Research and analysis

Plastic Packaging Tax: quantitative research

Published 28 October 2026

1. Glossary

Term (and acronym, where applicable)	Definition
Large business	A business with 250 or more employees.
Medium business	A business with 50 to 249 employees.
Small business	A business with 10 to 49 employees.
Micro business	A business with 1 to 9 employees.
Business-to-business (B2B)	A transaction or business conducted between one business and another, such as a wholesaler and retailer.
Consumer Price Index (CPI)	The speed at which the prices of the goods and services bought by households rise or fall.
Post-Consumer Recycled (PCR)	Materials that have been recycled from products that have already been used.
Plastic Packaging Tax (PPT)	A UK tax on finished plastic packaging components with less than 30% recycled plastic content.

2. Executive summary

2.1 Introduction and methodology

The Plastic Packaging Tax (PPT) aims to promote increased use of recycled plastic by taxing manufacturers and importers of plastic packaging which contains less than 30% recycled plastic. The tax applies to businesses who import into the UK or manufacture in the UK more than 10 tonnes of plastic packaging annually.

All businesses manufacturing or importing over 10 tonnes of plastic packaging annually need to register for PPT with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and submit returns. Businesses that meet the 30% recycled plastic threshold for all their packaging must still register with HMRC, although they are exempt from paying the tax.

This quantitative research, commissioned by HMRC, aimed to gather insights from businesses registered for PPT both on its effectiveness since its implementation, and to inform future policy decisions. The findings consist of survey responses from 1,011 UK manufacturers or importers of plastic packaging. The fieldwork was conducted between January 2026 and April 2026. The sample was drawn from HMRC’s database of PPT-registered businesses.

2.2 Key findings

PPT administration

On the whole, the administrative burden of PPT appeared manageable for most businesses. Around 6 in ten (62%) businesses agreed that HMRC’s guidance clearly explained how to comply with PPT. Additionally, 4 in 5 (79%) businesses found completing and submitting the PPT return easy, and nearly three-quarters (73%) found calculating the tax due easy.

For those contacting HMRC with queries, getting answers was more of a challenge, with over a third (36%) of these businesses finding this difficult, and a similar proportion finding it easy (37%).

Nearly half (44%) of businesses said they spent less than 5 hours per quarter on tax administration, with three-quarters (75%) completing their requirements in 10 hours or less.

Impact of PPT on behaviour change

PPT has driven some changes in businesses’ plastic packaging practices. Around one in 5 (21%) businesses had decreased their plastic tonnage, with two-thirds (67%) saying their tonnage had stayed the same. Of those who decreased their plastic tonnage, this was generally by modest adjustments, with 53% decreasing their tonnage by up to one-quarter.

3 in 10 (30%) businesses reported increasing their recycled plastic content due to PPT. Manufacturers were more likely than importers to have increased their recycled plastic content, with almost half having done so (47%, compared to 28%)^{[footnote 1]}. For most businesses, the changes were mainly modest adjustments (42% increased recycled content by up to a quarter), although one-quarter (26%) of businesses did report increasing their recycled content by more than half.

Lack of supply of products with recycled content, quality concerns, and that it would increase the cost of the product were the top 3 barriers preventing businesses from increasing recycled plastic content in their packaging.

Common other responses to the tax included piloting alternative packaging options (27%) and reducing packaging volume (26%). Among all businesses that manufactured plastic packaging, one-third (33%) said they had made at least one type of investment in production methods, products or technology, with one-fifth (19%) saying they had developed packaging products that were new to their business.

Influence of PPT compared to other factors

3 in 5 businesses (60%) reported that PPT had influenced their packaging strategy to some extent, with around a quarter (27%) saying the influence was moderate or significant.

Beyond PPT, customer preferences or sustainability requirements was the factor most commonly reported by businesses to have influenced their plastic packaging strategy, affecting over half (58%). The business’s own sustainability goals or ethos was also a common influence (impacting 56%), whereas actions taken by competitors were less so, with only one-third (33%) saying this influenced their plastic packaging strategy.

Virgin and recycled plastic availability and cost

Both virgin and recycled plastic costs were perceived to have increased since PPT was introduced in 2022 for around one-third of businesses (30% and 35%, respectively). The proportion of businesses who said they did not know whether the cost of virgin and recycled plastic had changed was substantial (40% for virgin plastic and 43% for recycled plastic).

Whilst almost half of businesses (44%) said that availability of virgin plastic had stayed the same, there was more variation in perspectives on the availability of recycled plastic. Overall, 20% said availability had increased, 29% said it had stayed the same, and 10% said it had decreased. Similarly to the question on cost, the proportion of businesses who said that they did not know whether the availability of virgin and recycled plastic had changed was high (42% and 40%, respectively).

Possible impact of future PPT scenarios

Participants were also asked how they would expect their business to respond in each of 4 possible future PPT scenarios. It was clearly explained that these were entirely hypothetical scenarios and did not reflect any policy intention. If PPT were removed entirely, the vast majority of businesses (82%) said they would maintain their current mix of virgin and recycled plastic, potentially suggesting either that packaging changes had become embedded in business practices or that the tax had not influenced some businesses.

If the rate or threshold for PPT were increased, the survey suggests many businesses would pass costs on to customers. If the rate increased from £228.82 to £400 per tonne, 86% of businesses would make changes, with nearly two-thirds (62%) expecting to pass costs on to customers. Similarly, if the recycled content threshold rose from 30% to 60%, half of businesses (52%) said they would pass costs on to customers, and 35% would increase recycled content. Overall, higher rates or thresholds appeared to prompt some positive behaviour change from some businesses, but a substantial share of firms would still choose to pass costs on and continue paying the tax.

3. Introduction

3.1 Project context

PPT was introduced on 1 April 2022 to encourage the use of recycled plastic in packaging, driving greater demand for recycled plastic and stimulating increased levels of recycling and collection of plastic waste. As such, the primary aim of the tax is not to generate revenue but to change behaviour.

The tax applies to businesses who import or manufacture more than 10 tonnes of plastic packaging annually. As of 1 April 2026, the rate of the tax is £228.82 per metric tonne of plastic for plastic packaging components that contain less than 30% recycled content.

All businesses manufacturing or importing over 10 tonnes of plastic packaging annually need to register for PPT with HMRC and submit returns. Businesses that meet the 30% recycled plastic threshold for all their packaging must still register with HMRC, although they are exempt from paying PPT.

4 complete tax years have passed since the introduction of PPT, providing time for the plastic packaging supply chain to have shifted in response to the tax, and for any changes to have potentially become embedded in supply chains. This includes shifts from virgin to 30%+ recycled plastic, shifts to non-plastic alternatives, changes, innovations or investment in the design of packaging and pricing changes to importers, retailers and consumers to reflect new costs.

