Editorial Note
This article is part of the series “Positive Impact by Design”, which explores how products, packaging, and processes can move beyond efficiency to generate regenerative value. Upcoming topics include regenerative supply chains, refillable ecosystems, and circular design for emerging markets.

Introduction

The beverage industry faces an urgent imperative: reimagining packaging to meet environmental, social, and market expectations.

Three core principles drive this transformation: sustainability, circular economy, and regeneration.

When applied with intent, these concepts inspire designs that not only minimize harm but also generate lasting value for the planet and its communities.

While many publications focus on sustainability or circular economy as standalone concepts, this article presents an integrated progression: from harm reduction to circular value retention — and ultimately to regeneration. By applying these principles to the beverage packaging sector, we uncover practical pathways for creating packaging that not only minimizes damage, but restores ecosystems and empowers communities.

This article explores how these principles can redefine beverage packaging, offering practical examples and actionable steps to join the movement.

1. Sustainability: Beyond Mitigating

Harm Goal: Minimize environmental, social, and economic impacts throughout the packaging’s life cycle.

Applications:

• Material efficiency: Lightweight, optimized packaging with fewer components, such as PET bottles using up to 20% less plastic.
• Renewable resources: FSC-certified paper, sugarcane-based bioplastics, or low-impact recycled aluminum.
• Energy efficiency: Manufacturing powered by renewable sources, such as solar or wind, with modern facilities reducing water consumption by up to 30%.
• Carbon footprint: Measuring, reducing, and offsetting emissions with clear net-zero targets.

Example: Evian’s 2023 sustainability report highlights that using rPET (recycled PET) reduced bottle carbon emissions by 30% while preserving product quality.

Take action: Choose products with FSC certification or packaging labeled as recycled.

Consumer benefit: Supporting sustainable brands enhances their reputation and contributes to a healthier planet.

2. Circular Economy: Closing the Material

Loop Goal: Establish closed material cycles, eliminating the concept of “waste.” Applications:

• Recyclable design: Avoiding mixed materials or dark pigments that hinder recycling (e.g., clear PET is highly recyclable).
• Reuse systems: Promoting returnable packaging, such as glass bottles, supported by reverse logistics.
• Recycled content: Incorporating rPET, post-consumer aluminum, or recycled paper into new packaging.
• Refill solutions: Offering refill stations in stores or cafés for reusable containers.

Example: In Brazil, Coca-Cola FEMSA reports that over 50% of its PET bottles now incorporate recycled material, reducing reliance on virgin plastic (2023 Sustainability Report).

Take action: Participate in reverse logistics programs and dispose of packaging at designated recycling points.

Strategic relevance: Circular packaging reduces logistical costs, potentially leading to more competitive pricing, while mitigating environmental impact.

 3. Regeneration: Packaging That Restores

Goal: Transcend mitigation to restore ecosystems and empower communities. Applications:

• Regenerative materials: Utilizing agricultural byproducts, such as sugarcane bagasse or wheat straw, for compostable packaging.
• Restoration initiatives: Supporting reforestation, regenerative agriculture, or watershed restoration.
• Community empowerment: Engaging vulnerable communities in fair supply chains to create dignified livelihoods.

Example: Notpla, a startup, developed edible, 100% compostable seaweed-based packaging, replacing 200,000 plastic bottles during the 2019 London Marathon (Notpla Impact Report, 2023).

Take action: Support brands investing in environmental and social initiatives, such as reforestation or community development.

Why it matters: Choosing regenerative products aligns your values with a sustainable future and fosters positive social change.

Comparative Framework

Consumer benefit: Sustainable, circular, and regenerative products enhance brand trust, may reduce long-term costs, and contribute to a thriving planet.

Strategic Recommendations

• Adopt holistic thinking: Design with the entire life cycle in view.
• Invest in innovation: Develop advanced materials, such as biopolymers, or intelligent refill systems.
• Educate consumers: Provide clear guidance on proper disposal, circularity, and the benefits of regeneration.
• Measure impact: Apply Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to quantify and validate outcomes.
• Collaborate: Partner with recyclers, suppliers, NGOs, governments, and consumers to co-create solutions.

Conclusion

Reinventing beverage packaging through sustainability, circular economy, and regeneration is not merely a response to market demands—it’s an opportunity to build a more balanced future.

By choosing products that embody these principles, you can drive meaningful change for a healthier planet and stronger communities.

Act today to pave the way.

