Plastic giant Tupperware is on its knees: is this good or bad for the environment?

Tupperware's recent bankruptcy filing has opened up a debate that goes beyond business. As a pioneer in household storage solutions, Tupperware's iconic plastic containers have long served families across the globe. However, the brand's financial downfall not only raises questions about its future but also prompts a broader environmental discussion about plastics, sustainability, and consumer behaviour.

Tupperware and plastic: a double-edged sword

At the heart of the debate is Tupperware's material of choice — plastic. Tupperware has positioned its products as durable and reusable, in contrast to single-use plastic (SUP) items that contribute significantly to global plastic pollution.

Despite major global efforts to move away from SUPs — a fossil fuel evil that dominates sometimes up to 50% of the world’s total plastic waste — the world just can’t seem to get rid of it. As per some estimates, the SUP packaging market is set to catapult from $22.59 billion in 2021 to $35.09 billion by 2030, mainly due to its convenience and practicality over alternate materials like glass and paper.

To that end, Tupperware’s claims that its containers are made from higher-grade plastics which are designed to “last a lifetime with minimal care”. This intrinsic ability to minimise the need for frequent replacements has helped Tupperware, in a sense, be a step ahead in reducing single-use plastics.

However, despite its reusability, Tupperware's overarching reliance on plastic — as is painfully obvious — still contributes to the overall problem. Plastics take centuries to break down in landfills, and even durable products like Tupperware can contribute to long-term environmental problems, if not disposed of properly. Moreover, concerns about microplastics infiltrating ecosystems, food, and water supplies add to the pressure on manufacturers of plastic goods, including Tupperware.

The problem with “eco-friendly”

For these reasons (and more), Tupperware has faced increasing scrutiny from eco-conscious consumers over its primary reliance on plastics. While the company has made efforts to modernise and reduce its environmental footprint — through initiatives like digital-first marketing and exploring new materials — the growing preference for more sustainable alternatives like glass, silicone, and bamboo has chipped away at its market share. Social media has also helped sustainability-focused niche brands attract younger generations, leaving legacy brands like Tupperware struggling to adapt to a changing marketplace.

However, this is not to say that the move towards eco-friendly alternate materials is set to get any easier as well. While alternatives like glass and metal are undoubtedly gaining popularity, they are not without their environmental costs. For instance, the energy required to produce and transport glass is significantly higher than plastic, complicating the calculation of which material is truly more sustainable over a product’s lifecycle.
Things don’t bode too well for the plastic contender when you bring up the topic of food contamination, however. Glass and metal food containers are often considered superior to plastic alternatives like Tupperware, primarily because they avoid the risks associated with Bisphenol A (BPA) and microplastic contamination.

Many plastic containers, including older models of Tupperware, contain BPAs, which are chemicals used in the production of plastics. BPAs can leach into food, especially when exposed to heat, and have been linked to potential health issues such as hormonal disruptions and increased risk of heart disease. Thus, a shift away from plastic containers is, in general, a move towards better human well-being.

The threat of cheaper, low-quality plastics

From an environmental perspective, losing Tupperware could have both positive and negative effects. On the one hand, fewer Tupperware products would mean less overall plastic production. Yet on the other hand, the potential for consumers to turn to low-quality, SUPs could exacerbate environmental harm.

Even if you move one step above the SUP demon, many also fear that consumers may shift to cheaper, low-quality plastic alternatives — which really aren’t that great either. These substitutes are, quite unfortunately, widely and readily available through retailers like Amazon, Walmart, or your nearest D-Mart, for that matter (speaking from personal experience, of course). These may last longer than most SUPs, but still often lack the durability of Tupperware, leading to frequent replacements and increased waste.
Such products may also degrade faster, contributing to both visible pollution in landfills and invisible threats like microplastics in oceans. This trend could accelerate if Tupperware exits the market entirely, as lower-quality goods will likely dominate the Tupperware-shaped vacuum in supermarket shelves. This shift could undermine efforts to reduce plastic waste, especially if these cheaper containers are not recyclable or reusable at the same scale.

A complex environmental dilemma

Tupperware’s bankruptcy is emblematic of the larger challenges facing businesses in an era of heightened environmental awareness. The company’s potential collapse may reduce the production of high-grade plastic goods but could drive consumers toward cheaper, less durable alternatives, ultimately increasing plastic pollution. However, the rise of sustainable competitors could also pave the way for a future where eco-friendly materials dominate the market.

In this context, Tupperware’s situation serves as a reminder that solving the global plastic problem requires not just better alternatives but also a shift in consumer behaviour toward long-term, sustainable solutions. The real challenge is whether the market will shift toward quality, eco-friendly products or fall back on short-term convenience at the environment’s expense.