3.2 Project aims and research questions

This research aimed to gather quantitative insights into the effectiveness of PPT, following an earlier qualitative study conducted in 2025. It also sought to inform the wider evaluation of PPT, as well as future policy decisions.

Specifically, the quantitative study focused on the following questions:

Question 1: What changes, if any, have manufacturers and importers made to their behaviour due to PPT, particularly regarding their use of recycled plastic in packaging?

Question 2: Have businesses invested in or innovated their packaging design and infrastructure due to PPT?

Question 3: Is further behaviour change anticipated and what might this be?

Question 4: What are attitudes towards plastic packaging since the implementation of PPT?

Question 5: How might businesses respond to potential changes to the PPT rate or 30% recycled content threshold?

Question 6: What were businesses’ experiences of PPT administration?

3.3 Research method

The sample of eligible UK businesses for this study was drawn from HMRC’s internal database of businesses registered in the Plastic Packaging Tax returns system, as of December 2025. The sample frame consisted of 3 tax years of PPT-registered businesses, which comprised 4,617 businesses across a variety of sizes, business sectors, and UK nations and regions. Full sampling breakdowns are provided in the Technical Annex (Chapter 11). Given the small sample frame, a census approach was used for survey fieldwork. Screening questions asked at the start of the survey ensured that all participants held senior roles and were involved in plastic packaging decisions, and in most cases also responsible for submitting PPT returns.

The survey was conducted via a mixed-mode approach (telephone and online). A pilot survey was conducted between 26 January 2026 and 13 February 2026, to test the questions were working as intended and the survey length was appropriate. Following the pilot, the survey design was finalised and the mainstage fieldwork was conducted between 24 February and 24 April 2026. All sample records were called a minimum of 10 times over the fieldwork period, unless they completed, refused, or opted out. Across the pilot and mainstage, 1,011 surveys were completed in total, including 721 via telephone and 290 online. Final survey data was weighted to match the population characteristics from the HMRC PPT returns database. More details on the sample design and data collection can be found in the Technical Annex (Chapter 11).

3.4 Reporting notes

Whether businesses manufactured or imported plastic packaging products was a core differentiator for this research. Businesses were categorised as either manufacturers, importers, or both. Businesses that both manufactured and imported plastic packaging (11% of the completed interviews) were asked about their main activity and categorised as either ‘mainly manufacturer’ or ‘mainly importer’. A very small proportion of those that were both manufacturers and importers (3% of the 11%) selected ‘it is an even split’. In this report, for the purposes of analysis, businesses are re-categorised into 2 groups: those that were solely manufacturers or mainly manufacturers, referred to as manufacturers, and those that were solely importers or mainly importers, referred to as importers. A full breakdown of the business type, along with other business characteristics in the achieved sample, can be found in the Technical Annex (Chapter 11).

Where figures in charts or reported in the text do not add to 100%, this is due to rounding of percentages or questions where multiple responses are allowed. There are also some instances where 2 or more results when presented individually do not match to the sum when added, which is also due to rounding of the individual percentages. Survey results are subject to margins of error, which vary with the sample size and the percentage figure concerned. All findings included in this report are based on a sample size of at least 50, and any findings based on a sample of 50 to 99 are highlighted. Only differences which are statistically significant are commented on in this report. An explanation of how significance testing was conducted can be found in the Technical Annex (Chapter 11)..

4. PPT administration

This section summarises businesses’ experiences of PPT administration, including their use of HMRC guidance on complying with the tax, the ease of following different aspects of PPT, and time spent on tax administration related to PPT^{[footnote 2]}.

4.1 Clarity of HMRC’s guidance on how to comply with the tax

Most (62%) businesses who had used HMRC’s guidance on PPT agreed that it clearly explains how to comply with the tax. However, 19% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 17% found the guidance unclear (Figure 4.1).

There were specific subgroups who were more likely to think that the guidance was not clear. These included:

• manufacturers (26%), compared to importers (15%)
• those whose annual turnover was less than £5 million (25%), compared to £50 million up to £100 million (9%)
• small businesses (21%), compared to medium businesses (14%)

Figure 4.1: Of businesses that had used HMRC’s PPT guidance, the percentage that agreed or disagreed that it clearly explains how to comply with the tax

HMRC’s guidance clearly explains how to comply with the tax	Agree strongly	Tend to agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Tend to disagree	Disagree strongly	Don’t know or prefer not to say
%	17%	45%	19%	13%	4%	2%

^{To what extent do you agree or disagree that HMRC’s guidance on Plastic Packaging Tax clearly explains how to comply with the tax?
Base: All who had used HMRC guidance (n=897)}

4.2 Ease of different aspects of PPT administration

Most businesses found the PPT administration relatively straightforward. Submitting and completing the PPT returns was found to be the easiest aspect, with the majority (79%) of businesses finding this easy. This was followed by calculating the tax due, which 73% of businesses agreed was easy (Figure 4.2).

However, when it came to getting answers to queries from HMRC, over a third (36%) of businesses who had contacted HMRC with a query found it to be a challenge. This was followed by gathering necessary information for the PPT return, which around a quarter of businesses (27%) found to be a difficult aspect of PPT administration.

Figure 4.2: Percentage of businesses reporting that they found each aspect of PPT administration easy or difficult

Aspect of PPT administration	Very easy	Fairly easy	Neither easy nor difficult	Fairly difficult	Very difficult	Don’t know or prefer not to say
Completing and submitting the PPT return	32%	47%	12%	5%	1%	2%
Calculating the tax due	26%	47%	14%	7%	3%	3%
Knowing which plastic packaging components are liable for the tax	16%	43%	19%	15%	4%	3%
Gathering necessary information for the PPT return	14%	39%	18%	20%	7%	1%
Getting answers to queries from HMRC when needed	8%	29%	25%	20%	16%	2%

^{How easy or difficult did you find the following aspects of Plastic Packaging Tax?
Base: All businesses (n=1,011); Getting answers to queries from HMRC when needed: All businesses that contacted HMRC with a query (n=383)}

4.3 Time spent on PPT administration per quarter

The survey asked about the time spent on PPT administration per quarter, including record-keeping, preparing information for accountants, tax agents or external third-party data suppliers, calculations, and submissions.

As shown in Figure 4.3, most businesses (75%) completed PPT administration in 10 hours or less per quarter, including 44% spending less than 5 hours. A small proportion spent more than 20 hours per quarter on PPT administration (10%). There were no significant differences across the main subgroups in terms of time spent.

