• Responsible Investing
  • Natural Capital

Circularity, consumers and change

Making the switch to sustainable materials

To meet net-zero and other environmental targets, companies and governments increasingly need to move towards more sustainable materials. But this will not be without challenges.

Read this article to understand:

  • What makes a material ‘sustainable’
  • The risk of greenwashing
  • Detail on the latest innovations
  • The importance of changing consumer behaviour

Nowadays, paper straws can be found everywhere, from coffee shops to restaurants. They are an alternative to plastic straws, which were banned in the UK on October 1, 2020, as the government fights single-use plastic waste.1

Society is replacing plastic with paper to be more sustainable. But is this really the right path? While it seems an obvious solution, as paper is more biodegradable than plastic and easy to recycle, it is imperfect.

“We need to restore land to nature and preserve biodiversity, not cut down more trees,” says Eugenie Mathieu, senior ESG analyst and Earth pillar lead at Aviva Investors. “There aren’t enough trees for all the packaging biofuel and offsetting needs companies are basing their net-zero goals on. Paper is not a sustainable, scalable solution to replace all our current plastic packaging needs.”

This simple example illustrates the nuances of sustainability. Defining what constitutes a ‘sustainable’ material is not easy. It must account for the energy required to produce and transport the material, other key environmental impacts such as biodiversity loss and water use, as well its degradation and replacement frequency, not to mention social factors.

Back to basics: The definition

There are several ways to define a sustainable material. But there is one common denominator: it must be responsibly sourced and have minimal environmental impact, from sourcing to end-of-life treatment.

“Circularity is key,” says Julie Zhuang, co-manager on the Aviva Investors Natural Capital Transition Global Equity strategy. “Sustainable materials maximise the circularity or the recyclability of the material, or minimise the resources needed to produce such materials. They have a smaller depletion impact on the long-term wellbeing of the planet.”

Lifecycle assessments are an important aspect in determining the sustainability of a material. Andrea Perales Padron, ESG research analyst at Aviva Investors, says investors should encourage companies to perform these assessments on their products, to understand both the upstream and downstream environmental impacts.

“These may be hard to abate, but are important to consider,” she says. “For example, washing detergents and shampoos require hot water or other additional energy to be actionable. This is why companies are developing detergents that are more effective at lower temperatures.”

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) looks at a product’s entire lifecycle – from materials extraction to end-of-life management – to understand how to reduce environmental impacts, conserve resources and reduce costs. Figure 1 highlights the five major stages in a material’s lifecycle.

Figure 1: Materials’ environmental impacts throughout their lifecycles
Materials’ environmental impacts throughout their lifecycles
Source: Aviva Investors, EPA, 20222

It is also important to understand the difference between a green material, which is environmentally friendly, and a sustainable one.

“Nowadays, there is more onus on the social, as well as the potential economic impact, of materials,” says Jonathan Toub, co-manager of the Aviva Investors Natural Capital Transition Global Equity strategy.

Reduce, reuse, recycle

The three Rs – reduce, reuse, recycle– create a useful framework for thinking about how to approach sustainable materials.

Figure 2: The 3Rs of waste management
The 3Rs of waste management
Source: Aviva Investors, October 2022

The most sustainable is the one that is reduced, re-used and – as a last resort – recycled.

In this respect, governments can play a key role, putting pressure on companies to reduce material use through incentives and sanctions.

Yet, Figure 3 shows most packaging companies have failed to meet regulatory targets. Among the packaging industry constituents of the MSCI ACWI Investible Market Index that derive 20 per cent or more of their revenues from plastic products, only French packaging company Groupe Guillin had PCR (post-consumer recycled) plastic making up more than ten per cent of its materials usage.

Figure 3: Recycled plastic content use: Targets, regulations and revenues (per cent)
Recycled plastic content use: Targets, regulations and revenues
Note: Target date set by regulator in US, EU and AU = 2025 and Japan = 2030.
Source: MSCI, 2022

Recent measures to sanction unsustainable practices and incentivise good behaviours will hopefully have the desired effect. In April, the UK introduced the Plastic Packaging Tax, equivalent to £200 per tonne on packaging containing less than 30 per cent recycled plastic.4 The key is setting the taxes at a rate high enough to create a shift in performance.

Statistics show regulations can influence consumer behaviour

Statistics show regulations can influence consumer behaviour, too. For example, in 2015 the UK government introduced a five pence charge on single-use plastic bags in supermarkets (in 2021, the charge was raised to ten pence and extended to all retailers).5

Figure 4 shows that for the 2018-2019 period, a group of major retailers (Asda, The Co-operative Group, Marks and Spencer, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Waitrose) sold 550 million single-use plastic bags compared to over one billion the previous year – a 47 per cent fall. And overall usage of single-use plastic bags at those supermarkets decreased by 97 per cent between 2015 and 2022.

