Designing for end-of-life: Amy Hooper on turning legislation, data, and waste into levers for better packaging

Policy changes

All of this is unfolding against a backdrop of sweeping policy change. From a waste-sector perspective, Hooper likens the implementation of the Resources and Waste Strategy to an incoming wave. A rapid succession of measures like Extended Producer Responsibility have been introduced, all of which are increasing the pressure on the packaging industry

“We’ve got EPR that has come through, and the development of the Recyclability Assessment Methodology (RAM) which is essentially giving RAG (red, amber, or green) status to packaging indicating level of recyclability and environmental impact,” she explains. In theory, “people are empowered to refer to the RAM to decide whether or not something is red or yellow or green and use that to inform areas where design changes may be needed,” but, as Hooper notes, “there are just so many formats and applications with packaging that it can be difficult to create a simplified, all-encompassing outline of the pathway for every single type of packaging.”

In her day‑to‑day role, Hooper is already seeing how EPR is reshaping behaviour. “EPR has got things moving, right? People suddenly have a financial cost attached to what they’re going to do and they’re starting to really see that and go, ‘how do we do this?’” she says. Startups are more routinely coming to Biffa asking, “How can I make sure it runs through your facility? Can I have your certification or validation that it can be sorted?” and retailers are also starting to push for suppliers to talk to waste managers.​

But progress is uneven. “In certain cases, companies cannot see a feasible route to make the changes necessary and will just lump the cost of whatever EPR means for them because they can take that hit to put their packaging on the market,’” she cautions, warning that a difficult economic climate risks softening some sustainability ambitions. That makes robust, aligned policy – and clearer links between recyclability, fees and market access – even more important.​​

Constraint, standardisation, and meaningful innovation

When asked whether there is still too much freedom at the design stage, Hooper doesn’t hesitate. “I might be biased because of my position in that value chain where, for me, the simpler things can be, the more material we can recover,” she says, emphasising that simplicity means more high‑quality recycled feedstock that can flow back to brands, producers and manufacturers.

“In an ideal world, we would have standardisation and it would be enforced, right?” she continues. While brands often worry that standardisation dulls differentiation, Hooper points to research showing “you can still really differentiate even within those parameters. It’s about being creative doing so.” For her, the sweet spot is where “constraints allow you to be much more innovative – but innovative with impact,” backed by routes for genuinely better solutions to challenge and evolve the rules.

​Reuse and who moves first

Hooper sees strong parallels between the current debate on recyclability and the emerging conversation on reuse. Biffa’s work on reuse infrastructure modelling with partners such as GoUnpackaged has already highlighted that, under defined conditions, reusable systems have the potential to be technically and commercially viable across retailers, manufacturers, waste managers and logistics operators.

“The GoUnpackaged work did a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of doing the data analysis to say, ‘Here is a business case,’” she explains – but, as with recyclability, the gap now is action: “Now we’ve got the question again where we’re going, ‘OK, well, we’ve got the data – now who is going to turn reusable packaging on?’” In her view, 2026 needs to be the year when reuse moves from slide decks to tangible, scalable pilots in the UK market.