Figure 4.3: Percentage of businesses by time spent on PPT administration per quarter

Time spent	Less than 5 hours	5 to 10 hours	11 to 20 hours	21 to 40 hours	More than 40 hours	Don’t know or prefer not to say
%	44%	31%	11%	6%	4%	4%

^{Approximately how many hours each quarter does your business typically spend on tax administration related to Plastic Packaging Tax, including record-keeping, preparing information for your accountant, tax agent or external third-party data supplier, calculations, and submissions?
Base: All businesses (n=1,011)}

5. Impact of PPT on total plastic packaging tonnage and recycled content

This section focuses on the self-reported impact of PPT on businesses’ plastic packaging. Specifically, it covers the impact of PPT on businesses’ total plastic packaging tonnage, as well as the impact on the recycled content in their plastic packaging. It also explores the factors preventing businesses from increasing recycled content^{[footnote 2]}.

5.1 Impact of PPT on total plastic packaging tonnage

Total plastic packaging tonnage had not changed due to PPT for most businesses, with two-thirds of businesses (67%) saying the tonnage of plastic packaging that they manufactured or imported had stayed the same (see Figure 5.1). 1 in 5 businesses (21%) said their total tonnage had decreased due to PPT, whilst 6% said their total tonnage had increased due to PPT.

Figure 5.1: Percentage of businesses that reported change (or no change) to their total tonnage of plastic packaging due to PPT

Reported change in tonnage	Decreased a lot	Decreased a little	Stayed about the same	Increased a little	Increased a lot	Don’t know or prefer not to say
%	8%	13%	67%	5%	1%	6%

^{Has the total tonnage of plastic packaging you manufacture or import changed due to Plastic Packaging Tax?
Unweighted base: All businesses (n=1,011)}

Notably, businesses that manufactured or imported lower volumes of plastic packaging were more likely to say that they had reduced their overall plastic packaging tonnage due to PPT. As shown in Figure 5.2, those manufacturing or importing 0-5 tonnes (33%) or 6-10 tonnes (28%) in 2025 were more likely to say they had decreased their overall tonnage of plastic packaging due to PPT, compared to those with 1,000 tonnes or more, of which 13% said they had decreased their tonnage due to PPT.

Figure 5.2: Percentage of businesses that said their plastic packaging tonnage had decreased due to PPT, for each annual (2025) tonnage category

0-5 tonnes	33%
6-10 tonnes	28%
11-100 tonnes	21%
101-500 tonnes	19%
501-999 tonnes	18%
1000+ tonnes	13%

^{Has the total tonnage of plastic packaging you manufacture or import changed due to Plastic Packaging Tax?
Unweighted base: All with 0-5 tonnes in 2025 (n=62), 6-10 tonnes (n=50), 11-100 tonnes (n=485), 101-500 tonnes (n=252), 501-999 tonnes (n=51), 1000+ tonnes (n=111)}

Of those businesses that said their plastic packaging tonnage had decreased, as shown in Figure 5.3, half (53%) said they had decreased their tonnage by up to a quarter, and one in 5 (19%) said they had decreased their tonnage by between a quarter and a half. Businesses were far less likely to have decreased their tonnage by more than half, with only 14% having done so.

Figure 5.3: Of businesses that had decreased plastic packaging tonnage, the percentage that had done so by each different amount

	%
Up to a quarter less	53%
A quarter to a half less	19%
Half to three-quarters less	8%
More than three-quarters less	6%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	14%

^{By approximately how much has your tonnage of plastic packaging decreased due to Plastic Packaging Tax?
Unweighted base: All businesses whose plastic packaging tonnage had decreased (n=218)}

Only a small proportion of businesses (6%) said they had increased plastic packaging tonnage due to PPT. Figure 5.4 shows that 63% of those businesses had increased tonnage by up to a quarter, and 19% by between a quarter and a half.

Figure 5.4 Of businesses that had increased plastic packaging tonnage, the percentage that had done so by each different amount

	%
Up to a quarter more	63%
A quarter to a half more	19%
Half to three-quarters more	3%
Three-quarters more to double	4%
More than double	1%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	9%

^{By approximately how much has your tonnage of plastic packaging increased due to Plastic Packaging Tax?
Unweighted base: All businesses whose plastic packaging tonnage had increased (n=65)
These findings should be treated with caution due to the low base size (less than 100)}

5.2 Impact of PPT on recycled plastic content

Some businesses made changes to the recycled plastic content of their plastic packaging due to PPT. As shown in Figure 5.5, 3 in 10 businesses (30%) said they had increased the proportion of recycled plastic in their plastic packaging, whilst 6 in 10 (60%) said the proportion of recycled content had stayed the same. A small proportion of businesses (3%) said they had decreased recycled content due to PPT.

Figure 5.5: Percentage of businesses that reported change (or no change) to the proportion of recycled content in their plastic packaging due to PPT

Recycled content change	Increased a lot	Increased a little	Stayed about the same	Decreased a little	Decreased a lot	Don’t know or prefer not to say
%	15%	16%	60%	2%	1%	5%

^{Has the proportion of recycled content in your plastic packaging changed due to Plastic Packaging Tax?
Unweighted base: All businesses (n=1,011)}

Certain types of businesses were more likely to have increased the proportion of recycled plastic in their packaging. These included:

• manufacturers (47%), in comparison to importers (28%)
• businesses headquartered in the UK (33%), compared to those not headquartered in the UK (23%)

As shown in Figure 5.6, two-thirds of businesses who increased recycled plastic content did so by up to half, with 42% increasing the proportion by up to a quarter and 24% increasing it by between a quarter and a half. One-quarter of businesses (26%) made more significant changes, increasing recycled plastic content by more than half.

Figure 5.6: Of businesses that had increased recycled plastic content, the percentage that had done so by each different amount

	%
Up to a quarter more	42%
A quarter to a half more	24%
Half to three-quarters more	12%
Three-quarters more to double	9%
More than double	4%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	9%

^{By approximately how much has the proportion of recycled plastic content increased due to Plastic Packaging Tax?
Unweighted base: All businesses whose recycled plastic content had increased (n=317)}

Despite manufacturers being more likely overall to increase the recycled plastic content in their packaging, there were no significant differences between manufacturers and importers in terms of how much they increased their recycled plastic content by.

Of those who increased their recycled plastic content, small businesses (33%) were more likely than large businesses (11%) to say they had increased recycled plastic content in their packaging by more than half.

Due to the low proportion of businesses saying they had decreased recycled plastic content in their packaging, the data on how much they decreased their recycled plastic content by is not reported.

5.3 Factors preventing businesses from increasing recycled content in their plastic packaging

Businesses were asked about the factors preventing them from increasing recycled content, or further increasing recycled content, in their plastic packaging.