Further Reading & Key References

To explore some of the foundational concepts and real-world examples referenced in this article:

• Ellen MacArthur Foundation – Circular economy principles
• Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things by William McDonough & Michael Braungart
• ISO 14040 – Environmental management: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
• Notpla Impact Report (2023)
• Coca-Cola FEMSA Sustainability Reports
• Evian Sustainability Progress Report (2023)

We are living through a paradigm shift.
We are rethinking the value of projects, products — and even progress itself.

Concepts such as sustainability, circular economy, and regeneration are increasingly mentioned, yet often confused. Understanding them — and knowing how to integrate them — is essential for leaders who aim to create systemic value and a living legacy.

Sustainability

Baseline Responsibility
Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs.

Goal: Minimize harm
Example: Reduce emissions, save energy, ensure fair labor conditions

Sustainability focuses on doing no further harm. It’s essential — but insufficient if we truly want to transform systems.
Inspired by the Brundtland Report (1987), it represents the ethical minimum in a changing world.

Circular Economy

Smart Model
Inspired by nature, the circular economy redesigns processes to eliminate the concept of waste.

Goal: Close loops of materials and energy
Example: Modular, recyclable products with reverse logistics

More than efficiency, circularity builds strategic resilience. It’s not just about reuse — it’s about systems thinking.
As the Ellen MacArthur Foundation puts it: “decoupling economic growth from the extraction of finite resources.”

Regeneration

Transformative Legacy
To regenerate is to create net positive impact. It’s not enough to sustain or circulate — we must restore and evolve.

Goal: Revitalize ecosystems and communities
Example: Restore soil health, empower local producers, uplift cultural traditions

Regeneration means co-creating with living systems — where each project becomes a living system with identity, purpose, and place.
As Daniel Christian Wahl states, “it’s not just about doing less harm — it’s about designing for healing and transformation.”

Strategic Comparison

Integrated Example: From Responsibility to Legacy

The Eileen Fisher fashion brand:

- Sustainable, by reducing emissions and using certified organic cotton
- Circular, by designing modular, recyclable clothing with reverse logistics
- Regenerative, by restoring soil health, supporting farming communities, and promoting local artisanal techniques

It doesn’t just produce — it transforms.

Recognizing the Journey: Real Challenges, Greater Purpose

The shift toward regenerative models requires vision and courage. It involves:

• Systemic complexity
• Cultural resistance
• Lack of standardized regenerative metrics
• Short-term costs and uncertainty

Yet each of these challenges is also an opportunity for bold leadership and long-term vision.

Practical Checklist: From Sustainability to Regeneration

Conclusion: From KPIs to Living Ecosystems

The future of projects lies not just in delivering on time —but in delivering something truly worth existing.

Sustainable = reduce harm
Circular = close loops
Regenerative = bring life and redesign tomorrow

What now?

What regenerative practices can your organization begin today?

What local partnerships could revitalize territory, culture, and biodiversity?

Are you ready to lead projects that plant seeds of lasting impact — not just deliverables?

Every project can be a seed of the future.
The leadership our planet needs starts with bold purpose, clear vision, and courageous action.

1. The Unfulfilled Promise

The 21st century began with bold promises.

We pledged more empathy, more listening, more care.

Technology, we said, would liberate us from repetitive tasks, allowing us to focus on what makes us human: connection, compassion, presence.

Organizations promised to put people — especially customers — at the center.

Leaders vowed to lead with greater awareness.

Diversity and inclusion would become real practice, not corporate slogans.

But somewhere along the way, the promise faded.

Technology advanced.

Efficiency accelerated.

But humanity fell behind.

What created this gap?

Let’s explore what was promised, what we’re experiencing, and how we can reclaim what matters most.

2. The Recommended Behaviors

Across corporate manifestos, leadership frameworks, and culture codes, we see a familiar list of modern ideals:

• Listen more than you speak, and do so with genuine attention.
• Practice empathy, seeing the person behind the role.
• Treat customers as individuals, not just metrics.
• Be present as a leader, not merely productive.
• Create psychologically safe environments, where people feel free to speak and be heard.
• Honor diversity as enrichment, not checkbox compliance.
• Engage in courageous conversations, with honesty and care.
• Lead with care, presence, and intention.

That is the theory that inspires.

But between discourse and practice, there is often a deep disconnect.

3. The Observed Behaviors

Reality paints a very different picture.

Sarah, a loyal customer, once spent 20 minutes trapped in a chatbot loop trying to resolve a minor billing issue.

No human handoff.

No recognition of her frustration.

No apology.

Later, she said, “I didn’t feel mistreated — I felt invisible.”

John, a committed team member, submitted thoughtful feedback during a project review.

It was never acknowledged.

Not even a “thank you.”

When asked later why he stopped contributing ideas, he replied,

“I realized I was speaking into a void.”

These stories are not rare.

