EASAC - Packaging Plastics in The Circular Economy

ea sac
Packaging plastics in the circular economy
EASAC policy report 39
March 2020
ISBN: 978-3-8047-4129-4
This report can be found at

www.easac.eu Science Advice for the Benefit of Europe
EASAC
EASAC – the European Academies' Science Advisory Council – is formed by the national science academies of the
EU Member States to enable them to collaborate with each other in giving advice to European policy-makers. It thus
provides a means for the collective voice of European science to be heard. EASAC was founded in 2001 at the Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences.
Its mission reflects the view of academies that science is central to many aspects of modern life and that an appreciation
of the scientific dimension is a pre-requisite to wise policy-making. This view already underpins the work of many
academies at national level. With the growing importance of the European Union as an arena for policy, academies
recognise that the scope of their advisory functions needs to extend beyond the national to cover also the European
level. Here it is often the case that a trans-European grouping can be more effective than a body from a single country.
The academies of Europe have therefore formed EASAC so that they can speak with a common voice with the goal of
building science into policy at EU level.
Through EASAC, the academies work together to provide independent, expert, evidence-based advice about the
scientific aspects of public policy to those who make or influence policy within the European institutions. Drawing on the
memberships and networks of the academies, EASAC accesses the best of European science in carrying out its work. Its
views are vigorously independent of commercial or political bias, and it is open and transparent in its processes. EASAC
aims to deliver advice that is comprehensible, relevant and timely.
EASAC covers all scientific and technical disciplines, and its experts are drawn from all the countries of the European
Union. It is funded by the member academies and by contracts with interested bodies. The expert members of EASAC’s
working groups give their time free of charge. EASAC has no commercial or business sponsors.
EASAC’s activities include substantive studies of the scientific aspects of policy issues, reviews and advice about specific
policy documents, workshops aimed at identifying current scientific thinking about major policy issues or at briefing
policy-makers, and short, timely statements on topical subjects.
The EASAC Council has 29 individual members – highly experienced scientists nominated one each by the national
science academies of EU Member States, by the Academia Europaea and by ALLEA. The national science academies
of Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are also represented. The Council is supported by a professional
Secretariat based at the Leopoldina, the German National Academy of Sciences, in Halle (Saale) and by a Brussels
Office at the Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium. The Council agrees the initiation of projects,
appoints members of working groups, reviews drafts and approves reports for publication.
To find out more about EASAC, visit the website – www.easac.eu – or contact the EASAC Secretariat at
[email protected]
ea sac
Packaging plastics in the circular economy
ISBN 978-3-8047-4129-4
© German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina 2020
This version updated April 2020.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, no part of this
publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in
writing of the publisher, or in accordance with the terms of licenses issued by the appropriate reproduction rights
organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to:
EASAC Secretariat
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina
German National Academy of Sciences
Jägerberg 1
D-06108 Halle (Saale)
Germany
Telephone: +49 345 4723 9833

Fax: +49 345 4723 9839
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.easac.eu
Twitter: @EASACnews
Facebook: www.facebook.com/EASACnews/
Cover image: created by unicom Werbeagentur GmbH, Berlin, Germany
Copy-edited and typeset in Frutiger by The Clyvedon Press Ltd, Cardiff, United Kingdom
Printed by Schaefer Druck und Verlag GmbH, Teutschenthal, Germany. Printed on FSC-certified paper.
ii | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

Contents
page
Foreword v
Summary 1
1 Introduction 7
2 Background 9
2.1 Global and European dimensions 9
2.2 Plastics: some complexities 10
2.3 European Union current policy debate: the focus on ‘single-use plastics’ 13
3 Extended producer responsibility 18

3.1 The rationale for extended producer responsibility 18
3.2 Current extended producer responsibility schemes in Europe 18
4 Technical factors in recycling 21

4.1 Current situation 21
4.2 Potential for improving recovery and sorting of post-consumer plastic 23
5 Consumer behaviour 24
5.1 The role of consumers 24
5.2 Influences on consumer attitudes 24
5.3 Market-based instruments 27
5.4 Overall assessment of evidence 27
6 ‘Bio’ plastics and degradability 30

6.1 Bio-based plastics 30
6.2 Physical breakdown and fragmentation 31
6.3 Biodegradable or compostable plastics 32
6.4 Overall situation 34
7 Research and innovation 35
8 Policy implications 37
8.1 The scale of the challenge 37
8.2 Plastics within the circular economy 39
8.3 Alternatives to plastic? 41
8.4 The role of extended producer responsibility 42
8.5 Deposit–return schemes 43
8.6 Improving recycling 44
8.7 Labelling of recyclable materials 46
8.8 Single-use plastics 47
8.9 Protecting the environment 48
8.10 International aspects 48
8.11 Bio-based plastics 49
8.12 Biodegradability and compostability 50
8.13 Research and innovation 50
EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | iii

Annex 1 Members of the Expert Group 51
Annex 2 Plastics and the environment 52

A2.1 Plastics and the marine environment 52
A2.2 Plastics and the terrestrial and freshwater environment 57
Abbreviations 59
References 60
iv | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

Foreword
The European Academies’ Science Advisory Council shows, there are some fundamental barriers and
(EASAC) was established nearly 20 years ago to potential conflicts of interest in the long and complex
provide scientific advice relevant to European policy- value chain, which starts with fossil fuels and ends
making, for the benefit of Europe and its citizens. with plastic in the environment. It is not a problem that
EASAC’s Environment Programme covers all aspects of individual stakeholders can solve on their own, and
the environment (terrestrial, freshwater and marine) the motives and actions of individual stakeholders are
as well as associated issues such as resource use not currently aligned with the overall objective of a
and productivity. As the issue of the use of plastics more circular use for packaging plastics. In this report
in packaging has rocketed up the political agenda, we examine the issues from a systems perspective and
triggered in part by the graphic scenes of marine life highlight these potential conflicts so that they can be
affected in television programmes such as The Blue better understood and addressed.
Planet, the European Commission has responded with
several measures to encourage the packaging industry Our Expert Group, supported by EASAC’s
to evolve to a more circular framework. Previous EASAC member academies, has made several important
studies have examined issues related to the circular recommendations where the underlying theme of a
economy, marine sustainability, environmental impacts greater sense of responsibility provides a common
of bio-crops and other relevant aspects and thus thread. It is questionable whether producers of plastic
provided a solid foundation for this investigation into raw materials can continue to see their business model
the role of packaging plastics in the circular economy. as based on ‘business as usual’ with annual growth
rates of several per cent; it should help if packaging
The current dominantly linear system leads to extensive manufacturers can simplify their current complex
leakage into the environment by plastics that persist mixtures to become easier to recycle; retailers can
for hundreds or thousands of years. Reforming this contribute by thinking as hard about effective end-of-
brings us into several scientific domains. These include life reuse or recycling as they do about the attractiveness
the technical questions of how to recycle different of their packaging to the consumer; consumers who
waste streams, behavioural and psychological aspects have embraced the ‘on the go’ and ‘throwaway’
of the role of consumers, assessing the effectiveness culture which has led to so much littering could start
and cost–benefit balance of different regulatory to see packaging as something on loan rather than to
strategies, objectively evaluating the environmental be discarded in the simplest way possible. Finally, the
benefits of alternatives to fossil fuel feedstock, how to recycling industry will need upgrading and expansion
achieve biodegradability, as well as current and future if we are to stop the unethical and environmentally
environmental impacts in terrestrial, freshwater and damaging export of waste we cannot handle in Europe
marine environments. Examining the interactions of to countries lacking the facilities to properly recycle and
these science-based aspects with current and future dispose of it once it has arrived.
policies thus required cross-disciplinary expertise
which we were able to obtain through the leading Taking such a systems approach across the current,
world experts nominated by eight of EASAC’s member predominantly linear, value chain may encourage
academies. I express our gratitude to the members the already extensive and well-developed measures
of our Expert Group for all the time and hard work within the European Union’s regulatory system and
they spent working with our Programme Director on within leading companies to aim higher, to ensure
assembling this comprehensive report. that the many benefits of plastics can be realised
without having to accept the adverse effects
The pace of regulation is already moving quickly in resulting from their widespread contamination of our
this field and there are welcome supporting signs from environments.
leading companies of their commitment to improving
the current situation, and moving to a more circular Professor Christina Moberg
model for packaging plastics. However, as our report EASAC President
EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | v

Summary
Plastics are an essential material for products in almost with a range of chemical additives, into plastic materials
all sectors of the economy, and the single word ‘plastics’ with the many different properties, colours, shapes, etc.
cannot convey their vast complexity as a result of the required for final use. After the consumer has finished
range of monomers available, the ability to control with the packaging (often after only one use), it is
their molecular structure and the wide range of discarded, from where only a proportion is currently
additives and fillers which together make thousands of recycled with most going for incineration or landfill, or
different ‘plastics’. In terms of plastics for packaging, leaking into the environment.
they can offer an almost infinite range of options
for manufacturers in terms of function (durability, This is a fundamentally flawed model incompatible with
preserving hygiene and quality, etc.) as well in designing a wide range of policy objectives including:
shape, colours or labels to convey marketing messages.
However, the durability and resistance to degradation of • Environmental. Owing to the lack of any significant
plastics means that if they ‘leak’ into the environment, capacity in the environment to degrade or
they persist. Quantities in the environment have been otherwise remove plastic particles, they can now be
increasing rapidly and their impacts, especially on the found in all parts of the global environment, while
marine environment, have attracted public and political being ingested by living organisms — including
attention. Currently, the amount of plastics entering the ourselves.
environment exceeds the amount that is recycled, with
large quantities entering via rivers from the Asian and • Circular economy. This has the objective of reducing
African continents. material consumption and material flows. In
contrast, the linear nature of the current value chain
Reducing leakage to the environment and improving and low recycling rates are predicated on continued
recycling rates for packaging plastics are objectives of rapid growth in production and consumption.
the European Commission’s circular economy package,
its plastics strategy and specific measures on the use of • The United Nations Sustainable Development
‘single-use plastics’ (SUPs). To assist in the development Goals. The current linear model is incompatible
of these policies, the European Academies’ Science with Goals 11 (sustainable cities and communities),
Advisory Council (EASAC) decided in November 2018 to 12 (responsible production and consumption),
establish an Expert Group to look at scientific aspects of 13 (climate action), 14 (life below water) and 15
plastics packaging and the circular economy. (terrestrial ecosystems).
This report is the result of an 18-month investigation • Existing legislation. The Waste and Marine Strategy
and has been endorsed by all of EASAC’s member Framework Directives, and international marine
academies. We review the negative consequences pollution conventions, are compromised by the low
of the current linear economy for plastic packaging, recycling rates and high rates of leakage.
the scope for improvement towards a more circular
pattern of production and use, and options for • Ethical issues. Plastics waste from the European
increasing recycling rates and reducing leakage into the Union (EU) and other high-income countries
environment. The scientific issues examined relate to the worldwide have been exported in large quantities
environmental impact of plastics in the environment, to middle- and low-income countries. However,
extended producer responsibility, technical issues in crude recycling methods, inadequate disposal
recycling, consumer behaviour, the role of bio-based or abandonment have adverse effects on the
and degradable plastics, and targets for research and environment and public health. Moreover, leakage
innovation. The implications for policy are presented in from such practices can clog waterways, causing
Chapter 8 of the report and summarised here. flooding and adding to the plastics entering the
marine environment.
Plastics and the linear economy
This report identifies issues arising from such systemic
The current packaging plastics value chain is an example failures in the linear economy model for plastics.
of the ‘linear economy’. Fossil fuel feedstock (oil and These are summarised in the Table, together with
gas) produces monomers, which are polymerised to the the location in the report where these issues are
basic plastic resin. These can be compounded, often addressed.
EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | 1

System failures and summary of policy options in this report
Stage in the System failure Policy options Report

value chain section
Fossil fuel Social and environmental costs are not Charging full costs for carbon dioxide, methane and 8.6
feedstocks for internalised into prices. other greenhouse gas emissions, and other costs
monomer currently borne by society.
Bio-based Potential conflicts with food, biodiversity, ‘Bio’ does not equate to environmentally benign. Full 6.1
feedstocks direct and indirect land use change, etc. life cycle assessment required.
Plastics Driven by continued high growth rate Regulatory requirements for end-of-life and recycling 8.4
manufacture linear model. Does not bear the social plans integrated into value chains and product design
and environmental costs. and engineering.
Plastic tax or mandating percentage of recycled 8.6
content.
Prevention as part of ‘Plastics in the circular economy’ 8.2
package.
Substitution possibilities by other Full life cycle assessment required with comparative 8.3
packaging materials likely to be limited. assessments between alternatives.
New resins offering biodegradability are Restrict compostable plastics to compostable contents. 6.3
not offering a solution to environmental Realistic tests for biodegradability before their 6.3
leakage while interfering with recycling. introduction.
Packaged goods Inadequate attention to end-of-life issues Full costs extended producer responsibility with eco- 3, 8.4
manufacture in the selection of resin, additives and modulation. Regulatory requirements for end-of-life
packaging format. and recycling planning.
Simplify resins and formats. 8.6
Retailing Inadequate attention to end-of-life issues Deposit–return schemes for beverage containers, 5.3, 8.5
in the choice of goods and provision of extending to other containers.
recycling options. Retailers accept responsibility for collection and 8.8
effective recycling of containers after use.
Consumers Single-use/throwaway culture. Measures to reduce demand for bottles (e.g. water 5.3, 8.5
fountains, encouraging reusable containers).
Encourage seeing packaging as ‘on loan’ to be 5.3
returned for reuse or recycling.
Insufficient incentives and information Deposit–return schemes for containers. Consumer 5, 8.5
to encourage recycling and to reduce awareness, provision of disposal options to prevent
usage. littering.
Poor labelling. Labelling related to local recyclability. 8.7
End-of-life Continued heavy reliance on exports, Support for a ban on exports to outside EU. 8.1
processing landfill and incineration. EU and international aid agencies to developing 8.10
countries to improve waste management
infrastructure and prevent dumping of plastic waste
into the environment.
Ban on landfill brought forward. 8.1
Low-value mixed plastic waste recycling Apply a recycling hierarchy preferring closed loop, 4, 8.6
uneconomic. followed by material recycling, molecular recycling and
finally energy recovery.
Develop and apply concept of advanced plastic 4.2
reprocessing facility.
2 | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

Key stakeholders waste to countries outside the EU, independently
of recent amendments to the Basel Convention.
Plastics pollution is a systemic problem, from extraction
Most of the EU’s plastic waste collected for so-called
and raw plastic production, to production of goods,
‘recycle’ has been exported and much has gone to
transport, consumption, waste collection, management,
countries where inadequate waste management and
recycling and disposal. Reforming the system requires
recycling infrastructure has already led to leakage into
the engagement of many stakeholders whose role
the local environment and ultimately the oceans. This is
influences the amount and fate of plastic packaging,
incompatible with the objectives of sustainable
such as the following.
development and the precautionary principle and, since
• Plastic resin manufacturers, packaging environmental pollution does not recognise
materials manufacturers and packaged goods international boundaries, increased leakage elsewhere in
manufacturers decide the materials and formats the world will ultimately also affect the EU’s marine
which are presented to the consumer. End-of-life environment. Ethical objections also exist to a practice
considerations may be lacking or, on the other where high-income countries are exporting waste to
hand, influenced by considerations of reputation low- or middle-income countries without consideration
and corporate social responsibility. of the subsequent impacts on the receiving country’s
environment or public health.
• Retailers, especially food retailers decide the
extent and nature of packaging used at point of Landfill
sale and whether to continue to rely on single- The loss of the low-cost option of export should not
use packaging, or offer low-plastic options for divert plastic waste to landfill, and a target of zero
products and services, and collection and recycle plastic waste to landfill should also be adopted
infrastructure. at an early date, consistent with encouraging the
development of a circular economy for plastics in the
• Consumers lack information about production, EU.
chemicals usage, or clear information allowing
for comparison between products; they are thus Packaging plastics and the circular economy
limited in the role they can play in reducing plastic
use and pollution. Nevertheless, consumers can More emphasis is needed in policy-making
play an important role in some cases: for instance to reduce the amount of plastics, although
whether to purchase a plastic product, whether replacement of plastic by alternative materials
to reuse (e.g. bottles or bags), and in avoiding is in most cases not justified on resource or
littering. environmental grounds. The emphasis should be on
reducing unnecessary use (when technically feasible)
• Citizens, environmental organisations and and for plastic products to be designed to allow
scientists may collaborate on citizen science for reuse in order to minimise the amount of waste
projects, beach clean-ups or social media generated. This is because a key aim of the circular
campaigns. economy is to reduce material flows and increase the
length of time in which resources are used- regardless of
• Educational systems and educators can offer the type of material. EASAC thus recommends that
curriculum material and innovative educational a reduction in material flow should be an explicit
solutions, aiming to improve the pro-environmental objective of the ‘Plastics in the circular economy’
behaviour of the younger generation. package. The priorities should be in the order of the
‘6Rs’: reduce (raw material use); redesign (design
Regulatory strategies will be more effective where products for reuse or recycling); remove (SUPs when
the interests and motivations of different actors practical); reuse (returnable uses or refurbishment);
are aligned, and may have to address conflicts: for recycle (preferably closed-loop recycling whereby
instance the conflict between the continued investment waste material is used in the manufacture of the
predicated on continued high growth rates of the linear same product); recover (extract chemicals or fuels, or
economy, and societal and environmental objectives incineration for energy production).
such as limiting climate change, reducing plastic in the
environment and improving resource efficiency. Extended producer responsibility (EPR)
Differentiated fees applying to all packaging
Key messages in this report include the following.
combined with eco-modulation which rewards
easily recyclable packaging and penalises difficult-
Exports of plastic waste for ‘recycling’
to-recycle materials can generate substantial
EASAC recommends that the Commission should environmental benefits. EPR is the primary tool
support an effective ban on exports of plastic envisaged for incentivising manufacturer and retailer

choices towards more efficient end-of-life recycling. of mixed packaging plastics is so low that economic
However, current EPR fees appear insufficient in recycling within the EU has been difficult, leading to the
many Member States to influence manufacturer and large proportions exported, incinerated
retailer priorities. Estimates of the cost of losses to or landfilled. If, as previously recommended, export
natural capital from plastic packaging (greenhouse gas from the EU and landfill are to be stopped, it is essential
emissions, air, water, land pollution from inadequate to develop integrated recycling systems which can
waste management and littering) support EPR fees at deal with all waste plastics, while achieving net savings
or above the highest existing Member States’ charges in emissions and resource use. EASAC considers that
(€250 on average per tonne of packaging material), such advanced plastics recycling/reprocessing
with steep eco-modulation (for example in Italy, fees facilities should follow this hierarchy:
for the most readily recycled are €150 per tonne, while
those for unrecyclable materials are €546 per tonne). • The first priority is to recycle to use in the same
The EPR system should include imported goods and product: closed-loop recycling typified by
packaging in products purchased via the Internet, recycling PET bottles to PET bottles.
especially since these tend to use more packaging than
goods bought in a store. • The second is to recycle for use in another product
(open-loop recycling); especially where quality
cannot be maintained, this will be for lower-quality
Deposit–return schemes (DRS)
uses: downcycling.
Successful experiences in several Member States
supports the wider deployment of DRS. Enhanced • Third would be extracting valuable chemicals or
curbside collections currently preferred in some Member fuels through chemical treatment or pyrolysis:
States are unlikely to achieve the very high return rates molecule recycling.
achievable through DRS, and will be less effective in
reducing littering. Moreover, increased supplies are • Finally, where the above are not feasible,
already required to fully use existing polyethylene incineration can extract energy from the remaining
terephthalate (PET) recycling capacity, and demand is plastic waste: energy recovery.
expected to grow as beverage manufacturers increase
their commitment to using recycled content. On
the other hand, the net environmental balance for Improving the viability of recycling
refillable containers is highly case-specific and there is The technical and economic viability of recycling
scope for additional research and guidance on assessing would be improved by simplifying the number of
the benefits and implementation of potential schemes. polymers that can be used for specific applications.
In particular, the wide range of additives which may
Consumer behaviour be used in different forms of packaging (section
2.2) limits recycling possibilities. Limiting the main
Consumer behavioural research shows that polymers used in large volume applications to
consumers are most influenced by prices, not only transparent PET (which is generally devoid of additives)
because of the financial incentives associated with and polyethylene (PE) (which generally includes just
them, but also because they help signify a new social antioxidants) would improve recyclability. Recent
norm. The experience of plastic bag charges shows technological advances allow even the multilayer
that even small charges can be effective. EASAC packaging comprising different materials to be replaced
recommends that consideration should be given by multilayer packaging using the same resin so that
to extending DRS to a wider range of containers it can be recycled. Companies engaged in the Global
and single-use beverage bottles (e.g. high-density and National Plastic Pacts are already improving the
polyethylene (HDPE) containers, coffee cups), on recyclability of the plastics used, but they comprise only
the basis of the principle that such containers should be a minority of packaging producers and users. While
seen as ‘on loan’. Pro-social and environmental attitudes it is hoped that a robust EPR system will encourage
can be encouraged by a comprehensive approach to trends towards uniform recyclability, the European
public information and awareness and on adjusting Commission should monitor progress and consider
social norms with the help of a sustained media further regulations if the leading companies’
presence. examples are not followed by most users of
packaging plastics.
Priorities in recycling
Competition with prices of virgin plastics
EASAC has examined technical obstacles to more
recycling. While some recycle streams are economic A fundamental barrier to greater demand for recycled
(particularly the clean recycling streams from separate materials is competition with virgin raw materials.
collection of PET bottles in a DRS scheme), the value Virgin plastics prices continue to be low because