Lack of supply of products with recycled content (26%), quality concerns (22%), and increasing the cost of the product (17%) were the top 3 barriers preventing businesses from increasing recycled plastic content in their packaging, as shown in Figure 5.7. Overall, 23% of businesses cited at least one cost-related barrier (increasing the cost of the product or increasing overall business costs), suggesting that cost was a contributing factor limiting recycled content in products. Only a small minority of businesses (4%) said nothing was preventing them from increasing recycled content.

Figure 5.7: Percentage of businesses reporting that each different factor was preventing them from increasing recycled content in their plastic packaging

	%
No supply of products with recycled content	26%
Quality concerns for final product	22%
Would increase the cost of the product	17%
Products produced to an agreed specification	13%
Not enough recycled plastic available	13%
Regulations make it challenging	13%
It will increase overall business costs	12%
Technical limitations	12%
No demand for this from customers	11%
Contamination potential	8%
Can’t use recycled plastic for other reasons	5%
We have made all feasible changes	5%
Investment or making changes is not worth it	2%
Nothing	4%
Don’t know	6%

^{What, if anything, is preventing your business from increasing recycled content in your plastic packaging?
Base: All businesses (n = 1,011)}

The chart above excludes factors reported by 1% or fewer businesses.

There were some differences between importers and manufacturers in terms of the proportion that were impacted by specific barriers. Importers (29%) were more likely than manufacturers (11%) to cite a lack of suppliers offering products with recycled content as a barrier. Manufacturers were more likely than importers to report insufficient recycled plastic availability (21% versus 12%) or no demand from customers (29% versus 8%) as barriers.

6. Other changes made due to PPT

This section explores other changes that businesses had made due to PPT. In particular, it looks at the self-reported impact of PPT on pricing for customers, general changes made due to PPT, and the investments manufacturers had made due to PPT^{[footnote 2]}.

6.1 Impact of PPT on pricing for customers

Half of businesses (50%) said that they had passed on costs incurred due to PPT to customers. As shown in Figure 6.1, this comprised 28% of businesses who said they had passed the full cost on to customers, and 22% of businesses who said they had passed on part of the cost to customers. Around 2 in 5 businesses (37%) said they had not passed on any costs to customers.

Figure 6.1: Percentage of businesses reporting that PPT had (or had not) affected their pricing for customers

PPT pricing impact	Passed on the full cost to customers	Passed on part of the full cost to customers	Not passed any of the cost to customers	Not incurred any costs from PPT	Don’t know or prefer not to say
%	28%	22%	37%	7%	5%

^{To what extent has Plastic Packaging Tax affected your pricing for customers?
Base: All businesses (n=1,011)}

Micro businesses (63%) were more likely than medium (48%) and large (32%) businesses to say they had passed on any of the costs of PPT to customers. In addition, manufacturers (79%) were more likely than importers (45%) to have passed on costs of PPT to customers. Similarly, passing on the full costs to customers was also more common among micro businesses (40%, compared to 26%, 27%, and 16% of small, medium, and large businesses respectively) and among manufacturers (55%, compared to 22% of importers).

6.2 Changes made due to PPT

Businesses were also asked about other changes to their packaging they had made due to PPT. Over half (57%) said that they had made at least one of the changes asked about, while 2 in 5 businesses (38%) said they had not made any of these changes due to PPT.

The most common changes made were testing alternative packaging options (27%), reducing packaging volume (26%), switching to alternative packaging options (24%), switching to alternative packaging materials (23%), and changing the design of packaging to reduce plastic use (22%).

Figure 6.2 shows the range of changes that businesses reported making due to PPT.

Figure 6.2: Percentage of businesses that reported having made each type of change to their packaging due to PPT

	%
Piloted or tested alternative packaging options	27%
Reduced packaging by using less voluminous packaging	26%
Switched to alternative packaging options	24%
Switched to alternative packaging materials	23%
Changed the design of packaging to reduce plastic use	22%
Changed plastic packaging suppliers	12%
Invested in innovative packaging solutions	6%
Other	1%
None of these changes	38%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	5%

^{Has your business made any of the following changes due to Plastic Packaging Tax?
Base: All businesses (n=1,011)}

There was some variation in responses between different types of businesses. Wholesale and retail trade businesses (30%) were more likely than manufacturing sector businesses (16%) to have switched to alternative packaging materials. Importers (25%) were also more likely than manufacturers (14%) to have switched to alternative packaging materials.

6.3 Investments manufacturers had made due to PPT

All businesses that manufactured plastic packaging were asked whether they had invested in packaging production methods, products, or technology^{[footnote 3]}. One-third of manufacturers (33%) said they had made investments of this type, and two-thirds (65%) said they had not.

Figure 6.3 shows the types of investments that manufacturers had made, with the most common investment being the development of packaging products that were new to their business (19%). Some businesses made investments in new plastic production methods or processes (14%) or new machinery or equipment for packaging production (13%). Investments in new technology or software systems or the development of packaging products that were wholly new to the market were less common.

Figure 6.3: Percentage of manufacturers that reported making each type of investment due to PPT

	%
Any investment in production methods, products, or technology	33%
Development of packaging products that are new to your business	19%
New plastic production methods or processes	14%
New machinery or equipment for packaging production	13%
New technology or software systems	7%
Development of packaging products that are wholly new to the market	7%
None of these investments	65%
Don’t know	2%

^{Which, if any, of the following has your business invested in due to Plastic Packaging Tax?
Unweighted base: All manufacturers answering (n=169)}

7. Influence of PPT compared to other factors

This section examines how PPT and other factors, such as customer preferences and other regulations, influenced businesses’ plastic packaging strategies^{[footnote 2]}.

7.1 Influence of PPT on plastic packaging strategy

When asked whether PPT influenced their plastic packaging strategy, including any changes businesses had made, 60% reported that PPT had at least some influence. For 27% of businesses, the influence of PPT had been either ‘moderate’ or ‘significant’. In contrast, just over one-third of businesses (36%) said that PPT had no influence on their plastic packaging strategy (Figure 7.1).

Figure 7.1: Percentage of businesses that said PPT influenced (or did not influence) their plastic packaging strategy

PPT influence	Significant influence	Moderate influence	Slight influence	No influence	Don’t know or prefer not to say
%	9%	18%	33%	36%	4%

^{To what extent, if at all, has Plastic Packaging Tax influenced your business’ plastic packaging strategy, including any changes you may have made?
Base: All businesses (n=1,011)}

Those with an annual turnover of £10 million to below £50 million (65%) were more likely than those with an annual turnover of £50 million to below £100 million (49%) to say PPT had had an influence on their plastic packaging strategy. No further differences within the main subgroups were identified.

