Problem Definition
GreenLoop Packaging is a family-owned plastic packaging converter headquartered in Belgium, with three thermoforming and injection-moulding plants in Belgium, Poland and Spain. It sells approximately 150,000 tonnes of food packaging a year to supermarket chains, meat and poultry processors, dairies and ready-meal producers. Its products are PET trays (for meat, poultry and fresh produce), polypropylene (PP) pots and tubs (for yoghurt, dips and ready meals), and a smaller range of multilayer PET/PE trays that give extra shelf life for sliced meats and cheese. GreenLoop generates EUR 420M in revenue at a 12% EBITDA margin (about EUR 50M).
The EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2025/40, known as the PPWR) entered into force in 2025 and has applied since 12 August 2026. Unlike the directive it replaces, it is a regulation, so it applies directly and in the same way in every member state. Two of its rules hit GreenLoop hardest. From 2030, plastic packaging must contain a minimum share of post-consumer recycled content, and that share rises again in 2040. Also from 2030, packaging that does not reach a minimum recyclability grade can no longer be placed on the EU market.
GreenLoop's largest customers, two supermarket chains that together buy 35% of its volume, have written to all their packaging suppliers. They want a compliance roadmap within six months and have said they will consolidate volume with the suppliers that "solve PPWR for us". The CEO has asked your team to work out what the regulation means for GreenLoop's economics and what the company should do about it.
How should GreenLoop Packaging respond to the PPWR so that it stays compliant, protects its margins and wins share from competitors who move more slowly?
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
If asked, please share that:
- GreenLoop's current recycled content is about 15% in PET trays and 0% in PP pots and multilayer trays
- About 60% of GreenLoop's sales volume is on contracts with a raw-material price index; the rest is fixed-price, renegotiated each year
- GreenLoop has no recycling operations of its own and buys all recycled PET on the spot market from three recyclers
- The EU recycled approximately 42% of its plastic packaging waste in 2023, against a 2030 target of 55%
- Since 2021 each member state has paid into the EU budget approximately EUR 0.80 for every kilogram of plastic packaging waste it does not recycle, and the Commission has proposed raising this to EUR 1.00/kg. Governments are therefore pushing hard for recyclable packaging.
Question 1Structuring
How would you structure your analysis of what the PPWR means for GreenLoop and how it should respond?
Hint · Structuring
Build 3–4 branches that are specific to this client and question, not a generic framework. Check they don't overlap and together cover the problem.
Exhibit 1GreenLoop Portfolio vs. PPWR Requirements
| Product line | Volume (tonnes/yr) | Avg price (EUR/t) | Revenue (EUR M) | Current recycled content | PPWR minimum 2030 | PPWR minimum 2040 | Recyclability outlook |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PET trays (food contact) | 90,000 | 2,600 | 234 | 15% | 30% | 50% | Mono-material, recyclable |
| PP pots & tubs (food contact) | 45,000 | 3,000 | 135 | 0% | 10% | 25% | Mono-material, recyclable |
| Multilayer PET/PE trays | 15,000 | 3,400 | 51 | 0% | n/a | n/a | Below minimum grade: cannot be sold in the EU from 2030 |
| Total | 150,000 | 2,800 | 420 |
PPWR minimums shown are for contact-sensitive PET packaging (30% / 50%) and contact-sensitive non-PET plastic packaging (10% / 25%). Other plastic packaging must reach 35% by 2030 and 65% by 2040.
