Between October 2023 and February 2024, 807 volunteers across four Southeast Asian nations collected and examined 33,467 discarded sachets, tracing them back to 2,678 different brands. That is a lot of tiny packages for a single audit period, and it points to a waste problem that has become deeply embedded in daily commerce across the region. In the Philippines alone, 10,801 of those sachets — roughly 32 percent of the regional total — were collected from just six locations, giving a concentrated look at which companies are producing the most of this hard-to-manage packaging.
The numbers are not new in shape — similar brand audits have been running since 2017 — but the focus on sachets specifically reveals a persistent pattern. Many of the same corporations that topped earlier global plastic pollution lists are still producing the bulk of this single-use format. The Philippines continues to grapple with a plastic waste crisis that is fed by the sheer volume of these small, non-recyclable packets entering the market every day.
What the sachet audit actually found
The audit was organised by the #BreakFreeFromPlastic (BFFP) movement, a global coalition that uses citizen science to identify the companies behind plastic pollution. Volunteers in the Philippines conducted their collections between October and December 2023 across Metro Manila, Malabon City, Dasmariñas City, Davao City, Iloilo City, and the municipality of E.B. Magalona in Negros Occidental. The regional audit also covered sites in India, Indonesia, and Vietnam, giving a cross-border picture of how sachet use varies — and how it stays the same.
What stands out is the concentration. The top five companies in the Philippines accounted for a large share of the 10,801 sachets found, and the regional top ten — which includes Unilever, Wings, Wadia Group, Balaji Wafers, and Salim Group alongside the names already mentioned — are all fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies. These are not obscure manufacturers; they are household names whose products line the shelves of almost every sari-sari store in the country. The burden of managing this waste falls heavily on local communities, who often lack the infrastructure to handle materials that cannot be recycled.
Why sachets are so difficult to manage
The material composition of sachets is the core of the problem. Multi-layer sachets — which made up 57 percent of the total sample — are made by bonding together layers of different plastics, aluminium, and sometimes paper. This construction gives the package its barrier properties, keeping moisture and air out and preserving the product inside. But it also means that standard recycling facilities cannot separate the layers. Single-layer sachets, which accounted for 41 percent of the sample, are somewhat easier to process, but they still face contamination issues from product residue and are rarely collected in municipal recycling streams.
The audit also documented the sheer variety of brands using this format. Across the four countries, 2,678 different brands were found selling products in sachets. The Philippines alone accounted for 784 of those brands. That number suggests that moving away from sachets is not just a matter of a few large corporations changing their packaging — it would require a shift across thousands of product lines, from multinational giants to local manufacturers. The companies identified in the audit have, according to the report, pledged to make their plastic packaging reusable, recycled, or compostable by 2025. But the continued dominance of multi-layer sachets in the audit data suggests those pledges have not yet translated into visible changes on the ground.
What gets overlooked in the sachet debate
Most discussions about sachet waste focus on the environmental damage — the plastic that ends up in rivers, on beaches, and in the ocean. That is real and well-documented. But the report also highlights a less visible dimension: the health risks from how sachets are disposed of. When sachets are burned — whether in open fires or in industrial facilities that use them as fuel — they release toxic pollutants. Communities living near these disposal sites face exposure to harmful chemicals. The breakdown of sachets in the environment also produces microplastics, which have been found in water, food, and even human tissue.
→ Scroll right to see all columns
| Country | Sachets Collected | Brands Found | Audit Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| Philippines | 10,801 | 784 | Oct–Dec 2023 |
| Indonesia | Data in regional total | 1,212 | Oct 2023–Feb 2024 |
| India | Data in regional total | 380 | Oct 2023–Feb 2024 |
| Vietnam | Data in regional total | 395 | Oct 2023–Feb 2024 |
Another angle that does not get enough attention is the economic dimension. Sachets are often described as affordable — they allow low-income consumers to buy small quantities of shampoo, detergent, or coffee that they could not afford in larger bottles. That is true at the point of sale. But the report points out that sachets burden governments and communities with long-term waste management costs and environmental cleanups. The price of a sachet does not include the cost of collecting and disposing of its packaging. Those costs are externalised — paid by local governments, taxpayers, and the environment. The same corporations that profit from the sachet model are not bearing the full cost of the waste they create.
The report also criticises what it calls “false solutions” — specifically, the practice of burning sachets as fuel for industrial processes like cement kilns. This is sometimes presented as a form of energy recovery, but environmental groups argue that it simply shifts the pollution from land to air, releasing toxic emissions in the process. Chemical recycling, another proposed solution, is also flagged as unproven at scale and potentially harmful. The BFFP position is clear: the only effective solution is to phase out sachets entirely and redesign business models around reuse, refill, and packaging-free systems.
What can be done about sachet waste
The report outlines several concrete actions, aimed at both government and corporations. For the Philippine government, the recommendations focus on using existing legal frameworks to restrict or ban sachets. Three specific pathways are identified.
Using the Extended Producer Responsibility Act of 2022
This law already requires large companies to take responsibility for the plastic waste they generate. The report argues that the law should be implemented in a way that prioritises waste avoidance and reduction — which would effectively mean banning single-use plastics, including sachets. Companies would be forced to redesign their packaging rather than simply paying for cleanup.
Listing sachets as non-environmentally acceptable products
Under the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 (RA 9003), the government can designate certain products as non-environmentally acceptable. If sachets are added to this list, their manufacture, import, and sale would be prohibited. This is a regulatory route that does not require new legislation — it can be done through administrative action by the relevant government agencies.
Passing a national law banning single-use plastics
A more comprehensive approach would be to pass a new law that bans single-use plastics, including sachets, at the national level. Several local government units have already passed ordinances banning certain single-use plastics, but a national law would create uniform standards and close loopholes that allow companies to shift production to areas with weaker regulations.
For corporations, the BFFP report is more direct. It calls on FMCG companies to take immediate action to phase out sachets, publicly disclose the type and quantity of plastic packaging they use in each market, end support for false solutions like burning plastic and chemical recycling, and invest in reuse and refill systems. The report also emphasises that any transition must ensure a just transition for workers who may be affected by the shift away from sachet-based business models.
On the international front, the report ties the sachet issue to the ongoing negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty, which was scheduled to continue until November 2024. Environmental groups are pushing for the treaty to include provisions that would phase down the production of single-use plastics globally, with particular attention to the needs of Global South countries that bear the brunt of plastic pollution. The report calls on the Philippine government to support a strong treaty that would reduce and eventually eliminate sachet production.
Frequently asked questions about the sachet audit
Why focus on sachets specifically instead of all plastic? ▾
Are the companies named in the audit breaking any laws? ▾
What is the difference between multi-layer and single-layer sachets? ▾
Would banning sachets hurt low-income consumers? ▾
What is the Global Plastics Treaty and why does it matter? ▾
The sachet audit does not reveal anything that was not already suspected — the same corporations that have dominated plastic pollution lists for years are still producing the same hard-to-manage packaging. What it does is put numbers to the problem and show that voluntary pledges have not translated into meaningful change. The question now is whether regulatory action, at the national or international level, will force a shift that the market has not delivered on its own.
If this was useful, you might also want to read how Philippine communities and government are responding to pollution challenges.
Sources
The Philippines’ plastic waste crisis in context — A deeper look at the scale of plastic pollution in the country and the systemic factors that sustain it.
New report shows usual suspect corporations still top sachet producer list. Greenpeace Southeast Asia, 2024.
New report shows usual suspect corporations still top sachet producer list. PR Station, 2024.