Figure 4: Single-use plastic bags (bn)
Source: Defra, July 20226

Toub believes reuse is the sweet spot, citing the example of companies like French multinational retailer Carrefour.

“These days, you can turn up at some retailers with your own bottle of detergent to refill,” says Toub. “We need to get to a point where it is cost-efficient to do so – whether it’s through a deposit payment scheme or cheaper products – because you're essentially not paying for the packaging.”

“It boils down to consumer brands shifting the mindset from one that sees packaging as a liability (taxes, bans) to one that sees it as an asset,” adds Perales. “The linear use-and-dispose economy entails a great loss of value. And it encroaches on ecosystems’ boundaries, which we continue to tap for resources and on which we dump resources we could reuse.”

Recycling: Plastic and aluminium

Recycling should only be an option when something cannot be reused.

According to Plastic Soup Foundation, a marine conservation non-profit organisation, the amount of plastic produced has increased exponentially in a human lifetime – from two million tonnes in 1950 to 368 million tonnes in 2019 (see Figure 5). Of this, 56 per cent was produced after 2000; it is forecast to increase to about 600 million tonnes in 2025.7

Figure 5: Global production of plastic (million tonnes)
Global production of plastic
Source: Plastic Soup Foundation, 20198

Of all plastic produced, only nine per cent is recycled globally – while a staggering 49 per cent goes to landfill (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Plastic treated by waste management category
Source: OECD, February 20229

“The key issue is sorting,” says Toub. “There are so many different types of plastic. The dream is to get to five or six types of plastic across an entire supply chain.”

Another area of focus is recycled aluminium. This is a straightforward process that requires remelting aluminium at the relatively low temperature of around 700 degrees Celsius – it produces around 0.5kgCO2 per kg of aluminium, eight times less than producing virgin aluminium using renewable electricity (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Recycled aluminium: the low-carbon option (tonne CO2)
Source: Ball Corporation, 202110

One of aluminium’s most appealing characteristics is that it is infinitely recyclable. This is in stark contrast to paper and plastic, which can only be recycled a certain number of times and are ‘downcycled’ in terms of quality each time.

According to analysis by Carbon Trust, an advisor to companies and governments on net-zero, although aluminium cans have a wide potential carbon footprint range, the typical European range compares well to refillable bottles and single-use PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate). And the greater value and recyclability of waste aluminium packaging means its impact on our oceans and wildlife is much less damaging.

Figure 8: Carbon footprint ranges of different forms of packaging (gCO2e/330ml)
Carbon footprint ranges of different forms of packaging
Source: Carbon Trust, 202111

Sustainable fabrics

Fast fashion has transformed how clothes are produced and consumed. A shocking statistic illustrates why moving to sustainable fabrics is essential. Around 39,000 tonnes of unsold clothing were dumped in Chile’s Atacama Desert last year, according to SumOfUs, a non-profit.12 The synthetic and chemical nature of these products mean they are non-biodegradable and would take more than 200 years to decompose.13

Over the last two decades, fashion production has doubled, as has the use of polyester, which is now found in over half of all textiles. Figure 9 also shows synthetic fibres represent over two-thirds of all materials used in textiles, which is expected to reach nearly three-quarters by 2030.

Figure 9: Global fibre production (thousand metric tonnes)
Global fibre production
Source: ‘Synthetics Anonymous’, 202114

Polyester is used in clothing production because it is relatively cheap.

“The problem, beyond the implied upstream emissions, is these clothes release a lot of microplastics when they're washed, which ultimately end up in the human body,” explains Perales. “They are also often made from blended materials, which are highly complicated, costly and difficult to separate and recycle. This results in the downcycling of fabrics, instead of the closed-loop recycling from fabric to fabric.”

Textile-to-textile recycling is still in its infancy

According to the Changing Market Foundation, textile-to-textile recycling is still in its infancy, accounting for less than one per cent. Current technology only allows 20 to 30 per cent of fibre-to-fibre recycling for polyester, cotton and wool fibre – the rest is topped up with virgin material.

So, despite return schemes and companies investing in ways to recycle materials, the process is tricky because it is hard to separate materials without damaging them.

“Recycling processes are complicated and not scalable for the time being. It certainly can’t keep up with the increasing – and unsustainable – demand for new clothes fast fashion has created,” says Perales.

Plastic bottles are also being turned into clothing or footwear, but this isn’t a circular process.

“If you turn it into a piece of clothing that can't be recycled, you are ultimately just sending it to landfill or the natural environment. Downcycling is not the solution to the plastic crisis. The number one solution is to reduce the amount of virgin plastic. Claims of recycled polyester by brands could end up being a perverse way to perpetuate the plastic and petrochemical industry,” she adds.