Source: GreenLoop Packaging case file
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
- Share the high-level PPWR requirements (recycled content from 2030, recyclability grades from 2030, stricter targets in 2040) if the candidate asks
- Share Exhibit 1 once the candidate has presented a first structure, or earlier if they ask about the product portfolio
Try it first, then checkCheck my answerModel answer
A strong structure has four branches:
1. Compliance requirements, by product line
- Recycled content gap: current vs. 2030 and 2040 minimums for each resin (PET, PP)
- Recyclability: which products fall below the minimum grade (the multilayer range)
- Other obligations: reuse targets for transport packaging, labelling and producer-responsibility fees paid by customers
2. Economic impact
- Extra cost of recycled resin vs. virgin (tonnes needed × price premium)
- Revenue at risk from products that cannot be sold after 2030
- One-off costs: moulds, line changes, testing and certification of food-contact recycled material
- How much can be passed through (index-linked vs. fixed-price contracts) and how much GreenLoop absorbs
3. Supply security
- Availability of food-grade recycled PET and PP in Europe (recycler capacity, competition from beverage bottle makers who face their own targets)
- Sourcing options: spot, long-term contracts, partnerships, owning recycling capacity
4. Competitive and commercial response
- Customer requirements: the two retailers' deadline and their plan to consolidate volume
- Competitors' readiness and the chance to win share
- New offers that the regulation creates: mono-material redesigns, reusable formats, closed-loop take-back
Prioritisation: Start with branches 2 and 3. They decide whether compliance is a small margin issue or a threat to the business, and the retailers' six-month deadline means GreenLoop needs a costed answer quickly.
What the interviewer is looking forInterviewer’s viewInterviewer’s view
A good candidate will split the problem into compliance cost (what the rules force GreenLoop to spend) and commercial impact (which revenue is at risk). A strong candidate will separate the two regulatory mechanisms: recycled content, which is a cost and supply problem, and recyclability, which is a product-redesign problem. They will also flag supply security of food-grade recycled material as a risk in its own right. An excellent candidate will also treat the regulation as a chance to take share, since the retailers have said they will consolidate volume with suppliers who solve compliance for them, and will ask about pass-through (index-linked contracts) before judging the margin impact.
If the candidate gives a generic profitability tree, push them: "Which parts of this are specific to a packaging converter facing a regulation?"
Question 2Numeracy
The CFO wants to know what PPWR compliance will cost GreenLoop each year from 2030 if it does nothing else. Using Exhibits 1 and 2, estimate the annual EBITDA at risk.
Hint · Numeracy
Write the formula before you plug in numbers, keep units and zeros explicit, and sanity-check the order of magnitude at the end.
Exhibit 2European Packaging Resin Price Benchmarks
| Material | Approximate price | Date | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Virgin PET (NW Europe) | EUR 1,000–1,100/t | March 2026 | Up approx. EUR 125/t in one week on higher freight costs and Middle East supply disruption |
| Food-grade recycled PET pellets: premium over virgin | approx. EUR 340/t | March 2026 | Down from over EUR 460/t a week earlier |
| Food-grade recycled PET pellets: premium over virgin | approx. EUR 600/t | Early 2025 | The spread at which some brands cut their recycled content |
| Recycled PP black pellets (non-food) | EUR 960–970/t | June 2026 | Not approved for food contact |
Plastics Recyclers Europe estimates that almost 1 million tonnes of European recycling capacity closed between 2023 and 2025, out of approximately 13 million tonnes installed.
Source: GreenLoop Packaging case file
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
Share Exhibit 2 and the following assumptions:
- Volumes stay flat to 2030
- The recycled PET premium is taken at approximately EUR 350/t, close to recent market levels (see Exhibit 2)
- Food-grade recycled PP is scarce, because very little mechanically recycled PP is approved for food contact. GreenLoop's best supplier quote is a premium of EUR 800/t over virgin PP.
- The multilayer range earns an 18% EBITDA margin. If it is not redesigned, all of that revenue is lost in 2030.
