Blog

Notes from SPC Impact 2026: Why data underpins the circular transition

Written by Yaseed Chaumoo | Apr 28, 2026 10:59:49 AM

 

Ahead of the event, organisers Green Blue dubbed 2026 "the year of the relationship", and framed the conference with "realistic optimism”. Despite the genuine progress being made by the packaging sector, though, there are some critical gaps that need to be filled for a true paradigm shift to take place.

CPG brands are going to have to make defensible decisions about design, procurement and branding over the next two to three years, and SPC Impact revealed some of the hurdles that they’ll face.

Here’s what I learned – and spoke about – in Nashville.

EPR is no longer theoretical, but the data behind it is still too thin

The standout shift versus a year ago is how matter-of-fact extended producer responsibility has become.

Circular Action Alliance is now operating in Oregon, Colorado, and California. Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington are close behind, and more than 3,000 companies are registered. That represents a real milestone for EPR viability: thousands of producers have successfully registered, reported and paid.

While celebrating high participation rates, however, most panels acknowledged a more fundamental challenge that has yet to be solved: the data needed to support credible circularity strategies like EPR is patchy, inconsistent, and frequently held in places it can’t be used.

This was the core theme of "The Crucial Need for Packaging Data Consistency" – my panel discussion with fellow packaging circularity innovators. Together, we broke down the critical data challenges that CPG sustainability leads still need to overcome:

  • Harmonisation: Every state and country defines “recyclability” in a different way, making best practices inconsistent.
  • Granularity: Brands will need product-level data to understand which products are actually being recovered, but current data is either too broad, or not statistically significant.
  • Quality: There is no standardised criteria for the reliability of packaging waste datasets.
  • Ownership: Without clear parameters for data ownership, it is impossible to pool data to create a single source of truth on packaging recyclability.

Brands regularly make packaging decisions worth hundreds of thousands of dollars without resolving those foundational questions. In the absence of large-scale data on packaging recovery rates, many are forced to rely on proxies or assumptions.

As I explained, however, the issue is not a data shortage: at Greyparrot, our fleet of Analyzer units detect 1.5 billion objects per day at recovery facilities around the world. Instead, there is an interpretation gap. Data is available, but it’s not always being translated into actionable insights on packaging circularity.

Post-consumption visibility remains a missing link for packaging teams

The lack of a data framework was a common theme across the entire SPC agenda.

Aura's Gillian Garside-Wight made the same point from the consumer-insights angle: 80% of consumers want clearer recycling guidance, and yet most brands aren’t able to outline the format, construction, sealing, density, additives, coatings, barriers, and recycled content of their full portfolio in a structured way.

In Gillian’s words: "We wouldn't make financial decisions on a business without a cost sheet. Let's not do it on packaging."

Olga Kachook's 2026 trend report echoed that sentiment. One trend, titled "shared data helping create recyclability and clarity" was effectively the polypropylene (PP) cup success story. This year, PP cold beverage cups achieved the Widely Recyclable label after years of WM, the Recycling Partnership, NextGen Consortium, and brands pooling enough operational data to prove recoverability in real waste systems.

Six years of foundational work for a single label change makes a clear point: upgrades like this don't happen without coordinated data, and data infrastructure needs to scale far faster to repeat this success for other packaging formats like moulded fiber and coated paper.

A panel on PCR further made the case for unified data on packaging waste. Kate Bailey from APR was blunt: 25% of U.S. PET recycling capacity has come offline in the last 18 months because brands are sourcing PCR from overseas. Decisions like these are made on cost data alone, without visibility into the long-term risks to resource resiliency and rPET supply.

 

What this means for CPG sustainability leaders

For sustainability leaders at CPG companies, the full agenda of panels distilled to three key takeaways:

  1. Product-level recyclability is now a financial variable EPR fees are now impacting CPG profitability in Oregon and Colorado, with California close behind. Understanding which SKUs cause them is now a cost signal that can drive targeted design improvements.
  2. Data harmonisation is a priority Brie Seferian from Mondelēz captured an experience that many echoed at this year’s conference: data is often siloed to individual roles. Unless procurement, R&D and recyclability data are unified, it’s impossible to create a real-world feedback loop for circular packaging design.
  3. AI data collection is becoming indispensable With recycling facilities in the UK now using Greyparrot computer vision to automate compliance reporting, AI has become a scalable, reliable tool for accounting for packaging waste at a granular level. Automated EPR reporting for CPGs may not have arrived yet, but some of the world’s largest CPG brands are already using systems like Deepnest for SKU-level design benchmarking.





 

 

 

Reflecting on SPC Impact 2026

The most striking thing about Nashville wasn't the optimism, or even the daunting data gaps that still need to be filled.

Instead, it was the genuinely encouraging stories: the cup upgrade, the Oregon launch, Senator Heidi Campbell's Tennessee Waste to Jobs Act, KIND's recyclable wrapper, IKEA's flat-pack discipline. Each was powered by people quietly putting in years of effort to build the underlying data and relationships.

Circularity is a measurement problem before it is a materials problem. The next two to three years will determine whether we build the shared evidence base needed to move beyond individual success stories to system-wide change.

At Deepnest, we’re seeing encouraging signs that the sector’s leaders are ready for that systemic shift. Scalable, actionable data on post-consumption packaging is already here – and with events like SPC Impact defining the urgent need for visibility, producers are more motivated than ever to understand their products’ end-of-life journey.