7.2 Influence of other factors on plastic packaging strategy

Businesses were also asked about the influence of other factors on their plastic packaging strategy. As shown in Figure 7.2, the most common influences were customer preferences or sustainability requirements (58%), the business’s sustainability goals or ethos (56%), and other government policies or environmental regulations (51%). The 2 factors most commonly identified as having a significant influence over a business’s plastic packaging strategy were customer preferences or sustainability requirements (18%) and quality or functionality requirements for packaging (15%). However, there were other factors close behind these, including the business’s sustainability goals or ethos (14%) and other government policies or environmental regulations (13%).

The factors least commonly identified to influence plastic packaging strategies were actions taken by competitors (33%) and changes in the cost of virgin plastic (38%).

Figure 7.2: Percentage of businesses that said different factors influenced their plastic packaging strategy

Statement	Significant influence	Moderate influence	Slight influence	No influence	Don’t know or prefer not to say
Customer preferences or sustainability requirements	18%	21%	18%	39%	3%
Your business’s sustainability goals or ethos	14%	20%	22%	41%	3%
Other government policies or environmental regulations	13%	17%	20%	44%	5%
Quality or functionality requirements for packaging	15%	15%	14%	51%	4%
Availability and supply of recycled plastic	10%	17%	15%	51%	7%
Changes in the cost of recycled plastic	9%	15%	18%	49%	9%
Changes in the cost of virgin plastic	9%	14%	15%	53%	9%
Actions taken by competitors	3%	13%	16%	58%	9%

^{To what extent, if at all, have each of the following factors influenced your plastic packaging strategy, including any changes to this, since the introduction of Plastic Packaging Tax?
Base: All businesses (n=1,011)}

Manufacturers were more likely than importers to identify several of these factors as having at least a moderate influence on their plastic packaging strategy. These included:

• availability and supply of recycled plastic (40% versus 24%)
• changes in the cost of virgin plastic (32% versus 21%)
• changes in the cost of recycled plastic (33% versus 22%)

There were also some differences in the influence of different factors across business sectors. Among those operating in the manufacturing sector, those in the food and beverages subsector were less likely than those in the plastic packaging subsector to report several factors as having an influence:

• 70% of plastic packaging businesses said that customer preferences had an influence, compared to 55% of food and beverages businesses
• 63% of plastic packaging businesses said that changes in the cost of recycled plastic had an influence, compared to 45% of food and beverages businesses
• 68% of plastic packaging businesses said that changes in the availability of recycled plastic had an influence, compared to 47% of food and beverages businesses.

Among those operating in the wholesale and retail trade sector, there were similar differences between those in the plastic packaging subsector and those in the food and beverages subsector:

• 72% of plastic packaging businesses said that customer preferences had an influence, compared to 50% of food and beverages businesses
• 62% of plastic packaging businesses said that changes in the cost of recycled plastic had an influence, compared to 33% of food and beverages businesses
• 58% of plastic packaging businesses said that changes in the availability of recycled plastic had an influence, compared to 33% of food and beverages businesses

8. Virgin and recycled plastic availability and cost changes

This section explores perceptions around virgin and recycled plastic availability and any perceived cost changes since PPT was introduced^{[footnote 2]}.

8.1 Perceived cost changes

Survey respondents were asked whether they had noticed any changes in the cost of virgin and recycled plastic compared to before PPT was introduced in 2022. For each type of plastic, about one-third of businesses reported that the cost had increased (30% for virgin plastic and 35% for recycled plastic). Conversely, 7% of businesses said that the cost of virgin plastic had decreased and 4% of businesses had seen a decrease in the cost of recycled plastic (Figure 8.1).

Figure 8.1: Percentage of businesses reporting changes (or no change) in the cost of virgin and recycled plastic

Plastic type	Increased a lot	Increased a little	Stayed about the same	Decreased a little	Decreased a lot	Don’t know or prefer not to say
Virgin plastic	12%	18%	22%	5%	2%	40%
Recycled plastic	14%	21%	18%	4%	1%	43%

^{Compared to before Plastic Packaging Tax was introduced in 2022, have you noticed that the cost of plastic has…?
Base: All businesses (n=1,011)}

Further to this, a relatively large proportion, around 4 in ten, said that they did not know whether the cost of each type of plastic had changed: 40% said this for virgin plastic and 43% for recycled plastic. This may suggest that these individuals responding to the survey on behalf of their business were not directly involved in purchasing the materials and therefore unable to offer a view.

Manufacturers demonstrated a stronger awareness of recycled plastic cost changes compared to importers. They were more likely to state that the cost of recycled plastic had increased (51% versus 32%) and were less likely to answer ‘don’t know’ (22% versus 47%). This stronger awareness amongst manufacturers than importers may reflect their closer involvement in sourcing and costing plastic packaging components.

Micro businesses (44%) were more likely to report that the cost of recycled plastic had increased, compared with small (33%) and large businesses (27%).

8.2 Perceived changes in availability

For virgin plastic, nearly half of businesses (44%) said availability had stayed about the same since the introduction of PPT. One in 10 (10%) thought that availability had increased (either a little or a lot) while just 4% thought that it had decreased. Further to this, 42% did not know or preferred not to say.

Compared to virgin plastic, there was more variation in perspectives on the availability of recycled plastic. Overall, 20% of businesses said that recycled plastic availability had increased, 29% said it stayed the same, and 10% said it had decreased. 4 in ten (41%) were unsure or preferred not to say whether availability of recycled plastic had changed (Figure 8.2).

Figure 8.2: Percentage of businesses reporting changes (or no change) in the availability of virgin and recycled plastic

Plastic type	Increased a lot	Increased a little	Stayed about the same	Decreased a little	Decreased a lot	Don’t know or prefer not to say	Total
Virgin plastic	4%	6%	44%	3%	1%	42%
Recycled plastic	6%	13%	29%	6%	4%	41%

^{Compared to before Plastic Packaging Tax was introduced in 2022, have you noticed that the availability of plastic has…?
Base: All businesses (n=1,011)}

Manufacturers (24%) were more likely to say the availability of recycled plastic had decreased compared with importers (7%). There were no other statistically significant differences across the main subgroups.

9. Possible impact of future PPT scenarios

This section explores reactions to a range of hypothetical future PPT scenarios.

Specifically, businesses were asked about any changes they would make to their plastic packaging strategy if:

• the recycled content threshold remained at 30% and the rate continued to increase each year in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the next 3 years
• the rate for the tax increased to £400 per tonne
• the recycled content threshold changed from 30% to 60%
• the tax was removed altogether

The scenarios were presented to businesses as purely hypothetical. Actual behavioural responses of businesses to the implementation of these scenarios may differ from the answers given in this survey^{[footnote 2]}.

