SACHET MARKETING DEFINED

Sachet marketing is defined as the "entire marketing strategy involving designing, packaging, and selling a product or service in small pack sizes at an affordable price point for consumers “(Singh et al. 2009).

The strategy of selling small amounts of goods in single-serving sachets initially began as a way to promote products. However, it was soon discovered that this strategy is highly effective in penetrating markets in underprivileged societies and emerging markets.

The strategy has, therefore, been developed on a purely commercial basis (Sy-Changco et al. 2011), without even minimal consideration by manufacturers or market developers for the environmental impact it could have in countries where waste collection and recycling are not effective. Environmental concerns are not taken into account in research related to the effectiveness of sachet marketing strategies, demonstrating that the complete externalization of any environmental costs is an underlying assumption. Critical factors for the successful implementation of sachet marketing (Ang, R. P., & Sy-Changco, J. A. 2007) were considered: "the prevalence of poverty, the existence of a retail distribution network that can be conveniently accessed by this market, exposure to Western media, a strong consumer orientation, and the availability of technology that can reduce the cost of sachet sizing." What is not listed among the critical factors for the "successful" prevalence of the sachet economy -maybe because given for grant – is the absence of any capacity of the environmental authorities to assess and counteract the environmental impact of this packaging modality, and symmetrically, the absence of any environmental concern from the brands promoting this unsustainable consumer behavior.

Stepping back from the "sachet economy" after years of relentless promotion of this unsustainable marketing strategy is now extremely difficult for the following reasons:

1. Costs: massive investment on sachet technology and deliberate price strategies have resulted in sachet goods being sold, in specific markets, at not more, or sometimes even less than the cost of same goods in recyclable or reusable containers. This primarily applies to developing countries, whilst in developed countries the sale of goods in sachets is discouraged, restricted or more costly than the product in larger containers.

2. Selling sachet products is marketed as a way to make high-end products available to the lower-end market. Restricting or even banning the marketing of sachet goods would be perceived as an action against the poorer segment of the population, a very unpopular move that would be unlikely for any politician to take.

3. Manufacturers present sachet products as extremely convenient for consumers in terms of hygiene, portability, cost, and the preservation of good quality over time.

4. Sachet marketing is highly effective for manufacturers in terms of brand exposure. For example, selling 100g of instant coffee through 1.5g coffee sachets replicates the brand 66 times more. This is indeed a significant marketing advantage compared to products in larger containers. The longawaited and highly desirable "refilling revolution" (Catherine Liamzon (Lead), Sherma Benosa, Miko Aliño, and Beau Baconguis 2020) is logistically problematic and is not likely to replace the sachet economy soon due to serious logistics, commercial, and branding issues.

5. Although sachets are mostly sold in supermarkets in packages containing several sachet units, small and micro retailers usually sell single sachets with some additional margin. This constitutes a significant portion of the earnings for small shop owners, considering that currently, the amount of goods sold in sachets has surpassed larger containers for several products in some markets.

Awakening from the sachet economy is indeed worse than waking from a nightmare because this nightmare is not going to end soon. There are no simple solutions. Sachet marketing packaging was valued at 9 billion USD in 2021 and is projected to reach 15.5 billion by 2031 (Allied Market Research 2021). Unilever (UNILEVER 2022), in a candidly discouraging statement on its website, acknowledges that "The problem is that most plastic sachets are not currently being recycled because it's difficult to separate these various layers, and the materials have little or no economic value. As a result, flexible packaging often ends up as waste." The question is: how is it possible that such powerful brands didn't know about this significant limitation of their products from the very beginning? The obvious answer is that they indeed knew, just as they knew that the environmental authorities in the countries where they initiated sachet marketing wouldn't have the capability to assess the environmental cost of this marketing strategy and implement the necessary countermeasures. Over time, instead of investing (at least partially) to increase the sustainability of such products, the development of sachet packaging has led to increasingly complex, multilayered packaging that is even more difficult to recycle. Using Unilever's own words, "For instance, one layer prevents moisture and/or light from spoiling the contents, another seals the packaging, and another can display printed product information,". Their justification for this is, "in several of our markets, plastic sachets allow low-income consumers the opportunity to buy small amounts of products – often those that provide hygiene or nutrition benefits like shampoo, toothpaste, and food – which they would otherwise not be able to afford." This may be true, however it also sounds like a form of coercion and is indeed one of the reasons why governments are very hesitant to find solutions resulting in the replacement of this unsustainable consumption modality.

HOPES FOR A CHANGE

Currently, Unilever and other major international brands like Coca Cola, Nestlé, Procter & Gamble and others are finally aware of the unsustainability of their sachet marketing strategies, and in their CSR policies they have committed to take actions toward an improvement of the sustainability of their packaging. Such commitments, although in most cases still being addressed at “end of pipe” solutions, piloting or small scale activities, or fostering material replacement instead of changing the business model, are obviously welcomed and can be hopefully considered as the beginning of a virtuous process. Given the situation, end of pipe plastic neutrality initiatives, even the ones based on co-processing in cement kilns, are currently needed as emergency solutions to remove from the environment the huge amount of non-recyclable multilayered sachets which would otherwise end up in the ocean or burnt in the open.

Cement kiln co-processing of plastic waste allows for a moderate saving of GHG compared to the use of fossil fuels in the same process, even without counting the avoided emission generated from open burning of plastic waste (Lafarge – Holcim and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH 2019). Plastic neutrality through co-processing or other downcycling initiatives makes however sense only as emergency solutions to tackle waste contaminated places (mocking the floor), and only in the presence of parallel activities aimed at “closing the tap” of plastic pollution.