oil and gas prices do not reflect social and fossil fuel infrastructure to improving waste
environmental costs; on the contrary, fossil fuels management infrastructure in countries with high
continue to receive subsidies from many governments leakage.
inside and outside the EU. This is a fundamental barrier
to improving rates of usage of recycled material and Impacts on terrestrial and freshwater systems are poorly
underpins measures under discussion in some Member characterised and understood, and require further
States either to introduce a plastics tax or to require research and monitoring.
minimum recycled contents. With a budget contribution
based on unrecycled plastic packaging currently under Macroplastics and microplastics
consideration by the European Commission, Member Many studies have demonstrated the adverse effects
States can consider recovering this via a plastics tax, of macroplastics especially on marine life, but it is still
for example to generate income to support additional unclear how far small plastic particles (microplastics)
capacity and diversity of recycling resources. However, have different effects than naturally occurring sediments
further examination is warranted on how any such or organic particles of similar size in the seas, or in
tax would interact with an enhanced EPR system, soils. In view of the established adverse effects of
whether it could lead to perverse incentives to macroplastics and their importance as a source of
switch from plastic packaging to materials with microplastics, it is appropriate to continue to focus
greater environmental impacts, and issues of regulatory actions on macroplastics. Nevertheless,
monitoring, enforcement and other factors. the extent to which microplastics are contaminating the
environment – from the deep ocean to the Polar seas,
Labelling from drinking water to seafood – raises issues that are
A uniform and mandatory labelling related to not readily addressed by standard evidence-based risk
actual (rather than theoretical) recyclability analysis. A critical policy issue is the extent to which
would be beneficial. Currently, labelling differs the precautionary principle should be applied. EASAC
between Member States, is voluntary and its relevance recommends that a debate within society be
depends on local recycling capacity. Consumers require triggered to determine the degree to which
information that is simple, reliable and trustworthy; the this is applied and that, in the meantime,
current diverse and generic system fails to meet these deliberate addition of microplastics by companies
criteria. to products that will enter the environment should
be avoided.
Single-use plastics (SUPs)
Bio-based plastics
Much SUP littering is associated with ‘on the go’
consumption of food and beverages and reliance on The term ‘bio’ does not equate to reduced
basic refuse collection services to avoid it. Integrating environmental impact since alternative feedstocks
recycle loops into the many dispersed outlets (e.g. for to fossil fuels can be associated with high
coffee cups, or fast-food trays and wrappers) is a major greenhouse gas emissions, competition with land
challenge but EASAC considers retailers should have for food, or driving land use change. To avoid
a duty to provide on-site collection points for the misleading consumers, companies should quantify
packaging of the food and beverages they sell, and any environmental benefits claimed. While there
ensure these are effectively recycled. The experience are applications where bio-based plastics may be
of the plastic bag charge, which showed that even excellent, such evaluations should be based on life cycle
small charges can be extremely effective, suggests that assessments (LCAs) and not on simplistic assumptions or
deposit systems should be extended to a broader group claims that ‘bio’ signifies lower environmental impact.
of containers to encourage consumers to see packaging Further improvement in the LCA methodology should
as being ‘on loan’ and therefore returnable to be be researched.
efficiently reprocessed.
Biodegradability and compostability
Environmental pollution
Plastics with a degree of biodegradability have
Plastic’s leakage is responsible for massive mortalities been developed but their potential is limited at
and injuries to marine life. Marine litter is already present. The ideal target of a plastic that breaks down
covered under the Marine Strategy Directive and naturally in the environment remains elusive since
international conventions. Although the EU is most applications of plastics require durability, and it is
addressing major sources of leakage into EU waters a basic premise that a material which can degrade in
via initiatives on fishing and other sources of marine the environment should not degrade during its shelf
litter, the EU should also encourage redirection life. There are thus only a limited number of products
of international aid from the World Bank and that can meet biodegradation tests in the marine
other international aid agencies from supporting environment and even these maintain their integrity for

months, during which time the risks of entanglement Pact, through regional associations such as Plastics
and ingestion remain. EASAC encourages further Europe to leaders of national plastic pacts) accept that
research to develop plastics that degrade more the linear economy for plastics must change towards a
swiftly through natural processes, but faster and circular model. However, as pointed out in this analysis,
more reproducible rates of degradability are needed to there are many technical barriers and potential conflicts
offer a solution to the problem of often-littered SUPs. of interest that must be resolved to reduce leakage into
At the present state of technology, composting also the environment and make better use of resources.
offers most benefit when the plastic is contaminated by Governments, businesses, local authorities, consumers
a substance that is also disposed of by composting: for and non-governmental organisations need to work
example, compostable bags used in the closed loops of together to overcome these, and create an environment
food waste recycle. for plastics use in packaging which allows the many
benefits of plastics to be exploited without the current
extensive negative side-effects. Whether it is the role
Final comment
of regulation, changes in the attitudes of consumers,
In the same month (March 2020) as the publication designing and marketing packaging, or upgrading the
of this report, a new European Plastics Pact was recovery and recycling at end-of-life, it is hoped that the
announced which shares many of the basic principles analyses of key science and technology-related aspects
and essential objectives identified here. This is further in this report will assist all stakeholders in their efforts to
evidence that the leaders in the industry (from the accelerate moves towards a circular economy for plastics
global leaders active with the World Economic Forum packaging.
and Ellen MacArthur Foundation in the Global Plastics

1 Introduction
Plastics (a generic term used in the case of polymeric for example, Meng et al., 2019) which includes bottled
materials that may contain other substances to improve water and beer (Eerkes-Medrano et al., 2018; Kosuth et
performance and/or reduce costs (IUPAC, 2019)) al., 2018; Mason et al., 2018; Koelmans et al., 2019),
have undergone multiple changes in composition in snow (Bergmann et al., 2019), on mountains (Zhang
and innovations in manufacturing since they entered et al., 2019) and in the atmosphere of cities (Wright
widespread use in the 1950s. There are now many basic et al., 2019) where they can be inhaled (Gasperi et al.,
polymer resins that can be modified and refined to 2018). Such negative externalities are not accounted
provide a wide range of plastics with properties adjusted for in the price of plastic products; nor do prices yet
to the needs of a huge range of applications. Plastics reflect the costs of disposal or contribute sufficiently
can be flexible or hard, melt or set with temperature, to an efficient recycling system. Such costs are borne
be easily set or milled into any shape, be any colour, by society and the environment and have until recently
transparent or opaque. Fillers, plasticisers and additives remained ‘out of sight’ to the consumer. Moreover,
allow the delivery of a wide range of desirable several of the United Nations Sustainable Development
properties (including strength, durability, light weight, Goals are compromised by the current linear model of
thermal and electrical insulation, barrier capabilities, the plastics economy, with Goals 11 (sustainable cities
flame retardant, antimicrobial, ultraviolet-resistance, and communities), 12 (responsible production and
etc.) — all at a competitive cost/performance ratio and consumption), 13 (climate action), 14 (life below water)
combination of properties that are difficult to achieve and 15 (terrestrial ecosystems) particularly relevant1.
with alternative materials. Plastics have consequently
become an essential material for products and sub- Reducing leakage to the environment and improving
assemblies in almost all sectors of the economy. The recycling rates are particular challenges for packaging
single term ‘plastics’ hides the vast complexity of the plastics whose variety and low value lead to low
materials produced — not only are there many different recycling rates. Moreover, plastic packaging comprises a
chemical starting materials (monomers), but the degree substantial part of litter and persists in the environment,
of polymerisation can be finely adjusted to make many in contrast to other materials which are either not
different variants on the resulting plastic material. When littered to the same extent (glass, metal) or decompose
the wide range of additives and fillers are included, (paper). Reflecting the special challenges of packaging
this offers an almost infinite range of options for plastics, the European Commission included them
manufacturers to choose from when designing shape, as a priority for action within its circular economy
colours or labels to convey marketing messages to the package (EC, 2015), and has since followed this with
consumer. a plastics strategy (EC, 2018a), specific proposals on
the use of ‘single-use plastics’ (SUPs) (EC, 2018b) and
These advantages do, however, come with costs a subsequent directive (EC, 2019). The Ellen MacArthur
(externalities) which have not been addressed in Foundation (EMF) also launched its initiative for a ‘New
the linear economy of ‘take-make-use-dispose’ (EC, Plastics Economy’ in 2016 and is promoting this through
2015). The durability and long life of plastics, which its Global Plastics Pact (EMF, 2016, 2017, 2019).
are beneficial characteristics during use, become
disadvantages when they ‘leak’ into terrestrial, EASAC has already provided input to the debate on the
freshwater and marine environments, since their circular economy within Europe through its statement
breakdown is slow or lacking, with most remaining in 2015 (EASAC, 2015) and its reports on indicators and
in some form in the environment. In recent years, critical materials (EASAC, 2017a, 2017b). EASAC thus
the environmental impact, especially on the marine considered whether there were aspects where Europe’s
environment, has become increasingly well documented science academies could contribute to the current EU
and attracted public and political attention. Effects can policy debate. After discussions in the Environment
be seen on marine life from the macro scale (fishing Steering Panel, EASAC Council decided in November
nets, plastic ropes, plastic bags, etc.) and medium 2018 to establish an Expert Group (Annex 1) to look
scale (e.g. bottle fragments, cigarette lighters, toys, at scientific aspects of introducing more circularity
toothbrushes, etc.). Microplastics (small fragments into the value chain (from design to end-of-life, reuse
below 5 mm size) and nanoplastics (below 0.1 mm) and recycling) of packaging plastics. The Expert Group
are now detectable in almost all aquatic media (see, has reviewed the many documents available from
1
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals

previous studies and the open literature, has identified environmental impact. It is intended that this report
several critical issues where science and technology should assist in developing effective policy actions in
interact with policy, and presents in the final section the EU, and be helpful to the debate globally on the
its own conclusions and recommendations about the measures needed to reduce the environmental impact
direction of future policy on packaging plastics and their of packaging plastics.

2 Background
2.1 Global and European dimensions incineration (31% and 39% respectively). The quantity
of plastics re-entering the value chain as raw material
Global production of plastics has increased 20-fold since
accounts for only around 6% of plastics demand in
the 1960s, reaching 359 million tonnes per annum in
Europe; moreover, profitability in the plastics recycling
2018 of which 62 million tonnes were in Europe (Plastics
sector is low, holding back investments in new recycling
Europe, 2019). The plastics industry is an important
capacity. Resolving these fundamental structural
part of the European economy, with a turnover of
problems is thus a primary challenge for European
€360 billion in 2018. This rapid growth has been driven
policy.
by two underlying trends. One is the continued growth
in population and consumer demand exhibited in all
markets, so that current levels of consumption exceed Limits to recycling capacity within the EU have led
the capacity of the planet to provide sustainably, to a dependence on export to other countries with
threatening the quality of life for future generations (the little or no consideration of the fate of the waste in
antithesis of sustainable development)2. The second is the receiving country3. Since China ceased to accept
the replacement of other materials (e.g. paper, metals, import of mixed plastics waste in 2017, export shifted
glass) because of the superior cost:performance ratio of to other countries such as Malaysia, Vietnam and
plastics, and by the addition of new applications (e.g. Thailand despite the limited recycling facilities in such
by adding plastic packaging to previously unwrapped countries. As described in Chapter 8, such imports are
goods, replacing reusable items by disposable items). successively leading to further restrictions on imports
The Expert Group has focused on the use, end-of-life and, despite exporters diverting to further countries
and recycling of plastics packaging rather than the such as Indonesia and Turkey, there has been an overall
broader sustainability of the growth in human demand reduction in global shipments of plastic waste. Public
for resources. However, this broader picture needs to awareness of the environmental impacts of these
be kept in mind when we consider the need for plastics practices is adding to pressure for EU countries to tackle
and the potential for replacing with other resources, plastic waste within Europe.
since continued unlimited growth in demand for any
kind of material will inevitably exacerbate the serious In recent years, the public has also become increasingly
environmental problems given the limited, finite nature aware of the environmental impacts of plastics through
of our Earth. This is particularly relevant given the steady accidental or deliberate release to terrestrial, aquatic
increase in the proportion of oil and gas demand which or open drainage systems. Some plastics released
is driven by plastics (IEA, 2018). into the terrestrial environment may remain there (for
instance agricultural plastics entering the soil), but large
Cumulatively and globally, it is estimated that 6.3 billion quantities enter rivers (either directly through runoff or
tonnes of the 8.3 billion tonnes of plastic produced after passing sewage treatment systems) and ultimately
up to 2016 has ended up as waste, of which only 9% enter the sea and join plastic waste released directly
is recycled (Geyer et al., 2017). Plastic waste collected (e.g. from beaches or vessels). Estimates (Jambeck et al.,
in Europe was 29.1 million tonnes in 2018 (Plastics 2015) suggest that between 5 million and 13 million
Europe, 2019), of which 17.8 million tonnes were tonnes (1.5% to 4% of global plastics production) enter
plastic packaging waste. Bottles are one of the most the oceans each year, most from Asia and Africa. Some
common types of plastic packaging waste (480 billion is stranded on beaches, some fragment into smaller
plastic bottles were sold globally in 2016) and comprise particles and remain in the water column, heavier
an important recycle stream in the EU. Overall, however, particles may sink to the seabed (especially some fishing
the European Commission notes (EC, 2018a) that only gear), but much is transported by marine currents to
approximately 30% of plastic waste collected is destined locations far from the point of origin. Plastics are thus
for recycling, and most goes either to landfill or to found in remote areas such as the Arctic and the ocean
2
There are many indicators of the unsustainability of current population and consumption trends. For example the consumption of resources now
exceeds the quantity that can be provided sustainably by 60% (https://www.footprintnetwork.org/); land available to support human population
growth and food has replaced over 75% of the Earth’s land area and led to huge loss in biodiversity, land degradation and climate change (IPBES,
2019); planetary boundaries that are considered to be critical to the maintenance of conditions that have allowed human civilisation to develop to
its current state are being approached or in some cases, exceeded (Steffen et al., 2015, 2018).
3
Plastics Europe (2018) report 63% of the packaging waste recorded as ‘recycled’ in 2016 was exported outside the EU, but decreased by 39% to
2018 (Plastics Europe, 2019). In the UK (RECOUP, 2018), 1,044,363 tonnes of plastic packaging were declared as recycled in 2017 of which 66%
was exported. Germany is the third largest exporter of waste after the USA and Japan, sending 114,000 tons of plastic waste just to Malaysia
from January and October 2018 (Böll/BUND, 2019).

8% CASCADED 4% PROCESS
RECYCLING2 LOSSES
14% COLLECTED
FOR RECYCLING
2% CLOSED-LOOP
RECYCLING1
14% INCINERATION AND/

OR ENERGY RECOVERY
78 MILLION
98% VIRGIN
FEEDSTOCK
TONNES 40% LANDFILLED
(ANNUAL PRODUCTION)
32% LEAKAGE
1
Closed-loop recycling; Recycling of plastics into the same or similar-quality applications
2
Cascaded recycling: Recycling of plastics into other, lower-value applications
Figure 1 Material flows for global plastic packaging materials in 2013 (EMF, 2016)4. Figure reproduced with permission of the
Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
deeps5, and get trapped in ocean gyres. Negative circular economy principles (Box 1). UNEP has similar
environmental effects on tourism, fishing and marine life aims, and the World Economic Forum and many
increase with the increasing amounts of plastic wastes in international companies have indicated their support.
the environment, and the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP, 2016) estimated that the economic 2.2 Plastics: some complexities
value of such damage is at least US$8 billion per year
Reforming the plastics value chain towards a more
globally. The external effects of plastic leakage thus
circular model needs to take into account several
have a large international component and any solution
complexities. Examples of these are discussed below.
requires collaboration between countries (Borrelle et al.,
2017).
2.2.1 The plastic packaging value (supply) chain and
stakeholders
An earlier material flow analysis for packaging plastics
globally by EMF (2016), illustrates clearly how the Manufacturing and applying packaging involve many
system is characterised by a dominant linear flow stakeholders and a long value chain. The starting point
with low recycle rates and high leakage. From the has historically been the petrochemical refinery where
perspective of sustainable development and the circular crude oil is refined to produce the hydrocarbons that
economy, the current system offers many opportunities can be used as the monomers for producing different
for improvement to reduce negative impacts on the polymers (ethylene to polyethylene, propylene to
environment and improve the efficiency with which polypropylene, etc.) in a polymerisation reactor using
the resources and energy embedded in plastics are catalysts. Each basic polymer (or resin) has its own
recovered. In this context, the EMF has launched a properties, molecular structure and size depending on
global initiative to mobilise large companies to work the various types of basic monomer used. The raw resin
towards a ‘New Plastics Economy’ redesigned along then has to be compounded, which is the process of
4
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/
5
Woodall et al. (2014) found that microplastic was up to four orders of magnitude more abundant in deep-sea sediments from the Atlantic
Ocean, Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean than in contaminated sea surface waters. Peng et al. (2018) found that microplastic abundances
in hadal sediments of the Mariana Trench ranged from 200 to 2200 pieces per litre, higher than those in most deep-sea sediments. Cozar et al.
(2017) showed that the Arctic Ocean contains microplastics originating particularly from northwestern Europe.

Box 1 Basic objectives of the circular economy packaging format — films, bottles, containers, etc. The
basic function of the packaging will be to protect or
As described in EC (2015), the circular economy aims to reduce enclose products destined for storage, shipping and
the demands on nature’s resources to within sustainable levels. The sale. Packaging also takes in the product manufacturer’s
primary mechanisms are through reforming resource flows in the
marketing efforts, and, for many manufacturers, the
following three areas (Bocken et al., 2016).
way they package their products signifies their brand,
A. Narrowing the flow of resources by increasing resource use and is thus a critical part of their business model. The
efficiency (use less resource for each product, or avoiding the design of the package for a product can either take
need for use at all). place within the product manufacturer or through
B. Slowing resource flows (make the resource stay in use longer).
specialist companies that work with the manufacturer
C. Closing the resource loop (ensure the resources are recycled
and used in production again). to design the desired package. The packaged product
then enters the distribution system from the product
manufacturer to the retailer, the consumer and
ultimately post-consumer disposal.
Shifting to a more circular use pattern requires

that change be effected along this value chain
(Figure 2), which proceeds along several stages (each
involving many possible types of plastic material
and combinations of materials and additives) with
increasingly large numbers of stakeholders, culminating
in the billions of consumers who are responsible
for decisions on final disposal after use. Rethinking
and improving the functioning of such a complex
value chain requires efforts and cooperation by all
stakeholders: plastics producers and converters, product
manufacturers, retailers, consumers, waste handling and
collection operators, recyclers and users of recyclates
within the legal and regulatory framework provided by
governments.
This chain offers several points at which regulatory

interventions can be considered, or boundaries which
The role of each of these methods in shifting from the linear to may dilute or block feedback between end-of-life
circular economy can be shown in a three-dimensional sketch as in
the figure (Bocken et al., 2016). The various ways in which these
treatment and earlier stages. Although there are no
three principles can be applied to plastics have been summarised by stakeholders directly interested in plastic pollution,
Ten Brink et al. (2016) in their review of the circular economy tools contemporaneous motives of stakeholders may not
that are relevant to any strategy for reducing the impacts of plastics be aligned: for example, primary feedstock producers
on the environment. are motivated to expand production, in contrast to the
objective of circularity to reduce material flows. Given
the regulatory focus on post-consumer packaging, it is
important to note that plastics will leak from every step
of the value chain — in production, transportation6
adding additional materials into a molten plastic base and use as well as disposal post-consumption. Focusing
to produce a material with the qualities desired in the on the consumer with their limited ability to ‘solve’
application. Additives and modifiers may result in plastic problems with plastics pollution should not detract from
with a particular colour, texture, strength, etc. Once the need to consider the system changes necessary to
the additives have been blended into the base material solve the problems of plastic pollution and its causes.
and a homogeneous product obtained, the material is
cooled and extruded into pellets. Any recycled material 2.2.2 The materials
will be incorporated at the compounding stage.
As noted in the introduction, ‘plastics’ is a generic
These raw plastic materials are then used at the next term applied to several primary polymers (resins), the
stage which is the conversion of the pellets to the properties of which can be adjusted according to the
6
For example, Karlsson et al. (2019) find the loss of plastic pellets/nurdles is still a significant source of leakage from plastic production sites and
from spills by companies involved in transport, storage, cleaning and waste management, requiring increased responsibility and accountability to
reduce such spills and leakage.

Figure 2 Plastics value chain and complexity (source: Expert Group).
resin’s molecular mass and structure and by using fillers, required performance (e.g. in preventing oxygen
plasticisers, colouring, antimicrobials, antioxidants transfer), multilayer composites may be necessary
or other additives. The main resin types and their with each layer delivering one or more of the required
applications in Europe are shown in Figure 3, where the functions (Hahladakis et al., 2018). The final range
dominance of packaging as a primary driver of demand of plastic packaging formulations in products is thus
can be seen, as well as the fact that the polyolefin potentially huge which has serious implications for their
plastics (PE (polyethylene); PP (polypropylene); see recyclability (see later).
Galli and Vechellio (2004)) are produced in the largest
quantities for packaging use. The main polymers are Mass production of plastics also uses high-throughput
sometimes identified by a ‘resin code’ as follows: 1, machines for injection or blow moulding, sheet
PET (polyethylene terephthalate); 2, HDPE (high-density formation, extrusion and other processes, which require
polyethylene); 3, PVC (polyvinyl chloride); 4, LDPE (low- fine-tuning of the plastic feedstock’s properties to
density polyethylene); 5, PP (polypropylene); 6, PS and each machine’s operation. This demands a high-quality
EPS (polystyrene and extended polystyrene); 7, others. standard for any plastic that is recycled, since different
distributions of molecular mass in the basic resin and
unknown levels of contamination by additives from
Adapting the resin to the application requires the
previous use may be incompatible with these processing
inclusion of additives to deliver the desired properties.
machines.
These can include plasticisers, fillers, antioxidants,
acid scavengers, light and heat stabilisers, lubricants,
2.2.3 Priorities in design
pigments, antistatic agents, surfactants and thermal
stabilisers. Groh et al. (2019) examined the chemicals Many factors contribute to the current low rates of
potentially released during manufacturing, use, reuse and recycling (see Chapter 4) including the
disposal, and/or recycling of packaging and found difficulty of establishing efficient collection, sorting and
906 chemicals7 probably associated with plastic recycling technologies, limits to the value of recyclate
packaging and 3377 substances that are possibly owing to quality issues, and the price of virgin material.
associated. Where a single plastic cannot deliver the Moreover, design has to optimise the choice of polymer
7
Of the 906 chemicals probably associated with plastic packaging, 63 were ranked highest for human health hazards and 68 for environmental
hazards in the harmonised hazard classifications assigned by the European Chemicals Agency, and 7 classified in the EU as persistent, bio-
accumulative and toxic (Groh et al., 2019).