• Customers waiting endlessly for basic acknowledgment.
• Colleagues discouraged from speaking up.
• Managers delegating without presence.
• Employees reduced to dashboards and deadlines.
• Culture statements that promise empathy, but practices that deliver silence.
• Automation that mimics care but leaves no room for connection.

What’s being eroded is not just efficiency — it’s a shared human need for warmth and recognition.

The age of empathy has been replaced by the age of self-service.

The culture of care has become the culture of clicking.

4. The Role of Chatbots (and How to Use Them Wisely)

Chatbots and digital assistants were designed to enhance service, streamline tasks, and make space for human connection.

When implemented thoughtfully, they do just that.

But when poorly applied, they become walls of indifference.

• Customers pleading for help receive robotic replies.
• Emotional signals go unrecognized.
• Complaints are closed with “your feedback matters” — but nothing changes.

The failure isn’t technological.

It’s strategic and cultural.

Some organizations are redefining the balance.

Zappos empowers its service agents to spend as long as needed with a customer — not to hit a KPI, but to resolve, connect, and build trust.

Starbucks teaches frontline staff to create brief but sincere moments of warmth and recognition in each customer interaction.

Amazon, despite its scale, ensures that high-friction or high-emotion cases escalate to human support with urgency and care.

These aren’t luxuries.

They are strategic choices to prioritize the human experience.

5. The Cost of Not Treating

Worse than mistreatment is not treating at all — acting as if the other person doesn’t exist.

Unanswered messages.

Unacknowledged contributions.

Unresolved frustrations.Invisible effort.

These silences send a message louder than words.

• Customers walk away from brands that never saw them.
• Talented professionals disengage in organizations where they don’t feel heard.
• Reputations erode slowly — and then all at once — when neglect becomes the norm.
• Organizations grow in numbers, but shrink in meaning.

In a world where offerings are increasingly commoditized, how we treat people becomes the ultimate differentiator.

6. What We Can Still Do

If the 21st century promised greater humanity, we still have time to deliver on that promise.

To treat is more than to complete a task.It’s to recognize the human in front of us.

To be present — even digitally.To turn efficiency into empathy, and process into presence.

Here are three practical actions your organization can take now:

Dedicate 10 minutes daily to a genuine, undistracted conversation — with a customer, a colleague, or a team member.

Configure your systems to detect repeated complaints, long wait times, or emotionally loaded language — and ensure human follow-up within 24 hours.

Create rituals of recognition: Start meetings with a genuine check-in or moment of appreciation. Build rhythms that restore connection.

In today’s world of velocity and automation, human warmth is not nostalgic — it’s essential.

Kindness isn’t extra.

It’s part of the experience you deliver.

7. Conclusion: The Future Can Still Be Human

Ignoring someone.

Not listening.

Choosing silence over care —These are not small lapses.

They are decisions. 

And they shape culture, loyalty, and leadership — often irreversibly.

But there is another path.

Organizations around the world are redesigning how they serve, lead, and relate.

Not just to meet goals — but to create spaces where people are seen, heard, and valued.

Because the future of leadership, service, and experiencewon’t be defined by more automation —but by more presence.

Final Reflection

In your organization, what do you observe more often: the behaviors we declare — or the ones we actually practice?

Share a moment of human-centered action that made a difference — or one you wish to bring to life.

This isn’t just a strategic shift.

It’s what makes us human.

“The question is no longer whether algorithms manipulate. It’s how, why — and in whose favor”

But there’s an essential correction to make here:
Algorithms don’t manipulate. They are manipulated.

They have no intention.

They choose no targets.
They merely execute — with blind precision — what humans have decided to program, train, and deploy.

The Illusion of Technological Neutrality

In the dominant narrative, algorithms appear as impartial, rational, efficient entities.
But that is a comfortable — and misleading — story.

What an algorithm considers “success” depends entirely on who configures it:

• A chatbot can be trained to help — or to wear the customer down until they give up.
• A triage system can prioritize urgency — or protect the budget.
• An AI can learn to facilitate — or to gently deter with calculated politeness.

None of this is accidental.
It is strategic design.

Algorithmic Manipulation as Business Practice

When a chatbot:

• denies refunds without clear explanation,
• responds with polite but empty messages,
• or automatically closes tickets without resolution...

…it’s not a system error.
It’s a system designed to fail in the company’s favor.

Real example: airlines and automated refunds

During the pandemic — and even after — many passengers reported similar experiences: they tried to cancel flights or request refunds but were met by chatbots that redirected, delayed, or automatically closed their cases. The responses were polite but repetitive. The human contact channel was hidden or inaccessible. In some cases, the same customer received multiple contradictory replies from the bot, none of them truly helpful.

