More packaging means more waste, which is hardly good for the environment. Europeans produce, on average, 172 kilos of packaging waste per capita a year (2002 figures) and the level is up 10 per cent on 1997.
But P&G can't simply do away with packaging in the first place. If products such as detergents were not properly packed and sealed, there would be a greater chance of them leaking into the environment, particularly during distribution, storage and transportation.
There would also be a greater likelihood of the products spoiling, so they could not be used and would go to waste. (With foodstuffs the problem is particularly acute; up to half the food in developing countries goes off before it can be eaten, because of inadequate packaging.)
Plus, since packaging usually contains dosage and usage instructions, there would be more likelihood of overdosing. (Similarly, dosing too little could lead to the need for re-washing, which is not ideal for the environment, either.)
And without packaging it would be impossible in many cases for you to know what you were buying, which might lead to you purchasing inferior products. So no packaging would actually be worse for the environment on a number of counts.
The issue, then, is not how to get rid of packaging, but how to make sure that the packaging there is has as little impact on the environment as possible and can be reused or recycled as much as possible.
This is an issue that concerns not just companies but also the European Union and its member nations.