Published 1 month ago.
About a 7 minute read.
The world’s largest toymaker acknowledged the issues it encountered in pursuit of a more sustainable alternative to its oil-based plastic bricks, illustrating the still-circuitous path to sustainable solutions.
Each year, 60 billion plastic bricks roll off the production lines at Lego
factories worldwide — a simply staggering number. Given most of this
manufactured output is in the form of ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene
Styrene) — a hard, petroleum-based plastic — it’s little wonder the world’s
biggest toy manufacturer has been working hard over the past decade to try and
find a more sustainable
for its iconic building blocks.
Back in 2015, Lego
it would invest 1 billion DKK (Danish Kroner) and establish a Sustainable
Materials Centre at its Denmark headquarters to help drive this focus.
Then, in 2021, the company hailed a
– a prototype brick made from recycled plastic (rPET) water bottles.
During the development process, more than 250 variations of PET materials and
hundreds of other plastic formulations were tested to ensure strict quality,
safety and play requirements could be met.
Fast-forward to 2023 and this work has hit an unexpected setback: Lego
that the rPET brick won’t be put into full-scale production: “When we announced
a prototype, we were optimistic about its potential; but after two years of
testing, decided not to progress — as ultimately, it wouldn’t have helped us
reduce carbon emissions,” a company statement explained.
Substituting virgin fossil-fuel-based
for recycled or biobased
is rarely a straightforward swap; the process Lego had developed for its
prototype involved combining the rPET formulation with strengthening additives
to ensure it was strong enough. In an interview with the Financial Times last
month, global head of sustainability Tim
Brooks explained that because
the recycled plastic was softer, it needed more energy to process it.
Unlock customer insights on sustainability & your brand’s unique performance! Submit your brand (or any brand) into the 2024 annual study and receive unparalleled insights on customer perception of that brand’s performance. Benchmark how your customers rate your brand on social and environmental sustainability and overall brand trust, while seeing how your brand compares to others in the study. Space is limited! The deadline to become part of the study is January 15, 2024.
“It’s like trying to make a bike out of wood rather than steel,” Brooks said.
“In order to scale production [of rPET], the level of disruption to the
manufacturing environment was such that we needed to change everything in our
factories. After all that, the carbon footprint would have been higher. It was
Ditching rPET for carbon reasons has surprised some sustainability observers.
Mike Tregent, a chartered
environmentalist working in strategic waste planning, suspects there may be more
factors at play. He points to a lifecycle assessment (LCA)
published by the National Association for PET Container Resources
(NAPCOR), which shows that rPET demonstrates significant energy and
emissions saving over virgin plastics.
As he told Sustainable Brands® (SB): “Is this more about product
quality, logistics and security of supply? In terms of the supply chain, it
needs to be recognized that for secondary materials, it is not so mature and can
be more variable in terms of price, quantities and quality.”
Emma Burlow, a circular economy
strategist and founder of Lighthouse
Sustainability, maintains that
so-called ‘breakthroughs’ need to be commercially viable — “and this one clearly
“I frequently hear that rPET is in high demand and high volumes are needed to
keep prices viable for food-contact items; so, using it for Lego is perhaps a
waste or at least prevents other markets from accessing it as easily,” she told
In terms of material choices, Mark
Shayler — founder of
UK-based strategy firm Ape — says he’s not sure
why Lego opted to invest in rPET rather than recycled ABS (rABS).
“ABS is a strong and reliable plastic that withstands wear and tear and has
great compressive strength. It is simple to use in injection-molding
applications; there is a supply of recycled ABS and the nirvana is a closed-loop
system of Lego bricks. [rPET] is a softer polymer and more prone to misshaping
and damage. This feels like a quality issue. The decision runs counter to
consumer interest and net-zero targets,” he told SB.
So, where does Lego go from here? The company emphasizes that rPET is just one
of many prototype materials it is testing to replace virgin ABS plastic, and it
remains committed to making its products more sustainable. This includes a
pledge to triple spending on initiatives like this to $1.4 billion in the four
years to 2025.
Going forward, expect some compromise on ABS as the company looks to take a
phased approach by gradually incorporating more recycled and biobased material
into the polymer
won’t be without its difficulties, however.
“There may be options to blend materials; but this can also come with toxicity
challenges, as different plasticizers may have to be used,” Tregent says. He
adds that use of biobased plastics may also pose quality issues, given the
longevity of Lego products as a key selling point.
The toymaker says it is also following fellow toy brands such as Mattel in looking at circular business models that involve
It’s a potentially exciting shift in thinking; but can it be pulled off? There
are already plans to expand the Lego Replay
to children’s charities and other organizations; and the learnings from this
could help inform a more commercial offering, where consumers might be
incentivized to hand back their built sets to Lego for recirculation.
“This is a systems and business-model challenge, rather than a materials
challenge. Leasing/rental is unlikely to work here, as people like to own their
Lego. But a buyback
is different,” Shayler says — adding that his consultancy worked with a client,
RS Components, to develop a circular model via
product buyback and achieved a significant increase in sales as a result.
Burlow says given Lego’s high customer loyalty, trade-in schemes could work well
— but that handling and redistribution costs would need to be factored in.
“I’d be interested to see whether a secondary market for Lego could be
commercialized by them; I think it would be popular with customers but would be
fairly radical. This secondary market could offset revenues from virgin bricks
in time,” she adds.
Burlow has undertaken some work on community reuse models for Lego in the past
and believes there’s huge scope for community and retail-focused reuse. She says
that community reuse is often overlooked as it’s expensive to facilitate, but
suggests Lego could run a hands-off campaign to facilitate local collection
points and parties to build viable networks.
“There is already a thriving secondhand market for Lego and it retains its value
very well. The question for me is, when will they realize the value they are
missing out on? If they could prove a carbon reduction through reuse, then this
might incentivize them to get more involved in secondary markets,” she says.
Whether Lego can go circular with what many regard to be the ideal product,
given its durability and appeal, remains to be seen. Certainly, some within the
sustainable business community feel the company should focus more on reducing
production of bricks, rather than finding solutions to make new ones. Shayler
feels that ultimately, Lego faces a tough balancing act in this respect.
“Anything that fires creativity is a good thing in my eyes; the challenge is the
loss of atoms into the environment. Closing the loop is the answer, even if its
a bigger loop,” he says.
Published Oct 23, 2023 8am EDT / 5am PDT / 1pm BST / 2pm CEST
Maxine Perella is an environmental journalist working in the field of corporate sustainability, circular economy and resource risk.