The result? Exhaustion, frustration, financial loss — and the companies kept the money for the tickets.
All of this was operated by a system that clearly didn’t fail: it worked exactly as it was designed to.
Not to resolve — but to passively resist, until the customer surrendered.

And worse: this practice hasn’t stopped.
Even today, millions of customers face this silent manipulation, disguised as courteous automation.
The chatbot has become the digital curtain behind which refusal to listen, act, or take responsibility hides.

The Customer Becomes a Prisoner of Invisible Rules

We are living in a new asymmetry of power:

• The customer can’t see the code.
• Doesn’t understand the logic.
• Can’t audit the decisions.
• And has no one to turn to.

Meanwhile, the company hides behind the machine:

• “We’re sorry, but the system doesn’t allow it…”

• “We are analyzing your request…”

• “Forwarded to the responsible department…”

But no one takes responsibility.

Algorithmic Politeness as a Containment Strategy

Manipulation isn’t only functional — it’s emotional.
The bot’s language is built to:

• Avoid confrontation;
• Numb frustration;
• Delay action.

• It doesn’t say “no.” It says “please wait.”

• It doesn’t deny. It says “we are checking.”

• It doesn’t escape. It says “ticket automatically closed.”

This polite evasion is often the digital face of an organization without the courage to listen.

The Use of Algorithms to Hide Incompetence (or Negligence)

There’s an even more uncomfortable layer to this:
Often, algorithms aren’t used to improve customer experience — but to hide internal failures.

When the chatbot prevents human contact, what’s being concealed isn’t just cost.
It may be the lack of clear processes, unprepared teams, disconnected departments,
or even decisions that no one wants to own.

Technology then ceases to be a solution — and becomes an elegant screen for organizational incompetence.
The chatbot smiles, replies… and shields the operational void behind it.

Who Should Be Held Responsible?

The chatbot is not to blame.
Responsibility lies with those who trained it, approved it, and profit from its operation.

We must name:

• The managers who defined “efficiency” targets.
• The leaders who decided containment was more important than resolution.
• The organizations that prioritize appearance over integrity.

Paths Toward Algorithmic Ethics

It’s not enough to demand technical transparency.
We must demand human transparency behind the technology:

• Who defines the algorithm’s rules?
• What are the real objectives of the automation?
• Where is the human appeal channel?
• How is the ethical impact of the automated decision measured?

Conclusion: The Code Is Not Innocent

Algorithmic manipulation is now one of the greatest challenges in organizational ethics.
Not because the code is evil —
but because those who control it can choose to use it as a weapon, not a tool.

If we want to trust digital systems,
we must first trust that there are brave, ethical, and accountable people behind them.

Because in the end, the chatbot doesn’t lie.
The lie comes from those who trained it to disguise the truth.

And you — have you been manipulated by an algorithm today?

The answer might be yes — and you didn’t even notice.
If we want an ethical digital future, we must stop blaming the code.
We must expose those who profit from the opacity.

Because what’s at stake isn’t just efficiency.
It’s the integrity of the relationship between organizations and people.

Technology without ethics is just power, poorly disguised.

“Do as I say, not as I do.”

This maxim, almost a cynical proverb, defines organizations that treat ethics as decoration: flashy, but irrelevant when pressure mounts. Codes of ethics shine on websites and in speeches, but crumble in practice. This article explores how ethics becomes elastic, governance turns into a façade, and integrity becomes an illusion — and proposes concrete paths to change this scenario.

1. Codes of Ethics: Paper Promises

Every organization displays a code of ethics. It appears in training sessions, annual reports, and corporate portals. But what happens when values are tested?

In 2015, Volkswagen promoted sustainability while manipulating emissions tests in the Dieselgate scandal (EPA, 2015). An employee who sends an inappropriate email faces immediate warning. An executive who falsifies reports? “Let’s analyze it calmly.” This selective justice is not a flaw — it’s a pattern that protects those at the top.

Max Bazerman and Ann Tenbrunsel, in Blind Spots (Princeton University Press, 2011), analyzed 200 executives and found that 70% rationalize ethical deviations under financial pressure. The code of ethics, in such cases, is just an ornament.

2. Governance: Mirror or Shield?

If codes of ethics fail, governance should align values and actions. Instead, it often serves as a shield to protect leaders.

Consider a fictional tech company in 2025 that boasts ESG goals to attract investors but ignores harassment complaints. That’s not governance — that’s situational ethics, shaped by convenience. A Deloitte study (2024) revealed that 65% of global employees distrust corporate codes of ethics, citing lack of transparency as the main reason.

