If you’ve spent any time on Netflix lately, you’ll have noticed the shift. Documentaries, exposés, lifestyle series, all tapping into what can only be described as a growing plastic detox movement.
Consumers are questioning single-use culture, brands are scrambling to respond, and the public mood is turning towards materials that don’t impact our health or environment.
Yet, here in the UK, policy is quietly steering us in a different direction.
Glass can be endlessly recycled without loss of quality and already performs well in the UK, especially in Wales where separate collections produce high-quality cullet for remelt – supporting both carbon reduction and domestic manufacturing.
However, a new policy that was intended to promote sustainable outcomes and drive down packaging waste, has been designed with a fatal flaw.
Defra’s data shows that in 2025, almost half a billion more plastic bottles were placed on the UK market compared with 2023. At the same time, the use of glass, steel and aluminium containers declined.
This is not a coincidence. It’s the outcome of policy design.
Packaging choice
Packaging extended producer responsibility (pEPR) was meant to drive better packaging choice by shifting waste costs on to producers while incentivising circular materials. In practice, it’s doing the opposite.
The glass industry was supportive of the UK pEPR, but when illustrative fees were published just before the scheme became live in 2025, alarm bells rang – glass fees were far too high. Defra’s modelling aimed to recover £1.5bn in local authority costs, inherently penalising heavier materials like glass regardless of their recyclability.
British Glass raised concerns immediately with the minister and secretary of state, but Defra maintained there was no issue, citing that glass fees are low per tonne, and that eco-modulation would rebalance the scales over time.
But packaging isn’t bought by the tonne, it is bought by number of units, and on a per-unit basis, glass is significantly more expensive under pEPR than competing materials. Modulation is being introduced slowly, though analysis shows it is unlikely to make any significant impact.
This gap is even greater in the beverage market, which accounts for 75% of glass tonnages placed on the market, where plastic and aluminium containers are currently exempt from pEPR fees due to the delayed introduction of the deposit return scheme, in October 2027.
Final pEPR fees were published in June 2025, followed by limited insight into the methodology and breakdown. British Glass identified clear flaws and called for corrections in year two, but ministers opted to keep fees broadly stable instead.
The unintended consequence
Faced with higher costs, producers are doing what any rational business would do: reducing packaging cost by switching to lighter, cheaper materials.
The glass sector warned of this repeatedly, citing reduced demand for glass, increase in imports, lower manufacturing investment, loss of circular capacity, risk to jobs and plant viability.
So far, those warnings have been largely dismissed.
Despite industry providing evidence to Defra on the issue, Defra maintains there is no sufficient evidence of material switching.
A government that set out to reduce waste and incentivise recyclability is now presiding over a system that penalises circular materials like glass, rewards lightweight less recyclable alternatives, undermines domestic manufacturing and risks increasing waste.
The UK has a choice. It can align policy with public sentiment, global trends and environmental reality, supporting materials that genuinely enable circularity. Or it can continue down a path where the easiest, lowest cost option for producers is not the most circular.
At a time when the cultural tide is turning, that choice has never been starker. And the longer it takes to correct course, the harder it will be to turn back.
Jenni Richards is environment and circularity director at the British Glass Manufacturers’ Confederation
No comments yet