Figure 3 Plastics use in Europe in 2017 by industrial sectors (amended from Plastics Europe, 2018). PE, polyethylene; LD, low
density; HD, high density; PP, polypropylene; PS, polystyrene; EPS, extended polystyrene; PVC, polyvinyl chloride; PET, polyethylene
terephthalate; ABS, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene; SAN, styrene acrylonitrile; PMMA, polymethyl methacrylate; PA, polyamide; PC,
polycarbonate; PUR, polyurethane. Figure reproduced with permission of Plastics Europe.
and its additives to a wide range of health, hygiene, 2.3 European Union current policy debate:
shelf life, transport and other requirements, as well the focus on ‘single-use plastics’
as the attractiveness of the offer (shapes, colours, In parallel with actions at the global level (section 2.1),
designs) to consumers. Designers have a wide range the European Commission’s 2015 circular economy
of materials to choose from and the effect of these on package included plastics as one of its priority sectors,
the recyclability of the package may have low priority. and the Commission has since proposed measures to
An example of this potential conflict can be seen in the support a more circular use pattern (EC, 2018a). Action
spread of opaque PET (Box 2). on 10 items of SUPs has also been taken (EC, 2019),
based on detailed impact analyses (EC, 2018c).
Shifting from the current linear thinking to a more
circular system for packaging plastics would require
end-of-life criteria to be incorporated from the design A primary objective of policy is to reduce or eliminate
stage; and to factor in the recyclability of the main resin, leakage of plastic waste into the marine environment
the effects of additives, of colouring and transparency, where globally mismanaged plastic waste along coasts
and on the ability to separate where there are different and rivers in the Asian and African continents comprise
materials used in a single product (e.g. tops of bottles, the largest source (Jambeck et al., 2015) with the EU
layers where laminates are involved). Guidance on and USA the source of just 2% of the total. Sea-based
these aspects is widely available (e.g. Box 3) but the sources include discharges from ships, fishing activities
policy challenge is how to incentivise manufacturers and aquaculture8 where much of the material sinks
and users of plastic packaging to pay more attention but remains, causing unseen effects to marine
to these factors, and related issues including standards, life through entanglement (ghost nets) and other
monitoring and enforcement. This is a primary obstruction. In Europe, land-based sources of marine
objective of the European Commission’s current policy plastics include loss from agriculture (e.g. plastics used
development. for mulching) but are dominated by packaging, with
8
Fishing gear is an important source of marine pollution (and entanglement — see Annex 2) and separate measures are underway to ensure that
waste is returned to port reception facilities and not abandoned at sea.

Box 2 Opaque PET: a conflict between producer Box 3 Designs/materials to be avoided to improve
priorities and recyclability (KIDV, 2017) recyclability of packaging (WRAP, 2019; Recoup, 2017)
Opaque PET is a problematic material for recyclers as it is difficult 1. Metal closures on plastic bottles
to distinguish from other materials such as (transparent) PET, PVC 2. Black plastic
and HDPE; yet unlike those materials it is poorly recyclable owing 3. Coloured or opaque PET
to its opacifier coating. Previously, opaque PET was used in small 4. Compostable/ oxy-degradable plastics
volumes, allowing it to be absorbed within standard PET waste 5. Sleeves covering more than 60% of the bottle
streams. However, rapid growth in its use (up 45% from 2014 6. Multilayer laminates
to 2017 in France), notably for cosmetics and dairy products, has 7. Non-removable film lids, PVC and silicone materials.
led it to becoming a disruptive material that degrades the quality
of recyclates. Despite this, plastic producers continue to favour (Reasons and alternatives provided in the guidance documents.)
opaque PET because it is up to 20% to 30% cheaper than HDPE,
and up to 20% lighter for specific applications.
Table 1 Top 10 SUP items found in beach surveys

(JRC, 2017)
Ranking Item
1 Drinks bottles, caps and lids
2 Cigarette butts
3 Cotton-bud sticks
4 Crisp packets/sweet wrappers
5 Sanitary applications
Producers of opaque PET also benefit in EPR schemes where 6 Plastic bags
charges are related to weight (Chapter 3), since it is lighter than 7 Cutlery, straws and stirrers
alternatives such as recyclable HDPE. Producers of opaque PET thus
pay less even though the material is not recyclable. Some current 8 Drink cups and lids
market incentives can thus reward producers for disrupting the
9 Balloons and balloon sticks
recycle system, showing that market signals can fail to incentivise
producers to take into account the end-of-life stage of packaging. 10 Food containers including fast-food packaging
plastic packaging comprising up to 80–85% of beach 10 SUPs has been estimated as shown in Table 2 (JRC,
litter (EC, 2018b). 2016).
Beach surveys show that the dominant source of litter The Commission’s analysis notes that there are measures
is ‘single-use plastics’ (e.g. crisp packets, cotton-bud underway in related directives such as the increased
sticks, containers), with the 10 most commonly found waste recycling targets for plastic packaging: 50% by
SUPs (Table 1) making up 86% of the plastic found. 2025 and 55% by 2030. Moreover, commitments to
Experience from the many regulatory actions around reducing marine litter are to be found in the regional
the world to ban or charge for plastic bags9 suggests marine pollution conventions and the Marine Strategy
that reducing the use of SUPs also reduces littering and Framework Directive (Box 4). The specific issue of
input into the marine environment10. The Commission deliberate addition of plastic microbeads to cosmetics,
thus decided to focus on these 10 items and develop paints, detergents and some other products is also
regulatory options to reduce their use, improve their being addressed through the Registration, Evaluation,
recyclability and reduce littering. Authorisation, Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)
Directive (EC 1907/2006).
The Commission’s estimates are that these 10
groups leak 15,600 tonnes per annum from the EU The Commission analysed the four policy options for
and contribute to the 75,000–300,000 tonnes of reducing the environmental impact of SUPs in Table 3.
microplastics estimated to be in EU waters (Jambeck Option 2d offered the largest improvement (74–82%
et al., 2015). The environmental impact of each of the reduction) in litter which also translated to the largest
9
https://www.reusethisbag.com/articles/where-are-plastic-bags-banned-around-the-world.
10
In Ireland the introduction of a tax on plastic shopping bags resulted not only in a 90% reduction of plastic bags provided in retail outlets
(Convey et al., 2007) but also in a marked decline in bags found on beaches.

Table 2 Assessing the risk of 10 SUPs on various aspects of environmental impact (JRC, 2016)
Entanglement Ingestion Pollution of Transport Microbial Economic Economic Potential

of marine by marine marine waters of invasive contamination impacts, impacts, human
wildlife animals (chemicals species tourism fisheries health
release, impacts
microplastics)
Drinks bottles, + ++ + +++ +++ +++ + +
caps and lids
Cigarette butts - +++ +++ +++ +++ ++ ++ +
Cotton-bud sticks - +++ + +++ +++ ++ + +
Crisp packets/ + +++ + +++ +++ +++ ++ +
sweet wrappers
Sanitary + ++ ++ +++ +++ +++ ++ +
applications
Plastic bags +++ +++ + +++ +++ +++ +++ +
Cutlery, straws + +++ + +++ +++ ++ + +
and stirrers
Drink cups and + ++ + +++ +++ +++ + +
lids
Balloons and + +++ + +++ +++ +++ ++ +
balloon sticks
Food containers, ++ ++ + +++ +++ +++ ++ +
fast-food
packaging
Fishing gear +++ ++ ++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +
Box 4 Existing framework for addressing marine plastic pollution
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive has a target to achieve Good Environmental Status where (inter alia) ‘marine litter does not cause
harm to the coastal and marine environment’. This has been clarified as when litter and its degradation products present in, and entering into,
EU waters do not cause harm to marine life and damage to marine habitats, do not pose direct or indirect risks to human health or lead to
negative socio-economic impacts (Galgani et al., 2010).
Marine litter is also included in the amended Waste Framework Directive. It is recognised that marine litter (in particular plastic waste)
originates to a large extent from poor solid waste management, littering by citizens and a lack of public awareness. Therefore, specific measures
to reduce marine litter are requested in waste prevention programmes and management plans. Strategies and measures should be updated
every 6 years, and reporting is obligatory from 2018.
The regional marine pollution conventions also contain ‘Action Plans on Marine Litter’ which require use of best environmental practice
for waste prevention and management; reduction of sewage and storm water related waste, including microparticles; incentives for reducing
littering (e.g. reducing use of single-use items); consideration of environmental impact in products (e.g. phase-out of microplastic use, more
sustainable packaging) and other measures.
saving in full environmental costs, but there was a market: cotton-bud sticks, cutlery, plates, straws,
substantial increase in waste disposal costs, so that stirrers, sticks for balloons, as well as cups, food and
the optimum balance between costs and benefits was beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene
selected as option 2c. and on all products made of oxo-degradable plastic
(see Chapter 6).
The Commission’s objective is to have all plastic
packaging placed on the EU market as reusable or • Measures to reduce consumption of food
recyclable by 2030. Within that, the Single-Use Plastics containers and beverage cups made of plastic
Directive (entered into force July 2019) includes the and specific marking and labelling of certain
following. products.
• A ban on selected SUPs for which less • Extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes
environmentally damaging alternatives exist on the covering the cost to clean-up litter, applied to

Table 3 Costs and benefit analyses of four policy options for the reduction of SUPs (EC, 2018b)
Item Sub-option 2a Sub-option 2b Sub-option 2c Sub-option 2d

Cigarette butts Information campaigns Information campaigns Information campaigns Information campaigns
Voluntary action Voluntary action Voluntary action Voluntary action
EPR: cost of litter EPR: cost of litter EPR: cost of litter
Label
Reduction target (30%
by 2025, 50% by
2030)
Drinks bottles Information campaigns Information campaigns Information campaigns Information campaigns
Product design Product design Product design
Deposit–return scheme
for beverage
containers
Cotton-bud sticks Information campaigns Ban Ban Ban
Voluntary action
Label
Crisp packets Information campaigns Information campaigns Information campaigns Information campaigns
Wet wipes Information campaigns Information campaigns Information campaigns Best practice
Voluntary action Voluntary action Voluntary action
Label Label EPR: cost of litter
EPR: cost of litter Reduction target (30%
by 2025, 50% by
2030)
Sanitary towels Information campaigns Information campaigns Information campaigns Information campaigns
Label Label Label Label
by 2030)
Cutlery, straws, stirrers Information campaigns Information campaigns Ban Ban
Voluntary action Voluntary action
EPR: cost of litter
by 2025, 50% by
2030)
Drinks cups and lids. Information campaigns Information campaigns Information campaigns Information campaigns
Food containers Voluntary action Voluntary action Voluntary action Voluntary action
Reduction target (30% Reduction target (30% Reduction target (50%
by 2025, 50% by by 2025, 50% by by 2025, 80% by
2030) 2030) 2030)
Balloons Information campaigns Information campaigns Information campaigns Information campaigns
Label Label Label Label
Balloon sticks Information campaigns Information campaigns Ban Ban
Voluntary action Voluntary action
Label Label
EPR: cost of litter
EPR, extended producer responsibility applied to the producer of the packaged products (Chapter 3).

products such as tobacco filters and fishing gear. • The success of any policy will depend very much
on the cost of waste disposal, the difficulty of
• A 90% separate collection target for plastic recycling and the markets for recycled material
bottles by 2029 (77% by 2025) and the (Chapter 4).
introduction of design requirements to connect caps
to bottles, as well as a target to incorporate 25% of • Even in an improved reuse and recycling system,
recycled plastic in PET bottles from 2025 and 30% measures against littering and other aspects will still
in all plastic bottles as from 2030. be influenced by consumer behaviour, as discussed
in Chapter 5.
Against this regulatory background, the Expert Group
considered that aspects where scientific input may assist • Degradation of plastics that enter the environment
the policy process include the following. and the use of non-fossil-fuel feedstocks (bio-based
plastics) is discussed in Chapter 6.
• The environmental impact of plastics which can
inform the choice of priority targets for leakage • Targets for research and innovation are discussed in
reduction; this is summarised in Annex 2. Chapter 7.
• Influencing the value chain towards a more circular • Finally, a discussion of the implications of the Expert
model with greater consideration of end-of-life Group’s scientific analyses for policy is presented in
recycling potential is the objective of a revised EPR Chapter 8.
regime which is addressed in Chapter 3.

3 Extended producer responsibility
3.1 The rationale for extended producer The mechanism is presumed to be that, if they have
responsibility to bear all end-of-life costs, product manufacturers
will have an incentive to apply science and plastic
Neoclassical economics has yet to fully factor into prices
engineering to design products that are more easily
the environmental costs of natural resource extraction,
collected and recycled after use. In turn, if demand for
pollution and disposal of products at the end of their
recycled products is increased, costs of production can be
life. Such costs may arise from global issues such as
reduced by increased efficiencies of scale. Additionally,
climate change and resource depletion to individual
fees paid by producers and importers could be used to
short- or long-term effects on health of emissions or
stimulate innovation in production technologies using
chemicals used in the products concerned11. Moreover,
recycled material, improve quality and reduce recycling
local externalities may arise from just the physical
costs to better compete with virgin feedstocks.
properties of plastic packaging such as blockage of
drainage systems triggering flooding12. Such
‘externalities’ are borne by society at large or by future 3.2 Current extended producer responsibility
generations. Principles already exist to address these schemes in Europe
issues — for instance sustainable development seeks to
Surveys of EPR schemes applied to plastic packaging
protect the world and its resources for future
(IEEP, 2017) show considerable variability between
generations, while the polluter pays principle states
Member States. The manufacturer of plastic packaging
that the originator of environmental damage should
is generally charged a fee based on the amount of
bear the costs of avoiding and repairing that damage.
plastic packaging material brought to the market. These
EPR can be seen as one means of applying the polluter
fees vary widely: there is a factor of over 10 difference
pays principle since it gives producers responsibility
between the €200 per tonne charged in Austria and
(financial and/or operational) for the treatment or
the €15 per tonne charged in the UK (EAC, 2017), and
disposal of their products when discarded after use.
the charges in Italy averaged €253 per tonne in 2018.
Assigning such responsibility can provide incentives to
In some EPR schemes, manufacturers are individually
prevent wastes at source, promote product design for
responsible for paying the fees; in others, they may
the environment and support the achievement of
delegate this responsibility to a producer responsibility
public recycling and materials management goals
organisation (PRO) and pay their fees to the PRO. Other
(OECD, 2001, 2016).
differences relate to the following:
From a theoretical standpoint, the objectives of EPR
applied to packaging plastics can be as follows. • the types of packaging covered;
• Environmental: to reduce environmental • whether PROs have just financial responsibility or

externalities (particularly waste leakage to terrestrial operational responsibility13;
and marine environments, and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions).
• whether different fees are charged for different
• Financial: to reduce the burden on public finances materials; some charging systems do not
of costs that emanate from the need to dispose of differentiate between products on the basis of their
products produced by companies. recyclability; others include fees that are adjusted to
their recyclability.
• Conceptual: as a means of encouraging more
sustainable products better aligned with the circular In their analysis, IEEP (2017) identified several
economy. weaknesses in existing EPR schemes.
11
For example, endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) have been estimated (Trasande et al., 2015) to contribute substantially to lifetime disease
and dysfunction with costs in the hundreds of billions of euros per year. Groh et al. (2019) found that, among the 906 chemicals identified as
potential additives in packaging plastics, 34 were recognised as EDCs or potential EDCs by UNEP. Zimmermann et al. (2019) also found that most
plastic extracts from PP, LDPE, PS and PLA contained chemicals triggering at least one toxicological end point, including baseline toxicity, oxidative
stress, cytotoxicity, oestrogenicity or anti-androgenicity (PET and HDPE did not).
12
For example, a flood in Ghana as a result of blocked drainage cost the lives of 150 people and millions of dollars of damage (Jambeck et al.,
2018).
13
Fully operational responsibility is typified by German packaging law which requires that companies selling goods (whether domestic or
imported, and including on-line goods) must be registered for participation in a PRO which takes care of the recycling or disposal of any packaging
material they sell. This is separate from the municipal waste-collection systems. PROs such as ‘Green Dot’ operate separate collection systems, sort
and where possible recycle the waste. Paying fees to these intermediary organisations allows the packaging to be labelled as recyclable. On the
other hand, some countries’ PROs merely manage the EPR fees and outsource the handling of the waste to other organisations through contracts.

• Low charges to plastics manufacturers do not than by collective PRO schemes, since the shared
provide economic incentives to avoid waste or make responsibility in the latter (even though they may reduce
packaging more easily recycled. For example, the transaction and monitoring costs) dilutes any incentive
low charges in the UK left over 90% of disposal for individual producers to innovate to reduce waste
costs to local government budgets (EAC, 2017). and increase recycling.
• Collective PRO schemes average fees across The EC’s SUP Directive extends EPR principles to cover
producers, and dilute incentives for individual clean-up costs, and sees a greatly strengthened EPR
producers to be innovative. as a critical tool in moving the plastics value chain
into a more circular system. In addition to full cost
• Current fees relate to the basic costs of recovery, steep eco-modulation with a large difference
waste management and do not reflect wider between favoured and disfavoured materials and
environmental costs such as GHG emissions or costs designs rewards redesigns to readily recycled materials
of environmental damage through leakage. and formats. The Italian CONAI-COREPLA system
introduced in 1997 (CONAI-COREPLA, 2017; Stramare,
• Fees encourage waste management changes which 2013) includes consideration of not just recyclability
minimise the costs of recycling and treatment but also the availability of local capacity to produce
rather than following wider sustainability or circular and use the recycled material, and can thus encourage
economy objectives. improvements in local recycling infrastructure. With
composite packaging, fees can reflect the ease/difficulty
• Most EPR schemes are based on a weight-related of separation and recyclability of the layers. Disruptive
charge which favours product lightening, or additives such as opacifiers can be penalised, along with
switching to lighter materials, which may not be packaging format, labels, glues, lids, etc. that disrupt
aligned with recycling objectives. sorting.
• Current EPR schemes lack any specific objective As the complexity of eco-modulation EPR schemes
aimed at preventing leakage of packaging into the increases, however, the costs of monitoring and
terrestrial and marine environments. verification need to be weighed against the benefits. For
instance, the Italian CONAI-COREPLA scheme decided,
• EPR currently is applied to the producer of the after conducting detailed LCA on overall environmental
packaged goods; it does not therefore extend impacts of 59 different types of packaging, to group
to earlier parts of the value chain such as the these into just four categories with the charges that will
companies producing the plastic resins themselves. be applied from 2020 as follows14:
With respect to incentivising product designers to A: packaging with an effective and consolidated
consider the need for recycling, EPR can contribute by sorting and recycling chain from commerce and
differentiating between readily recycled materials and industry (€150 per tonne);
those that are difficult to recycle (eco-modulation). B1: packaging with an effective and consolidated
This has been applied to some extent in Italy and France sorting and recycling chain from households (€208
(and most recently the Netherlands) where materials per tonne);
that can be effectively recycled to usable recyclates B2: packaging with a sorting and recycling chain in the
attract lower fees than difficult or impossible-to-recycle process of consolidation and development (€436
materials. Such eco-modulated fees can, in theory, take per tonne);
into account a range of product design criteria relating C: packaging not sortable or recyclable with current
to their end-of-life use and environmental impacts, technologies (€546 per tonne).
such as toxicity, durability, reusability, reparability and
recyclability/compostability (EMF, 2017). Fees can also be A key issue is whether EPR schemes should cover the full
reduced where producers take on direct responsibility cost of externalities (disposal, recycling, cost of clean-up
for their end-of-life products: for instance, through as well as to costs attributable to their GHG emissions)
collection, treatment or public awareness measures. and aim specifically to create synergy with broader
sustainability and circular economy objectives. If so,
A review of 395 EPR schemes globally (Kaffine and incentives are required to move up the waste hierarchy
O’Reilly, 2015) concluded that directly linking fees to a as specified in the Waste Management Directive
product characteristic was most likely to trigger design (2008/98/EC) which prioritises prevention and reuse
changes. Impacts of EPR on design and packaging ahead of recycling. Priorities would be to first reduce
recyclability are also encouraged by individual rather the amounts at end-of-life, then increase the proportion
14
http://www.conai.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/list of packaging contribution levels 2020.pdf

that can be reused, followed by recycling which in turn • 100% of plastic packaging is reusable, recyclable, or
is higher priority than incineration or landfill (see also compostable;
Chapter 8).
• targets are set for post-consumer recycled content;
Ensuring the effectiveness of EPR schemes depends
very much on the reaction of packaging producers, • common definitions and industry standards to be
retailers and consumers. The convenience offered by agreed on what materials are put into the marketplace;
many packaging formats can lead to significant market
resistance to more environmentally friendly materials • constructive engagement with governments on
and designs. The willingness of industry to respond the need for improvements to waste management
in a positive way to such measures is particularly infrastructure, including the implementation of EPR
critical and among the measures recommended by schemes.
EMF (2016) for actions by companies is to ensure that,
by 2025: This Global Plastics Pact initiative has now 400
signatories which together are responsible for 20% of
• problematic or unnecessary plastic packaging is packaging plastics produced globally (EMF, 2019). The
eliminated; Pact has led to detailed plans to implement via national
versions (e.g. the UK and European Plastic Pacts), and
• single-use packaging moves to new delivery models commitments by some leading consumer product
that promote reuse; companies, as illustrated in Box 5.
Box 5 Some national and corporate commitments under plastics pacts
A. UK plastic pact and roadmap for implementation (WRAP, 2018a)

This was one of the first national plastics pacts (announced in April 2018) with a vision of transforming the way that the UK makes, uses
and disposes of plastic. ‘We need to move away from a linear plastics economy towards a circular system where we capture the value of
plastics material – keeping plastic in the economy and out of the oceans. The UK Plastics Pact brings together governments, businesses, local
authorities, citizens and NGOs behind a common vision and commitment to a set of ambitious targets’.
Targets for 2025:

1. Eliminate problematic or unnecessary single-use packaging through redesign, innovation or alternative (reuse) delivery models.
2. 100% of plastic packaging to be reusable, recyclable or compostable.
3. 70% of plastic packaging effectively recycled or composted.
4. 30% average recycled content across all plastic packaging.
B. Europe-wide (Plastics Europe, 2020)

A new European Plastics Pact will be launched in March 2020 to drive towards a circular economy. Signatories to the pact are expected to be
required to focus on goals in four areas:
1. (Article 5). ‘Designing all single-use plastic products and packaging brought to the market by participants to be 100% recyclable and to be
reusable where possible and sustainable, and in all cases to be recyclable by 2025.’
2. (Article 6). ‘Shifting towards a more responsible use of single-use plastic products and packaging, by eliminating unnecessary use, by
introducing reuse models and by using alternatives that are safe and more sustainable, aiming for a reduction in plastics use of 20% by 2025.’
3. (Article 7). ‘Creating sufficient collection, sorting and recycling capacity by 2025 to increase recycling of all single-use plastics and packaging
by at least 25 percentage points - as long as the result is more ambitious than the targets in the EU regulatory framework - and to reach a
quality standard that matches the market demand for recycled plastics.’
4. (Article 8). ‘Achieving the highest possible percentage of use of recycled plastics (by weight) by 2025, reaching at least 30% average
recycled content across all single-use plastics products and packaging.’
C. Unilever’s 2017 commitment15