9.1 Scenario 1: PPT rate continues to increase annually in line with CPI inflation

Most businesses (57%) said they would keep their recycled content unchanged if the PPT rate continued to rise with the CPI. About a quarter (26%) said they would increase the proportion of recycled plastic while 5% would decrease the proportion under this hypothetical scenario. Further to this, 12% said that they did not know or preferred not to say how they would respond (Figure 9.1).

Figure 9.1: Percentage of businesses that said they would change (or not change) the proportion of recycled plastic in their plastic packaging if the PPT rate increased in line with the CPI and the threshold remained at 30%

Potential future PPT impacts if the tax stayed the same	Significantly increase the proportion of recycled plastic	Moderately increase the proportion of recycled plastic	Neither increase nor decrease	Moderately decrease the proportion of recycled plastic	Significantly decrease the proportion of recycled plastic	Don’t know or prefer not to say
%	4%	21%	57%	4%	1%	12%

^{For the 2025 to 2026 financial year, the Plastic Packaging Tax rate is £223.69 per tonne with a 30% recycled plastic threshold. If the threshold were to stay at 30% and the rate continued to increase each year in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the next 3 years, would your business increase or decrease the proportion of recycled plastic in your plastic packaging?
Base: All businesses (n=1,011)}

Those who reported increases (38%) or decreases (34%) in their tonnage of plastic due to PPT were more likely than those with no change in their plastic tonnage (22%) to say that they would increase the proportion of recycled plastic in their products.

9.2 Scenario 2: The rate for the tax increased to £400 per tonne

Survey respondents were given a scenario in which PPT rate increased to £400 per tonne and were then asked what, if any, changes from a pre-defined list of actions they would make. The most common response was to pass the costs on to customers (62%). Around a third (32%) said that increasing PPT rate to £400 per tonne would prompt them to increase recycled content, while around a quarter (24%) said that they would be likely to absorb the additional cost. Only a small proportion of businesses (7%) expected to take no action under this hypothetical scenario (Figure 9.2).

Figure 9.2: Percentage of businesses that said they would be likely to make each type of change if the PPT rate increased from £228.82 to £400 per tonne

	%
Any change	86%
Pass costs on to customers	62%
Increase recycled content	32%
Absorb the additional cost	24%
Reduce overall plastic use	21%
Switch to non-plastic alternatives	19%
Decrease recycled content	2%
Stop importing and or manufacturing	1%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	7%
None of these	7%

^{For the 2025 to 2026 financial year, the rate of Plastic Packaging Tax is £223.69 per tonne, and this will increase to £228.82 per tonne on 1 April 2026. Would you be likely to make any of the following changes if the rate changed to £400 per tonne?
Base: All businesses (n=1,011)}

Micro (89%), small (87%) and medium-sized (90%) businesses were more likely to say that they would make changes in response to the rate increase, compared with large businesses (79%). A similar pattern emerged in relation to turnover: businesses with a turnover of £5 million to below £10 million (91%), £10 million to below £50 million (89%) and £50 million to below £100 million (90%) were more likely than those with a turnover of £100 million or more (79%) to say that they would make changes overall.

Passing costs on to customers was a more common response among micro (70%), small (69%) and medium (59%) businesses, compared with large businesses (46%). At the same time, medium and large businesses were more likely to say that they would absorb the additional cost (30% and 31% respectively, compared with 15% of micro businesses and 21% of small businesses).

There were some differences in responses between manufacturers and importers. Manufacturers were more likely than importers to say that they would pass costs on to customers (80% compared with 58%). At the same time, importers were more likely than manufacturers to say that they would absorb the additional cost (27% versus 9%). Importers were also more likely to say that they would reduce overall plastic use (23% versus 11%) or that they would switch to non-plastic alternatives (21% versus 10% of manufacturers).

9.3 Scenario 3: The recycled content threshold changed from 30% to 60%

When presented with a scenario in which the recycled content would increase from 30% to 60%, around half (52%) of businesses said that they would pass costs to customers. Around a third (35%) said that they would increase recycled content, while nearly a quarter (23%) said they would absorb the additional cost. Operational changes were secondary, with 20% saying they might reduce overall plastic use and a similar proportion (19%) saying they might switch to non-plastic alternatives under this hypothetical scenario. Around one in 10 (11%) said that they would not make any of the changes asked about (Figure 9.3).

Figure 9.3: Percentage of businesses that said they would be likely to make each type of change if the recycled content threshold increased from 30% to 60%

	%
Any change	80%
Pass costs on to customers	52%
Increase recycled content	35%
Absorb the additional cost	23%
Reduce overall plastic use	20%
Switch to non-plastic alternatives	19%
Decrease recycled content	2%
Stop importing and or manufacturing	1%
None of these	11%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	9%

^{Would you be likely to make any of the following changes if the recycled plastic content threshold for having to pay Plastic Packaging Tax changed from 30% to 60%?
Base: All businesses (n=1,011)}

Manufacturers (72%) were more likely than importers (48%) to say they would pass costs on to customers if the threshold increased to 60%. Micro (56%), small (57%) and medium-sized (53%) businesses were also more likely to say they would pass costs to customers compared to large businesses (35%).

Importers were more likely than manufacturers to say that they would absorb the additional cost (26% versus 8%, respectively) or that they would reduce overall plastic use (21% versus 12% of manufacturers). Similarly, medium (28%) and large businesses (33%) were more likely to say that they would absorb the additional cost compared with micro (13%) and small businesses (19%).

9.4 Scenario 4: PPT is removed

Most businesses said they would keep the same mix of virgin and recycled plastic if PPT were removed, which may suggest that existing approaches had become embedded in standard business practices.

The majority (82%) said they would maintain current proportions of virgin and recycled plastic while 11% said they would make changes, suggesting that many did not anticipate altering their existing approach under this hypothetical scenario (Figure 9.4).

Figure 9.4: Percentage of businesses that said they would (or would not) continue to use the same proportions of virgin plastic and recycled plastic if PPT were removed

Whether businesses would continue to use the same plastic proportions if PPT were removed	Yes	No	Don’t know or prefer not to say
%	82%	11%	7%

^{If Plastic Packaging Tax were to be removed, do you think your business would continue to use the same proportions of virgin plastic and recycled plastic in your packaging that you currently use?
Base: All businesses (n=1,011)}

Those that had already reduced plastic tonnage (16%) were more likely than those that had not changed their plastic tonnage (9%) to say they would not keep the same mix of virgin and recycled plastic if PPT were removed.

