The Billion-Package Problem: Small-Format Recycling Solutions Emerge

Small-format packaging is easy to overlook because it’s woven into everyday routines. A consumer might open a pill bottle, apply mascara, use a toothbrush, or pick up a condiment cup before giving much thought to what happens to those packages after use.

It’s their size that makes that next step difficult. Many small-format packs, or “smalls,” fall through openings in material recovery facility equipment and travel with broken glass instead of reaching the container line. Others never enter a recycling bin at all. The billions of small packages used each year include a wide range of materials, shapes, and product categories, leaving recyclers with a problem that can’t be addressed through a single package redesign or equipment upgrade.

A panel at Packaging World’s Packaging Recycling Summit, held in Rosemont, Ill., in June, examined how brand owners, recycling facilities, glass processors, and end markets are working to improve recovery of small-format packaging. The discussion also showed how California’s extended producer responsibility requirements are adding urgency to work that’s been underway for several years.

How smalls become separated from the container stream

Small-format packaging is defined by its size, but its impact shows up in how widely it appears across the waste stream and how consistently it disrupts sorting systems.

“This is packaging that’s smaller than your fist or that can pierce through a glass screen,” explained Sarah Pamplanos Santos, senior project director for Closed Loop Partners. “And it’s not a one-sector challenge, but something that’s everywhere.”

The Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) defines small-format packaging as less than two inches in two dimensions. Recycling facilities, however, often find larger packages mixed into the small-material stream. Closed Loop Partners has documented items between two and three inches, as well as packages larger than three inches, entering the glass fraction.

One reason is the amount of pressure placed on screens as material moves through a MRF. Wear can also widen the openings over time. Long, narrow items such as straws, forks, pens, toothbrushes, and tubes may pass through lengthwise, a process Santos described as spearing.

Glass breakers and trommels are designed to separate broken glass from larger containers. They perform that job well, but small packages can fall through with the glass and become contaminants. Once the material reaches a glass processing facility, those contaminants must be removed before the cleaned cullet can be sold to an end user, such as a glass container or fiberglass manufacturer.

Small-format packaging can fall through MRF screens with broken glass and travel to a glass processing facility, where it may be removed and sent to landfill. The diagram identifies possible points for recovering the material before disposal. Closed Loop Partners

The material arriving at those facilities represents only a fraction of the small-format packaging used in the U.S. Most is discarded directly. Santos estimated that, even under optimistic assumptions, recycling facilities may see about 5% of the small-format packaging placed on the market.

Contamination lowers the value of glass

Scott DeFife, president of the Glass Packaging Institute, represents glass manufacturers and processors. Recovered glass is an important raw material for new containers, but shipments of sorted glass containing large amounts of fiber, plastic, and other residue are more expensive to transport and process.

Well-performing MRFs may reduce non-glass residue to between 5% and 10% of the glass stream, DeFife said. The contamination can be far higher in other markets. He recalled visiting a GPI member in California and mistaking the incoming material for a reject pile.

“I was like, ‘Well, that’s your fiber reject pile.’ And he said, ‘Nope, that’s my inbound,’” DeFife said. “And that’s now over 50 to 60 to 70% non-glass residue coming into the glass processing part of the stream in California.”

Glass still has end markets in most parts of the country, according to DeFife. The condition of the load determines much of its value. A truck carrying large amounts of non-glass material also carries the cost of separating and landfilling that residue.

The effects extend beyond the glass processor. Every additional movement of waste material adds transportation and handling costs. Removing contaminants earlier could improve the glass yield while reducing the amount of residual material moved through the system.

Existing equipment can be reconfigured

Much of the equipment needed to improve recovery is already available. Trommel screens, vacuum systems, optical sorters, and other technologies can separate light materials and small rigid packages from glass.

DeFife cited a pre-cleaning operation in Baltimore that improved an incoming stream from a roughly 50/50 mix to about 90% glass and 10% residue. The cleaner stream was easier and more economical to transport and process.

Similar systems could be installed at a MRF or glass processing facility. The best location depends on local material volumes, equipment, transportation distances, and nearby end markets.

“Most of this equipment exists today,” DeFife said. “It just hasn’t necessarily been deployed in this manner to look for these things.”

Closed Loop Partners has been working with California glass processor Potential Industries for about 15 months to develop a system for recovering valuable material from the glass stream. The work has included testing equipment from more than four vendors and discussions with more than 20 reclaimers and potential end markets. The project is expected to move through phased implementation into 2027. Santos said testing at the reclaimer level is essential because separating a material does not establish a recycling pathway unless someone can process and use it.