Aims:
1. Ensure that 100% of plastic packaging will be designed to be fully reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025.
2. Commitment to increase the recycled plastic content in own packaging to at least 25% by 2025 and to reduce its weight by one-third by
2020 and halve the waste associated with the disposal of own products by 2020.
Changes required:
1. Design for recyclability guidelines are applied, for example, to modular packaging, design for disassembly and reassembly, wider use of
refills, recycling and using post-consumer recycled materials in innovative ways.
2. Driving systemic change in circular thinking at an industry level.
3. Working with governments to create an environment that enables the creation of a circular economy, including the necessary infrastructure
to collect and recycle materials.
4. Working with consumers to inform on different disposal methods (e.g. recycling labels) — and collection facilities.
5. Exploring radical and innovative approaches to circular economy thinking through new business models.
15
https://www.hul.co.in/Images/unilever-commits-to-100-recyclable-plastic-packaging-by-2025_tcm1255-497353_1_en.pdf

4 Technical factors in recycling
4.1 Current situation by consumers for separate collection or can be
easily separated by screening techniques. Industrial
Plastic packaging is almost entirely formed by
recycling processes are thus well-established and
thermoplastic polymers, namely by polymers that
economically viable for PET, HDPE and, at a smaller
are in principle recyclable through simple thermo-
scale, PP. The market for these specific recycled
mechanical processes in mild conditions (Hestin et
plastic pellets is buoyant, with demand exceeding
al., 2015; Dahibo et al., 2018). A large number of
supply16.
LCAs have been performed, and meta-analyses (e.g.
WRAP, 2018b) conclude that plastics recycling has
Recycling of flexible packaging is more difficult.
a significantly smaller GHG footprint than plastics
Firstly, there will be a mixture of materials (primarily
incineration or landfilling. Where a clean single-resin
LDPE, PP and some HDPE) where separation can
feedstock is available, recycling waste to a new product
be very difficult; secondly owing to the prevalence
can save up to 1.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent
of multilayer and multi-material films; thirdly
for each tonne of plastic (Denkstaff, 2011; CIEL, 2019),
because of the contamination by food residues,
in contrast with the additional emissions generated
dirt, etc. As a result, only mono-material films of
if such wastes are landfilled or incinerated (especially
large size (constituting only a minor proportion
when without energy recovery). Tijm and Verrips (2019)
of collected flexible packaging) are commercially
estimate that these potential benefits of recycling plastic
recyclable, and even recycling of mono-material
packaging into a more or less equivalent product are
films is made difficult by dark colours17 which
between 11 and 42 euro cents per kilogram. Achieving
hinder their separation using near infrared (NIR)
these potential savings in practice, however, may be
spectroscopy. Smaller items (typically smaller than
hampered by the additives, impurities from other resins,
5 cm) are not separated owing to difficulties in
and other factors addressed in this section. In particular,
polymer recognition and separation, although,
recycling waste plastics to be reused as a raw material
in some cases, fractions of the collected flexible
for new products introduces many technical challenges
packaging can be separated as mixed polyolefinic
since much of the processing equipment is designed
material, which can be used for low-added-value
for feedstocks of virgin polymers of specific molecular
applications.
weight distributions. Often moulding or blowing or film
preparation is reliant on precise control of the polymer 2. Although not currently in use at scale, chemical
and its additives, with processing machines sensitive to recycling can process flexible packaging and more
small changes in melting/softening points. Unless very difficult-to-recycle packaging (Rahimi and García,
pure polymers can be provided by the recycling process, 2017). Chemical recycling aims to depolymerise the
therefore, recycled polymers are limited not just by price polymer to the starting monomers which can then
but also their processability. Moreover, recycling for food
be used to make a new polymer. It is thus essential
packaging is generally forbidden because of fears about
to ensure the waste comprises the same basic
contamination (see Box 6).
polymer and pre-sorting is important. Pilot-plant
processes are available for PET (through chemolysis,
There are three main approaches to plastics recycling namely glycolysis or methanolysis), and for simple
(Hopewell et al., 2009; Singh et al., 2017; Valavanidis, depolymerisation of polystyrene. Chemical recycling
2018). to achieve full depolymerisation, namely purification
of monomers to re-produce the polymer in a closed-
1. Mechanical recycling melts down the waste and loop system, are being researched (e.g. Rahimi and
reprocesses into pellets. Plastics have to be sorted García, 2017; Christensen et al., 2019).
by type and separated into the different polymer
types; then crushed, washed and dried. Multiple 3. Even if chemical recycling into monomers is less
recycling is limited by the scission of the polymer demanding on purity than mechanical processes, it
chains through heating and loss of properties still requires pre-treatment. On the other hand, for
relative to virgin material. Containers for liquids feedstock recycling there are only low demands
(e.g. PET beverage bottles or HDPE milk bottles) are on the purity of the input. There are two principal
readily recyclable since these are easily recognised methods for feedstock recycling (Punkinen et al.,
16
Owing to the shortage of polymeric recyclable waste, COREPLA (the Italian Consortium for the Collection and Recycling of Plastic packages)
regularly holds auctions for their sale.
17
Black plastic is not only an interference with the recycling sensors, but is also more likely to contain chemical contaminants that derive from the
use of waste plastic from electrical goods as a source of plastic packaging (Turner, 2018).

Box 6 Constraints and technical barriers to recycling
There are many barriers to effective recycling (see for example OECD, 2018a) including the following.
• The wide range of different types of plastic used in disposable products and packaging (PP, PE, PET, PS, etc.). There are seven major
thermoplastic polymer types used in packaging, but additives to produce the desired colour, shape and texture all affect the basic properties.
Some plastics may be used without additives (e.g. some LDPE) while others contain more additives than polymer resin. Even simple polymers
such as LDPE or HDPE can be produced with major differences in molecular weight distributions and structure to adjust their properties for a
specific processing and application. Thus, sorting into recyclable waste streams of predictable and desirable properties is difficult. Outside of
the separate collection of PET beverage containers, packaging plastics often end up as ‘mixed’ waste with very low, zero or even negative
value which accounts for the attractiveness of exporting to countries with low costs but unclear recycling and disposal methods. Even the
same material may involve a need to separate: for example, containers such as tubs and trays are ‘injection-moulded’ and contain additives
that interfere with recycling of plastic bottles which are ‘blow-moulded’. In practice, even the polyolefins have complications whereas other
plastics are often not recyclable.
• Contamination. Plastic packaging is in contact with many potential contaminants — residues of the contents, labels and caps of different
materials, additives used in the plastics that are incompatible with recycling (opacifiers, oxidants, etc.), or additional contaminants inherited
from using plastic waste as the raw material for plastic packaging (e.g. from waste electronic equipment (Turner, 2018)). Such contamination
not only may affect the recycling process but is also particularly important if recycled plastic is to be subsequently used in food packaging.
The safety of food contact materials requires evaluation as chemicals can migrate from packaging into food, and tests for approval are
understandably strict. Specific recycle processes need authorisation of the processes used to recycle (EC 282/2008) after evaluation of risk
by the European Food Safety Agency. An example is that in 2015 the Agency assessed two processes used to recycle HDPE plastic bottles
for use as food contact materials. The Agency concluded that using recycled HDPE in trays for dried whole fruits and vegetables is safe, but
could not confirm safety for plastic milk bottles and trays for animal products. Thus the barriers that need to be overcome are substantial
and make using fresh virgin material preferable.
• Composites that have different types of material in the same product. For instance, a plastic bag with a foil lining or a disposable coffee
cup made of paper with a plastic lining. These are especially difficult and expensive to separate.
• Degradation of the resin molecule in the recycling process. The well-characterised molecules of similar length in a new plastic will
undergo some breakdown every time the plastic is melted, thus affecting the properties and creating uncertainties over the remaining
properties. Since many of the expensive packaging producing machines require very precise physical properties, such uncertainties render
recycled feedstock unusable in replacing virgin materials, and thus most recylates are ‘downcycled’ to lower-grade products such as jacket
fill, fleece, carpet, toys or plastic lumber which are not recycled further. Unlike glass or aluminium, plastic recycling does not ‘close the loop’
in the circular economy sense since most post-consumer waste is not used for new containers. At present, the only significant ‘closed-loop’
operation in Europe is for PET where approximately 9% of the feedstock for new bottles is derived from recycled PET.
• Recycling information is misleading and labelling inconsistent. Some products use a resin code to identify the basic polymer in the
plastics (section 2.2). However, this does not mean that the material is recyclable — let alone whether it will be recycled. As the Society of
the Plastics Industry notes, ‘The code was not intended to be - nor was it ever promoted as - a guarantee to consumers that a given item
bearing the code will be accepted for recycling in their community.’18 This is discussed further in Chapter 8.
2017). Pyrolysis is a thermal decomposition in industrial scale with a target of converting more
the absence of air whereby plastic solid waste is than one million tonnes of waste plastic by
converted into a wide range of products including 203019.
monomers, paraffins, olefins, and gas. Gasification
(in the presence of oxygen, air, oxygen enriched Other approaches have also been researched —
air and/or steam) converts the mixed plastic into for example, dissolving polymers into bio(fuels)
synthesis gas (syngas) and fuel gas. Syngas is to enrich the fuel (e.g. Mohammadi et al., 2012;
composed of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and small Yamane and Kawasaki, 2012), or using syngas in
amounts of hydrocarbons and can be cleaned and
enhanced oil recovery (e.g. Fink and Fink, 2002).
further processed into a variety of final products,
Other potential methods are at the development or
such as methanol, dimethyl ether, gasoline,
synthetic methane chemicals and polyolefin demonstration phase including depolymerisation
production. Until now, feedstock recycling (as well (see Box 9), super-critical fluids (e.g. Goto, 2009)
as chemical recycling) has not been economically and through dissolution (e.g. Zhang et al., 2010).
attractive, but the first commercial plants are
entering operation (e.g. Recycling Technologies’ 4. Particularly when the previous methods are difficult,
Plaxx process in Swindon, England, and in Perth, a common method is to exploit the high energy
Scotland). Another company (Neste) is developing content of plastics and incinerate with energy
a waste-plastic-based pyrolysis process at an recovery.
18
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/guides-use-environmental-marketing-claims-534743-00034/534743-00034.
pdf
19
Neste Company press release, 18 July 2018.
https://www.neste.com/releases-and-news/circular-economy/neste-aiming-use-waste-plastic-raw-material-fuels-and-plastics

In current practice, barriers to recycling (as in Box 6) 8. Clear labelling which accurately states the main
increase costs and may render any recyclate either resin and its recyclability and conditions necessary
more expensive than virgin resin, or unable to meet for recycling.
the quality standards required by the processing
methods used or those of the end product. In these Taking a systems approach has to recognise that the
cases, currently option 4 of energy recovery is the most diversity of plastics in a mechanically separated waste
economic means of extracting some residual value. stream may still lead to substantial quantities that
cannot be properly sorted into a saleable material. This
4.2 Potential for improving recovery and sorting currently goes to landfill, incineration or export, but
of post-consumer plastic adjoining a second process to the mechanical sorting
would increase the recovery options. The concept
Primary objectives for improving the recycling system of such an ‘advanced plastics reprocessing facility’ is
are that the amounts of end-of-life packaging that is shown in Figure 4, where the mechanical recovery stage
recycled increases and, at the same time, the proportion capable of separating 52% of the incoming plastic
of ‘closed-loop’ recycling is increased. ‘Design for waste is supplemented by chemical recycling which can
recycling’ criteria (cf Box 3) for the production of extract valuable materials from an additional 43%, so
plastic packaging that may improve the technical and that only 5% of the initial waste remains to be sent to
economic viability of plastics recycling include the landfill. An additional option would be to replace virgin
following. fossil feedstocks in existing petrochemical infrastructure
by plastic waste which, in recent detailed evaluations
1. Limit multi-material packaging based on different
(Thunman et al., 2019), offers an economically viable
and immiscible polymers or other materials (mainly
alternative to current disposal methods. All such
aluminium and paper). Even though the involved
methods, however, require proper life cycle assessments
layers are in principle recyclable, their adhesion
to establish that there is a net environmental benefit in
makes recycling unfeasible. For instance, rigid
terms of reduced emissions and resource consumption,
packaging with layers of PET and polyamides could
as well as their economic viability.
be banned or assigned higher charges in EPR
schemes.
2. Limit dark colours, which make polymer recognition

and sorting by NIR difficult. Other
Materials 18%
3. Limit covering labels that make polymer recognition
and sorting by NIR difficult.
Chemical
Processing
4. Prefer for packaging design, plane and slightly 14% 32%
angular surfaces, which make easier polymer
52% a-PRF
recognition and sorting by NIR.
43%
Plastic Mechanical Chemical
5. Limit the number of polymers to be used for specific Products Recycling Recycling
applications. For example: for rigid packaging: PET,
HDPE, PP and possibly PS; for flexible packaging: 100%
LDPE and PP. 34% 5% 11%
VIRGIN Internal Energy
6. Avoid as much as possible use of specialty Landfill
PLASTICS Generation
copolymers and blends of these polymers.
MATERIAL FLOWS - ADVANCED POLYMER REPROCESSING FACILITY (a-PRF)
7. Use only one kind of polymer (e.g. LDPE) for
packaging items whose maximum size is lower than Figure 4 Flow diagram for an advanced plastics reprocessing
5 cm. facility (source: Recycling Technologies, 2019).

5 Consumer behaviour
5.1 The role of consumers as restricting the freedom of the individual. Measures
to improve recycling thus need to be framed in ways
Most of the plastics used in packaging reach their
that avoid opposition from such diverse viewpoints.
end-of-life in the hand of individual consumers who
Meanwhile, the growth of social media has eroded
determine what happens with the container, film or
historical quality-control mechanisms, blurring the
other item. However, the importance of consumer
distinction between fact-based reporting, opinion,
decisions is not just at the end-of-life. They may play a
deliberate distortion or entirely fabricated stories.
critical role in other parts of the system (Figure 5): for
Any social campaign will need careful planning and
instance, whether to purchase a plastic product (e.g.
managing of a sustained traditional social media
bottled water or packaged vegetables), or whether to
presence, for example by incorporating the messages
reuse a bottle or bag rather than throw it away, as well
into popular TV shows, soap operas, and the messages
as the consumers’ level of support for regulations aimed
of social media influencers.
at reducing plastic waste and littering.
The power of social media can be illustrated by the
Direct influences on the amount of plastics leaking into
opposition to the use of plastic microbeads, whose
the environment arise both from purchase decisions
introduction in cosmetics and other household goods
and from post-use behaviour. Ideally, people should be
was an internal decision by manufacturers who did not
aware that when they purchase or accept any plastic
consider their inevitable release to the environment as
good, this brings with it a share of the responsibility for
a problem (neither were there regulations restricting
avoiding plastic pollution. However, consumers’ choice
such plastic flows into the environment). When
of actions may be highly restricted by decisions outside
users discovered through social media their use in
their control. These include provision of unnecessary
cosmetics, toothpaste, etc., concerns rose over their
packaging by manufacturers and retailers, which may
potential negative environmental impact, and social
require conscious effort by the consumer to avoid,
media campaigns led to their restriction or voluntary
shortcomings in the collection systems provided by
withdrawal in several countries. Media coverage of
local governments, and leakage in the treatment of
such issues, together with surveys showing the extent
collected waste. Nevertheless, without consumer
to which plastic fragments such as fibres have spread
support and cooperation, efforts to reduce plastic
throughout the environment, has also led to general
leakage into the environment are likely to be at least
concerns over wider contamination. For instance, one
impeded if not futile. The factors involved in motivating
survey in Germany showed that most of the population
sustainable consumption among consumers and
feels strongly (39%) or moderately (23%) contaminated
effecting behavioural change have been extensively
by plastic particles in food and drinking water (BMUB/
studied (e.g. Jackson, 2005) and social and behavioural
UBA, 2016).
research is also relevant in the current debate on
measures to reduce plastics pollution (Pahl and Wyles,
Several areas of psychological research (Box 7) help
2016).
better understand factors influencing consumer
attitudes and responses to different policy changes.
5.2 Influences on consumer attitudes
Consumer attitudes are highly influenced by media Among the factors introduced in Box 7, public attitudes
and communication messages. Broadcasting of are greatly influenced by perceptions of risk. News
marine plastics pollution in high-profile programmes about risks may trigger a rapid behavioural change by
such as The Blue Planet has had substantial impacts some (e.g. to news of microplastics in bottled drinking
on public awareness (e.g. Hartley et al., 2018). On water) but such responses are likely to be transient.
the other hand, media coverage of photogenic images It has long been recognised that people are likely to
may oversimplify the issues as well as seek to apportion perceive (environmental) risks as more acceptable
blame which can lead policy-makers to seek simple where associated with benefits, where any risk is
short-term actions (a ‘quick fix’) rather than address the delayed or gradual, and when risks are less observable
underlying problem. Elements of this have already been or tangible (Slovic, 1987). In the analysis by the Science
seen in measures to restrict plastic straws rather than Advice for Policy by European Academies (SAPEA)’s
address the primary use of difficult-to-recycle beverage overview of microplastics (SAPEA, 2018), sources from
containers and the limited recycle infrastructure. car tyres or synthetic fabrics constitute examples where
public perception is very low, evidence of human health
The media also play a critical role in communicating impacts lacking and where uses (vehicles and clothing)
policy. Traditional media already cover a spectrum have a major benefit. Such sources are likely to be seen
ranging from strong support for environmental as more ‘acceptable’ than sources such as microbeads
protection to principled opposition to what may be seen where any benefits are obscure.

Use own bottle/ water fountain?
Pre-purchase Actively avoid plastic?
Avoidance of plastic items:

General support cutlery, bags, straws, cutlery, etc.
for waste-focused Point of purchase Choice of plastic or alternative
government policy wrapping, containers, etc.
or compliance
with official Reuse plastic products/wrapping
waste reduction Post-purchase
(e.g. plastic bags, PET bottles);
schemes, e.g. separate plastic waste or not;
(household) use of recycle centre;
deposit schemes
misuse; e.g. disposing in toilet.
Plastic waste taken to

collection point, litter basket,
After use (outside) or taken home;
thrown away as litter
Figure 5 Examples of consumer influences (source: Expert Group).
In general, people do not buy and leak plastic for the that of the packaged product (Heller et al., 2018), so
express purpose of harming the environment; rather, that carefully assessing the needs and responses of
they do so because of lack of choice, inadequate consumers to packaging (or no packaging) is necessary
collection systems, or lack of knowledge of, or if a net benefit from the standpoint of food waste
indifference to, the consequences of their behaviour. is to be achieved. For instance, plastic wrapping of
The factors in Box 7 of perceptions of responsibility vegetables and fruit may be aimed at reducing food
and of control and the efficacy of actions are waste by extending shelf life but whether this justifies
important. Responsibility perceptions may be multi- the resource and energy costs of the packaging and
faceted: Hartley et al. (2018) found that the public its disposal may depend on consumer behaviour.
perceived retailers, industry and government as most Packaging limits the consumer’s choice of quantity and
responsible for marine litter (while at the same time if it encourages over-purchasing, the net effects on food
least motivated to reduce it), which could reduce waste may well be negative.
personal motivation to act. Nevertheless, personal
responsibility remains (Steg et al., 2012) and can be Given the wide range of factors above and the vast
strengthened by information and communication range of individual characteristics, any policy must be
measures, or by influencing social norms through multi-faceted to be effective. Some consumers may
rules. The concern that one’s own actions should be be motivated by information, others by rules that set
worthwhile (efficacy) means that positive behaviour out the social norms, yet others by reward systems
is encouraged where there are convenient alternative that change perceptions of the balance of costs and
options; for example, for reusing everyday items such as benefits. A ‘one size fits all’ approach may be difficult
cups, bottles or plastic bags, and for disposing of waste to devise. As noted by Ritch et al. (2009), information
easily (Steg and Vlek, 2009). alone – even when simple, accurate, well presented and
action oriented – can be insufficient to shift behavioural
Consumer behaviour is also a critical factor in patterns, and there is often a substantial gap between
determining the effectiveness of packaging in reducing the degree of concern that consumers express about the
food waste (Wikstrom et al., 2019) since packaging environment and their behaviour20.
poorly aligned with consumers’ needs and use could
lead to increased waste through spillage, or encourage Consumer thinking is not an isolated factor and
purchase of amounts that are too large or impulse interlinks with the attitude of the manufacturers and
buying. Studies of the GHG emissions from food waste retailers, especially in assigning blame. Producers
and the packaging involved show that in some cases may assign their decisions to the mantra of ‘meeting
the GHG footprint of the packaging greatly exceeds consumer needs’ or ‘responding to consumer choice’,
20
For example, a survey of Irish consumers found that while 30% of consumers claimed to consider the state of the planet when they decided
what to buy, only 3% acted on those thoughts (National Consumer Council, 2008).

