Amid escalating plastic pollution and mounting pressure from stakeholders, many companies once pledged to eliminate virgin plastic by 2025. Today, however, most are quietly reneging on these commitments. Recycled plastic has emerged as the fallback solution — yet this path continues to exacerbate the very problem it claims to solve. Not only does recycled plastic still depend on fossil fuels, it also contributes to microplastic pollution, which has been detected in human blood, lungs, and placentas. For procurement and sustainability leaders, this is more than an environmental issue — it’s a strategic inflection point. The shift toward true packaging sustainability must begin with material selection, not end-of-life mitigation.
The Structural Failure of the Recycled Plastic Supply Chain
The promise of sustainable packaging is being undermined by fragmented and undercapitalized supply chains. According to Nuha Siddiqui, CEO of the climate-tech startup Erthos, global consumer brands overestimated the readiness of their suppliers. Unlike conventional plastic, which benefits from a streamlined, linear production model, emerging bio-based alternatives face a disjointed supply landscape. This complexity results in prolonged testing cycles and delays in adoption.
Only 2% of the ambitious 2019 sustainability targets have been met. The reason isn’t a lack of innovation — it’s a lack of scalable infrastructure. Brands expected quick wins without long-term investment, leading to unrealistic expectations and widespread retrenchment.
Backtracking by Market Leaders Sends Dangerous Signals
A single major brand’s decision to delay alternative material adoption can ripple across an entire industry. When early adopters withdraw, it reduces capital flow toward innovation and signals to converters and manufacturers that sustainable materials are no longer an urgent priority. This hesitance has already impacted the food and beverage, personal care, and textile sectors — all of which were previously frontrunners in piloting alternative packaging.
Material innovators now face a survival challenge. Without sufficient demand, many are forced to delay development or exit entirely. In effect, a stalled market ensures that price parity with plastic — a key brand requirement — remains unattainable. Scale demands commitment, and commitment demands leadership.
Misaligned Incentives and the Cost Conundrum
The prevailing logic among brands is to treat sustainable materials as a business case, not a strategic imperative. But expecting new materials to achieve price and performance parity with plastics — a material subsidized by decades of infrastructure investment — before they reach commercial scale is unrealistic.
Furthermore, existing end-of-life systems for bio-based packaging are rudimentary at best. While traditional recycling systems struggle with a global success rate of just 9%, brands still demand perfect circularity from alternatives that have yet to scale. This double standard stalls momentum and reinforces reliance on outdated materials.
Policy Fragmentation and the Role of Capital Markets
Geopolitical and regulatory inconsistency also plays a role. While Europe and parts of Asia are advancing bans and subsidies for sustainable materials, the U.S. has taken a disjointed approach, stalling progress. Multi-stakeholder platforms like the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, United Nations, and PACT have called for unified frameworks — yet without regulatory teeth, their influence is limited.
Capital allocation remains a more powerful lever. According to Dr. Jen Vanderhove of the BBIA, the financial sector has a pivotal role in shifting the materials landscape. However, most investment still flows into fossil-based plastics. Unlocking large-scale adoption of bio-based packaging requires investors to view sustainability not just as an ethical choice, but as a long-term growth strategy.
Conclusion: From Lagging Promises to Leading Action
For executives and procurement leaders, the next five years will define whether sustainable materials become the norm or remain a niche. The opportunity is there: scalable, high-performance alternatives are emerging — including innovations in seaweed-based films and advanced bio-composites. But progress will depend on deliberate investment, cross-sector collaboration, and a reframing of sustainability from compliance cost to strategic asset.
If brands and investors continue to delay, they risk locking in another decade of dependence on materials that no longer align with environmental realities or consumer expectations. The time to act is not when packaging reaches the landfill — it’s when materials are first selected.