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! 

“With every product sold, we’ll recover 1kg of ocean-bound plastic. Together, we can stop plastic pollution”

Have you ever seen a claim like this? We have. As a network that organises thousands of cleanups every year, Trash Hero is often approached by companies offering so-called “plastic offsetting”. We are offered cash for trash, in return for joining a “plastic credits” scheme. 

The plastic credits industry is experiencing rapid global growth, with plastic producers queuing up to be certified. With a contribution to a middleman – like Verra or Plastic Bank – they can buy themselves “plastic neutrality”, supposedly achieved by balancing a portion of their production with a collection of plastic waste. 

Trash Hero has always refused to take part in these schemes. Why? Let’s delve deeper into the concept of plastic credits and the impact they have on plastic waste.

What are plastic credits?

Plastic credits are tradable certificates that represent a specific amount of plastic waste, typically 1 metric tonne per credit. This waste has either been recycled, picked up as litter or prevented from entering the environment. It can be made up of any type of plastic and can be from any location worldwide, but is typically “ocean-bound”, meaning it was collected within 50km of a coastline. 

The credits are issued by third party brokers that manage the collection or recycling, authenticate the origin and track sales to avoid fraud. Each broker has its own set of rules, standards and pricing for credits and there is currently no regulation of the market.

The credits confirm the amount of plastic “recovered” in the buyer’s name and entitle them to claim several different things:

• Their products, made from the same quantity of plastic, are “plastic neutral”
• Their products, if the credits are for recycled material, are made from “recycled plastic” (even if actually made from virgin plastic).
• They are helping to solve the plastic pollution problem, despite continuing to produce plastic that is toxic and polluting.

This is problematic in many ways.

Permitting “business as usual”

Plastic offsetting allows companies to say they are doing something about the problem, while continuing to produce plastic. It is easier and cheaper to buy plastic credits than to implement packaging and delivery systems that would reduce their plastic output – widely recognised as the only real means of stopping pollution. 

The credits, and the marketing around them, give the false impression that something is being done about the crisis and reduce public pressure to build alternative systems.

Do they really balance?

Different types of plastics possess unique physical and chemical properties that influence their environmental impact. But with plastic credits, there is no principle of “like for like”. Can a tonne of plastic water bottles removed from an urban dumpsite really offset the production of a tonne of low-value plastic sachets that can never be recycled and might end up in the ocean? Or a fast fashion clothing line that releases microplastic fibres into the air and water during use? These decisions are in the hands of the brokers. 

What happens to the waste that is collected?

This is another issue that complicates the “offsetting” calculation. “Recovery” of plastic waste has no universal definition, and in practice has been shown to include disposal in open dumpsites and various methods of incineration – all of which have serious, long term impacts on the climate and human health. In our experience, most waste that is collected from nature is mixed, contaminated or degraded and only a small percentage can be recycled – or, more likely, downcycled. 

Even in the ideal case, plastic never ‘disappears’ when it is recovered. Clean PET bottles may be recycled once or twice at best, then must be landfilled or incinerated. It is misleading to suggest recovery of any sort can negate the impact of creating new plastic destined to meet a similar end, just a short while later.

Challenges with additionality

Additionality refers to the concept of demonstrating that the waste collected through plastic credits is in addition to what would have been collected anyway, without the credits being purchased. This is not the case if credits come from trash collected by existing waste pickers, or that is diverted from going to an existing recycling programme. However, this is nearly impossible to check or adjudicate. There is a worrying lack of independent standards, transparency and oversight in the industry.

Perpetuating waste colonialism 

Aside from the issues of calculation, plastic credits raise significant social and ethical considerations. The majority of companies participating in these schemes are large corporations located in developed countries, predominantly in the Global North. Whereas most, if not all, of the projects that collect plastic waste are based in less developed countries, primarily in the Global South.

By purchasing these credits, corporations take advantage of cheap labour costs and more lenient environmental and health and safety regulations. This dynamic perpetuates an already unfair situation. Waste workers and waste pickers in less developed countries of the Global South continue to bear the harmful consequences of handling low-value plastic waste that is often exported from developed countries in the first place.

For all of these reasons, Trash Hero will never take part in any plastic offsetting programme.The goal of our cleanups is to engage and educate the community to reduce waste, not to enable plastic producers to greenwash their image and continue creating trash for us to pick up forever. 