Box 7 Psychological research relevant to consumer behaviour
Behavioural studies suggest that concern, perceived behavioural control, values, attitudes, emotions and personal and social norms,
as well as knowledge and awareness, influence intentions and behaviour.
Individuals vary in their perceptions of the seriousness of environmental risks, and these have been associated with different types of personal
values (Steg et al., 2012):
• hedonic values (striving for pleasure and reduction of effort);

• egoistic values (improving or securing one’s resources);
• altruistic values (caring about others); and
• biospheric values (caring about the quality of nature and the environment).
Given this diversity of individuals’ mindsets, measures aimed at changing consumer behaviour should either target people with different value
systems and reasoning patterns, or should aim to change the value systems and reasoning of people. Simple measures based on ‘one size fits
all’ are unlikely to be effective.
Altruistic and biospheric values tend to be associated with higher perceptions of global environmental risks while hedonic and egoistic values
are not. Attitudes to risks also depend on whether the individual applies ‘consequentialist’ reasoning and perceives the risks as acceptable
when the benefits of actions causing these risks are seen as high. On the other hand, a ‘deontological’ reasoning would base risk assessment
on the rightness or wrongness of actions per se.
Knowledge in itself is typically not sufficient to motivate pro-environmental behaviour by individuals (see Abrahamse and Steg, 2013; Hornsey
et al., 2016; Ünal et al., 2018) or by organisations. Behavioural change requires a motivation to change and practical know how (skills) on
possible responses.
Awareness and concern are predictors of behaviour and personal norms, but people also need to feel capable of change (Steg, 2016).
Where awareness of the issue is associated with a belief that one’s own actions will help reduce the problems (a sense of control and that action
will bring results — outcome efficacy), this may strengthen a sense of moral obligation and responsibility (personal norms). Personal factors
work together with situational factors which include economic constraints, social pressures, and opportunities for alternative actions
(Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002).
Many behaviours are habitual, and thus resistant to change since they are impulse-driven, fast processes that require minimal cognitive analysis
and effort (Evans and Stanovich, 2013). Also important are social norms which affect what the individual thinks is common practice and widely
accepted (descriptive norms), and what ought to be done in society (injunctive norms). Here, studies in terrestrial environments have shown
that people are more likely to litter if a) the setting is littered (descriptive norm) and/or b) if they witness someone litter (injunctive norm). Habits
and social norms are important and may change as a result of legislation — as shown by the effect of mandatory charges on single-use carrier
bags. This helps disrupt habitual behaviour by giving people a reason for change (the bag charge) and creating a new social norm (Poortinga
et al., 2016).
while consumers blame manufacturers for not offering Ultimately, however, consumers do have powers in
environmentally friendly products. Policy-makers market economies: if no one bought drinking water
are faced with the challenges of balancing these in plastic bottles, retailers would soon reallocate the
perspectives. The psychological foundation of this redundant shelf space.
blame game is the well-documented phenomena of
cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), which suggests Against the background of these complexities, the
that people tend to adjust their thinking to justify their evidence that consumers are likely to be influenced
behaviour. Thus, if they contribute to plastic waste, they more by prices than behavioural measures is particularly
will prefer those arguments that prove that their waste relevant (DellaVigna and Pope, 2017). In this context,
production is inevitable or that their own contribution considerable success has been achieved in changing
is insignificant compared with others’ contributions consumer behaviour by the simple measure of charging
(analogous to the ‘tragedy of the commons’ or the for plastic bags. More than 60 countries are already
‘prisoner’s dilemma’). Plastic waste pollution can be seen taxing or banning SUPs, primarily plastic bags (UNEP
as a ‘social trap’ whereby nobody wants plastic waste 2018a), and even small charges have led to reductions
per se, yet we still produce it, and try to explain our in use surpassing 90%21 with associated reductions
behaviours by blaming other stakeholders’ behaviour. in litter. This has become a model of how to change
21
For instance, the Irish Government introduced a levy of 15 euro cents per bag in 2002 raised to 22 euro cents in 2007), which had the effects of
reducing bag use by 90%. The income from the levy is used to fund anti-litter initiatives, environmental research and development and initiatives
by community groups on protecting the environment (Gitti et al., 2015). Plastic bag levies are now widespread (e.g. in England, a charge of
5 pence introduced in 2015 has reduced usage by 86%; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carrier-bag-charge-summary-of-data-in-
england). Many countries have preferred to ban plastic bag use altogether (e.g. Brazil, China, South Africa, Uganda, Somalia, Rwanda, Botswana,
Kenya and Ethiopia).

consumer behaviour and may also influence consumer calculated to reduce litter from cans and bottles by
attitudes. A recent analysis (Thomas et al., 2019) of 70–90% and offer savings to litter bin clearance, litter
the effects of introducing plastic bag charges in the clean-up costs as well as increasing the quantities of
UK showed that the introducing the charge increased materials recycled and reducing GHG emissions. On
support for other charges to reduce plastic waste, so the other hand, retail outlets would incur costs for
introducing one kind of pro-environmental charge could installing reverse vending machines, additional staffing
cause support to spill over to other policy options. and transport costs which could be transferred to a
higher consumer price. Limited experience has also been
5.3 Market-based instruments gained on encouraging reusable coffee cups through
an MBI, where Poortinga and Whitaker (2018) found
The plastic bag charge is one example of market-based
that a discount on reusable cups was less effective than
instruments (MBIs) which use the price mechanism
a charge on disposable cups. Economic analysis of the
to make undesirable practices more expensive; while
costs of monitoring to prevent firms from disposing of
generating revenue that can be used to finance
collected low-value plastic wastes illicitly also suggests
infrastructure or awareness-raising (Darnton, 2008).
that deposit–refund schemes should also be considered
Various MBI options and necessary conditions for
for other low-value containers (Ino and Matsueda,
effectiveness were reviewed in Ten Brink et al. (2009)
2019), since these may give rise to a recycling market.
where the key principles involved include ‘getting the
price right’ on the basis of ‘full cost recovery’ or the
5.4 Overall assessment of evidence
‘user pays principle’; ensuring that the price reflects the
true cost of pollution on the ‘polluter pays principle’; As shown earlier in Figure 5, many decisions and
and that the charging mechanism provides an effective behaviours influence the scale of litter and its avoidance.
incentive for the desired behavioural change. For instance, a consumer may first buy a bottle of water
instead of using a water fountain or their own bottle
A second MBI is to use targeted deposit schemes on refilled from the tap; they then dispose of the bottle
containers to reduce littering and boost recycling, and as general waste instead of reusing it or separating it
such DRS have already enabled many countries to for recycling; or may discard as litter. MBIs have been
achieve high collection rates for beverage containers shown to influence behaviour at these various stages
(the five best performing Member States with deposit but other influences may be important. For instance, in
schemes for PET bottles (Germany, Denmark, Finland, studies on recycling and littering, Schultz et al. (2013)
the Netherlands and Estonia) reached an average found that older people littered less, littering behaviour
collection rate for PET of 94% in 2014 (IEEP, 2017)). was less where bins were available and when the site
Reverse vending machines can provide an economic was less littered. Halvorsen (2012) reviewed the effects
motive for return, as applied extensively in the German, of norms and policy incentives on recycling across 10
Swedish, Norwegian and Lithuanian models (Box 8). OECD countries and found that the strongest predictor
The earning opportunity of deposits can also encourage of recycling efforts was the belief that it is beneficial for
retrieval of littered containers. the environment, and to a lesser extent that it was a
civic duty. Miafodzyeva and Brandt (2013) conducted a
There is, however, debate over the cost-effectiveness meta-analysis of 63 recent studies and found that moral
of DRS schemes, typified by criticism of the proposed norms, information and convenience were the most
UK DRS scheme (IEA, 2019) that the anticipated important predictors of recycling behaviour, followed by
improvements in recovery rate are insufficient to justify environmental concern.
the high infrastructure and maintenance costs for
reverse vending machines and reverse logistics. Several Other studies reinforce that removing barriers should
EU countries (including the Czech Republic, France, be the first step of any initiatives aimed at encouraging
Ireland, Spain and Belgium) have concluded that the environmentally responsible behaviour such as waste
resource costs of introducing DRS outweigh potential selection or recycling Bell et al., 2001). If there are
environmental benefits. However, such economic cost– significant barriers for selecting plastic waste, no
benefit analyses have difficulty in valuing intangible communication campaign can be expected to convince
benefits such as reductions in litter as a result of a shift people to separate their waste. A communication
to returnable or refillable containers; this is further campaign which tries to modify consumers’ behaviour
discussed in Chapter 8. without removing barriers could even cause frustration
and weaken environmental attitudes.
While most experience of DRS has been on bottled
drinks, a Dutch study examined the costs and benefits Such findings emphasise the need for a comprehensive
of extending the deposit system from large PET bottles approach on awareness information and on social
and refillable soft drinks and beer bottles, to include norms to provide the framework within which MBI and
deposits on cans, smaller plastic bottles and one- other specific policy measures are applied. On the aspect
way glass bottles (CE Delft, 2017). Such a DRS was of awareness, information on a product’s sustainability

Box 8 Examples of deposit–return schemes: Germany, Sweden, Norway and Lithuania
Of the various DRS operating in 38 countries, one of the most commonly cited is that in Germany which was introduced in 2002, against the
opposition of the bottling industry and retailers. The German DRS covers plastic, aluminium, and glass containers for water, beer, soft drinks,
and mixed alcoholic drinks. Excluded are containers for fruit and vegetable juice, milk products, wine, spirits, liquors, and certain dietary drinks,
as well as containers smaller than 100 millilitres and larger than 3 litres. The deposit is 0.25 euro cents to retailers on single-use containers, and
lower charges for refillable containers. Most (approximately 80%) of the collection is using reverse vending machines, and high return rates
have been reported for PET bottles of 99%. This can be compared with the UK where there is no such DRS scheme and where only 43% of the
13 billion plastic bottles sold each year are recycled, and 700,000 littered every day (EAC, 2017).
The original objective was to encourage drinks companies to use multi-use, refillable plastic or glass bottles (owing to the energy and GHG
emission savings of multiple reuse). However, the proportion of multi-use bottles has declined and the remaining users are phasing out multi-
use bottles in favour of one-time use, citing the high logistics costs of collecting bottles and providing storage space. The different charges for
single-use and for refillable bottles have also caused problems with some stores limiting returns to containers purchased there. The exceptions
for juice, milk, wine and spirits also add complications.
The German DRS scheme thus offers learning opportunities for other schemes. Firstly, despite the original objective being to incentivise multi-
use of bottles, the financial reward of lower deposits for refillable containers has been insufficient to offset the costs of reverse logistics.
Moreover, significant amounts of deposit are not reclaimed, leaving uncollected fees with retailers. These shortcomings suggest that larger
incentives or a statutory duty to use only refillable containers would be required; and that consumers should be able to return containers to any
store to avoid the inconvenience of having to return containers to the point of purchase (IEEP, 2017).
Sweden has applied a similar scheme since 2005 so that all packaging containing drinks (with the exception of drinks containing 50%
or more of dairy products or vegetable, fruit or berry juices) must be included in an approved return system. This has contributed to an
84.9% recycling rate in 2016 for aluminium cans and PET bottles, with a target to increase this to 90%. Return vending machines are
available in most stores to make obtaining refunds simple. This scheme has, however, to deal with significant imports from other countries
without deposits where the motive for recycling is reduced owing to the lack of deposit. Special campaigns have nevertheless offered small
returns for charitable purposes and retrieved 35 million cans which were otherwise ineligible for refunds22.
Norway achieves a high (97%) recycle rate for plastic bottles through a deposit scheme (13–30 euro cents) and has encouraged the concept
of a container as a ‘loan’ where the default condition is that it be returned. Returning has been simplified and consumers can either use reverse
vending machines or return it to shops and gas stations for cash or store credit. Implementing this concept has been supported by a conditional
tax on plastic producers, which reduces according to the national recycle rate and is zero above 95%. Recycling has also been simplified
by restricting manufacturers to using two PET resins, so that a recyclate quality is sufficient for closed-loop recycle to new PET bottles23. Such
high rates of recycle contribute to Norway’s low levels of plastic waste generated; this was the lowest found in a World Bank survey (Kaza et al.,
2018) at 26 grams per person per day (compared with France’s 124, Germany’s 226, the UK’s 266 and the USA’s 286).
While Norway, Sweden and Germany are often cited as leading examples of recycling, recent experience in Lithuania is also very positive.
Lithuania introduced a new container deposit system in February 2016 with a container deposit of only €0.10 on glass and non-refillable
plastic and metal beverage containers of between 0.1 and 3 litres in size. Despite the short time since its introduction, this DRS scheme has
already increased the return rate for PET bottles from 34% before the scheme’s introduction to 74.3% by the end of the first year and 91.9%
by the end of 2017. Deposits are refunded when the empty container is returned for recycling; stores selling beverages must receive returned
containers, so that return is easy for the consumer, and encourages additional customer visits.
The system is operated by a non-profit organisation established by the industry under the principle of EPR. The system operator is responsible
for deposit clearing, reporting, logistics, marketing collected materials and educating stakeholders and consumers. Its sources of income include
unredeemed deposits, revenue from the sale of collected materials and administration fees paid by beverage producers. Surveys showed
that, by the end of 2016, 99.8% of the Lithuanian public were aware of the deposit system, with 89% having used it at least once; 58% of
consumers reported recycling more and 78% believed the deposit system is good and necessary24.
and recommended disposal methods on the label need for continuous, permanent communication efforts,
may contribute to appropriate disposal. However, using as many communication channels as possible in a
consumers vary in the degree to which they have time coordinated way.
or motivation to notice or respond to labelling. For
campaigns differentiating between environmentally One final aspect raised by Zehner (2012) concerns
friendly and unfriendly behaviour, short project-based whether the Jevons Paradox could apply in the case
campaigns tend to have short-term effects so that to of plastics, as it has in the case of other efficiency-
achieve significant and long-lasting effects there is a improving innovations25. In this case, making plastic
22
see http://pantamera.nu/om-oss/returpack-in-english/about-returpack/.
23
https://infinitum.no.
24
see https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/recycling-lithuania-deposit-system-exceeds-all-expectations/45003/.
25
This is named after William Stanley Jevons who in 1865 explained how James Watt’s introduction of the steam engine greatly improved
efficiency, which in turn made steam engines more popular and subsequently drove the use of coal ever higher.

products easier to collect and recycle could lead to entities, manufacturers (and retailers) behave
an increase in plastic production and consumption. more rationally than individuals whose behaviour
Issues of social justice also need to be considered if is often determined by habits and emotions, so
economic incentives are applied since these may have a that economic and legal intervention is likely to be
disproportionately large impact on low-income groups more effective if targeting companies (e.g. Dennis
while exerting little or no incentives to higher-income et al., 1990). In addition, regulatory intervention
groups (Zehner, 2012). to increase the offering of products with lower
environmental impact has immediate effect
In summary, a recent review of 187 studies (Heidbreder whereas awareness-raising to change consumer
et al., 2019) observes that ‘although problem awareness behaviour requires long-term efforts to achieve
is high, the perceived advantages of plastic, consumer behavioural change in only a proportion of the
habits, and situational factors make it difficult for population.
people to act accordingly. Bans and increased costs
of plastic products as well as a combination of • Retailers, especially food retailers, can continue
psychological interventions seem to be promising to rely on the convenient single-use model or
measures to reduce plastic consumption and waste. they could choose to offer low-plastic options for
All actors from science, policy, industry, trade, and the products and services, support customers who want
general public have to work together to avoid a shift to use refillable containers, and provide collection
of responsibility. More research is needed to improve and recycle infrastructure.
current interventions and to create additional powerful,
immediate, and global solutions to limit the amount of • Citizens, environmental organisations and
plastic waste in the environment.’ scientists may collaborate on citizen science
projects, beach clean-ups and similar community
As noted above, consumers are just one (albeit a projects26, or social media campaigns: for example,
critically important one) of several stakeholders that the ‘Beat the Microbead’ campaign27.
influence the leakage of plastics into the environment,
and should not be considered in isolation. Regulators • Educational systems and educators can offer
and policy-makers need to take into account that the curriculum material and innovative educational
motives of the various stakeholders may not be in solutions, aiming to improve the pro-environmental
alignment; for instance: behaviour of the younger generation and involve
them in the development of a plastic waste free
• Manufacturers decide the materials and formats society28.
that are presented to the consumer. End-of-life
considerations may be lacking or, on the other Regulatory strategies will be more effective where the
hand, influenced by considerations of reputation interests and motivations of different actors are aligned;
and corporate social responsibility. As legal this is addressed further in Chapter 8.
26
An example of a holistic community project that involves non-governmental organisations, universities, companies, advisors, citizens and
politicians is in the ‘Plastics free Roskilde Fjord’ project in Denmark which identifies plastics sources and community actions
(see https://www.energyglobe.info/denmark2018?cl=en&id=280058)
27
http://www.beatthemicrobead.org/
28
See, for example, the plastic-free schools initiative; https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/guides-schools.

6 ‘Bio’ plastics and degradability
The negative environmental impacts of plastics have Bio-based plastics and their equivalent fossil-fuel-derived
led to efforts to find materials that have (or appear to plastics are summarised in Table 4.
have) more environmentally benign properties in their
production or if leaked into the environment. Terms Where the plastic monomer normally derived from
such as ‘bioplastics’ or ‘degradable plastics’ are widely oil is produced instead from an agricultural or other
used but can be ambiguous, so it is important to be ‘renewable’ source (e.g. PET made from corn or sugar),
clear on what functions and aims are involved in such these are referred to as ‘drop-ins’ since they can easily
materials. There are primarily three categories. substitute for the fossil-fuel-based monomer without
the need to change equipment and production
1. Bio-based plastics are where fossil fuel feedstocks processes. However, where the biological feedstock
have been replaced with biological materials (e.g. produces a different resin (for instance, PLA, PHA),
sugar, starch, cellulosic fibres, wheat, organic different additives and processing technology may be
wastes). The primary objective for bio-based required, since there will be a different range of key
materials is to reduce GHG emissions relative to properties. As an illustration of the range of factors
their fossil-fuel-based alternatives. These biological that have to be optimised, Figure 6 shows the relative
feedstocks can be used to produce the same trade-offs in substituting PET or LDPE by PLA (a) or PBS
polymer resins as fossil fuels (PET, PE, etc.), or (b) in terms of barrier properties, mechanical properties,
entirely different polymers. recyclability and ease of processing versus the single
advantage of biodegradability.
2. Degradable (or fragmentable) plastics are those that
can break down in the environment into fragments Global production of bio-based plastics is currently
through physical or chemical processes. less than 1% of that of fossil-fuel-based plastics
(approximately 2 million tonnes per annum).
3. Biodegradable plastics can break down to Considering their relative early development stage and
environmentally benign residues through biological lower production rates, it is inevitable that they are more
processes (generally involving bacteria) under expensive (e.g. bio-PE and bio-PP sell at approximately
various conditions encountered in the natural 30% premium, and PLA is about twice as expensive as
environment. Compostable plastics are designed to PE). With process refinement and scale up, however,
break down in industrial composting facilities or in this difference is rapidly disappearing and the number
the cooler and less-controlled conditions of ‘home of applications increasing. Research and development
composting’. continue on expanding the range of feedstock options
and polymers produced. Cellulosic fibres extracted from
6.1 Bio-based plastics wood offer potential bio-based substitutes for some
plastic packaging, or as up to 50% of the content
Bio-based plastics are currently produced using three
of plastic composites29. A range of polyamides and
approaches.
1. Use of natural polymers (e.g. starch-based plastics).

Table 4 Substitution possibilities by some ‘bio-based’
2. Polymerisation of bio-based monomers and plastics (Chen and Patel, 2011; Gardini et al., 2016)
oligomers via fermentation or conventional chemical
processes (e.g. polylactic acid: PLA). ‘Bio-based’ plastic type Fossil fuel plastic
substituted
3. Polymers produced directly from bacterial Polylactides: PLA; inc. PE, PP, PS
fermentation. Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) are Polyhydroxybutyrate: PHB
one examples; PHA functions as a source of energy Polyhydroxyalkanoate: PHA PE, PVC, PP, PET, PS
and carbon in some (e.g. acetogenic) bacteria,
Polyethylenefuranoate: PEF PET
and can account for up to 90% of the dry weight
of the microbe. PHA can be produced directly by Starch-based PE, PVC, PP, PS
fermentation of waste (examples include paper Cellulosic fibres Wood-plastic composites,
mill wastewater (Tamis et al., 2018) municipal nanocellulose coatings
wastewater (Korkakaki et al., 2016; Pittman and Polybutylene succinate: PBS PE
Steinmetz, 2017) and waste polystyrene (Johnston
Plant-oil-based polyamides Polyamides (nylons)
et al., 2018).
29
See ‘The Wood Fibre Solution to the World’s Plastic Problem’ at https://eureka.eu.com/innovation/wood-fibre-plastic/.

Barrier properties
Barrier properties 5
5
4
4
3
Cost Mechanical
3
Mechanical properties
Cost properties
2
2
LDPE LDPE 1
1
PET PET 0
0
PLA PLA
Ease of Ease of
Recyclability Recyclability processing
processing
Biodegradability Biodegradability
Figure 6 Trade-offs in substituting PET or LDPE by (a) PLA and (b) PBS (source: Bucknall, 2019).
polyurethanes can also be produced from plant oils deforestation, loss of biodiversity and other factors
(e.g. castor oil, sunflower oil) although the chemistry is (Sheldon, 2018). In principle, the global production
complex (Maier, 2019). Novel feedstocks under research of lignocellulosic waste is enough to serve as a raw
include keratin (e.g. from chicken feathers) (Werland material for the global production of plastics (Tuck et
and Brandelli, 2005; Khosa and Ullah, 2013; Scarfato al., 2012). However, industrial processes can also use
et al., 2015). Another source could be chitin whose agricultural products (e.g. corn, wheat) where such
natural production is second only to cellulose. This can conflicts can emerge. For instance, to replace PET, PP or
be a source of chitin nanofibres (Wu et al., 2014), and PE by the biopolymers PLA or PBS would require from
can be sprayed on to other materials to provide a barrier 15.9 to 19.5% of current global wheat production
to oxygen for food, electronics and pharmaceutical and replacing PE by a bio-PE would require almost all
packaging (Satam et al., 2018). Furthermore, carbon (93.5%) of global wheat production (Bucknall, 2019).
dioxide is a potential carbon source for plastics (e.g.
Dahrensbourg, 2007; Klankermayer et al., 2016; Zhu et The choice of the feedstock and avoiding such conflicts
al., 2016). This last example includes some commercial is thus the fundamental issue with bio-based plastics.
processes: Newlight’s AirCarbon technology can convert Biomass used to make bio-based plastics should not
methane to PHA, or carbon dioxide to polyurethane and compete, directly or indirectly, with food production,
thermoplastics. and should consist of unavoidable waste biomass, such
as agricultural and forestry residues of lignocellulose
The label of ‘bio’ has been used by some companies and food supply chain waste. However, use for
as an indication of lower environmental impact, but plastics competes with the use of the same wastes
assessing whether overall environmental impacts are for renewable energy which are supported under the
positive or negative requires full LCAs. For instance, in Renewable Energy Directive (EASAC, 2017c, 2019).
assessing life cycle GHG emissions, Nova Institute (2017)
calculated GHG emission reductions of around 27% 6.2 Physical breakdown and fragmentation
(relative to fossil fuels) in producing PLA, while Shen et
al. (2011) calculated that producing PET bottles from Plastics can be made to break down as a result of
bioplastic emits on average 25% fewer GHGs than if exposure to sunlight or oxygen by including special
based on petroleum. Comparing fossil and bio-based additives (e.g. metal elements such as cobalt,
PET bottles, Chen et al., (2016) suggested a potential manganese, iron or zinc) that catalyse cleavage in the
reduction in global warming potential of 21% when molecule chains on exposure to air and ultraviolet
using woody biomass relative to fossil fuels. Such light; this chain breakdown results in small fragments.
calculations can, however, underestimate the benefits Such plastics are called oxo-degradable or PAC (pro-
of bio-based products based on crop wastes if the oxidant additive containing) plastic. As noted by Prasun
assessments include emissions from the primary crop et al. (2011) and Thomas et al. (2012), polyethylene
production. containing pro-oxidants disintegrates on exposure to
heat, light, and oxygen into small fragments, thereby
The primary motivation for making bio-based plastics reducing their visibility, but the fragments do not
is to reduce GHG emissions by using resources that are further biodegrade into nutrients that can be used in
renewable and do not compete with food production natural processes; moreover the additives will have
or incentivise further land use change resulting in deleterious effects on recyclate quality if included with

other plastics. The European Commission reported to can be ploughed in and subsequently degrade in the
the Parliament that oxo-degradable plastics are not a soil through the action of humidity and microorganisms,
solution to the environment problems of plastic leakage although costs per hectare of biodegradable materials
and that they are not suitable for long-term use, are higher than PE film (for mulches in Spain, between
recycling or composting and has consequently included 25% and 188% more expensive (Mari et al., 2019)). A
a ban on all oxo-degradable plastics in its SUP Directive general claim of biodegradability is unlikely to be valid if
(EC, 2019). not accompanied by details of the conditions required;
indeed, special conditions are often required such as
6.3 Biodegradable or compostable plastics anaerobic digesters or industrial composting (Albertsson
and Hakkarainen, 2017).
The most environmentally benign plastic would be
a material that can break down through biological Using compost as a microbial community for the
processes under a range of conditions to organic biodegradation of different bioplastics has been
molecules and nutrients which can return to the natural extensively studied in recent years. PLA, PHA, starch-
environment (Shah et al., 2008). Potentially, such plastics based plastics, PBS, PES and PCL are susceptible to
can be produced either from crude oil or renewable biodegradation by compost under specific conditions
resources (see examples in Figure 7) and there is of temperature, pH and moisture content, but the
no general rule that ‘bio’-based materials are more specific conditions must be defined, as their effect on
degradable or compostable than those derived from plastics degradation (especially for PLA and PHB) is
fossil fuels (Adhikari et al., 2016); some may exhibit significant (Castro-Aguirre et al., 2017). In addition,
some degree of biodegradability while others may not over the timescale of organic recycling processes
be biodegradable at all. Biodegradable plastics have (composting and anaerobic digestion), most of the
been extensively researched since the early 1980s with plastics biodegrade to only a limited extent, while
agricultural mulches a prime marketing target, since some generate methane (Gómez and Michel, 2013)
the large amounts of PE used in mulches and silage in the process. In general consumer use, PLA, starch-
bales are difficult and expensive to collect and recycle based and cellulosic fibre-based materials can be used
and persist in the soil, interfering with cultivation and for compostable packaging but their environmental
harvesting. Several polyester plastics are available for degradability will depend not just on the environmental
mulching (PHA, PHB and PBS among others) as well as conditions but also on the additives that have
starch-based films, and have been tested on large-scale been added in processing; these may even prevent
applications. Biodegradable films are now available that degradation (Lambert and Wagner, 2017).
Petroleum-based Renewable resource-based Polymers from mixed

biodegradable polymers polymers sources (bio-/petro-)
Poly (lactic acid) (PLA) Polyesters

