What`s your take on the Plastic Packaging Tax

It is a step in the right direction but does little to address the fact that most manufacturers are now after the same recycled materials, usually municipally PET bottles.

Reintegrating more complex materials such as polycarbonate, ABS or Tritan, should be done more widely, but the tax will instead put pressure on the availability of PET. The tax is a blunt instrument that has had some positive effect on focusing minds on how to include recycled content in packaging. However, it is yet to increase the amount of material recycled and finding it`s way into new packaging.

Technical difficulties mean that many are having to simply pay the tax, rather than shift to greater recycled content. Also, there is little recognition or promotion of reusable systems for plastic through the tax regime. HMRC should constantly review the tariff to ensure it is set at the right level to drive environmental outcomes, rather than generating additional revenue only. Confusion is high amongst businesses, with many hesitant over what PPT means for them. For some,

it isn`t apparent what the tax means, especially when the definition of plastic packaging is not entirely consistent. Time-poor businesses strategically shifting their resources to manage market volatility may find that the cheaper option right now is to pay the levy at £200 per tonne. The main issue here is that the cost of gathering evidence becomes too burdensome on producers, particularly when resources are already stretched.