- Assume for now that none of the extra cost is passed on to customers
Try it first, then checkCheck my answerModel answer
Step 1: Extra cost of recycled PET
- Recycled PET needed in 2030: 90,000 t × 30% = 27,000 t
- Already used today: 90,000 t × 15% = 13,500 t
- Extra recycled PET: 27,000 − 13,500 = 13,500 t
- Extra cost: 13,500 t × EUR 350/t = EUR 4.725M
Step 2: Extra cost of recycled PP
- Recycled PP needed in 2030: 45,000 t × 10% = 4,500 t (all extra, since GreenLoop uses none today)
- Extra cost: 4,500 t × EUR 800/t = EUR 3.6M
Step 3: Total recycled-content cost
- EUR 4.725M + EUR 3.6M = EUR 8.325M per year (approx. EUR 8.3M)
- As a share of EBITDA: 8.325 / 50.4 = approx. 16.5%
- As a share of revenue: 8.325 / 420 = approx. 2.0%
Step 4: Multilayer revenue at risk
- Revenue: EUR 51M, or 51 / 420 = approx. 12.1% of total revenue
- EBITDA: EUR 51M × 18% = EUR 9.18M, or 9.18 / 50.4 = approx. 18.2% of EBITDA
Step 5: Total EBITDA at risk
- EUR 8.325M + EUR 9.18M = EUR 17.505M, approximately 35% of EBITDA (17.505 / 50.4 = 34.7%)
Sensitivity: If the recycled PET premium goes back to approximately EUR 600/t, the PET cost becomes 13,500 × 600 = EUR 8.1M. The recycled-content total becomes EUR 11.7M, or 23.2% of EBITDA.
Pass-through needed: To fully recover EUR 8.325M across PET and PP revenue (EUR 369M), GreenLoop needs average price increases of approximately 2.3% (8.325 / 369 = 2.26%). By line, that is approximately 2.0% on PET trays (4.725 / 234) and 2.7% on PP pots (3.6 / 135).
| Item | Annual impact (EUR M) | % of EBITDA |
|---|---|---|
| Recycled PET premium | 4.7 | 9.4% |
| Recycled PP premium | 3.6 | 7.1% |
| Multilayer EBITDA lost | 9.2 | 18.2% |
| Total at risk | 17.5 | 34.7% |
So What? cascade
- Level 1 (surface): "Compliance costs about EUR 8M a year."
- Level 2 (implication): "Adding the multilayer range, about a third of EBITDA is at risk. The biggest single item is a product that must be redesigned, not the recycled resin."
- Level 3 (actionable): "Redesigning the multilayer range is the top priority. Resin cost is a supply-and-pricing problem that index-linked contracts can partly pass through, but supply is uncertain with European recycling capacity shrinking, so securing recycled PET matters more than the premium itself."
What the interviewer is looking forInterviewer’s viewInterviewer’s view
This is a multi-step calculation. Let the candidate set up the approach before giving numbers. A good candidate calculates the extra resin cost correctly. A strong candidate also adds the multilayer revenue at risk and expresses the total as a share of EBITDA. An excellent candidate tests how sensitive the result is to the recycled PET premium (it was nearly twice as high in early 2025) and points out that the 2040 targets make the problem much bigger.
Common mistakes: applying the full 30% to PET volume without subtracting the 15% GreenLoop already uses, or applying the premium to the full resin price instead of to the difference versus virgin.
Question 3Judgement & Insights
GreenLoop must secure 27,000 tonnes of food-grade recycled PET a year by 2030. Looking at Exhibit 3, which sourcing option or combination would you recommend, and why?
Hint · Judgement & Insights
Read the exhibit title, axes and units first. Lead with the ‘so what’, then back it with one or two numbers.