You can read more about the issues of plastic credits on the Plastic Solutions Review website, GAIA’s Plastic Neutrality briefing or watch the Break Free From Plastic webinar here 

Note: all Trash Hero cleanup participants are volunteers and do not receive any form of financial compensation, including expenses, for their work.

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.

Last month England joined the growing list of countries that ban various single-use plastic items. Starting in October 2023, items such as plastic plates, cutlery, takeaway food containers and more will no longer be available in restaurants, retailers or the hospitality industry. The government is hoping it will drastically reduce the amount of single-use plastic used in England. 

Single-use plastic bans are becoming increasingly popular as pressure mounts to reduce plastic pollution worldwide – and they are undoubtedly a step in the right direction. However, successful results are not guaranteed. 

California’s plastic bag ban in 2014 led to an 85% drop in single-use plastic bag use in stores and a 60% reduction in plastic bags found polluting rivers. On the other hand, when Kenya introduced a similar ban in 2017, a black market for plastic bags developed. The country struggled to prevent these hard-to-recycle bags from plaguing the streets and waterways. 

So why does some legislation result in a reduction in plastic pollution and others not? What can be done to ensure that a ban is having the desired effect?

What is being banned? 

Many single-use plastic bans target low-hanging fruit such as straws, thin plastic bags or cutlery. In reality, these types of items make up just 2-3% of the single-use plastics produced, so the impact is naturally limited. 

In July 2022, India introduced such a ban. It has mainly affected local market stalls and street food sellers. With low profit margins and no resources to switch to alternatives, these members of the community have struggled to adhere to the new regulations. The ban in India has, so far, not produced the desired effect. 

Critics have suggested that the ban should instead have targeted the far greater amounts of plastic packaging created by supermarkets and multinational companies, for everyday items such as toiletries and food. This packaging is often multi-layer, making it impossible to recycle, and is often designed with branding and cost-cutting (as opposed to functionality or sustainability) in mind. Big companies also have greater resources to make such a change.

In France, the government did target retailers with a ban on plastic fruit and vegetable packaging in January 2022 and, more recently, banning the use of takeaway containers when eating inside a restaurant. This has proven much more effective, although it has not been easy: some sectors of the fast-food industry have used the energy crisis as an excuse not to invest in the changes needed to meet the new regulations. 

What should replace the banned items?

The temptation, following the announcement of a plastic ban, is to immediately search for a paper or “compostable” version of what was previously used. Ideally however, a ban should be part of a long-term transition towards a zero waste economy. It should be seen as an opportunity to target the throwaway culture in general. Rather than replacing plastic with more single-use items, a ban should support reuse systems for producers, retailers and consumers. 

By encouraging companies to innovate, such systems can be created, tested and evaluated before the ban is implemented. People and businesses will have time to prepare, ensuring less resistance to the new regulations. These changes can further be supported by providing subsidies for investments in reusables and deposit return schemes. 

How is the ban communicated?

Any ban needs to have a clear communication strategy for producers, retailers and consumers. If you don’t know about a ban, or you don’t understand it, how can you follow it? Bans are often portrayed as restrictions on freedom or consumer choice. By helping the public understand the reasons for the ban and framing it as an opportunity, governments can help people feel they are an essential part of a movement towards a better and cleaner world – which they are!

Once a ban has come into force, it is also vital to share its success and show people the positive impact they are having with their actions. A great example of a well-communicated media campaign is in Morocco. The government used artists, celebrities and community cleanups to help introduce its plastic ban in 2016.

Is the ban enforceable?

People and businesses affected by a ban will often try to find exceptions or loopholes that will allow them not to cooperate. 

Generally, governments use fines against law-breakers, but these can be costly and very difficult to enforce on a large scale. For example, in New York, USA, a plastics ban was introduced in 2020, but very few of the businesses failing to meet the regulations have suffered any consequences. Therefore, people continue to use the items that have been banned.

The key to consistent enforcement is social pressure. If a ban is generally accepted by the public and the reasons for it understood, any violations will naturally be called out. This reduces the investment needed by governments to monitor and chase up infringements.

This of course goes hand-in-hand with a good communication strategy, as mentioned above.

Single-use plastic bans are essential in reducing plastic pollution worldwide and play a significant role in shifting towards a zero waste society. However they need to be done in the right way. With the correct items included in the ban, support for systemic change, a well-communicated campaign and social enforcement, they can be transformative rather than an expensive waste of time.