Figure 10: Production of polyester
Production of polyester
Source: Aviva Investors, October 2022. Data sourced from Changing Market Foundation, 202115

Other options could be more viable.

“Growing consumer awareness is starting to spur the development of new fabrics from various start-ups,” says Toub.

He highlights Swedish company Re:NewCell as an example, which converts used cotton and other cellulose fibre into recycled biodegradable textile fibres that can re-enter the clothing production chain.

Vegan leather is also gaining traction among millennials and Gen Z, while other companies like Bottletop produce fashion from waste. 

Changing for the better

Harnessing consumer behaviour will be key to unlocking the potential of the three Rs. 

Convenience is hampering our ability to have a more circular economy

“Convenience is hampering our ability to have a more circular economy. Going to the supermarket and bringing your own container to refill things is completely possible, but people don’t like to do it. We need to focus on consumer habits. The success of the plastic bag tax shows how quickly consumers can change when given the right incentives,” says Mathieu.

As part of our own efforts to promote change, we have engaged with US consumer goods multinational Procter & Gamble to encourage it to produce toilet paper for its Charmin brand with recycled or alternative materials, rather than cut down ancient forests.

“Its current paper sources for Charmin are endangering caribou habitat in Canada. By using virgin pulp because it makes the toilet paper fluffy and soft, we are cutting down centuries old trees. And companies are putting out adverts suggesting consumers should expect this from their toilet paper,” says Mathieu.

There are also social issues to deforestation and forest degradation. “In Canada, for instance, the exploitation of the boreal forests infringes on the rights of indigenous communities whose livelihoods depend on thriving forests landscapes. We find Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) practices very weak,” explains Perales.

Legislation is vital to hold European food companies accountable on their plastics promises

Similarly, the weight of cosmetics packaging has grown over time as companies have made products heavier to feel more luxurious.

“We haven't succeeded in reducing the volume of packaging – quite the opposite. Because consumers are so attached to the presentation of items, we use it as a proxy for quality, and companies aren’t keen to compromise that,” says Mathieu.

Many European food companies break their plastics promises and legislation is vital to hold them accountable. Indeed, according to a recent investigation by the German broadcaster Deutsche Welle, two-thirds of pledges to go greener on plastic fail or are dropped. Danone is a clear example of a company that did not follow through on its promises (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Danone’s targets versus actual shared of recycled content in its water bottles
Source: Energy in Demand, August 202216

From an investment perspective, this highlights the benefits of a combined carrot and stick approach.

Legislation and taxes will drive a far greater focus on valuing our natural environment

“If you look at all the incremental legislation and taxes coming down the pipe, this will drive a far greater focus on valuing our natural environment. It will completely change the economics of unnecessary wastage,” says Toub.

Zhuang says the trajectory is clear, and believes the next decade will see more creative ways of using recycled materials across the consumer sector and industrials.

“It’s the industrial space where we see the biggest opportunities. We can engage with the companies and urge them to mobilise suppliers as well as their customers to all move towards more sustainable resource use,” she says.

Why investors should be wary of greenwashing

If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

One source of complexity is that each company has its own definition of what is sustainable.

“There is no consensus or clear definition across a sector, let alone across different sectors, of a sustainable product,” says Mathieu. “Companies set their own targets. This might mean materials are less harmful, but are these targets scientifically credible?”

“When you say something is sustainable, there is always a degree of comparison,” says Zhuang. “If an industry is producing a product in a resource-intensive way, then any company using less resources, or being more efficient, can claim to lead on sustainable material usage,” she says.

For instance, Adidas can claim to be doing better on sustainability than its peers, as 90 per cent of the polyester used by the company comes from recycled material.17 “However, by setting its own targets, it is both the sportsperson and referee,” explains Zhuang. Using recycled content is indeed vitally important, but so too are other factors like durability and recyclability.

In fast-fashion, companies like H&M have taken positive steps to adopt more circular practices. As part of its waste recycling strategy, the company recycled around 500 tonnes of textile waste in 2021.18 But, again, context is critical.

“H&M is a massive business, so while it is recycling tonnes of material, we need to keep in mind the scale of what it produces. We don’t often have the denominator: many of these claims sound great but can be immaterial,” says Toub.

Another example is the switch to electric vehicles. There is a huge difference in terms of impact depending on what grid network they are charged on – oil-based, gas-based or renewables-based.

“The same applies to how materials for batteries are sourced, how those batteries are recycled and the social impact on countries where these materials are being mined. They are often areas with lower human rights standards,” says Toub.