Exhibit 3Options to Secure Food-Grade Recycled PET (2030 Volumes)
| Option | Upfront investment (EUR M) | Volume secured (t/yr) | Premium over virgin on secured volume (EUR/t) | Remaining volume bought on spot (t/yr) | Main risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Spot market only | 0 | 0 | n/a | 27,000 | Price swings; no guaranteed supply |
| B. 5-year offtake with a recycler | 0 | 20,000 (take-or-pay) | 380 (fixed) | 7,000 | Must pay even if demand falls |
| C. Acquire a distressed PET bottle recycler | 48 (40 purchase + 8 food-grade upgrade) | 22,000 | 150 (own cost) | 5,000 | Operating risk in a shrinking industry; bottle feedstock contested |
| D. Tray-to-tray JV with two retailers and a recycler | 15 (GreenLoop share) | 10,000 (from 2028) | 250 | 17,000 | Collection volumes depend on retailer take-back |
Source: GreenLoop Packaging case file
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
- The through-cycle premium for spot recycled PET is taken at approximately EUR 450/t (between approximately EUR 340/t in March 2026 and approximately EUR 600/t in early 2025)
- Beverage bottle makers must also raise recycled content (30% by 2030, 65% by 2040) and compete for the same bottle-grade feedstock
- Tray-to-tray recycling uses used food trays as feedstock, which bottle makers do not compete for
- The 2040 target (50% of PET) will require approximately 45,000 t a year
Try it first, then checkCheck my answerModel answer
Annual premium cost of each option (2030 need: 27,000 t)
| Option | Calculation | Annual cost (EUR M) | Saving vs. A (EUR M) | Simple payback |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Spot only | 27,000 × 450 | 12.15 | — | — |
| B. Offtake | 20,000 × 380 + 7,000 × 450 = 7.6 + 3.15 | 10.75 | 1.40 | Immediate (no capex) |
| C. Acquire recycler | 22,000 × 150 + 5,000 × 450 = 3.3 + 2.25 | 5.55 | 6.60 | 48 / 6.6 = 7.3 years |
| D. Tray-to-tray JV | 10,000 × 250 + 17,000 × 450 = 2.5 + 7.65 | 10.15 | 2.00 | 15 / 2.0 = 7.5 years |
| B + D | 20,000 × 380 + 10,000 × 250 = 7.6 + 2.5 | 10.10 | 2.05 | 15 / 2.05 = 7.3 years |
B + D secures 30,000 t, which is 3,000 t more than the 2030 need. That lifts PET recycled content to approximately 33% (30,000 / 90,000) and gives a buffer. The average premium is approximately EUR 337/t (10.1M / 30,000), below the through-cycle spot level of EUR 450/t.
Recommendation: B + D, keeping C as an option
- Sign the offtake (B) now. It removes most of the supply risk with no capital. The take-or-pay commitment (20,000 t) is below what GreenLoop needs, so the risk of paying for unused volume is low.
- Commit to the tray-to-tray JV (D). Its feedstock (used trays) is not wanted by bottle makers, who will compete ever harder for bottle feedstock as their own targets rise to 65%. It also involves the two retailers directly, which is exactly the "solve PPWR for us" answer they asked for and a strong argument for giving GreenLoop more volume.
- Do not buy the recycler (C) yet. It is cheapest per tonne, but EUR 48M is close to a full year of EBITDA. It puts GreenLoop into a distressed industry where almost 1 million tonnes of capacity closed in two years, and its bottle feedstock is the most contested in the market. Revisit it before the 2040 step-up (approx. 45,000 t needed), possibly at a lower price.
What the interviewer is looking forInterviewer’s viewInterviewer’s view
Ask the candidate to calculate the annual premium cost of each option first, then judge. A good candidate calculates annual costs and picks the cheapest option. A strong candidate sees that the cheapest per tonne (C) also carries the most capital and operating risk: EUR 48M is roughly one year of GreenLoop's EBITDA, spent to enter an industry where almost 1 million tonnes of capacity closed in two years. An excellent candidate combines options. They note that B + D covers more than the 2030 need with only EUR 15M of capital, that D's tray feedstock is not contested by bottle makers, and that D fits the retailers' request to "solve PPWR for us". They also mention that the 2040 target (approx. 45,000 t) will need a further step later.
Apply the "So What?" cascade when evaluating answers:
- Level 1 (surface): "Option C has the lowest annual cost."
- Level 2 (implication): "C and D pay back in a similar time (about 7 years), but C needs over three times the capital and brings much more operating risk."
- Level 3 (actionable): "Lock in B now for certainty at zero capital, commit to D to build a supply that nobody else competes for and to tie in the two biggest customers, and keep C as an option if recycler assets become even cheaper."
Question 4Creativity
Beyond compliance, how could GreenLoop use the PPWR to grow revenue and win share from slower competitors?
Hint · Creativity
Brainstorm in buckets (e.g. internal vs external, short vs long term) so ideas stay structured and you can see gaps.
