As Europe marks Global Recycling Day, the debate around packaging is intensifying just months before the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) begins to apply. The legislation is one of the most ambitious packaging frameworks ever introduced in the region, pushing all packaging toward recyclability by 2030 and setting tougher expectations for recycled performance at scale. But according to Thomas Körmendi, CEO of Elopak, Europe’s core packaging problem is not limited to design. The real weakness lies further downstream, in the uneven and underfunded systems that collect, sort and reprocess waste.

Körmendi’s argument is clear: packaging producers can redesign formats, improve material selection and increase recyclability, but they cannot by themselves fix the infrastructure gap across Europe. That gap is significant. Recent figures cited in the op-ed show that only a minority of EU member states are currently meeting recycling targets, while plastics recycling capacity has contracted sharply in the past two years. At the same time, billions of euros in circular economy investment are still not enough to close the distance between regulation and operational reality.

The warning is that Europe risks building packaging policy around what should happen in theory, rather than what waste systems are actually capable of delivering today.

From a packaging industry perspective, that criticism matters. Much of the current policy focus has been directed toward forcing recyclable design and increasing pressure on plastic packaging. Yet paper and cardboard remain the largest packaging waste stream in the EU, accounting for a far bigger share of total packaging waste than plastic. Despite that, the highest-profile support measures in the PPWR framework continue to target plastics through recycled content mandates, deposit-return triggers and single-use restrictions. Körmendi argues this creates an imbalance: the material stream generating the most waste is not receiving policy attention proportionate to its volume, performance or climate value.

The climate point is especially relevant for packaging decision-makers. According to the article, paper-based beverage cartons compare favourably in lifecycle terms, with a far lower carbon footprint than PET bottles or single-use glass. That does not mean fibre-based packaging is problem-free, but it does suggest that policy built purely around waste categories can miss a broader environmental picture. If Europe wants packaging legislation to support both circularity and net-zero goals, then material choice, emissions intensity and infrastructure readiness need to be considered together.

Elopak’s position is also notable because it combines advocacy with evidence from industry investment. The company says its cartons already achieve high recyclability scores, that around half of liquid packaging cartons are sent for recycling in Europe, and that it has invested directly in recycling infrastructure in Germany. In other words, the message is not that industry should be spared responsibility. It is that design improvements alone will not deliver 2035 outcomes without large-scale upgrades in collection networks, sorting systems and reprocessing capacity, especially in regions where performance still lags far behind leading markets.

Looking ahead, the forthcoming Circular Economy Act is presented as the moment for Europe to rebalance its approach. Körmendi calls for ring-fenced funding for collection and sorting, harmonised landfill and incineration taxes, faster secondary legislation under PPWR and a more material-neutral approach to extended producer responsibility fees. For the packaging sector, the takeaway is sharp: Europe does not simply have a packaging design problem. It has an execution problem. And unless infrastructure investment catches up with regulatory ambition, even the best-designed packaging may still fall short of the circular economy the EU is trying to build.