack used every day.

Or a promotional display containing three materials where one would work.

Before Approving Another “Sustainable” Redesign, Multiply It

There is one simple calculation retail packaging teams should perform before choosing their next project.

Take the amount of material you can realistically remove from one unit.

Then multiply it by the annual production quantity.

A 10-gram change across 100,000 units removes one tonne.

Across one million units, it removes ten tonnes.

Across ten million units, it removes 100 tonnes.

That is why seemingly minor specification work can matter.

Then ask four more questions:

Does the change preserve the performance we actually need?

Does it simplify or complicate disposal?

Can stores and consumers understand what to do with it?

And can the supplier implement it without creating a new cost or supply problem somewhere else?

If the answers work, do not dismiss the project because it looks too small.

Retail sustainability is ultimately an issue of scale and repetition.

The companies that make measurable progress toward 2028 and 2030 may not always be the ones launching the most radical packaging concepts.

They may be the ones disciplined enough to question thousands of ordinary specifications already moving through their businesses every day.

One component may be insignificant. One component multiplied across an entire retail network rarely is.

Last Updated on 04/09/2026 by Jota Machinery