Additional InformationAsk for dataInterviewer’s data
- The PPWR also sets reuse targets, including 40% for transport packaging (such as crates and pallet wraps used between sites) by 2030, rising to 70% in 2040
- Several competitors are smaller converters without in-house design or food-contact testing capability
- The two large retailers are responsible for meeting their own obligations on the packaging of their private-label products
Try it first, then checkCheck my answerModel answer
1. Product redesign (defend and extend)
- Mono-material PET trays with a recyclable barrier to replace the multilayer range. This protects the EUR 51M at risk, and GreenLoop can sell it as a "PPWR-ready" range to competitors' customers too.
- Lighter trays: less plastic per pack cuts the customer's packaging fees and GreenLoop's resin cost
2. Compliance as a service (win share)
- A "PPWR-ready" guarantee: GreenLoop certifies recycled content, recyclability grade and food-contact approval for each product, which takes paperwork off retailers
- Design and testing support for customers' private-label ranges, which smaller converters cannot offer
- A digital record of recycled content and recyclability for each pack, ready for customers' regulatory reporting
3. New business models (grow)
- Reusable crates and trays for transport between processors and stores, managed as a pooled rental service, targeting the 40% reuse target for transport packaging
- Closed-loop take-back with retailers (extending the tray-to-tray JV): collected trays become GreenLoop's feedstock
- Premium "high recycled content" ranges (for example 50% recycled PET, ahead of the 2040 requirement) for brands that want to lead on sustainability
Priority: (1) the multilayer redesign, because the revenue is at risk anyway; (2) the compliance-as-a-service offer to the two retailers, because they have asked for exactly that; (3) reusable transport packaging as a medium-term growth business.
What the interviewer is looking forInterviewer’s viewInterviewer’s view
Look for ideas grouped into clear buckets, for example products, services and business models, rather than a random list. A good candidate offers 4–5 relevant ideas. A strong candidate ties each idea to a specific PPWR requirement and a customer need. An excellent candidate ranks the ideas by value and ease and names the one to launch first, which is usually redesigning the multilayer range, since that EUR 51M is at risk anyway.
Question 5Synthesis
The CEO meets the two retailers next week. What is your recommendation?
Hint · Synthesis
Answer first: the recommendation, two or three reasons with numbers, then risks and next steps.
Try it first, then checkCheck my answerModel answer
Recommendation: GreenLoop should turn the PPWR from a threat to about a third of its EBITDA into a way of winning share. It should redesign its non-compliant range, secure recycled PET before competitors do, and offer the two retailers a joint compliance programme in exchange for more volume.
Why:
- Doing nothing is expensive. About EUR 17.5M a year, approximately 35% of EBITDA, is at risk from 2030: EUR 8.3M in recycled-resin premiums and EUR 9.2M from the multilayer range that can no longer be sold.
- Supply is the real constraint, not price. Europe has lost almost 1 million tonnes of recycling capacity since 2023. An offtake contract plus a tray-to-tray JV secures 30,000 t a year (more than the 27,000 t needed) at approximately EUR 337/t for just EUR 15M of capital.
- The retailers are asking for a partner. Offering them the tray-to-tray JV, a "PPWR-ready" guarantee and a mono-material range answers their demand directly, at a time when smaller converters cannot.
Ask for the meeting: A 3–5 year supply agreement with index-linked pricing for recycled content (recovering approximately 2–3% in price) and a volume commitment in exchange for joint investment in tray collection.
Risks and mitigations:
- Recycled PET premium goes back to approximately EUR 600/t: most volume is on fixed-premium or JV terms, and index clauses cover the rest
- Mono-material redesign fails food shelf-life tests: start trials now and keep multilayer sales outside the EU as a fallback
- 2040 targets (approx. 45,000 t of recycled PET) need more supply: keep the recycler acquisition as an option and expand tray-to-tray collection
Next steps (first 6 months):
- Sign the recycled PET offtake (Month 1–2)
- Launch mono-material redesign trials with the two retailers (Month 1–4)
- Agree the JV term sheet with the retailers and a recycler (by Month 6)
- Move all remaining fixed-price contracts onto recycled-content price indexation at renewal
What the interviewer is looking forInterviewer’s viewInterviewer’s view
Expect a 60–90 second answer: recommendation first, then the supporting numbers, then risks and next steps. A strong candidate uses the figures from earlier questions (approximately 35% of EBITDA at risk, B + D sourcing at approximately EUR 10.1M a year for 30,000 t). An excellent candidate frames the meeting as a commercial chance to win volume, not only as a compliance update.