Aliphatic polyesters
For example, poly(D-lactide) For example, poly(trimethylene
For example, polycaprolactone (PCL), (PDLA), poly(DL-lactide) (PDLLA) terephthalate) (PTT)
poly(butylene succinate) (PBS)*
Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs)
Thermosets
Aliphatic-aromatic polyesters For example, polyhydroxybutyrate
(PHB), poly(hydroxybutyrate-co- For example, bio-based epoxy,
For example, poly(butylene hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV) biobased polyurethane
adipate-co-terephthalate) (PBAT)
Starch plastics
Poly (vinyl aclohol) (PVOH) For example, wheat/potato/corn-based plastics
Cellulosics
* PBS: can be renewable For example, cellulose esters

resource based with renewable
content > 50%
Proteineous plastics
For example, plant and animal
protein-based plastics
Figure 7 Biodegradable polymers (Reddy et al., 2013). Reprinted with permission from Elsevier (copyright 2013).

Various eco-labelling standards around the world define JRC and Vincotte both can test and award a certificate
home and industrial composting and the time in for products that reach 20% biodegradation in a
which a plastic must degrade, although there are still marine test within a period of 6 months, and at least
questions over the reproducibility of such tests (Castro- 70% disintegration (i.e. smaller than 2 mm) in a marine
Aguirre et al., 2017) and additional work to develop and environment within 3 months.
refine appropriate standards is thus required. Industrial
composting generally involves temperatures above The JRC has approved two grades of the Mater-Bi
50°C for weeks or months (UNEP, 2015). Industrially (a thermoplastic starch with PLA from Novamont)
compostable materials are, however, not necessarily for marine biodegradation. The biodegradability of
capable of being composted under the cooler and less- PHA can be refined through variations in molecular
controlled conditions of home composting. Moreover, structure to make biodegradable packaging (Ghosh
even when compostable, materials may not degrade et al., 2019), and has been approved by Vincotte
in natural environments. Compostable packaging also for marine degradability. There are over 80 different
interferes with plastic packaging recycling owing to their molecular structures within the polyhydroxyalkanoates
chemical structure and, if not separated, their large- (PHAs)31 exhibiting different degrees of biodegradability
scale production could seriously interfere with plastic (Chanprateep, 2010; Bagheri et al., 2017). Some of
recycling processes. As with the label ‘bio’, the appeal these (PHB and PHBV) show some biodegradation
to the ‘green consumer’ of the label ‘compostable’ in marine environments over 6 months (Deroine et
may not be based on sound environmental principles al., 2015; Jacquin et al., 2019), but the degree of
and could also lead to increased littering if consumers degradation may be quite low (Bagheri et al. (2017)
believe plastics labeled as biodegradable or compostable found that PHB after 1 year had lost only 6% of
will ‘disappear’ in the natural environment. Proper its original mass, while PLA remained unchanged).
labelling and certainty in their end-of-life composting Thus, if even such ‘compliant’ materials leak into the
under appropriate conditions are thus pre-conditions marine environment, they would still maintain their
for achieving environmental benefits; for instance, integrity for months with associated negative effects
compostable containers could be required as part of of entanglement, ingestion and other effects (Annex
food waste composting processes30. 2). Moreover, difficulties remain in processing and
reproducibility, further limiting their potential to replace
The ideal target of a plastic that breaks down naturally traditional plastics on a large scale.
in the marine environment remains elusive. Fully
degradable polymers are routinely used in biomedical Research continues; for instance, (Ghosh et al. 2019)
applications where the temperature and humidity of the developed a bacterial process that produces monomer
human body provide stable conditions for degradation. for PHA from seaweed; while another bacterium can
However, most applications of plastics require durability, convert PET plastic into PHA plastic. Several naturally
and it is a basic premise that a material that can occurring bacteria and fungi can degrade some
degrade in the environment should not degrade during plastics (particularly PHB, PLA and to a lesser extent PS)
its shelf life. Natural environments vary in temperature, suggesting some scope for bioremediation (Caruso,
humidity, degrading microorganisms and many other 2015). (Yoshida et al. 2016) found that bacteria
factors, so that degradation is much more difficult (Ideonella sakaiensis) from a bottle recycling plant
to engineer into the plastic molecule (Albertsson and could digest PET by secreting an enzyme (PETase); this
Hakkarainen, 2017). In consequence, most fossil- finding has stimulated work to improve the degradation
fuel-based plastics do not biodegrade and even those process (Austin et al., 2018) and further bacterial
that exhibit some degree of biodegradability are slow enzymes capable of dissolving PET in industrial
to degrade in marine and terrestrial environments, processes at 60–70°C are under development (Wei et
resulting in lifetimes of decades or even centuries al., 2016; Danso et al., 2018; IFEU (footnote 32); DTU,
(Krueger et al., 2015). Nevertheless, some progress 2019 (footnote 33)). Research and development is thus
towards biodegradability has been made and there are making some progress, but has not yet developed an
standards that allow such a product to be labelled as environmentally benign plastic packaging for large-scale
marine biodegradable, although Harrison et al. (2018) use that combines rapid degradation into naturally
consider such standards as insufficient to realistically recyclable components with the necessary functionality
predict biodegradability in marine environments. The and cost-effectiveness.
30
For instance, in Italy residents are provided with kitchen caddies lined with compostable bags and bins that are emptied as part of door-to-door
collections of food waste.
31
32,000 tonnes of PHAs were produced in 2013 (Aeschelmann and Carus, 2015) but the growth rate is high.
32
https://www.ifeu.de/en/topics/biomass-and-food/biobased-materials/bioplastics/
33
https://www.bioengineering.dtu.dk/english/news/nyhed?id=AFA835A7-EB08-4F05-A5EE-9212464DCF26

6.4 Overall situation Nevertheless, some progress in developing
biodegradable plastics has been reported and further
Life cycle assessments of replacing oil with agricultural
development is expected. Future development of bio-
crops show that ‘bio’ feedstocks are not inherently
based or biodegradable plastics should be evaluated
more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels, which is
according to the following criteria (Maier et al., 2018):
the presumption projected in marketing ‘bio’ products.
The key question is the source of the raw material used
• their contribution to multiple use or the recovery of
with a high preference for using waste materials. The
materials;
ambiguity of some terms (degradable, compostable,
bio-based, etc.) can convey a misleading impression to • the extent and rate of their ‘degradability’ in
many consumers of environmentally benign properties, different parts of the natural environment;
whereas in reality they may be degradable only under
special conditions not encountered in the natural • certification should be on not just the basic resin
environment; they may merely break down into smaller but also include the properties of additives;
particles, as well as interfering with recycling processes.
Such confusion may lead to cross-contamination of • labelling should be clear on the correct disposal
waste streams or careless or irresponsible littering based route.
on a mistaken assumption that littered material will
disappear from the environment.

7 Research and innovation
There are many potential technical approaches and a full • improving chemical recycling to achieve full de-
analysis of these is beyond the scope of this document. polymerisation.
Furthermore, there is still considerable potential for
more basic research (whether in universities, research Research needs in some of the above fields have been
institutions or industry) to address data inadequacies analysed (e.g. in Vegter et al. 2014; Horton et al. 2017),
on environmental impact and to identify potentially and some of the various major technical and innovation
more environmentally benign resins or formulations; for challenges are provided in Table 5.
example:
The wide range of approaches being pursued by various
• the fate of plastic debris in continental soil and soil- companies’ research and development can be seen from
living organisms; the limited examples in Box 9. Furthermore, shopping
and consumption patterns are already changing with
• the fate of plastics in the open ocean (surface, different potential refill options (e.g. Lofthouse et al.,
water column, sediments);
2009). Another approach is to remove or reduce the
need for recycling altogether by continuing to use
• health effect of plastic debris (including
nanoplastics) on living organisms; plastic items but implementing a closed-loop system.
This is the approach taken in the trial of a new ‘loop’ 34
• design of new products for reuse or recycling; scheme of refillable and returnable containers whereby
customers order products that normally come in single-
• enhancing the degradability of plastics and use plastic packaging. The products are delivered in
developing plastics that degrade swiftly through durable, refillable containers that can be collected from
natural processes; the doorstep and cleaned for reuse.
Table 5 Some research and innovation targets (adapted from EMF, 2016)
Innovation field Description Current state

Remove additives Separation of additives from recovered Laboratory stage; limited application
polymers to increase purity of recyclate
Reversible adhesives These would allow multi-material packaging to Research stage, but potential in making multilayer films
be separated into separate recycling streams from compatible polymers, removing the need for this
Depolymerisation Returning the plastic to its original monomer Processes are under development but costs are a
barrier to large-scale use
Chemical markers To facilitate separation by automatic sorting Markers available but not yet deployed at commercial
technologies scale
Near infrared Automated optical sorting based on the Now widely deployed at commercial scale
different NIR spectra of different polymers
Biodegradable Plastics that will break down to environmentally Still very limited to specific conditions (e.g. industrial
plastics benign residues in marine, freshwater or composting): see section 6.3
terrestrial environments
34
www.loop.com

Box 9 Examples of innovation to improve circularity of the plastics economy
1 Innovation in areas such as material design, separation technology, reprocessing technology. For example:
• Mono-material packaging containers can improve recyclability
(e.g. https://corporate.dow.com/en-us/news/press-releases/dow-launches-game-changing-fully-recyclable-polyethylene-packaging-
solution-in-india).
• Multi-material film packaging which is difficult to recycle can be replaced with a mono-material laminate based entirely on PE, and which
can thus be recycled to other PE film products (www.borealisgroup.com).
• Process for depolymerising PET that takes place at relatively low temperatures (e.g. http://www.ioniqa.com/pet-recycling/).
• Producing plastics from captured greenhouse gases carbon dioxide or methane (e.g. https://www.newlight.com/).
• Closed-loop chemical recycling for Nylon 6 via depolymerising to caprolactam
(e.g. https://www.aquafil.com/newsmedia/how-facility-will-recover-nylon-6-from-carpet/).
2 Improving recycling technology and systems

• Mechanical sorting combining various techniques (flotation, screens, magnets, manual sorting) for dry fractions such as metals, glass,
paper, and plastics.
• Optical sorting technology recognises polymer types by illuminating the material and analysing the reflection spectrum. Image
recognition could recognise specific packaging items.
• Marker technology such as machine-readable fluorescent inks and sorting technologies to improve polymer identification
(e.g. http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Optimising_the_use_of_machine_readable_inks_for_food_packaging_sorting.pdf).
• Pyrolysis and chemical processes (as mentioned in section 4.1).
• A recycling robot equipped with artificial intelligence that can identify and separate materials faster. Algorithms enable it to detect
packaging details such as logos and images — and then recognise them for sorting.
• Means of using combined PE and PP which together account for two-thirds of waste packaging.
• New technologies to remove colour, odour, and other contaminants from post-use polypropylene (e.g. https://purecycletech.com/).
• Converting polystyrene to styrene monomer which can be repolymerised (e.g. https://www.agilyx.com).
• Bacterial processes can turn non-degradable plastic into PHA (e.g. http://www.bioplastech.eu/).
• Solvents that can separate the tightly laminated layers of composite materials.
• Using a catalyst to breaks open a polymer chain to trigger a chain reaction leading to a range of organic acids which can be used in
other chemical processes (e.g. https://www.biocellection.com/).
• Use of a catalyst in PE and PP that does not interfere with the recycling process but, after a predetermined time, breaks down the
polymer chains to lengths that are degradable (e.g. www.polymateria.com).
• Feedstock recycling process to take mixed waste and generate a low-sulfur fuel oil
(e.g. https://recyclingtechnologies.co.uk per tonnechnology/plaxx/; www.neste.com).
• Proposals for a process to convert LDPE plastic bags into a recycled LDPE product
(https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1115&context=cbe_sdr).

8 Policy implications
In the previous chapters we have noted that plastic As pointed out in Chapter 2, EU Member States had
packaging has become an integral part of the supply relied on exporting their plastic waste for most of their
chain in the production of goods to the consumer, and ‘recycling’. This offered the lowest short-term costs but
offers many desirable properties: durability, lightness, also created opportunities for financial gains to
flexibility, hygiene and security from tampering as intermediaries who paid inadequate attention to the
well as freedoms for the designers in terms of shape, legality of the waste’s treatment after export. Brooks et
colour and texture. While, superficially, packaging may al. (2018) compiled trade statistics for the period
appear to be just a container or marketing platform, it 1988–2016 and found cumulative exports to total
is likely to have been selected specifically to protect and 26.7 million metric tonnes (MMT) from the USA,
preserve its contents (against bacterial contamination, 22.2 MMT from Japan, 17.6 MMT from Germany,
exposure to oxygen, leakage of liquids or gases, damage 10.5 MMT from Mexico, 9.26 MMT from the UK,
from transport, etc.). Even for mundane applications, 7.71 from the Netherlands, 7.55 MMT from France,
packaging films and containers have to meet strict and 6.41 MMT from Belgium. More recent studies
demands concerning permeability of gases and liquids, (e.g. Greenpeace, 2019) have tracked the flows of
or resistance to sterilisation. In many applications, plastic waste since the Chinese restrictions and
only sophisticated polymers, multilayer or composite found an immediate diversion of exports to Southeast
materials can meet the application’s demand, and Asia, in particular Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand.
sophisticated compromises have been found to deliver In response to local mismanagement of the waste,
economically the required films and containers. import restrictions increased during 2018 which
diverted waste to the next rank of unregulated
Exploiting the many beneficial properties of plastics countries — particularly India, Taiwan, South Korea,
has resulted in rapid growth in production, and plastics Turkey and Indonesia. A second wave of restrictions is
manufacturers are planning for continued growth by now underway (e.g. India banned plastic waste imports
substantial investments across the world35. In parallel from September 2019) which is strengthening demand
with this growth, however, increased awareness and to export to countries yet to announce restrictions on
concerns over contamination of the environment in imports (e.g. current high-import-accepting Indonesia
general and the damaging effects on marine organisms and Turkey) and a search for new countries to accept
in particular (Annex 2) have led to a range of initiatives waste. Meanwhile the loss of the cheapest means of
to reduce leakage into the environment and shift to a disposing of plastic waste has disrupted local collection
less linear economic model (section 2.1). These include economics, making it more costly to separately collect
the actions in the EU which are summarised in section plastic waste since it must now be incinerated, landfilled
2.3, and which are affected by several science and or stockpiled until additional recycling capacity is
technology-related aspects discussed in Chapters 3–7. available.
In this final section, the Expert Group discusses the
implications for achieving the current objectives of EU The Expert Group considers this historical reliance on
policy, the objectives of which it broadly supports. exporting to countries that lack the proper infrastructure
for dealing with their own waste incompatible with
8.1 The scale of the challenge the overarching objectives of sustainable development.
This study was launched to support the EU’s policy Moreover, Jambeck et al. (2015) found that 16 of the
development in its plastic strategy announced in early top 20 countries contributing to marine plastic pollution
2018 (Chapter 2). That analysis identified structural were middle-income countries, where economic growth
deficiencies in the current linear model and saw often outpaces the development of effective waste
increasing recycling as a primary objective, noting management infrastructure. Diverting waste previously
that only 9% of plastic was currently recycled. That handled by China to such countries is perverse when
challenge has become even greater as the deficiencies the policy objectives are to reduce such leakage. Ethical
in the existing plastic ‘recycle’ system have become objections also exist to a practice where high-income
clearer as a result of China’s decision to cease accepting countries are exporting waste to low- or middle-income
imports of plastic waste from the end of 2017. This has countries without consideration of the subsequent
had major repercussions at both global and local levels impacts on the receiving country’s environment or
(see Box 10). public health, particularly in the light of evidence on
35
Current investment plans are expected to increase production capacity for the monomers ethylene and propylene by 33–36% by 2025 (CIEL,
2017).

health risks not just to informal recyclers (e.g. Yang et 2021. European plastics policy should be based on the
al., 2018) but (from media reports) on the adverse local presumption that waste produced within the EU will
environmental and health impacts of low-technology be handled within the EU. Exports, once the revised
recycling, open-air burning and abandonment of mixed Basel Convention has been implemented, should
plastic waste from European Countries, North America only be allowed to be classified as recycled where the
and Japan36. Moreover, some investigations (e.g. NAO, recycling capability and end uses of the plastic waste
2018) show that little or no monitoring of exports has have been properly audited. As emphasised in Brooks
been conducted and any attempts to apply quality et al. (2018), this will require waste-exporting countries
control to plastic waste exports is also undermined by to develop and expand internal recycling markets, and
the large proportion of waste plastics that are traded where these are insufficient, to reduce use and redesign
illegally (estimated at US$10 billion to $12 billion plastic packaging and products so that they retain their
annually by ISWA (2014)). value and are more recyclable in domestic markets. The
Expert Group also notes that a significant proportion
The Expert Group thus recommends that the EU should of plastic waste (27.3% in 2018) still goes to landfill,
support an effective ban on exports of plastic waste which should not be an acceptable alternative option
outside the EU independent of the amendments to the for plastic waste no longer exported. A parallel objective
Basel Convention which will only enter into force in of zero landfill should also be adopted.
Box 10 Effects of the Chinese restrictions of the import of plastic waste
Exporting to China had become the single largest route for ‘recycling’ plastic waste from the USA, Japan and many EU Member States (Brooks
et al., 2018) during the period 1988–2016. However, following China’s ‘National Sword’ policy, imports of all but very pure plastic scraps were
prohibited from late 2017 (Rico, 2018). The result was that exporting countries diverted their mixed plastic waste to other Asian countries;
exports to Vietnam doubled, to Thailand increased by 15-fold, and to Malaysia by 3- to 4-fold (see Box 10.1).
China Hong Kong (China) India Indonesia
Malaysia Pakistan Chinese Taipei Thailand
USA Vietnam
300
Monthly exports (kilotonnes)
200
100
0
16
16
16
17
17
17
18
-1
l-1
-1
-1
-1
l-1
n-
p-
n-
p-
n-
ar
ar
ay
ov
ay
ov
Ju
Ju
Ja
Se
Ja
Se
Ja
M
M
M
M
N
Source: Eurostat (2018), Statistics Explained: Recycling - secondary material price indicator
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/2/20/Data_and_graphs_SE_Price_indicator_final_012519-
update.xlsx (accessed on 28 March 2018).
Box Figure 10.1 Shifts in EU plastic waste exports from 2016 to 2018 straddling the Chinese restrictions on plastic waste
imports.
Continues on next page
36
See, for example,
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/28/treated-like-trash-south-east-asia-vows-to-return-mountains-of-rubbish-from-west;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-46518747

Box 10 (continued)
Exporting plastic waste has grown owing to the lack of sufficient capacity to recycle in the countries producing the waste, and because these
exports have been counted as ‘recycling’ and contribute to meeting national recycling targets. However, the countries now receiving wastes
already had insufficient infrastructure to deal with their own plastic waste. As a result, the increased flows have led to local pollution and large
quantities being dumped or abandoned (Box Figure 10.2). As the initial destinations introduced bans or restrictions, plastic waste exporters
shifted to a second tier of countries lacking such restrictions, primarily Indonesia, Turkey, India and South Korea (Greenpeace, 2019). As large-
scale imports have become more difficult, this has had an effect on total volumes shipped, which have reduced from 12.5 MMT in 2016 (from
the top 21 exporting countries) to an annual rate of 6.4 MMT in 2018.
Box Figure 10.2 Plastic waste abandoned in Malaysia (October 2018; photograph: Unearthed).
An additional factor is that awareness of the real fate and Box 1. Fundamental principles underpinning the
of plastic waste diligently separated by EU consumers circular economy are to extract the maximum use from
can be expected to have negative effects on motivation the natural resources consumed, to minimise waste and
to support future plastic waste reduction efforts since, to ensure that the maximum value is extracted at each
as we have noted in Chapter 4, this calls into question stage from the materials contained within the product.
the efficacy of individual actions. Export statistics show This has also been reflected in the EU’s Waste Directive
the extent to which Europe, North America, Australasia in terms of a ‘waste hierarchy’, where each stage in the
and even parts of Central and South America and hierarchy needs to be optimised before moving down
Africa have relied on exports for the removal of their to the next. As shown in Figure 8a, this starts with
plastic waste. The EU thus has the opportunity to take prevention, namely the need to minimise the use of
the global lead for high-income countries to put their materials and move their uses to a more cyclical pattern
own houses in order to adapt to a new reality where before considering end-of-life issues. Then, at the end-
unregulated dumping on other countries is no longer an of-life stage, reuse is of higher priority than recycle,
acceptable means of disposal. which is a higher priority than disposal. Penca (2018)
adapted the basic hierarchy model to include litter and
8.2 Plastics within the circular economy prevention approaches shown in Figure 8b.
The EU plastics strategy is placed within the wider
framework of the circular economy whose key The European Parliament emphasises that prevention of
characteristics were briefly introduced in Chapter 2 plastic waste should be the first priority (EP, 2018) and