  1. ‘Start of ban on plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds’, DEFRA, October 1, 2020
  2. ‘Sustainable materials management basics’, US Environmental Protection Agency, February 24, 2022
  3. Samuel Block and Shitiz Chaudhary, ‘Plastic packaging: The unmasking of regulations’, MSCI, June 7, 2022
  4. ‘Plastic packaging tax: Steps to take’, HM Revenue & Customs, November 4, 2021
  5. ‘10p bag charge turns the tide on plastic waste’, DEFRA, July 29, 2022
  6. ‘Single-use plastic carrier bags charge: data in England for 2018 to 2019’, DEFRA, July 29, 2022
  7. ‘Plastic facts and figures’, Plastic Soup Foundation, 2019
  8. ‘Plastic facts and figures’, Plastic Soup Foundation, 2019
  9. ‘Plastic pollution is growing relentlessly as waste management and recycling fall short’, OECD, February 22, 2022
  10. ‘Towards a perfect circle: A circularity vision for the aluminium beverage can’, Ball Corporation, 2021
  11. ‘Carbon footprint of soft drinks packaging’, Carbon Trust, December 2021
  12. Ella Glover, ‘‘Mountains’ of clothes being dumped in Chile’s Atacama Desert – and will take 200 years to decompose’, Metro, March 30, 2022
  13. Helle Abelvik-Lawson, ‘The UK’s fast fashion habit is getting worse – and it’s destroying the planet’, Greenpeace, November 23, 2020
  14. ‘Synthetics anonymous’, Changing Market Foundation, June 2021
  15. ‘Fossil fashion’, Changing Market Foundation, February 2021
  16. ‘Companies in Europe not living up to their commitments to reduce plastic packaging’, Energy in Demand, August 12, 2022
  17. ‘More sustainable materials and circular services’, Adidas, 2022
  18. ‘Collect, recirculate and recycle’, H&M Group

Related views

Important information


Except where stated as otherwise, the source of all information is Aviva Investors Global Services Limited (AIGSL). Unless stated otherwise any views and opinions are those of Aviva Investors. They should not be viewed as indicating any guarantee of return from an investment managed by Aviva Investors nor as advice of any nature. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but has not been independently verified by Aviva Investors and is not guaranteed to be accurate. Past performance is not a guide to the future. The value of an investment and any income from it may go down as well as up and the investor may not get back the original amount invested. Nothing in this material, including any references to specific securities, assets classes and financial markets is intended to or should be construed as advice or recommendations of any nature. Some data shown are hypothetical or projected and may not come to pass as stated due to changes in market conditions and are not guarantees of future outcomes. This material is not a recommendation to sell or purchase any investment.

The information contained herein is for general guidance only. It is the responsibility of any person or persons in possession of this information to inform themselves of, and to observe, all applicable laws and regulations of any relevant jurisdiction. The information contained herein does not constitute an offer or solicitation to any person in any jurisdiction in which such offer or solicitation is not authorised or to any person to whom it would be unlawful to make such offer or solicitation.

In Europe this document is issued by Aviva Investors Luxembourg S.A. Registered Office: 2 rue du Fort Bourbon, 1st Floor, 1249 Luxembourg. Supervised by Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier. An Aviva company. In the UK this document is by Aviva Investors Global Services Limited. Registered in England No. 1151805. Registered Office: 80 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 4AE. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Firm Reference No. 119178. In Switzerland, this document is issued by Aviva Investors Schweiz GmbH.

In Singapore, this material is being circulated by way of an arrangement with Aviva Investors Asia Pte. Limited (AIAPL) for distribution to institutional investors only. Please note that AIAPL does not provide any independent research or analysis in the substance or preparation of this material. Recipients of this material are to contact AIAPL in respect of any matters arising from, or in connection with, this material. AIAPL, a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore with registration number 200813519W, holds a valid Capital Markets Services Licence to carry out fund management activities issued under the Securities and Futures Act (Singapore Statute Cap. 289) and Asian Exempt Financial Adviser for the purposes of the Financial Advisers Act (Singapore Statute Cap.110). Registered Office: 138 Market Street, #05-01 CapitaGreen, Singapore 048946.

In Australia, this material is being circulated by way of an arrangement with Aviva Investors Pacific Pty Ltd (AIPPL) for distribution to wholesale investors only. Please note that AIPPL does not provide any independent research or analysis in the substance or preparation of this material. Recipients of this material are to contact AIPPL in respect of any matters arising from, or in connection with, this material. AIPPL, a company incorporated under the laws of Australia with Australian Business No. 87 153 200 278 and Australian Company No. 153 200 278, holds an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL 411458) issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Business Address: Level 27, 101 Collins Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000 Australia.