Lynn Paine, in Managing for Organizational Integrity (Harvard Business Review, 1994), argues:

“Governance is only real when it protects principles, not people in power.”

Without this, internal and external trust erodes, leading to turnover, burnout, and reputation crises amplified on social media.

3. Selective Justice: Double Standards

Internal justice operates at different speeds. An employee makes a mistake? Immediate punishment. A leader fails? Strategic delay emerges: “We need more data” or “Let’s form a committee.”

In 2018, Uber faced harassment allegations ignored for years, while leadership received million-dollar bonuses (New York Times, 2018). In public institutions — such as in Brazil — corruption scandals often "wait" decades for judgment (Transparency International, 2024). Even in religious organizations, abuse cases were covered up for decades to “protect the reputation” (Boston Globe, 2002).

This hierarchy of punishment sends a clear message: title matters more than values. The result? Demotivation and cynicism become culture.

4. Leadership and Situational Ethics

Leaders are masters at reshaping principles under pressure. Ann Tenbrunsel and David Messick (Social Justice Research, 2004) show that in ambiguous contexts, 80% of managers justify deviations with phrases like “It was just this once” or “That’s how the market works.”

Imagine a manager who overlooks a compliance failure to “protect the team.” He doesn’t break ethics — he stretches it until it loses shape. Over time, these rationalizations become routine. Phrases like “Everyone does it” or “It’s technically legal” enter corporate vocabulary.

A tech company that promotes “diversity” in campaigns but maintains a homogenous leadership team exemplifies this contradiction. The base observes, learns, and repeats: “It’s just for show.” The cost? Loss of talent and innovation, plus social media-driven reputation crises.

5. Ethics in the Age of AI: A New Challenge

In 2025, organizational ethics faces an unprecedented challenge: artificial intelligence. Decision-making algorithms — used in hiring or performance evaluations — can perpetuate ethical biases if not audited. A 2023 MIT study showed that 60% of AI-based recruitment tools favored candidates from specific demographic profiles, even without explicit intention.

This new frontier demands ethics beyond static codes. Organizations must integrate algorithmic audits and value pacts co-created at all levels, challenging the traditional top-down ethics model.

6. Three Steps Toward Living Ethics

Changing this scenario requires courage and action. Here are three practical steps, with verifiable examples and recognized barriers:

Inspiring Leadership

Leaders must live the values, even under pressure. In 2022, Patagonia donated its company to environmental causes, prioritizing principles over profits (Patagonia, 2022). Barrier: Fear of financial loss. Solution: Link bonuses to ethical metrics, such as transparency indexes.

Governance Without Masks

Transparent processes are essential. Salesforce publishes annual ethics reports (Stakeholder Impact Report, 2024), detailing complaints and actions, without shielding executives. Organizations can create anonymous whistleblower channels with 30-day response targets, audited by external firms. Barrier: Internal resistance to audits. Solution: Offer virtual reality training to simulate ethical dilemmas, increasing engagement.

Justice Without Double Clocks

Ethics must be agile and equal. Unilever punishes supplier violations within weeks (Unilever, 2024). Internally, companies can review their codes of ethics every two years with input from all levels and use blockchain to track ethical decisions. Barrier: Implementation costs. Solution: Partner with tech startups to reduce expenses.

Conclusion: Ethics Is Action, Not Performance

Hannah Arendt, in Eichmann in Jerusalem (Companhia das Letras, 1963), warned:

Evil settles in when small transgressions become routine.

In 2025, with social media amplifying scandals and society demanding transparency, elastic ethics is unsustainable. Organizations that choose ethical consistency will lead the next decade — strengthening not only their reputations, but trust in global institutions.

Leaders, review your processes tomorrow. Employees, demand transparency today. Integrity starts with you.

References

• Bazerman, M., & Tenbrunsel, A. (2011). Blind Spots. Princeton University Press.
• Paine, L. S. (1994). Managing for Organizational Integrity. Harvard Business Review.
• Tenbrunsel, A., & Messick, D. (2004). Ethical Fading. Social Justice Research.
• Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem. Companhia das Letras.
• EPA. (2015). Volkswagen Clean Air Act Violations.
• New York Times. (2018). Uber’s Culture of Sexual Harassment.
• Boston Globe. (2002). Catholic Church Abuse Scandal.
• Deloitte. (2024). Global Trust in Corporate Ethics Survey.
• MIT. (2023). Bias in AI Recruitment Tools.
• Patagonia. (2022). Ownership Transfer Announcement.
• Salesforce. (2024). Stakeholder Impact Report.
• Unilever. (2024). Supplier Compliance Report.
• Transparency International. (2024). Corruption Perceptions Index.