Data Sources
Company figures for GreenLoop (revenue, volumes, margins, supplier quotes and option costs) are fictional. Market and regulatory facts come from these public sources (numbers rounded for interview math):
| Fact used in the case | Source |
|---|---|
| PPWR is Regulation (EU) 2025/40, published January 2025, applying from 12 August 2026 | European Union, Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging waste, 2025, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/40/oj |
| 2030 / 2040 minimum recycled content: contact-sensitive PET 30% / 50%, contact-sensitive non-PET 10% / 25%, single-use beverage bottles 30% / 65%, other plastic 35% / 65% | FKuR, "PPWR at a Glance: New EU Packaging Waste Regulation", 2025, https://fkur.com/en/knowledgebase/ppwr-eu-packaging-waste-regulation/ |
| Packaging below the minimum recyclability grade (below 70%) cannot be placed on the market from 2030 | FKuR, "PPWR at a Glance", 2025, https://fkur.com/en/knowledgebase/ppwr-eu-packaging-waste-regulation/ |
| Reuse target for transport packaging: 40% by 2030, 70% by 2040 | FKuR, "PPWR at a Glance", 2025, https://fkur.com/en/knowledgebase/ppwr-eu-packaging-waste-regulation/ |
| EU recycled 42.1% of plastic packaging waste in 2023 (35.3 kg generated per person); 2030 target 55% | Eurostat, "Plastic packaging waste in the EU: 35.3 kg per person", 2025, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20251022-1 |
| Europe uses approximately 20 million tonnes of virgin plastic for packaging a year | European Environment Agency, "Europe currently demands around 20 million tonnes of plastic for packaging", 2023, https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/maps-and-charts/europe-currently-demands-around-20-figures |
| Plastics own resource: EUR 0.80 per kg of non-recycled plastic packaging waste, paid by member states since 2021 | European Commission, "Plastics own resource", 2021–2027 budget, https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/2021-2027/revenue/own-resources/plastics-own-resource_en |
| Commission proposal to raise the levy to EUR 1.00/kg | Packaging Insights, "European Commission plans to raise plastics levy", 2025, https://www.packaginginsights.com/news/eu-plastics-levy-tax-increase.html |
| Virgin PET approx. EUR 1,000–1,100/t (up approx. EUR 125/t in a week); food-grade recycled PET premium approx. EUR 340/t (down from over EUR 460/t), March 2026 | Argus Media, "NWE vPET outstrips rPET for first time in 2 years", 2026, https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news-and-insights/latest-market-news/2798903-nwe-vpet-outstrips-rpet-for-first-time-in-2-years |
| Recycled PET food-grade premium close to EUR 600/t in early 2025, leading some brands to cut recycled content | Recycling Today (citing ICIS), "ICIS says rPET incentives remain weak", 2025, https://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/europe-recycled-pet-plastic-higher-cost-compared-virgin-material/ |
| Recycled PP black pellets approx. EUR 960–970/t (NW Europe), June 2026 | OPIS, "EU Recycled Plastic Market Battled Weak Demand, Low-Cost Virgin Prices in June", 2026, https://www.opis.com/resources/energy-market-news-from-opis/eu-recycled-plastic-market-battled-weak-demand-low-cost-virgin-prices-in-june/ |
| Almost 1 million tonnes of European recycling capacity lost since 2023; approx. 13.2 million tonnes installed across approx. 850 facilities | Plastics Recyclers Europe, "Wave of Surging Plastic Recycling Plant Closures Hits Europe", 2025, https://www.plasticsrecyclers.eu/news/wave-of-surging-plastic-recycling-plant-closures-hits-europe/ |
Free in the DrillCase case library · Editorial policy