Is sustainability on a slippery slope? You may be forgiven for thinking so, given the steady stream of news and social media posts in recent months about major multinationals revising or rolling back sustainability pledges – particularly those tied to packaging.
On the surface, it seems like backpedalling. A few cases in point: Unilever has pushed out its target for 100 per cent recyclable plastic packaging to 2035 for flexibles – ten years beyond its original goal – and walked back its ambition to halve virgin plastic use by 2025, now aiming for a more modest 30 per cent reduction by 2026. Coca-Cola, meanwhile, has come under fire for “quietly” dropping its 25 per cent reusable packaging target for 2030, as well as pushing out key recycled content and collection goals to 2035.
Given the urgency of climate and plastic pollution challenges, these revisions ring alarm bells in some sectors, and raise the uneasy question: were these brands overpromising to begin with – or are we witnessing a systemic retreat from hard-won environmental progress?
Perhaps it’s both.
Unilever has framed its changes as a move toward “pragmatic” realism. Likewise, Coca-Cola has cited operational complexity and the lack of a unified global regulatory framework as constraints. In other words, it’s not that these companies have stopped caring about sustainability – it’s that they’ve hit the wall on what’s technically or commercially feasible within current systems.
That may well be true. But what’s at stake here is trust.
Ambition is critical in driving change – it sets the tone for supply chains, informs investment in new infrastructure, and signals commitment to consumers. Yet, ambition without delivery risks tipping into greenwash. When high-profile companies walk back their pledges without clear accountability or transparency, the entire industry’s credibility suffers.
Contrast this with Nestlé which, it seems from reports, has largely held course on its 2025 packaging targets. While it has faced its own challenges, Nestlé has channelled efforts into practical measures – funding recycling infrastructure, investing in material innovation, and steadily improving its packaging recyclability. There’s a lesson here: steady progress with system-level support may be more meaningful than bold targets that aren’t backed by a viable roadmap.
So, where does that leave us?
Firstly, brands should be called out when they obscure or dilute environmental goals. But equally, we should examine whether the frameworks supporting those goals – including regulation, infrastructure and market incentives – are robust enough to enable delivery.
Secondly, the conversation must move beyond packaging design to system redesign. Without harmonised policies, collection systems, and end-markets for recycled materials, even the most recyclable pack is destined for landfill.
Finally, we as an industry must recognise the gap between aspiration and implementation – and bridge it with collaboration, investment and, crucially, transparency.
Sustainability isn’t a slogan. It’s a systems challenge. And we’re at a critical juncture: retreat is understandable, but it cannot become the norm.
This comment was first published in the July-August 2025 print issue of PKN Packaging News, p3.