Those that had already increased recycled content in their packaging (15%) were also more likely than those that had not changed their recycled content (8%) to say they would not keep the same mix.

10. Conclusions

This section brings together conclusions against the research questions that this study set out to answer.

10.1 What changes have manufacturers and importers made to their behaviour, and particularly their use of recycled plastic in packaging due to PPT?

There have been some changes in businesses’ use of plastic overall, and recycled content, due to PPT. One in 5 businesses (21%) said they had decreased their total tonnage of plastic packaging due to PPT, while nearly one-third of businesses (30%) said they had increased the recycled content.

There were some differences between manufacturers and importers. Whilst there were no significant differences in the proportion who changed their overall plastic packaging tonnage, manufacturers were more likely than importers to have increased the recycled content of their plastic packaging.

Half of businesses (50%) reported that PPT had affected pricing for customers, with 3 in 10 (28%) passing on the full cost to customers and 2 in 10 (22%) passing on part of the cost to customers.

10.2 Have businesses invested in or innovated their packaging design and infrastructure due to PPT?

Around 6 in 10 businesses (57%) had made other changes to their packaging due to PPT. The most common changes made included piloting or testing alternative packaging options (27%) and reducing packaging volume (26%). Other changes businesses had made were switching to alternative packaging options (24%), switching to alternative packaging materials (23%) and changing the design of packaging to reduce plastic use (22%). Businesses were less likely to have changed plastic packaging suppliers (12%) or invested in innovative packaging solutions (6%).

One-third of manufacturers (33%) said they had made an investment in production methods, products or technology. The most common investment was developing packaging products that were new to the business (19%), followed by new plastic production methods or processes (14%), and new machinery or equipment for packaging production (13%).

10.3 Is further behaviour change anticipated and what this might be?

Most businesses (57%) said they would keep their recycled content unchanged if the PPT rate continued to rise with inflation and the recycled content threshold stayed the same. One-quarter (25%) said they would increase the proportion of recycled plastic and 5% said they would decrease the proportion.

In the hypothetical scenario where PPT were to be removed, most businesses (82%) said they would keep the same mix of virgin and recycled plastic, whilst 11% said they would make changes, suggesting that many did not anticipate altering their existing approach in this scenario.

10.4 What are attitudes towards plastic packaging since the implementation of PPT?

Businesses were asked why they had not further increased recycled content in their plastic packaging since the implementation of PPT. Their reasons largely related to the perceived lack of supply of products with recycled content (26%), quality concerns (22%), and cost of the product (17%). Only 4% said that nothing was preventing them from increasing recycled plastic content in their packaging.

Manufacturers were more likely than importers to say insufficient recycled plastic availability (21% versus 12%) or no demand from customers (29% versus 8%) were issues preventing them from increasing recycled plastic content.

10.5 How might businesses respond to potential changes to the PPT rate or 30% recycled content threshold?

If changes were made to the PPT rate or threshold, businesses said they were likely to take some further actions. If the rate rose to £400 per tonne, around 3 in 5 businesses said they would pass the extra costs on to customers (62%) and one-third said they would increase the recycled content they use (32%). If the PPT threshold was raised from 30% to 60%, around half of businesses said they would pass costs on to customers (52%) and around one-third said they would increase recycled content (35%).

10.6 What were businesses’ experiences of submitting PPT returns, and how can HMRC help businesses address any challenges?

The administrative burden of submitting PPT returns appeared manageable for most businesses. Nearly half (44%) of businesses said they spent less than 5 hours per quarter on tax administration, with three-quarters (75%) completing their requirements in 10 hours or less.

Around 6 in ten (62%) businesses agreed that HMRC’s guidance clearly explains compliance requirements for PPT. The majority of businesses felt completing and submitting PPT returns was easy (79%). However, for those contacting HMRC with queries, getting answers was a common challenge, with over a third (37%) of these businesses finding this difficult.

11. Technical annex

This technical annex provides an overview of the research approach taken for this study.

11.1 Survey sampling methodology

The sample of businesses was drawn from HMRC’s database of businesses registered for Plastic Packaging Tax. The sample frame consisted of 3 tax years of eligible PPT-registered businesses, which comprised 4,617 businesses across a variety of sizes, business sectors, and UK regions. Given the finite sample available, the entire database of eligible businesses was used for the research. Tables A.1 and A.2 compare the full population of businesses registered for PPT (by organisation type) with the businesses we interviewed.

Table A.1 Profile of HMRC database by business type compared to interviews achieved

Type	All PPT-registered businesses	Unweighted interview profile
Manufacturer	13%	12%
Importer	68%	78%
Both	8%	9%
None[footnote 4]	11%	1%
Total	100%	100%

Table A.2 Profile of HMRC database by business size compared to interviews achieved

Size	All PPT-registered businesses	Unweighted interview profile
Highest 20%	20%	21%
Middle 20%	20%	21%
Second highest 20%	20%	24%
Second smallest 20%	20%	23%
Smallest 20%	20%	11%
Total	100%	100%

11.2 Advance opt-out communication

Prior to the pilot and the main survey, a letter was emailed to every business in the sample. The letter explained the research and how to opt out if they did not want Ipsos to contact them. Companies in Wales received this communication in both Welsh and English. A total of 4,610 letters were sent. The opt out period between sending out the advance communication and the start each of each fieldwork stage was 2 weeks and 51 businesses opted out via email, an opt out rate of 1%.

Survey response rates

Table A.3 outlines the sample outcomes, calculating unadjusted and adjusted response rates, as well as cooperation rates.

Table A.3: Sample outcomes

Outcome	Total
Completed interviews	1011
Ineligible leads	96
Refusals	535
Unusable leads with working numbers	1721
Unusable numbers	942
Working numbers with unknown eligibility	387
Appointments	67
Eligibility of screened respondents a	91%
Unadjusted response rate b	22%
Adjusted response rate c	58%
Cooperation rated	65%

a Eligibility has been calculated as completed interviews divided by the sum of completed interviews and leads established as ineligible during screener.

b The unadjusted response rate has been calculated as completed interviews divided by total sample loaded.

c The adjusted response rate has been calculated as completed interviews divided by the sum of completed interviews and refusals multiplied by eligibility and working numbers with unknown eligibility multiplied by eligibility.

d The cooperation rate has been calculated as completed interviews divided by the sum of completed interviews and refusals. Refusals have been based on expected eligibility.

Unusable leads with working numbers include sample where there was communication difficulty making it impossible to carry out the survey (either a bad line, or language difficulty) and numbers called at least 10 times during fieldwork without a definitive outcome.

Unusable numbers are businesses in the sample where the number was in a valid format, so was loaded into the main survey sample batches, but which turned out to be wrong numbers, fax numbers or disconnected.