Among the sustainability commitments of the brands involved in sachet economy, Nestlé under their “Key actions to fight plastic pollution” (Nestlé 2023a) mentions recycling infrastructure improvement, plastic neutrality, and piloting new packaging or refilling solutions. It’s probably because of the intent of the EU to categorize coffee pods as packaging and not anymore products under the newly proposed regulations on packaging (a move that would potentially place out of the market the non-recyclable coffee pods) that Nestlé has launched “a new paper-based Nespresso capsule that can be composted at home” (Nestlé 2023b). Still question arises about the GHG balance and impact on biodiversity of this new package modality.

Unilever (UNILEVER 2023) has set a number of ambitious goal for 2025, including reducing by 50% the amount of virgin plastic used in their packaging and achieve an absolute reduction of more than 100,000 tonnes; collect and process more plastic packaging than they sell (plastic neutrality); ensure that 100% of the plastic packaging is designed to be fully reusable, recyclable or compostable; use 25% recycled plastic in their packaging.

ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO EXIT THE SACHET ECONOMY.

Refilling strategy. The refilling strategy may be an option; however, it needs significant improvement from both a logistic and branding perspective. It also needs to be made convenient for the small shops that currently rely on the sachet economy.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Specific EPR provisions should be adopted for sachet packaging. Manufacturers should, at a minimum, be required to remove from the environment the same amount and type of sachet packaging they sell; compensation with the recovery of more recyclable plastic shouldn't be allowed. Penalizing EPR tariffs should be set for sachet products. A mandatory EPR requirement should obligate Obliged Enterprises (OEs) to ensure the selling of a progressively increasing fraction of their products in refilling or reusable bottles, and at a more convenient price.

Sachets as environmental messengers. Another potential short-term solution is to utilize the branding power of sachets to spread environmental warnings to consumers. Messages with a size comparable to the brand should be added to each sachet, such as "Harmful for the environment," "Not recyclable," or a photo or a logo of sachets abandoned in the environment. Alternatively, they could provide information about commercial alternatives, like "Also available in larger containers at a discounted price."

Progressive ban. Sachets should be banned at least in situations where they are clearly unnecessary, such as in restaurants and hotels where they can be easily replaced by multidose dispensers. The European Union has already initiated this process through Article 22, Annex V of its proposed regulation on packaging (European Commission 2022)

Information on existing alternatives. Consumers should be informed that all the perceived benefits of sachets can be immediately replaced through more sustainable solutions that can easily address their needs at lower costs and with a reduced environmental impact. Portability can be achieved through the use of small, reusable containers. Lower costs can be replicated through sharing the cost of larger packaging, relying for instance on one of the many online "E-pay systems" available to anyone with a mobile phone which allow for the sharing of shopping costs among friends. Branding and quality perception would be addressed by the manufacturers themselves if they are obliged to sell a certain amount through refilling and reusable bottles. Availability can be addressed through the wide involvement of small and micro shops in refilling initiatives.

REFERENCES

Allied Market Research (2021): Sachet Packaging Market Research. Available online at https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/sachet-packaging-market-A12802 checked on 11/4/2023.

Ang, R. P., & Sy-Changco, J. A. (2007): The phenomenon of sachet marketing: Lessons to be learned from the Philippines. Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing,. Abstract. Graduate School of Business Publications. Available online at https://archium.ateneo.edu/gsb-pubs/6/ checked on 31/10/2025.

Business World Online (2021): Coca-Cola to exit sachet business. Available online athttps://www.bworldonline.com/corporate/2021/09/29/399738/coca-cola-to-exit-sachet-business/ checked on 11/4/2023.

Catherine Liamzon (Lead), Sherma Benosa, Miko Aliño, and Beau Baconguis (2020): SACHET ECONOMY: Big Problems in Small Packets. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives.

European Commission (2022): Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC (2022/0396 (COD)).

Lafarge – Holcim and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (2019): Guidelines on Pre- and Co-processing of Waste in Cement Production. Use of waste as alternative fuel and raw material.

Nestlé (2023a): Key actions to fight plastic pollution. Available online at https://www.nestle.com/sustainability/waste-reduction/actions-plastic-pollution checked on 11/4/2023.

Nestlé (2023b): Nuova Capsula Compostabile Direttamente a Casa Tua. Available online at https://www.pginvestor.com/esg/environmental/plastic-packaging/default.aspx checked on 31/10/2025.

Singh, Ramendra; Ang, Rodolfo P.; Sy-Changco, Joseph A. (2009): Buying less, more often: an evaluation of sachet marketing strategy in an emerging market. In Mark. Rev. 9 (1), pp. 3–17. DOI:10.1362/146934709X414297.

Sy-Changco, Joseph A.; Pornpitakpan, Chanthika; Singh, Ramendra; Bonilla, Celia M. (2011): Managerial insights into sachet marketing strategies and popularity in the Philippines. In Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 23 (5), pp. 755–772. DOI: 10.1108/13555851111183129.

The Guardian (2022): Single servings at low prices: how Unilever’s sachets became an environmental scourge. The Guardian. Available online at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/01/how-unilever-plastic-sachets-became-a-toxic-scourge-oceans

UNILEVER (2022): Why do you continue to sell plastic sachets? Available online at https://www.unilever.com/news/news-search/2022/why-do-you-continue-to-sell-plastic-sachets/

UNILEVER (2023): Rethinking plastic packaging. Available online at https://www.scope3.co/rethinking-plastic-packaging-unilevers-commitment-to-a-waste-free-world// checked on 31/10/2025.