A New CEO for U.S. Plastics Pact, an Ambitious Trajectory for the Circular Economy

Since its launch as part of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s global Plastics Pact network, the U.S. Plastics Pact has worked to rethink the design, use, and reuse of plastics in the US. The consortium, founded by The Recycling Partnership and the World Wildlife Fund, has gained support from more than 130 member organizations and additional partnerships. A principled list of objectives guides the consortium's efforts to hasten a circular economy for plastic in the US.

In recent weeks, the U.S. Plastics Pact appointed Jonathan Quinn as its new CEO. He is tasked with scaling the consortium’s efforts, fostering collaboration, and delivering tangible results. He has hit the ground running, working to refine and update the Pact’s Roadmap, now dubbed Roadmap 2.0.

Packaging Digest spoke with Quinn about his plans for driving impactful change, innovating sustainable solutions, and inspiring action as he steps into the role of leading U.S. Plastics Pact’ toward its ambitious goals for the future.

What is your vision for the US Plastics Pact?

Jonathan Quinn: Growth is Priority Number One. As we look to scale our efforts associated with Roadmap 2.0, we must grow our member-Activator base. This increase of Activators and associated funding will enable the growth of resources, such as broader value-chain representation and research, all driven to support the achievement of our mission. You will notice that the Targets in Roadmap 2.0 are more ambitious than those initially set for 2025.

Related:A Deep Dive into Reusable Packaging in the US

In order to be successful, we will need to increase our capabilities as a team, maintain the transparency of our journey, and see to it that we — along with our Activators — continue to work together toward these Targets. 

There are clear plans on how to reach each goal. How difficult is it for plastic packaging manufacturers to meet them, and how achievable are the timeframes?

Quinn: The targets and associated outcomes are ambitious and are predicated on how far companies across the value chain lean into them. The U.S. Pact continues to push the boundaries of voluntary commitments while calling for policies that will support our mission and vision of building a circular system for plastics in the U.S. It is possible to meet the Targets over the next six-plus years.

Canva/Packaging Digest/Bob Sperber

Can plastic packaging manufacturers afford to make these changes?

Quinn: What is meant by afford? Consumer packaged goods companies and retailers are looking at new costs of doing business as a result of not only voluntary commitments but also the extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs passed in five states as well as state-legislated post-consumer recycled content (PCR) mandates.

It is likely over the next few years that we will see several other states pass EPR and PCR mandate legislation. Without these policies, we do not have the right economic incentives in place for companies to move to a more circular system for materials use.

Who is responsible for tracking the industry’s progress, how might it be tracked, and what baseline(s) will the industry be measured against?

Quinn: The U.S. Plastics Pact is responsible for tracking progress against its Targets, and annual reporting from each activator is a requirement of membership. Transparency and accountability are key tenets of the U.S. Pact. The U.S. Pact uses a 2020 baseline (the year the U.S. Pact launched), and the Baseline Report can be found on our website. Notably, the U.S. Pact is measuring plastics packaging usage in the absence of data and direction from the federal government.

 It is our understanding that the U.S. EPA is no longer conducting its Sustainable Materials Management analysis of materials collected for recycling, which is a major challenge. There is a need for greater federal leadership on materials management. 

Why combine eliminating problematic/unnecessary materials and reducing the use of virgin plastic in one goal instead of separating them out?

Quinn: Target 1 is largely about reduction - reduction of problematic and unnecessary materials in the plastic packaging material stream, as well as reduction of the use of virgin plastics. Achieving a 30% reduction in virgin plastics can be done via a handful of routes: outright elimination of the material(s) (i.e. what is unnecessary), removal of problematic materials, switch to recycled content - preferably post-consumer recycled content.

Does designing materials to be “recycle ready” count as meeting Target No. 2 even if the materials are not being recycled? According to the Roadmap 2.0 definition, it does not, but many plastic packaging manufacturers still tout this as meeting the “recyclable” goal.

Quinn: The U.S. Pact, in line with the other Pacts globally, and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Global Commitment, share terminology and definitions. “Recyclable” is one of those definitions, and it must include not only proper technical design but also the achievement of a 30% recycling rate (demonstrating it’s happening on a commercial scale). “Recycle ready” is not enough to meet Target 2. It is an interim step in the right direction but does not count as recyclable per U.S. Pact definitions. 

The recycling goal of 50% is often outside the direct control of plastic packaging manufacturers. How can they collaborate to achieve this goal and with whom?

Quinn: Yes, the role of the U.S. Pact and each of the activators (members) is to take action that supports improvements in the national recycling rate. This may include better design for recyclability on the part of CPGs and converters. This may also include greater use of PCR in packaging and other products to provide the end market demand required to pull more plastics through the system economically.

Achieving this goal also rests on proper measurement of material flows - as noted above. The U.S. EPA has a role to play with measurement, in addition to the upstream resin producers (i.e. providing the denominator for calculating recycling rates), and the material recovery facility operators and plastic reclaimers. This is also an area where policy can provide notable benefits, such as EPR and deposit return systems (DRS).

Why combine achieving 30% PCR and percentage of biobased content in one goal instead of separating them out?

Quinn: Target 4 is focused on ways in which to use less virgin, fossil-fuel based plastics. PCR is one way to accomplish this, as well as the use of responsibly sourced, biobased materials. Based on the U.S. Pact’s measurement to date, biobased plastics are used in very minimal amounts in the U.S. market.

In Roadmap 2.0, there’s an added fifth target about reusable packaging – why?

Quinn: Reusable packaging systems are critical to addressing the plastic pollution crisis and the development of a circular economy for plastic packaging. Reuse was included as part of our initial Roadmap to 2025, and over the last four years the opportunities have grown in prominence. Roadmap 2.0 reflects the importance of reuse as one of the solutions to the plastic pollution problem. There is not one way out of it and multiple avenues must be employed. This includes growing the use of reusable packaging systems for both B2B operations as well as B2C product delivery.