Working numbers with unknown eligibility includes sample that had a working telephone number but where the respondent was unreachable or unavailable for an interview during the fieldwork period, so eligibility could not be assessed.

Data coding

Ipsos’ coding team manually coded all ‘other-specify’ responses and where possible, assigned them to the existing code frame. Where at least 5 respondents provided a similar answer outside the coding frame, it was possible for new codes to be added. The accuracy of the coding was verified by the Ipsos research team, who checked and approved each new code proposed.

11.3 Weighting

The weighting approach aimed to ensure the total sample was representative of the wider population of PPT-registered businesses. The data was weighted to adjust for non-response to match the population characteristics in the HMRC database of PPT registered businesses. The data was first checked for differential non-response using available characteristics on the frame. These characteristics included type (for example, whether a manufacturer or importer), whether the business was UK-based, UK region or nation, whether the business was under the 10-tonne threshold in all 3 years, and business size.

The distributions of the weighting variables on the sample respondent file were RIM weighted to match the population distributions on the HMRC file. This weighting adjustment comprised one weight which scales the RIM weight to the sample size, and another which scales the weight to the population size. The weights were then checked for outliers; none were identified. Application of the RIM weight corrected the data for any differential imbalances in the respondent sample which might affect the survey outcome estimates.

11.4 Statistical significance

T-test analysis was applied for statistical analysis across the data at the 95% level of confidence. This test looks at each row of the data tables independently and compares pairs of subgroups to test whether the proportion of respondents in one column is significantly different from the proportion in the other.

11.5 Business profiles

Table A.4 Business type

Type	Unweighted %		Weighted %
Manufacturer	9%		9%
Importer	81%		80%
Both	10%		11%
Both — mainly manufacturer	6%		7%
Both — mainly importer	4%		4%
Both — even split	[footnote 5]		[footnote 5]
Manufacturer or mainly manufacturer	15%		16%
Importer or mainly importer	85%		84%

^{Base: all businesses (n=1,011)}

Table A.5 Business sector

Sector	Unweighted %	Weighted %
Manufacturing	42%	43%
Wholesale and retail trade	48%	47%
Transportation and storage	5%	4%
Accommodation and food service activities	3%	3%
Healthcare	[footnote 5]	[footnote 5]
Other	2%	2%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	[footnote 5]	[footnote 5]

^{Base: all businesses (n=1,011)}

Table A.6 Specific manufacturing sector (only categories 5% and above shown)

Manufacturing sector	Unweighted %	Weighted %
Plastic packaging	27%	25%
Food and beverages	28%	25%
Manufacturing	8%	8%
Medical and pharmaceutical products	6%	6%
Other	34%	35%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	2%	3%

^{Base: all businesses in manufacturing (n=397)}

Table A.7 Specific wholesale and retail trade sector (only categories 5% and above shown)

Wholesale and retail trade sector	Unweighted %	Weighted %
Food and beverages	37%		36%
Plastic packaging	17%		16%
Clothing and accessories	5%		5%
Construction and skilled manual sector	4%		5%
Other	34%		35%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	3%		3%

^{Base: all businesses in wholesale and retail trade (n=468)}

Table A.8 Business turnover

Turnover	Unweighted %		Weighted %
Below £5 million	19%		17%
£5 million or more, but below £10 million	11%		11%
£10 million or more, but below £50 million	36%		35%
£50 million or more, but below £100 million	10%		10%
£100 million or more	15%		15%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	12%		13%

^{Base: all businesses (n=1,011)}

Table A.9 Business headquarters location

Headquarters location	Unweighted %		Weighted %
UK	79%		76%
Outside of UK	20%		23%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	1%		1%

^{Base: all businesses (n=1,011)}

Table A.10 Business region or nation

Region or nation	Unweighted %	Weighted %
North East	2%	2%
North West	12%	11%
Yorkshire and the Humber	9%	8%
East Midlands	9%	8%
West Midlands	9%	9%
East of England	11%	10%
London	11%	15%
South East	18%	15%
South West	6%	5%
Scotland	2%	3%
Wales	3%	2%
Northern Ireland	4%	3%
Outside UK	4%	8%
Not stated	4%	4%

^{Base: all businesses (n=1,011)}

Table A.11 Business plastic type — manufactured plastic packaging

Plastic type	Unweighted %		Weighted %
Polypropylene	48%		49%
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)	35%		38%
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)	35%		34%
Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE)	37%		33%
Polystyrene (PS)	12%		12%
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)	10%		10%
Compostable plastic - biodegradable	10%		9%
Bio-based non-biodegradable plastic	8%		7%
Compostable plastic - oxodegradable	3%		3%
Another plastic type	10%		10%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	15%		14%

^{Base: all manufacturers (n=195)}

Table A.12 Business plastic type — imported plastic packaging

Plastic type	Unweighted %		Weighted %
Polypropylene	34%		35%
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)	34%		34%
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)	26%		26%
Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE)	31%		31%
Polystyrene (PS)	11%		11%
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)	8%		8%
Compostable plastic - biodegradable	5%		5%
Bio-based non-biodegradable plastic	7%		6%
Compostable plastic - oxodegradable	2%		2%
Another plastic type	5%		5%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	33%		32%

^{Base: all importers (n=920)}

Table A.13 Business plastic product type

Plastic product type	Unweighted %	Weighted %
Packaging films and other flexibles	53%	52%
Lids or caps or closures	26%	25%
Labels or tape for packaging	25%	25%
Bulk containers for transporting and protecting products	23%	23%
Food pots or tubs or trays or cups	22%	21%
Bottles (such as drink bottles, shampoo)	16%	15%
Plastic carrier bags or bin liners	13%	13%
Medical packaging (such as tablet sheet or blister pack)	7%	7%
Other	3%	3%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	no data	2%

^{Base: all businesses (n=1,011)}

1. ‘Manufacturers’ here refers to those that are solely or mainly manufacturers, while ‘importers’ refers to those that are solely or mainly importers. Please see further explanation in section 3.4. ↩

2. Businesses that were solely manufacturers or mainly manufacturers are referred to as manufacturers, and those that were solely importers or mainly importers are referred to as importers. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

3. This question was asked of all businesses that were either solely manufacturers or those that were manufacturers and importers, not just those that were mainly manufacturers. This is different from the manufacturers referred to in the rest of the report, which includes those that were solely or mainly manufacturers. ↩

4. Businesses categorised as ‘none’ were those that had not been liable to pay the tax in any quarter to date, meaning their importer or manufacturer status was unknown from the sample data. For these businesses, importer or manufacturer status was subsequently confirmed through the survey. ↩

5. Less than 0.5% but greater than 0% ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