PKN EXCLUSIVE: As productivity returns to the national policy agenda, BioPak co-founder Richard Fine argues that Australia's waste and recovery systems should be part of the conversation.
Watch the full interview to hear Fine's views on productivity, recovery infrastructure, policy harmonisation and the future of packaging sustainability.
Interview transcript: Edited for clarity
PKN Industry Update: Productivity, packaging and the case for a systems reset
Lindy Hughson: Productivity has become a major theme in recent federal budget discussions, but productivity is about more than tax reform and investment settings. It is also about reducing friction in the systems businesses rely on every day, including waste and recovery systems.
For the packaging industry, that raises some important questions. Are current recovery systems delivering efficient real-world outcomes? And how do we move beyond material debates towards systems that genuinely work at scale?
Joining me today is Richard Fine, co-founder of BioPak, whose latest Impact Report calls for what the company describes as a "systems reset" around packaging, recovery infrastructure and policy.
Richard, when we talk about productivity nationally, waste probably isn't the first thing people think about. How much inefficiency exists in Australia's current recovery systems?
Richard Fine: I think there's a lot of hidden inefficiency in the system. Waste is often treated as an environmental issue, but it's also a productivity issue.
Every time we have contamination, rejected loads, inconsistent bin systems, unclear labelling or materials ending up in the wrong recovery pathway, there's a cost. That cost is ultimately carried by businesses, councils, recyclers, composters, consumers and the broader economy.
Foodservice packaging performs an important function – it allows people to eat and drink hygienically, affordably and conveniently on the go. The question isn't simply how we get rid of packaging, but how we design the most efficient recovery system around the way packaging is actually used.
Lindy Hughson: Where does BioPak see the biggest friction point?
Richard Fine: The biggest friction point is misalignment.
Packaging may be designed for one outcome, but the collection and recovery system may not be able to deliver that outcome in practice. A product might be technically recyclable, but if it's food-soiled, disposed of away from home, or not accepted by the local processor, the real-world outcome may still be landfill.
The same principle applies to compostable packaging. Certification is important, but it only delivers an outcome if the packaging is collected with food waste and accepted by composters.
The friction isn't just the material itself – it's the gap between product design, consumer behaviour, collection systems, processing capacity and policy.
Lindy Hughson: Are inconsistent bin systems and contamination creating avoidable costs?
Richard Fine: Absolutely.
Consumers are often blamed for getting the bin wrong, but in many cases the system is simply too confusing. Rules vary between councils, venues, states and material types. Even people who want to do the right thing often don't know what the right thing is.
That confusion creates contamination. Contamination creates sorting costs, rejected loads and landfill outcomes.
A more efficient system would reduce the number of decisions consumers need to make, create clearer recovery pathways and better align packaging formats with available infrastructure.
Complexity is expensive. Confusion is expensive. Contamination is expensive.
Lindy Hughson: In BioPak's 2025 Impact Report, you talk about the need for a systems reset. What prompted that shift in thinking?
Richard Fine: It comes from recognising that product innovation alone isn't enough.
For years, the packaging conversation has focused on materials – whether something is paper, plastic, recyclable, compostable, reusable, renewable or recycled. Those questions are important, but they don't tell the whole story.
The more important question is: what outcome are we trying to achieve, and what conditions need to exist for that outcome to happen?
If the goal is recycling, the packaging needs to be collected, sorted, accepted by a processor and supported by an end market. If the goal is composting, it needs to be certified, collected with food waste and processed under the right conditions. If the goal is reuse, you need collection systems, washing infrastructure and enough reuse cycles to make the system viable.
The systems reset is really about moving from claims to outcomes – focusing on what actually happens after use.
Lindy Hughson: What does evidence-based packaging policy look like in practice?
Richard Fine: It starts with data.
We need better information about what actually happens to packaging after use so decisions are based on evidence rather than assumptions. Better data helps identify where systems are working, where they're failing, and where investment and policy can deliver the greatest impact.
Lindy Hughson: How important is alignment between packaging design and recovery infrastructure?
Richard Fine: It's critical.
A material can look good in theory but still fail in practice if the system around it doesn't work. This is especially true in foodservice, where packaging is often used briefly, contaminated with food, consumed away from home and disposed of in public bins.
The question shouldn't be whether a material is theoretically recoverable. It should be whether it is recoverable under the actual conditions in which it is used.
Lindy Hughson: Foodservice packaging operates very differently to retail packaging. How often do policy discussions overlook those realities?
Richard Fine: Quite often.
Foodservice packaging is typically used for a short period, frequently food-soiled and often consumed away from home. Disposal decisions are made quickly by people who aren't thinking deeply about waste systems.
We need to design systems around that reality, not around ideal behaviour.
Foodservice disposables support cafes, quick-service restaurants, schools, hospitals, events and catering businesses. Rather than demonising the packaging, we should focus on designing the lowest-impact, lowest-friction recovery system around the function it performs.
Lindy Hughson: What role could composting infrastructure play?
Richard Fine: Composting can play an important role, but it's not a universal solution.
In foodservice environments, where packaging is often contaminated with food, composting can provide a practical pathway if the packaging is certified, collected with food waste and accepted by composters.
The real opportunity is often recovering food waste and packaging together where separation is unrealistic. That can reduce contamination in recycling streams and provide a practical recovery option for food-soiled materials.
Like recycling and reuse, composting works best when applied in the right context and supported by the right infrastructure.
Lindy Hughson: If we're serious about improving both circularity and productivity, where should the next wave of effort be focused?
Richard Fine: Alignment and data.
We need better real-world information, more consistent rules, clearer recovery pathways and stronger collaboration between producers, foodservice operators, councils, recyclers, composters, governments and consumers.
Too many parts of the system still operate in silos. The next phase shouldn't be about picking a single winner. It should be about creating the conditions that allow the right solutions to work in the right applications.
Lindy Hughson: Do we need greater national consistency?
Richard Fine: Absolutely.
It's difficult for businesses to invest, innovate and communicate clearly when rules differ across jurisdictions. Inconsistent systems create confusion for consumers and uncertainty for business.
National consistency doesn't mean identical infrastructure everywhere overnight. It means clearer national direction, more consistent definitions and better alignment between policy, packaging design and recovery capability.
Consistency reduces friction, and reducing friction is a productivity gain.
Lindy Hughson: What role should the federal government play?
Richard Fine: The federal government has an important role in creating consistency and setting direction.
Industry can innovate, but it's difficult to scale solutions when policy settings are fragmented or unclear.
Government can support national standards, better data collection, clearer labelling, infrastructure investment and policy settings that reward real-world recovery outcomes rather than theoretical claims.
Lindy Hughson: How important is industry collaboration?
Richard Fine: It's essential.
No single company, council, recycler, composter or government agency can solve this challenge alone.
We need practical collaboration focused on real operating conditions, recovery pathways, contamination levels, processor acceptance criteria and economic viability. Shared data and a shared evidence base are critical if we're going to design better systems.
Lindy Hughson: As BioPak approaches its 20th anniversary, where does the sustainable packaging conversation need to move next?
Richard Fine: We need to get back to basics.
We should be asking what job packaging performs, how it is used, what condition it's in after use, and what recovery pathway can realistically process it.
The early sustainability conversation focused on better materials, and that was necessary. The next phase needs to focus on better systems.
Reuse, recycling and composting all have a role, but only when they're applied in the right context and supported by the right infrastructure.
The opportunity is to make sustainability easier – easier for consumers, foodservice operators, councils and processors. If we reduce confusion, design around real-world behaviour and use data to identify where systems are failing, we can improve environmental outcomes and productivity at the same time.