(a) (b)
Reduce and conserve materials
Best use
Encourage cyclical use of resources
and shift incentives to stop wasting
Manufacturers design products for

sustainability and take-back
PRODUCT (NON-WASTE) PREVENTION
Reuse
WASTE PREPARING FOR RE-USE

Recycle
Worst use
RECYCLING Regulate
disposal
RECOVERY Litter in
environment
DISPOSAL
Figure 8 Waste hierarchy in (a) the EC Waste Directive (EC, 2008) and (b) as adapted in Penca (2018). Figure 8b reprinted with
permission from Elsevier (copyright 2018).
other authors have pointed to reducing material use as plastic in rivers (Earthwatch Institute, 2019) which
the first stage in strategies to reduce marine litter (e.g. showed that bottles made up 14% of visible items
Ten Brink et al., 2016; UN Environment, 2017; OECD, of litter, and plastic bags only 1% (in tenth position
2018b). Penca (2018) has commented that the EU’s behind food wrappers, cigarette butts, disposable food
Plastics Strategy focuses primarily on the lower tiers containers, cotton-bud sticks, takeaway cups, etc.).
shown in Figure 8 and has avoided any direct objective Plastic bags showed a substantial decrease compared
or targets for the higher levels of reducing overall with the 2015/16 survey performed by the JRC when
material use in plastics, nor for special measures to bags constituted 7% of the litter and were in sixth
prioritise reuse, while industry continues to invest under position. Reduction in use (prevention) is thus likely to
a scenario of continued growth in plastics production be associated with reduced leakage; as a consequence,
and use. continued high rates of growth in consumption appear
incompatible with addressing the environmental
The inclusion in Article 4 of the SUP Directive (EC, damage associated with leakage. The role of prevention
2019) that Member States should ‘achieve an ambitious in the waste hierarchy is also recognised by OECD
and sustained reduction in the consumption of the (2018b) with its emphasis on reducing unnecessary use
single-use plastic products … leading to a substantial (when technically feasible) and for plastic products to
reversal of increasing consumption trends’ is thus to be designed to allow for reuse to minimise the amount
be welcomed, as are industry commitments to reduce of waste generated. STAP (2018) also emphasises that
unnecessary packaging (Box 5). As pointed out earlier, the first priority in addressing the environmental impact
even improvements in recycle rate and short-term of packaging plastics is to discourage (inter alia) non-
reductions in leakage will provide only a short-term essential production and unnecessary consumption by
slowing in environmental impact if consumption eradicating excessive plastic packaging of products.
continues to grow. A sustainable solution needs to
meet the needs of humankind within the limits of The Expert Group thus recommends that a reduction
the planet, and is not compatible with continuously in material flow should be an explicit objective for
growing plastic use and its associated demands for oil all packaging plastics in the ‘Plastics in the circular
and gas. A core precept of circularity is that it should economy’ package with priorities set by the ‘6Rs’:
reduce material flow: in other words, aim for reduced reduce (raw material use); redesign (design products
plastic manufacture which is the opposite of current for reuse or recycling); remove (SUPs when practical);
investment trends. Within this overall reducing trend, reuse (alternative uses or refurbishment); recycle (to
policies should aim to eliminate leakage into the avoid plastics going to waste); recover (extract chemicals
environment. or fuels, or incineration for energy production). The
aim would be to keep resources in use for as long as
A specific aim to reduce usage as part of the broad possible, to extract the maximum value from them while
strategy to reduce leakage is supported by evidence that in use, and to recover and regenerate products and
reducing usage does reduce leakage. In Chapter 5, we materials at the end of their service life. ‘Slowing the
pointed to experience that restrictions on plastic bags material loop’ by reducing demand and discouraging
were followed by reductions in littering. Supporting non-essential production and use is particularly
evidence also comes from the most recent survey of important since the role of substitution may be

limited by the higher resource and energy demands of plastics by other materials is not straightforward.
alternatives summarised in the next section. Alternative materials may be heavier or bulkier (glass,
metals), and their production may have resource
implications (paper, metals) while lacking the flexibility
8.3 Alternatives to plastic?
and low cost of plastics. LCA studies indicate that there
One question raised in policy debate is to what extent may be substantial penalties to substitution in terms of
plastic packaging is essential and whether there are less increased GHG emissions and other resource demands
environmentally damaging alternatives that may also (Box 11).
be easier to recycle. However, given the wide range
of options for designers to select a plastic formulation Although substitution may be possible in specific
most suited to the goods it is covering, and the (especially niche) markets and applications, it is not
cheapness and lightness of the packaging, replacing possible to argue that a general aim to replace current
Box 11 Comparative evaluation of plastic and alternatives in packaging
An independent study commissioned by the plastics industry (Brandt and Pilz, 2011) evaluated the overall environmental impacts of substituting
plastic packaging by other materials in seven types of packaging: small packaging, PET bottles, other bottles, other rigid packaging, shrink and
stretch films, shopping bags and other flexible packaging. Fifty-seven products were examined where the polymers (LDPE, HDPE, PP, PVC, PS,
EPS and PET) were replaced by tin plate and steel packaging, aluminium, glass, corrugated board, cardboard, paper and fibre cast, paper-based
composites or wood. All plastic packaging types showed advantages compared with the mix of alternative materials, with beverage bottles,
shrink and stretch films, and other flexible packaging showing the largest differences (see Box Figure 11.1).
This is because plastic packaging usually provides the same function with significantly less material, so that less energy is required in production.
In addition, reduced weight and lower volume than substitutes reduce transport space and energy use. In packaging that preserves food,
reduced food loss also reduces emissions. Similar results have been obtained by other authors. Galli and Vechellio (2004) compared energy
balances for PET versus glass bottles and HDPE versus paper sacks, while an analysis for the American Chemical Council (ACC, 2018) showed
that other environmental impacts (water, solid waste, nutrient emissions and effects on the ozone layer) were lower for plastics than the
materials likely to substitute for them.
In practice, manufacturers have to consider a multiplicity of factors in deciding containers as is illustrated by the choice between glass or PET for
beer bottles. One analysis37 considers performance indicators within the three categories of price, environmental impact and performance, and
shows how the advantages of glass or PET vary with each indicator. Assessing the relative merits of the two options thus requires a balance to
be struck between different indicators and is sensitive to assumptions (e.g. on recycling rates).
Comprehensive analyses of life cycle environmental impacts of various options for replacing single-use LDPE shopping bags (Danish
Environmental Protection Agency, 2018) have also demonstrated that replacements need to be used multiple times before any environmental
benefit can be achieved relative to the base case of a single-use bag being used as a bin-liner and then incinerated. When all environmental
indicators were considered, available alternatives to LDPE had to be reused from 35 to over 1000 times before their overall impact was lower
than the base case. This did not, however, consider littering effects, which other studies have shown to decline as single-use bag usage is
reduced.
35.000
Kilotonnes of CO2-equivalent per annum
Plastics
30.000
Alternative materials
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0
Small Beverage Other Other rigid Shrink and Shopping Other
packaging bottles bottles packaging stretch bags flexible
films packaging
Box Figure 11.1 Effects of substitution of plastic packaging on life cycle GHG emissions (Brandt and Pilz, 2011). Figure reprinted
with permission of the authors.
37
https://www.packagingdigest.com/beverage-packaging/material-or

Box 12 Experiments in zero plastic shopping
‘Zero-waste’ or ‘zero packaging’ initiatives have been growing but generally on a small and local scale. Large volume retailers have been more
hesitant, so an experiment just started in Oxford, UK, is interesting, since one supermarket is offering customers the chance to buy food and
drink that is completely free of packaging. Hundreds of products have been removed from their packaging, and shoppers will be able to fill
their own containers, with prices typically 15% cheaper than the packaged alternatives. This is a reversal on other supermarket charging policies
where loose product prices often exceed packaged prices by substantial amounts. Related issues of hygiene, consumer reactions and security
remain to be clarified through such experiments.
Source: https://www.waitrose.com/ecom/shop/featured/groceries/unpacked.
Figure 9 An example of the limited choice offered to consumers between packaged and loose fruit and vegetables. Photo: EASAC.
plastic uses with other materials will offer environmental account the contents, packing for transport, storage
benefits. This leads to the next question of whether the at the point of sale, protection against loss and
anticipated continued growth in plastics production damage, speed of processing at check-out as well as
is justified — in other words, are the projected uses attractiveness to the consumer. What happens at the
in packaging necessary or are they a material seeking end-of-life is thus just one of several critical operational
new uses because of the increased production of decisions and the evidence is (as in Chapter 2) that
polymer feedstock? Public concerns over what is seen historically end-of-life fate has not been seen as a
as ‘over-packaging’ have led to calls for a plastic- priority in selecting packaging composition and design.
packaging-free supply chain (see, for example, ’zero This may result in severely limiting the choices facing the
waste shops’38) and some supermarket trials (Box 12). consumer, as illustrated in Figure 9.
However, switching to such zero packaging options
requires consumers to make deliberate choices, In the light of the high public concerns over pollution
generally involving additional time and costs relative to by plastics, the response of retailers in the absence of
purchasing at major retail outlets such as supermarkets. additional regulation is of interest. Here, recent surveys
EU regulations should avoid impeding such initiatives, of plans by UK supermarkets (EIA, 2019a) show no
but the main priority remains to reform the current strong trend to reduce dependency on SUPs. Only one
supply chain, where EPR is a critical tool identified by company has committed to eliminate its own brand
both the European Commission (EC, 2018a, 2018b) and single-use plastic packaging (by 2025), while some
reinforced by OECD (2018b). others are expanding their loose produce ranges and
refillable options, or phasing out difficult-to-recycle
formats (PVC, PS, etc.). However, others have no such
8.4 The role of extended producer responsibility
plans and are even seeing an increase in plastic used for
Manufacturers consider several factors when deciding packaging. Meanwhile, disincentives remain owing to
what and how much packaging to use, taking into significantly higher prices charged by some supermarkets
38
https://thezerowaster.com/zero-waste-near-you

for loose products. This survey also showed that retailers objectives and consider that optimising recycling
are not seeking to influence their supply chain, while possibilities and reducing to a minimum (compatible
some have chosen policies (e.g. compostable bags) that with commercial, health and safety objectives) the
may interfere with the recycling system (Chapter 6). An use of packaging were primary objectives. To achieve
update (EIA, 2019b) showed that plastics use was still this, individual and eco-modulated schemes would
increasing overall, and that consumer behaviour has be preferred. The Italian scheme, which involves
started to adapt to the availability of low-cost reusable significant eco-modulation, was described, but the
‘bags-for-life’. Sales of these had risen to 1.5 billlion French system also includes some degree of eco-
in 2019 (75% of the number of single-use bags given modulation and the new Dutch and German Packaging
away in 2016), suggesting that many consumers are Laws (from 1 January 2019) not only aim to achieve an
treating them in the same way as single-use bags. Since increase in recycling rates, but also reward those who
reusable bags must be used over four times to deliver use packaging that is easily recyclable or made from
a net environment benefit, the initial resource and renewable raw materials.
GHG savings following the single-use charge have now
been more than offset, leading to calls for much higher The Expert Group recommends that the Commission
charges. should adopt objectives for EPR schemes to do the
following.
Judgements on whether or not to use plastic packaging
are complex and often involve trade-offs (e.g. • Create an incentive to reduce the amounts of
between packaging and shelf life; between wrapping packaging used and encourage reuse.
and bruising). Regulators cannot second-guess
manufacturers’ choices but they can use the EPR system • Maximise recyclability of end-of-life packaging.
to incentivise industry to give more consideration to
the end-of-life handling of their packaging. The Expert • Minimise the proportion of packaging that is unable
Group concurs with the European Commission’s view to be recycled.
that EPR is an important tool for addressing some of the
market failures in the current system (Chapter 3) but • Integrate with availability of recycling infrastructure
emphasises that charges must be sufficient to ensure (e.g. by using proceeds to improve local recycle
that end-of-life recycling is considered from the design infrastructure).
stage through production and use, so as to minimise
material flows and maximise value recovery through • Apply to all packaging (including imported goods
recycling. The question arises therefore what would be and packaging in products purchased via the
an appropriate charge, and on what basis should it be Internet which tend to use more packaging than
assessed. when buying goods in a store).
Existing EPR charges in Member States range widely, • Aim to eliminate cost burdens on local governments
with the highest being Austria and Italy at €200 from plastics disposal.
and €253 per tonne of packaging used. Objective
• Ensure the EPR scheme is formulated in such a way
valuation of environmental externalities is notoriously
so as to support recycling within the EU and to
difficult and consensus among economists elusive.
disallow export to lower cost and environmentally
However, UNEP (2014) estimated the externality cost39
damaging alternatives.
of plastic packaging in the consumer goods sector to
be US$75 billion per annum which, if expressed as a • Ensure that the EPR exerts its effects across the
fraction of the global packaging market (approximately whole value chain and is not just absorbed by the
US$800 billion), would be about10% of the costs of producers of packaged goods, thus negating its
packaging, which is approximately the same as the
influence upstream (e.g. plastic resin producers) and
Austrian and Italian average charges40. This could thus
downstream (e.g. retailers and consumers).
provide a minimum baseline for the overall charges
to be levied through EPR, although more research is 8.5 Deposit return schemes
required on appropriate charges and the effects of
different types of EPR scheme. Many countries have found DRS to be a very effective
means of increasing return rates for containers
A second issue relates to the objectives and detailed (Chapter 5) with an associated reduction in littering.
designs of EPR schemes. In Chapter 3, we listed possible Recent introduction of a DRS in Lithuania has shown
39
The Natural Capital Cost includes costs arising from GHG emissions, and cost of air, water and land pollution from inadequate waste
management and littering.
40
Assuming a price for packaging raw material of €1.9 per kilogram.

substantial increases in recovery rates within a year of economics of recycling plastics. Outside highly selective
the scheme’s introduction. Nevertheless, the high costs and well-separated container recycle streams (e.g.
of installation have persuaded some EU Member States PET bottles), mixed packaging plastics are difficult to
to seek to improve kerbside collections rather than recycle, involve costs that are often higher than the
deploy DRS. The Expert Group considers, however, that price of virgin materials, and face quality challenges
enhanced kerbside collections are unlikely to achieve that are difficult to overcome. This is a fundamental
the very high return rates achieved in DRS-applying problem arising from the inherent complexity of the
countries and will be less effective in reducing littering. different plastic uses which involve very sophisticated
Moreover, economic assessments that conclude that manipulation of the molecular structure of the resin
DRS is not cost-effective may not have fully considered combined with choice and refinement of additives.
the benefits from reduced littering and reducing overall For instance, even LDPE films (without additives) will
environmental plastics contamination. The Expert Group have different molecular structures adjusted to give
thus supports the wider deployment of DRS in Member the required thickness, strength and processability.
States, and considers that such schemes should also be Recycling even such simplified materials to make a
considered for application to cans, all plastic bottles and material capable of being reused as feedstock for the
other recyclable containers. This is particularly important same plastic film (closed loop) is thus only achievable
given the current excess of PET recycling capacity within with waste plastics with a similar composition: in other
the EU41 and additional demands are anticipated for PET words, by separating according to each producer’s
bottle recycling commitments by some major beverage specific product. With general mixed plastics containing
manufacturers. different resins, colours and a wide range of additives
which are unknown and inseparable, it may become
Previous objectives for some DRS included encouraging technically impossible to produce a recyclate of any
refillable containers, but experience so far has been value. This is why downcycling is the norm for any
that incentives have been insufficient to overcome plastics other than PET and HDPE containers, and why
the reverse logistical and other obstacles to container waste handlers have depended on low-cost disposal
collection, cleaning and reuse. As a result, the use of routes through exports. The ideal circular model, in
refillable containers has continued to decline. Life cycle which most plastics can be recycled in a closed loop to
analyses comparing one-way containers with multiple new plastic products, can only work so far owing to the
reuse systems show that the point at which refillable inherent technical shortcomings and limitations of the
containers achieve significant resource and energy recycling process.
savings depends on the specific circumstances of the
individual product, packaging format, supply chain and Recycling would be simplified if problematic materials
logistics, especially the distances involved in containers’ were phased out, which is one expected benefit from
return (WRAP, 2010). The additional requirements for properly constructed EPR schemes. In Chapter 4, we
refillable containers (e.g. thicker bottles, vulnerability to pointed to simple guidelines (most of which already
high temperature cleaning and sterilisation as well as exist) that should be factored into EPR schemes with
the reverse logistics) thus need to be balanced against the aim of limiting multi-material packaging based on
the resource savings taking into account consumer different and immiscible polymers, and those based
behaviour. The European Commission could consider on other materials (mainly aluminium and paper),
whether guidance could be provided to Member States avoiding dark colours, ensuring labels do not obscure
on conducting such assessments. the polymer, and incorporating surfaces that facilitate
polymer recognition and sorting by NIR.
8.6 Improving recycling
The Expert Group discussed in Chapter 4 the technical Additional measures could be considered to incentivise
barriers to recycling and how these may be overcome, the industry to limit the number of polymers that
noting that strategies will be more effective where the can be used for specific applications (e.g. for rigid
interests and motivations of different actors are aligned. packaging: PET, HDPE, PP and possibly PS; for flexible
On organisational aspects, EPR and DRS may improve packaging: LDPE and PP) while restricting small items
the supply of plastics to the recycling process but (which cannot be separated) to just one polymer (e.g.
barriers still exist to developing economically sustainable LDPE). Specific roadmaps are now emerging which
processes. are industry-led under the plastics pacts (Box 5). There
is considerable scope for simplification (for example,
The disruption described above following the Chinese the current PET bottle may have a PP cap and a LDPE
import restrictions emphasises the fundamentally poor label, but there is no technical barrier to making all
41
Plastic Recyclers Europe Press Release, 3 July 2018: ‘PET Recycling industry installed capacity reviewed’;
see https://plastics-recyclers-europe.prezly.com/pet-recycling-industry-installed-capacity-reviewed#.

components PET). Multilayer films comprising different 50% recycled content and Coca-Cola has a target
materials glued together are difficult to recycle, but of 50% recycled content by 2023 in Europe).
can be replaced by multilayers based on the same Other, more recent technologies break down PET
basic resin type (e.g. PE: Butler and Morris, 2013; see to its constituent monomers (terephthalic acid and
examples in Box 9). Moreover, where additives are used, ethylene glycol) before re-polymerising42.
it should be possible, in consultation with the industry,
to limit them to those that are compatible with several 2. The second is to recycle for use in another plastic
repeated recycling stages. Improving recyclability is product (especially where quality cannot be
one of the core objectives of the Global and National maintained, this will be for lower-quality uses:
Plastic Pacts, but these still only attract a minority of downcycling). HDPE is commonly recycled into
the companies involved in plastic packaging (20% in plastic bins or lumber; PET into textile fibre.
the case of the Global Plastics Pact (EMF, 2019)). Recent
studies (Verrips et al., 2019a) suggest that regulation 3. Third would be extracting valuable chemicals or
to exclude additives and product designs that disrupt fuels through chemical treatment or pyrolysis:
the recycling processes can improve recyclability and molecule recycling. As described in section 4.1,
reduce environmental damage. While it is hoped that there are several potential processes currently under
a robust EPR system will reinforce trends towards development.
uniform recyclability, the European Commission should
monitor progress and consider regulations if the leading 4. Finally, where the above are not feasible, to extract
companies’ examples are not followed by most plastics energy from the remaining plastic waste: energy
packaging users. recovery.
Despite the potential to strengthen and expand Technological development should continue to improve
recycling capabilities for those resins in which it is the net energy and resource savings offered by
potentially efficient across the whole life cycle, it is technologies in stages 1–3 and to reduce costs, while
important to recognise that there is a balance to be regulations should encourage the contributions of
struck between the energy costs of some separation available technologies within this hierarchy.
and cleaning processes and the benefits of increased
recycling. The value of mixed packaging plastics is A fundamental barrier to a more circular model is the
so low that intensifying the separation of plastic competition between virgin raw materials and recycled
household waste for recycling under currently available materials. Virgin prices continue to be low because
technologies may not be justified from a welfare of low oil and gas prices which are in turn influenced
perspective (Verrips et al., 2019b). For example, Gradus by megatrends such as the American shale gas
et al. (2017) found that the costs of avoided carbon revolution. This has delivered low prices from natural
dioxide from improved collection, sorting and recycling gas primarily because social and environmental costs are
were high (€178 per tonne of carbon dioxide in the externalised; operators do not pay for the externalities
Netherlands). There will inevitably remain a substantial of methane leakage and its substantial contribution
fraction of mixed plastics where the best (or least bad) to global warming, or to water pollution (Hausman
solution will be to recover simpler chemical products and Kellogg, 2015; Mason et al., 2015), and some
or energy through chemical treatment, pyrolysis or operators abandon wells and thus avoid post-closure
ultimately incineration with energy recovery (the costs. Moreover, gas (along with oil and coal) pays no
advanced plastics recovery concept shown in Figure 4). carbon price in the USA or other primary producing
Recycling can thus be subdivided into its own hierarchy countries. The net result is that the price of primary
as follows (see also Hopewell et al., 2009): fossil fuels is much lower than the social optimum and
this in turn leads to low virgin prices for plastics which
1. The first priority is to recycle to use in the same leads to higher rates of consumption and cost barriers
product as the waste plastic – closed-loop to replacing virgin with recycled plastics43. This has been
recycling typified by recycling PET bottles to PET cited to support the idea of a tax to reflect the negative
bottles. Here, although most PET recyclate is externalities of virgin plastics (Box 13).
currently downgraded to textiles, bottle-to-bottle
recycling has a long history through super-clean The European Commission has proposed a contribution
technologies (Welle, 2011) and there are market based on amounts of plastic packaging waste that is
demands to increase recycled PET in bottles (some not recycled as an additional source of revenue for
companies such as Ferrarelle in Italy already use the EU budget. This Own Resource to be provided
42
For example, CARBIOS (https://carbios.fr) and Ioniqa (https://ioniqa.com).
43
See also the problem tree analysis to identify the main drivers of plastic pollution problems in section 4.4 of Eunomia/ICF (2018).