Shipping presents another complication. Small packages don’t form conventional bales like PET bottles or HDPE jugs. Processors may need to use super sacks, gaylords, or other handling methods, which can add cost. End markets located close to the sorting facility would improve the economics.

Resin markets also vary. Santos said the work has found demand for polypropylene and some polyethylene. According to observations made during the project, small-format PET remains more difficult to handle, although it represents a smaller share of the stream.

Package design has physical limits

Kenneth Laverdure, fellow, sustainability and material science at Estée Lauder Companies, explained why brands can’t solve the problem simply by making every package larger. Lipstick, mascara, compacts, and other beauty products have dimensions tied to their function and the way consumers use them.

A lipstick package is long and narrow, making it likely to spear through a screen. Samples are intentionally small and have been part of Estée  Lauder’s business for more than 70 years. Increasing them to the size needed to remain on a worn screen would change both the product experience and the amount of packaging used.

“Unless we’re going to make it the size of two of my fists, and I don’t think many consumers would go along with that,” said Laverdure.

Estée Lauder has shifted some product samples from small plastic packets to paper-based formats, including this Aveda shampoo packet, to improve compatibility with the paper recycling stream. Estée Lauder Companies

However, Estée Lauder has made changes where practical. Some samples that previously used plastic sachets have moved to paper packettes, including prototypes developed with Xela Pack for the Aveda brand and other more conventional paper-based structures. The packages still require polymers for sealing and barrier performance, but they’re designed to move through the paper stream.

The company is also narrowing the materials it uses. Laverdure said Estée Lauder is moving toward PE, PP, and PET while moving away from ABS and PETG because of recycling compatibility concerns.

Those decisions require testing with the facilities that will receive the packages. Estée Lauder worked with glass-recycling partners on an 18-month trial involving cosmetic glass. The company used light-transmission measurements to determine which packages could be recognized by optical sorters and compared nearly 100 real-world data points with recycler results.

“Since there were no standards, regulations, or anything else, we had to go out and actually try and create one of our own,” Laverdure said. “And we can only do that by partnering with the recyclers directly, porting that data over and going through a brute force correlation.”

California adds pressure to produce data

California’s SB 54 treats small-format packages as separate covered material categories. A resin may have an established recycling pathway when used in a bottle or larger container, while its small-format category still lacks sufficient recovery data.

The GPI-led Small Format Packaging Infrastructure Coalition is working to develop that evidence. DeFife said projects are expected to deploy in 2026 and begin producing data in 2027. CalRecycle will need information before January 2028, when it begins making decisions about which covered material categories may continue to receive additional time to demonstrate recyclability.

The Small Format Packaging Infrastructure Coalition is bringing brands, recyclers, processors, and end markets together to improve small-format package recovery, increase cullet quality, reduce material sent to landfill, and generate data for EPR programs. Glass Packaging Institute

Glass is currently the only small-format category listed in the coalition’s presentation as having a recycling rate sufficient to qualify as recyclable under California’s requirements. Several small metal, paper, and plastic categories were listed as having insufficient data. One small metal category containing plastic was listed with a 25% recycling rate.

The regulatory pressure is also influencing material and decoration choices. “Requirements under California’s SB 54 and Europe’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation are directing changes in polymers, labels, and other package components,” explained Laverdure.

Greater consistency among state and regional requirements would help brands make those decisions. Laverdure noted that packaging designed for one recovery system may not perform the same way in another. MRFs also operate with different incoming streams, equipment, and end markets.

Sorting is only one measure of success

The panelists agreed that small packages can be separated from the glass stream. The remaining work involves proving the material can be handled, transported, sold, and incorporated into new products over a sustained period.

“The material’s the material. The resin is the resin,” DeFife said. “The issue is, can it be put together? Is there enough volume? Can it be sorted well enough? Can it be blended in with the other materials to make something else of it?”

Takeback programs provide an outlet for some packages today. Estée Lauder’s MAC brand has operated a takeback program, Back-to-MAC, for years, while non-profit Pact Collective works with multiple beauty brands to collect difficult-to-recycle packaging. Sharing the program among brands may help address some of the costs, Santos said.

She views takeback as an important interim option while more widely available recycling systems are developed. Over the longer term, Santos said, the goal is to make it as easy as possible for consumers to recycle these packages through curbside infrastructure.

That expansion will depend first on proving that the material can move through the full system. The California project is expected to provide data on the amount recovered, the PCR produced, and the carbon emissions avoided. Those findings could then help other facilities develop systems suited to their regional conditions.

“We will have data,” DeFife said. “That is the first thing that we will have. And that is the first thing that’s necessary, especially in California, to have any other proof point.” PW