The conversation around resource efficiency and circularity in supply chains has grown louder in recent years, and in South Korea, the legal framework is keeping pace. The 2023 amendments to the Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources have quietly—but firmly—pushed companies, particularly those in fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG), toward much stricter reporting requirements for recycled content. Packaging, unsurprisingly, is at the heart of this. And rightly so, given its volume and visibility in the consumer market. Yet while the intention behind these amendments is clear, translating compliance into day-to-day operations remains a complex task for many businesses.
One of the headline changes is that FMCG producers must now document, with greater specificity, the proportion of recycled materials used in their packaging. The bar for evidence has been raised. Self-declared figures that might once have been acceptable now need to be supported by verifiable data. There’s an expectation—not always stated explicitly, but present nonetheless—that firms will turn to open government data and other publicly accessible sources to substantiate their claims. This represents something of a cultural shift. In the past, internal declarations might have sufficed; now external validation is becoming the norm.
So what might this look like in practice? Korean FMCG companies are being encouraged to track recycled input percentages using open data, such as material certification records maintained by relevant ministries and local authorities. This data, while available, can be fragmented. Different agencies publish information in different formats, and matching supplier declarations to official records is not always straightforward. Still, with persistence, firms can piece together a reasonably robust picture. Some compliance teams have started developing internal databases that cross-reference supplier certifications with government-issued recycling statistics. This process isn’t quick—it requires ongoing effort to keep records current and resolve inevitable discrepancies—but it lays the groundwork for credible reporting.
Setting up an open-data portal for supplier recycling certifications is becoming a practical necessity for firms that want to stay ahead of the curve. The first step is relatively simple: compile the recycling certifications already provided by direct suppliers. From there, the task is to match these against the relevant government datasets. Often, this involves pulling data from the Ministry of Environment’s recycling certification lists or from local waste management authorities. It can be tedious. Data formats don’t always align cleanly. Company names, for instance, might be listed differently in official records and supplier documents. But with some manual checking—sometimes a lot—these gaps can be closed.
The next phase typically involves developing a basic portal or dashboard, often using off-the-shelf business intelligence tools or even open-source platforms. The objective isn’t necessarily to build something overly sophisticated from the outset. A simple interface that allows compliance staff to upload, view, and cross-check supplier certifications against official data can go a long way. Some firms have taken this further by automating parts of the matching process—using natural language processing tools, for example, to standardize supplier names or material descriptions. But that’s not essential to get started.
Maintaining the portal’s accuracy is, of course, an ongoing challenge. Supplier certifications need to be updated regularly, and government datasets, while typically refreshed on a predictable schedule, can sometimes lag behind real-world changes. This means compliance teams have to remain vigilant, checking for updates and ensuring that new suppliers are brought into the system promptly. There’s also the matter of resolving conflicts where supplier declarations and government records don’t align. Here, judgment calls come into play. Some discrepancies might stem from data entry errors; others might signal deeper issues. It’s rarely black and white.
A point that perhaps doesn’t get discussed enough is the resource burden all this entails, especially for smaller FMCG firms. While the larger players may have dedicated compliance teams and IT support to build out these systems, mid-sized firms are often left trying to balance these new demands with existing operational pressures. The law applies equally, but the capacity to respond can vary considerably. That said, there’s a growing recognition within the business community that collective solutions—shared platforms, industry consortia, or third-party service providers—might offer a way forward. Whether these emerge at sufficient scale and pace remains to be seen.
It’s also worth noting that the regulatory focus on recycled content is not happening in isolation. These reporting requirements dovetail with broader policy moves, both in South Korea and internationally, aimed at promoting circular economy principles. This interconnectedness adds another layer of complexity. Korean FMCG firms operating across borders have to navigate not only domestic requirements but also those of their export markets, some of which may have different thresholds, definitions, or data expectations. Harmonizing reporting to satisfy multiple jurisdictions is no small task. Yet it’s becoming an increasingly common challenge.
As with many regulatory developments of this kind, the effectiveness of the 2023 amendments will depend as much on implementation as on the letter of the law. Firms are, by and large, taking steps to comply, but the path forward is not without its obstacles. Data gaps, resource constraints, and evolving market expectations all play a part in shaping what compliance looks like on the ground. And while the tools exist—open government data, supplier certifications, business intelligence platforms—knitting these together into something coherent and sustainable will require ongoing attention. Perhaps that’s to be expected.