Lightweight, brandable, airtight, and cheap: sachets embody plastic’s most appealing qualities. As single-serving pouches, they are touted as affordable for low-income households. Yet, the actual cost of sachets extends far beyond their price. Their short-lived life triggers serious environmental, health, and social impacts, particularly in the very communities they claim to assist.

The first record of commercially sold sachets was in the 1980s by Unilever’s India subsidiary, Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL). They targeted lower-income areas with small quantities of shampoo, sold in plastic pouches for just 1 rupee ($0.01). By the turn of the century, 70% of all shampoo in India sold was in sachets and companies such as Nestle SA and The Procter & Gamble Company had also jumped on the bandwagon.  A staggering 2 billion sachets containing shampoo, laundry detergent, candy and more are now sold daily. These sales amount to enough sachets per year to blanket the entire Earth’s surface.

So why did we, and 116 other organisations globally, sign a letter asking for them to be phased out?

A means to exploit the poor and undermine local culture 

In the Global South, sachets are marketed aggressively at low-income households. At first, they may appear as an economical choice for families with low weekly earnings. A closer examination of the prices per 100g or 100ml (the “unit cost”) reveals that sachet products are frequently pricier than their counterparts in bottles or larger containers. The packaging also encourages the use of more product than may be necessary, resulting in more money lost over time. The price difference becomes worse over time. A 10ml shampoo sachet is used for one wash, while a 200ml bottle enables 20+ washes with less shampoo per wash. 

The takeover of sachets has meant traditional refill systems and the use of natural packaging have been forgotten. Before they flooded the market, families would bring their containers to shops, and shopkeepers would measure out portions of items such as sugar or cooking oil catering for all sizes and needs with no environmental impact.

The epitome of throw-away culture, but where is  ‘away’?

A typical sachet has an airtight inner plastic layer that protects the product, a foil barrier against moisture and heat, and an outer flexible layer that can be printed on. An adhesive holds it all together.

This small, single-use, yet durable design creates big environmental impacts. Their light weight means they often end up in forests, rivers, and oceans. From here, animals mistake them for food and get sick or even die after consuming them. Discarded sachets also worsen flooding by clogging waterways and drains, leading to more water-borne diseases. For something that is used for seconds, they have a very long-lasting impact!  

For recyclers and waste pickers, sachets have no value. The layers of cheap materials and adhesive render them unrecyclable and expensive to manage. So there is little incentive to collect them, as nothing useful can be done with them. . Former CEO of Unilever, Paul Polman, has said: “Packaging this small and with such little value has proved impossible to collect at scale, let alone recycle. We need to get rid of harmful sachets for good”. And he is not the only one who has spoken out. Unilever’s President for Global Food and Refreshments, Hanneke Faber, branded their multilayer design as ‘evil’ due to its non-recyclability. 

Producer responsibility: a burning question

Despite this, sachets continue to be sold in areas where waste collection infrastructure is non-existent. If not ending up in nature, the fate of most sachets is either a dumpsite or, more commonly, some form of burning. This is highly toxic, being detrimental to both human health and ecosystems, as well as contributing to the climate crisis. 

Various “recycling” schemes promoted by the producers of sachets often turn out to be little more than burning them, often as fuel for barbecue stalls or laundries, where they pollute further.

In 2017, Unilever invested in “revolutionary” chemical recycling plants in Indonesia that claimed to solve the problem of sachets. Just two years later, they quietly shut down the project. This was due to the ‘logistical difficulties of sachet collection and the challenging economics around the end product.’

In 2019, Unilever announced plans to support refill systems. They planned vendor machines in the Philippines to refill containers with shampoo and conditioner. Reuters visited the sites of these refill stations and discovered that Unilever had removed them after just one month. 

So, what is the solution?

Products sold in sachets can be sold as part of a refill system, but companies are reluctant to invest in the infrastructure needed.  Sachets are cheap to produce and so make more profit.  So they continue to focus on ways to better managing waste instead of avoiding it in the first place. 

We need companies to stop pushing unproven and harmful processes such as ‘chemical recycling’ as a solution. We need them to stop allowing poor communities, our planet and climate to bear the brunt of sachets devastating costs. We need them to commit to safe and sustainable reuse and refill systems that are accessible to everyone.

If you agree that plastic sachets should be phased out, then share our Instagram post so more people see the true cost of sachets! 

We currently produce an enormous quantity of waste, especially plastic. This overproduction, and the resulting mismanagement, directly increase greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change. 

A recent Global Alliance Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) report reveals the ‘clearest and most comprehensive evidence yet’ that a zero waste approach would totally transform this situation by reducing emissions and mitigating the effects of extreme weather. 

In this blog post, we break down some of their key findings. 

1. Separate food waste to reduce methane emissions

Composting is a game-changer when it comes to reducing methane emissions and is better for the planet than recycling. When organic waste, like food scraps, decomposes in landfills, it produces a high amount of methane, which is released into the atmosphere. But by separating it, we can ensure it is composted to create nutrient-rich soil. According to the GAIA report, composting our organic waste will reduce methane emissions from landfills by a whopping 62%. And when we add mechanical recovery and biological treatment of residuals, we can reduce these methane emissions by an average of 95%!

2. Reuse and refill to reduce emissions from fossil fuels

Plastic, over 95% of which is derived from fossil fuel, leaves a massive carbon footprint – creating emissions at every stage of its lifecycle. A staggering 44% of plastic is used for packaging or disposable items. By promoting refill and reuse systems and embracing a zero-waste approach, companies and local governments can easily reduce non-essential plastic use.

This will drastically decrease our fossil fuel-related emissions, as well as our dependency on oil and gas.

3. Stop burning trash to cut greenhouse emissions

Incineration in various guises, such as ‘plastic-to-fuel’, is often promoted as a “solution” for plastic waste. The GAIA report shows that this is a very expensive, energy-intensive and inefficient process. It also creates a ‘lock-in effect’ that guarantees climate emissions for years to come. A study in Seoul, a city that relies significantly on incineration, found that the emissions from incineration were five times higher than from landfills. Although limited studies have been done on the impact of incineration, it is widely accepted that burning plastic has severe climate, environmental, and health impacts. 

4. Ban plastics to build resilience against extreme weather events

Flooding is becoming more frequent due to climate change, and studies have found that mismanaged waste exacerbates the situation. Plastic waste clogs drainage systems, so much so that Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda all banned plastic bags following severe flooding. Discarded waste is a breeding ground for insects known to spread diseases.

In Manila, for example, the dumping of solid waste was identified as a significant factor in the high levels of infections during floods and their aftermath. A zero-waste approach would eliminate this waste, meaning we can mitigate the impact of severe weather events.

5. Use compost to improve soil health

The final benefit of zero waste that we will discuss here – as there are many more – is how composting can improve soil health. Our planet’s soil, a crucial element of ecosystems, is facing significant impacts from climate change. Soil moisture decreases due to higher air and soil temperatures, leading to aridity and desertification. This, coupled with erosion, could reduce food production by 25% by 2050. Compost provides an easy solution by improving soil organic matter, increasing its capacity for nutrient storage, and improving water absorption, strengthening soil resilience to climate change. Composting also reduces pollution, landfill waste, soil erosion, and surface and groundwater contamination, making it a valuable tool for adapting to climate change.

Do you want to start reducing waste? You can find out more about how to compost at home in our blogpost: The best recycling was invented by Mother Nature or you can read our tips for reducing plastic waste (it might not be the advice you expect!)

Want more information and waste and the climate? Read the executive summary of the ‘Zero waste to zero emissions’ or the full report.