By Jonathan Baker
Plastic recycling has failed – by design.
Globally, only about 9 per cent of plastics ever made have been recycled. In Australia, recycling rates for flexible plastics remain near zero, and new “virgin” plastic made from fossil fuels still outpaces recycled material by more than 15 to one. In short, the system works perfectly – not for the environment, but for the packaging and beverage companies that designed it.
A trolley full of products covered in unnecessary plastic packaging.Credit: Justin McManus
As this masthead reported this week, Australians are paying more for pointless packaging while struggling under a recycling system that was never built to succeed. Our research traces how that system took shape – from its origins in 1950s America to the campaigns that shaped Australian attitudes toward waste, responsibility, and “doing the right thing”.
Australia’s recycling system has been lurching from one crisis to another for decades. Soft-plastic schemes are collapsing, kerbside contamination is on the rise, and states are still struggling to co-ordinate a coherent national approach.
But the deeper problem isn’t technical. It’s historical – and moral. For 70 years, the packaging industry has led advertising and lobbying campaigns that trained us to see waste as an individual failing and a municipal responsibility, rather than a design flaw in the market system itself.
In the early 1950s, Vermont briefly banned disposable bottles after dairy farmers complained broken glass was killing livestock. Alarmed, beverage and packaging companies mobilised. They founded Keep America Beautiful, a seemingly civic-minded non-profit organisation that soon became one of the most influential environmental groups of its era.
The organisation’s famous “litterbug” ads made the problem look simple. People were to blame for pollution. Picking up rubbish became a moral duty. The structural drivers of waste – packaging design, supply chains, and corporate incentives – were hidden from view.
As our new research shows, this kind of early market shaping used moral storytelling to influence how the public understood responsibility for waste – redirecting regulatory attention away from packaging and beverage producers.
The same companies later extended their strategy: putting recycling logos on non-recyclable plastics while fighting container-deposit laws. Recycling became the perfect decoy: a feel-good solution that preserved the disposable packaging economy.
The message didn’t take long to cross the Pacific. In 1966, Keep South Australia Beautiful was established with support from a glass manufacturer and a brewery – mirroring the American founding coalition of packaging and beverage firms. Its early focus on litter education and civic pride soon grew into a national movement.
By 1974, Keep Australia Beautiful was running television campaigns with slogans such as “Dopes Rubbish Australia” and the notorious “This little pig” ads in the 1980s. The national “Tidy Towns” awards, sponsored by the Keep Australia Beautiful group, follow a similar script. The formula was reminiscent of mid-century Americana: shame the public, celebrate personal responsibility and leave production systems untouched.
In the US, industry influence didn’t stop at ad campaigns. Behind the scenes, packaging and beverage companies lobbied governments to make recycling collection and processing a municipal duty. That shifted the costs of their own waste onto municipalities and taxpayers.
Worse, internal industry research showed they knew large-scale plastics recycling was neither technically feasible nor economically viable. Those findings were quietly buried while the public was urged to rinse and sort non-recyclable materials that were destined for landfill anyway.
Half a century later, the same pattern endures. Most government messaging still focuses on what citizens should do – rinse the yoghurt tub, check the recycling label, avoid contamination – while disposable packaging is produced faster than any municipal system can process it. While individual behaviour matters, it is no substitute for structural accountability. Three policy shifts would make a genuine difference.
Deposit-return schemes should be expanded and harmonised nationwide. Evidence from Europe shows these programs routinely recover over 90 per cent of containers, compared with less than 60 per cent for kerbside recycling.
Stronger regulation is needed. These “extended producer responsibility laws” would mandate that producers and retailers fund collection and processing infrastructure, rather than leaving costs to local councils and ratepayers.
Production of virgin plastics needs to be regulated to make recycled materials competitive. Without capping the output of new plastic, recycling markets will always be flooded with cheaper raw material. That makes it impossible to create a circular economy.
The story of recycling is not one of public apathy but of institutional design. It’s a story of how industries used moral narratives to deflect responsibility. From “litterbugs” to “recycling heroes,” the same asymmetric pattern endures. Citizens do the work, municipalities pay for it, and corporations keep the profits. To fix the system, we must first rewrite that story.
Dr Jonathan Baker is a senior lecturer at the University of Adelaide.
This is an edited version of an article that originally appeared on The Conversation.
Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.
Most Viewed in National
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: www.smh.com.au
