IN Brief:
- Reconomy analysis found 61.8% of assessed flexible plastic packaging received a red RAM rating, representing almost 245,000 tonnes.
- Red-rated packaging attracts a higher modulated disposal fee than amber-rated material under pEPR.
- Food-packaging redesign must balance recyclability against barrier performance, sealing, shelf life, and production-line requirements.
Reconomy analysis of Environment Agency data has found that 61.8% of flexible plastic packaging assessed under the UK Recyclability Assessment Methodology received a red rating in 2025.
The material represented almost 245,000 tonnes of packaging, exposing producers using large volumes of red-rated flexible plastics to higher disposal fees as recyclability modulation takes effect under extended producer responsibility for packaging.
RAM assigns household packaging a red, amber, or green recyclability rating. Those results are reported alongside other EPR packaging data and feed into the disposal fees paid by obligated large producers.
Red material carries a higher charge than amber-rated packaging. PackUK’s modulation policy applies a factor of 1.2 to red packaging for the 2026–27 assessment year, while amber material remains at the base rate and green packaging receives a discount.
Flexible plastic is particularly exposed because much of the category remains difficult to collect, sort, and reprocess through household recycling infrastructure. Current guidance says flexible plastic packaging is generally rated red unless it can meet the evidence requirements for an eligible take-back scheme.
Food and drink products account for a substantial range of those applications. Pouches, flow-wrap films, lidding, sachets, and multilayer structures are used because they can provide moisture, oxygen, grease, or aroma barriers while keeping pack weight low and running efficiently through high-speed machinery.
Those functions complicate redesign. Replacing a multilayer film with a simpler structure may improve recyclability, but the alternative still has to protect the food, seal consistently, withstand distribution, and maintain the required shelf life.
Packaging changes can also alter factory performance. Different films may need new sealing temperatures, dwell times, forming conditions, tension settings, or inspection parameters, creating qualification work before a material can move into routine production.
RAM therefore adds an end-of-life cost to specifications that have traditionally been dominated by material price, product protection, and line performance. A pack that remains inexpensive to buy can become more costly once modulated disposal fees are included.
The methodology assesses more than the polymer itself. Collection, sorting, reprocessing, and the availability of useful end applications all influence the rating, while integrated components and combinations of materials can affect how a package is classified.
That makes detailed material information increasingly important. Producers unable to establish the composition or technical characteristics of a packaging component are directed by government guidance to obtain the required information from their packaging supplier.
Supplier data consequently becomes part of EPR compliance as well as normal packaging procurement. Resin type, barriers, coatings, labels, adhesives, inks, and other components can determine how the finished format performs under the assessment methodology.
The rules are also continuing to develop. RAM version 1.1 applies to packaging supplied during the 2026 reporting year, while PackUK has already published the revised RAM 2027 framework for packaging supplied from January next year.
The 2027 methodology retains the red, amber, and green structure and continues to link those ratings to disposal-fee modulation. PackUK says the framework will be updated as recycling infrastructure, market conditions, and technical evidence develop.
Reconomy’s analysis gives producers an indication of where the greatest exposure currently sits. Almost two-thirds of the flexible plastic assessed in the dataset was red, compared with packaging categories where established collection and recycling routes allow a larger proportion of material to achieve stronger ratings.
The figure does not mean every flexible food pack will carry the same eventual fee. Liability depends on the packaging supplied by an individual producer, its reported rating, material weight, and the applicable disposal-fee calculation.
It does, however, put a measurable price signal behind packaging formats that perform poorly under the methodology. For high-volume food producers, redesign decisions will increasingly have to account for pEPR charges alongside material reduction, shelf life, waste prevention, and equipment performance.
That makes accurate packaging data increasingly important during both procurement and compliance reporting.
The engineering constraint remains unchanged: a more recyclable format still has to protect the product and run reliably. RAM now makes the cost of failing the recyclability test more visible in the same specification process.