Box 13 A plastics tax?
The leakage of plastic packaging into the environment causes damage the costs of which are not borne by the manufacturers or consumers,
and thus there is a lack of direct market incentives for consumers to restrict their use or dispose responsibly, or for retail outlets to provide or
encourage return and recycling. A simple market-based policy response would be to internalise these costs, but this is far from straightforward.
While some negative impacts can be monetarised (e.g. clean-up costs, physical damage to fishing or tourism) and have been estimated at
around $13 billion by UNEP (2014), others cannot (Newman et al., 2015). The latter impacts involve ethical questions about humankind’s
respect to the existence of other species (in the case of turtles, whales or birds killed by entanglement or ingestion) or economic impacts which
cannot be quantified owing to lack of data (e.g. loss of a fisheries’ productivity through plastic affecting primary productivity or weakening
individuals through ingestion). Moreover, substantial environmental externalities (including the major contributions of fossil fuels to global
warming) also apply in the extraction of fossil fuels, and refining to produce monomer and polymerisation to produce the plastics.
One policy option to address this market failure is to apply a tax to plastics to reflect the negative externalities of their production, use and
leakage to the environment (a ‘Pigovian’ tax). A review by the New Economics Foundation (2018) presented an analysis of the role of such a tax
in influencing consumer behaviour, internalising the costs of environmental damage caused by the sources of the pollution and raising revenue
for pro-environmental expenditure (such as strengthening recycling infrastructure). It examined options for application at the various points
along the value chain in Figure 2 and concluded that taxes could play a strong and central role in stimulating a more circular use pattern for
plastics. Further research was called for to clarify the response of producers and consumers, the costs of monitoring and enforcement, and to
avoid perverse incentives to switch from plastics to materials with a greater environmental impact. OECD (2018b) also notes that governments
could level the playing field between virgin and recycled plastics by inter alia applying taxes on the use of virgin plastics, setting recycled content
standards, targeted public procurement requirements or recycled content labelling; as well as addressing the low fossil fuels prices by reforming
current support for fossil fuel production and consumption.
Some EU countries are considering a tax to be applied to virgin plastics as a means of incentivising the use of recycled plastics and helping
meet the targets of the SUP Directive which aims for 25% of recycled plastic in PET bottles from 2025, and 30% recycled content in all plastic
bottles from 2030. Applying such a tax involves issues of transparency, implementation and applicability over national boundaries. Moreover, a
contribution related to the non-recycled plastics in Member States is under consideration as a means of additional own sources of revenue to
the EU budget. Initial figures in discussion with Member States would comprise a charge of €0.8 per kilogram of plastic packaging waste that is
not recycled (https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-budgetary-system/eu-revenue-own-resources/2021-2027/).
by Member States could be justified by the negative packaging conveys the message that manufacturers
externalities associated with plastics production, use and have considered recyclability in their choice of
leakage into the environment as well as contributing to packaging. The situation in the EU is that there are
a reduction in material flows. It would be for Member different systems in different countries and that it is
States to consider whether and how to reduce their voluntary (Figure 10 shows symbols for UK44, France and
own country’s use of plastics to limit their contribution. Germany/Sweden and other countries). Consumers are
They would, of course, have the possibility of recouping thus faced with varying symbols and, in many cases, no
their contribution by imposing a plastics tax, although at symbols at all. In contrast, Japan has a consistent set of
present this appears not to be the preferred option for symbols (Figure 11) that are applied to all packaging,
most Member States. Further examination is warranted however small, allowing local areas to require more
on whether this option can reinforce the effects from precise separate collection systems that deliver higher-
the enhanced EPR system described above, or lead to quality feedstock to recycling plants.
perverse incentives to switch from plastic packaging to
materials with more adverse environmental impacts. Internationally, there are resin identification codes used
One consideration is that the current low-cost waste in some products which merely identify the plastic resin
recycling industry appears unlikely to be able to support irrespective of whether it is recyclable. Consumers are
the capital investment challenges of increasing recycling thus faced with potentially multiple symbols which may
capacity and developing and applying emerging not relate to local recyclability at all. This may reduce
technologies. Increased income from such taxes could their value as a means of improving recycle rates and
be one option for providing loans or other support run counter to the findings of behavioural research
measures for the necessary capital investment. (Chapter 5) that consumers require information that
is simple, reliable and trustworthy. The spread of
automated separation systems that allow collection of
8.7 Labelling of recyclable materials
mixed plastics of different resin types may reduce the
A related but separate issue is that of labelling. need for consumers to rely on labels; even so, a more
Although evidence is that consumer labelling may only uniform and simple coding related to actual (rather
be read by a fraction of consumers, its presence on than theoretical) recyclability could be beneficial. The
44
The UK On-Pack Recycling Label scheme (OPRL) designed to support the UK Plastics Pact to ensure that design aids easy separation and high
value recycling of components.

Figure 10 Recycle labels in use in various EU countries (from left: a widely used symbol in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere; the
UK; France).
aluminium paper recyclable plastic (ϕϧ steel polyethylene nickel–cadmium nickel–metal-hydride

ηŘέ pura māku) terephthalate battery battery
lithium-ion battery lead–acid battery polyvinyl chloride
Figure 11 Japan’s recycle symbols.
adoption of such a unified system, however, does retail and consumer behaviour with reverse logistics
require that the opportunities for recycling are uniform and significant staff time and resources. Some leading
across the EU, which the Expert Group considers should chains45 have started to experiment with their own
be one of the longer-term objectives of EU policy. collection and recycling systems, but the Expert Group
considers that these initiatives should be supported by
regulations assigning a duty on retailers to provide on-
8.8 Single-use plastics
site collection for the packaging they sell.
The European Commission’s strategy to substantially
reduce leakage of SUPs was described in section 2.3. The social science evidence relevant to consumer
Some SUPs are targeted for bans, with items such as behaviour shows that consumers are influenced by
plastic straws, plates and cutlery banned by 2021. prices: not only because of the financial incentives
Others will be subject to EPR. While some of these associated with them, but also because they help signify
needs can be met by substitution (paper straws, wood a new social norm. The experience of charges for plastic
stirrers, etc.), others require a change in convenience- bags shows that even small charges can be extremely
focused behaviours made possible by the availability of effective, especially when the reasons for the charges
plastic goods. The growth in ‘on the go’ consumption are effectively communicated and attract majority
of food and beverages has taken place with outlets public support. The Expert Group notes that the plastic
relying on basic refuse collection services to avoid bag charge has become a model of how to change
littering. Integrating recycle loops into the many consumer behaviour and recommends that deposit
dispersed outlets (e.g. for coffee cups, or fast-food trays systems be extended to a broader group of containers,
and wrappers) requires a substantial change in both or systems offering discounts for customers who use
45
For example, the UK’s biggest coffee chain, Costa Coffee, has said it will recycle as many disposable cups as it sells by 2020 — some 500 million
coffee cups a year. Starbucks is trialling cup recycling or use of compostable cups, while other retailers are switching to reusable cups.

their own containers. Such measures can encourage organism or ecosystem levels. Further work is thus
consumers to see packaging as being ‘on loan’ and required to better assess risks in marine, freshwater and
therefore returnable to be efficiently reprocessed terrestrial environments.
(preferable via closed-loop recycling). In this context, it
was noted earlier that separate charges for containers As pointed out in Annex 2, it is still unclear how
such as coffee cups are more effective in reducing far small plastic particles have different effects than
demand than offering discounts on own containers. naturally occurring sediments or organic particles of
similar size in the seas, or in soils. This is in contrast
Some types of PHA plastic show a degree of to the many studies that have demonstrated the
biodegradability in marine and other environments adverse effects of macroplastics especially on marine
(Deroine et al., 2015; Jacquin et al., 2019), suggesting life. Consequently, the established adverse effects
that one means of reducing environmental impact of of macroplastics and their importance as a source
such extensively littered products would be to require of microplastics would support regulatory action
some of the SUP materials to use PHA. However, rates continuing to focus on macroplastics. Deliberate
of degradation are still slow and further development addition of microplastics by companies to products that
and validation of any claims for biodegradability are will enter the environment should be avoided. Such
necessary before this could be supported as a means of actions without adequate evaluation and prevention
reducing the environmental impact of SUPs. measures to their potential environmental effects are
classic examples of the polluter pays principle and
8.9 Protecting the environment precautionary principles being ignored. The Expert
Annex 2 summarises evidence on the impacts of Group thus supports the European Commission’s
macroplastics and microplastics. The visible images approach to assess costs and benefits through the
of marine life being entangled or killed by macroplastics Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction
has been supplemented by more general concerns of Chemicals (REACH) Directive.
over the extensive contamination by microplastics,
whose emissions into the environments are estimated Nevertheless, the extent to which microplastics are
at approximately 11.7 million tonnes per year (Boucher contaminating the environment from the deep ocean
et al., 2017). ‘Primary’ microplastics arise from road to the Polar seas, from drinking water to seafood,
markings, tyre wear, textile washing and other terrestrial raises issues that are not readily addressed by standard
sources (including ‘microbeads’ used in cosmetic and evidence-based risk analysis. Assessments of human
other products and abrasives used in ship blasting) and health impacts of plastics contamination are generally
amount to 3.2 million tonnes per year (Hann et al., associated with a call for more research to supplement
2018). The remainder of marine microplastic inputs the limited knowledge available46. However, concerns
comes from ‘secondary’ microplastics which arise from have been expressed at the possible presence of
weathering and fragmentation of larger plastic items in toxic chemical additives in plastic particles which can
the environment. leach out if ingested and form an exposure pathway
to humans (see, for example, Vethaak and Leslie,
As noted in Annex 2, laboratory experiments have 2016), while plastic debris can also act as a surface for
demonstrated possible adverse effects of microplastics pathogenic microorganisms and parasites (see Kirstein
through both physical and chemical toxicity. Physical et al., 2016). A critical policy issue is thus the extent to
effects include inflammation and stress, blocking the which the precautionary principle should be applied to
gastrointestinal tract and interfering with respiration. consider not just the effects on the marine, freshwater
Exposure to microplastics can thus reduce food and terrestrial environments but also potential impacts
consumption, growth, reproduction and survival. on human health. Here Backhaus and Wagner (2018)
Toxic exposure thresholds clearly vary with the species have summarised the implications for actions that might
affected, the amounts of microplastic, their shape follow adopting the precautionary principle (Table 6),
and size, and whether toxic chemicals or additives are and a debate within society is required to determine the
absorbed. Many scenarios exist and dose–response degree to which this is applied.
relationships are not generally available. The Expert
Group also notes that a lack of data on actual 8.10 International aspects
environmental levels makes it difficult to assess the
degree of risk in the environment and whether there The extent to which the major sources of leakage into
are likely to be any significant effects in the field at the marine environment lie outside the EU has already
46
For example, the WHO (2019) recent statement on human health risks from microplastics in drinking water concludes, ‘Based on this
limited body of evidence, firm conclusions on the risk associated with ingestion of microplastic particles through drinking-water cannot yet be
determined; however at this point, no data suggests overt health concerns associated with exposure to microplastic particles through drinking-
water.’.

Table 6 Comparing an evidence-based and precautionary principle approach to microplastics (Backhaus and Wagner,
2018)
Strictly evidence-based approach Precautionary approach

Arguments in favour Insufficient knowledge Sufficient knowledge
• Low exposure (on current estimates) • Ubiquity
• Low toxicity (on current knowledge) • Persistence
• Presence of natural particles at higher • Mobility in food web
levels • Increasing emissions
• Likelihood of negative impacts low • Part of macroplastics problem where sufficient
knowledge on impacts exists
• Existence of unknown, negative impacts
Actions needed • Identify knowledge gaps • Take risk decision
• Perform more research filling these gaps • Develop and implement risk management measures
• Conduct risk assessment based on fragmentary knowledge
• Take risk decision • Perform research into the effectiveness and
• Depending on outcome: develop and efficiency of these measures
implement risk management measures • Refine measures
Advantages • Avoids inefficient risk management • Early action avoids negative impacts later
measures • Motivates positive societal and economic change
• Avoids unnecessary opportunity and (vision of a better society)
unintended externality costs • Fosters technological and societal innovation
• Avoids regrettable substitutions
Reduces cost of action Reduces cost of inaction, induces change
been emphasised. As noted by Dauvergne (2018), the The EU should also ensure that Member States cease to
difficulty of governing global use of plastic has been contribute to further leakage through mismanagement
exacerbated by the rise in production, consumption of their own exports. The EU should lead in rejecting
and international trade so that sources of pollution the export of its problematic waste to countries less
and responsibility for them are highly diverse; at the able to cope with it, and seek to embed this principle
same time, regulations are fragmented across nations further internationally by playing an active role in the
and localities. Despite the stated aims to reduce Stockholm49, Basel and Regional Seas Conventions and
plastic pollution by leading international brands in other efforts (such as the 2020 UN Oceans Conference)
the Global Plastics Pact, industry efforts to resist local to strengthen global governance related to plastic waste
regulation (e.g. of microbeads or plastic bags) remain in the oceans (Raubenheimer and McIlgorm, 2018;
strong47. The EU should thus support UNEP and other UNEP, 2018b). With the reluctance of some countries
initiatives to reduce leakage globally. There are a (e.g. Japan and the USA abstaining from the ocean’s
variety of EU support and development policies, grants plastic charter within the Group of Seven (G7); the US
and programmes aimed at developing regions48. It is opposition to amending the Basel Convention), there is
recommended that the EU make use of these resources also a role for environment and science diplomacy.
to help the regions develop waste management
systems where much of the plastic waste leaks into the 8.11 Bio-based plastics
environment, with the aim of terminating plastic waste
Applying the label of ‘bio’ offers a marketing option
leakage globally (see OECD, 2018b). The EU should also
which has been taken up by some companies in
encourage the World Bank and other international aid
labelling their PET bottles. However, alternative
agencies to support effective and environmentally sound
feedstocks can have major sustainability impacts (on
waste collection, sorting and recycling infrastructure,
land and water use, biodiversity, indirect GHG emissions
as they move away from supporting fossil-fuel
and creating competition with food production) as is
development.
47
In the USA, pre-emption laws prohibit municipalities from adopting local ordinances that further regulate a particular product such as bans
or fees on plastic bags or other containers. Such laws have already been passed, or are being proposed in more than 20 US states; see
https://www.plasticbaglaws.org/preemption.
48
See https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/general_en
49
An evaluation for the regional centres of the Stockholm and Basel Conventions concluded ( Gallo et al., 2018) that chemical additives and
contaminants in plastics packaging included some known endocrine-disrupting chemicals and posed potential risks to marine ecosystems,
biodiversity and food availability. Subsequently, it was agreed that preventative measures for plastic waste and a fundamental rethink of the ways
in which we consume plastics would be further examined.

already a concern over current demand for crops for measures to reduce littering and release of plastics into
biofuels and bioenergy (e.g. Searchinger, 2009; PBL, the environment.
2012; EASAC, 2013; 2017c; IPBES, 2019). Moreover,
with current technologies, bio-based plastics cannot Compostability in an industrial composter is achievable
be scaled up to meet more than a fraction of potential with several resins, but extension to wider consumer use
demand. Thus, even though there are applications is problematic owing to the limits of home composting
where biopolymers are excellent, their overall merits and the adverse effects on recyclate quality when
should be evaluated on the basis of full LCAs, rather compostable blends end up mixed with other plastics.
than on simplistic assumptions or claims that ‘bio’ At the present state of technology, composting makes
signifies a lower environmental impact. The Expert sense only when the plastic is contaminated by a
Group considers that, to avoid misleading consumers, substance that is also disposed of by composting: for
companies should have quantified any environmental example, compostable bags used in the closed loops of
benefits to support any such claims and that further food waste recycle.
improvement in the LCA methodology should be
researched further. Overall these limited applications are no panacea for the
main problem of mass production and use of plastics
8.12 Biodegradability and compostability and the associated leakage into the environment.
Furthermore, research has not yet developed an
As discussed in Chapter 6, the ideal target of a plastic environmentally benign plastic packaging which
that breaks down naturally in the environment remains combines rapid degradation into naturally recyclable
elusive. Natural environments vary in temperature, components with the necessary functionality and cost-
humidity, degrading microorganisms and many other effectiveness.
factors, so that degradation is difficult to engineer into
the plastic molecule. Only a limited number of products 8.13 Research and innovation
show a degree of biodegradability in the marine
environment and even those still maintain their integrity As briefly described in Chapter 7, research and
for months during which time the negative effects of innovation offer many possibilities; regulations thus
entanglement, ingestion and other issues will remain. need to ensure that they are flexible and incentivise
Rapid biodegradability remains in conflict with primary those innovations that meet the key objectives of
requirements for plastic packaging (stability, durability, reducing overall material usage and eliminating
etc.) and thus cannot at present offer an alternative to leakage.

Annex 1 Members of the Expert Group
Czech Academy of Sciences
Dr. Jiří KOTEK. Polymer Processing Department, Institute of Macromolecular Chemistry of the
Czech Academy of Sciences.
The Council of Finnish Academies

Professor Jukka SEPPÄLÄ. School of Chemical Engineering, University of Aalto.
The Académie des Sciences

Professor Robert GUILLAUMONT. Radiochemistry Department, Institute of Nuclear Physics,
University of Paris XI-Orsay.
Dr Jean-Claude DUPLESSY. Sciences and Environnent Department, CNRS, Gif sur Yvette.
Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Dr. Attila VARGA. Eötvös Loránd University.
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei

Professor Gaetano GUERRA. Department of Chemistry and Biology (Adolfo Zambelli), University of Salerno.
The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences

Dra. Annemiek VERRIPS. Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB).
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Professor Ann-Christine ALBERTSSON. Fibre and Polymer Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
The Royal Society

Professor Roger SHELDON. School of Chemistry, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa.
EASAC
Environment Programme Director Dr Michael Norton

Annex 2 Plastics and the environment
As reviewed by Horton and Dixon (2018), plastics • manufacturing and transportation-related waste
entering the environment as packaging items can break (e.g. resin pellets losses, pallets, plastic sheeting and
down by physical (e.g. mechanical abrasion), chemical straps, waste dumped from vessels).
(e.g. loss of plasticisers leading to embrittlement),
photo-oxidative or (to a limited degree) biological Indirectly from
processes to secondary microplastics. As packaging use
in consumer products is mostly on land, together with • land — plastics (e.g. bags or sheeting) blown out to
industrial spillage and use in agriculture, initial leakage sea;
through littering or inadequate waste management is
mostly to the land and adjoining freshwater environments. • rivers carrying plastic waste dumped directly or
From there, plastic materials ranging from the original washed off from land;
product to microplastics and nanoplastics may remain
within the terrestrial environment (e.g. in soils), in • sewage treatment discharges direct to the sea or
freshwater bodies such as lakes or be transported via via rivers where even secondary treatment will allow
rivers to the sea, where they join plastics added directly smaller particles to pass.
to the marine environment from coastal leakage or
direct leakage from marine sources (ships, fishing, The nature of the plastics discharged covers the full
aquaculture, etc.). Reverse transport processes may also range of resins combined with additives of varying
exist: for instance, collection of microplastics from levels of toxicity (Hahladakis et al., 2018), potential
sewage may return to agricultural land through sewage pollutants absorbed by plastic particles, and a range of
sludge used as a fertiliser. sizes from large (ropes, bags, etc.) to fragments down
to the nanometre scale. Regarding quantities, Jambeck
Substantial research has been done on the impacts et al. (2015) calculated that 4.8–12.7 of the 275 million
of plastics in the marine environment, which are tonnes of land-based plastic waste generated in coastal
summarised in the next section (Annex A2.1). However, countries in 2010 had entered the ocean. Other studies
studies of the fate and effects of plastics in terrestrial (e.g. Eriksen et al., 2014) calculated (on the basis of data
and freshwater environments have been much more from trawls) that from 5 trillion to 50 trillion particles
limited – especially the latter which includes rivers, with a cumulative mass of 32,000 to 236,000 tonnes
lakes and small streams or even groundwater (Panno were in the world’s seas. Microplastics (generally defined
et al. 2019) – all with very different characteristics. as less than 5 mm in diameter) have been found in the
Thus, major uncertainties remain in the summary of our remotest areas including the Arctic Ocean (Lusher et al.,
knowledge given in Annex A2.2. 2015) and in the Southern Ocean (Barnes et al., 2009).
They have also been found in the deepest parts of the
Whichever compartment of the environment may be ocean trenches (Peng et al., 2018). High concentrations
involved, harm from plastic pollution may occur from are found in the subtropical gyres of the North and
its physical effects: ingestion may block, or lacerate South Atlantic, North and South Pacific, and the Indian
the stomach and digestive systems. Chemical additives Ocean, where concentrations of plastic can be a million
in the plastic (or absorbed and accumulated from low times higher than in other regions such as the tropical
levels of environmental contaminants such as PCBs) may Pacific and Southern Oceans. High concentrations are
also may be taken up by organisms following ingestion. also found in seas adjoining highly populated areas
such as the Mediterranean Sea (GESAMP, 2015). Other
A2.1 Plastics and the marine environment studies showed that the dominant resin types (in excess
of 90%) found in plastic litter in freshwater and marine
A2.1.1 Sources and distribution
environments were the polyolefins and polystyrene
Plastics enter the marine environment as follows. (Schwarz et al., 2019).
Directly from A major source is from river discharges; Schmidt et al.

(2017) and Lebreton et al. (2017) calculate that rivers
• fishing-related debris (fish/lobster traps, crab pots,
carry 0.47 million to 2.75 million tonnes of plastic into
fishing lines, floats, and nets);
the seas every year. Ten rivers (Yangtze, Yellow, Hai he,
• food- and beverage-related litter along the shoreline Pearl, Amur, Mekong, Indus and Ganges Delta in Asia,
(e.g. bottles, cans, lids, food wrappers, bags and and the Niger and Nile in Africa) account for 93% of the
disposable cups, plates, straws, plastic cutlery); total discharged by rivers. Figure A2.1 shows the areas
where plastic waste is produced and the fraction of the
• smoking-related litter (cigarette filters, cigar tips, waste which is mismanaged and liable to leak into the
disposable lighters); environment ( Jambeck et al., 2015).

Norway
Canada Denmark Sweden

United Finland Russian
EU 27 plus Kingdom Federation
Norway Netherlands
Germany
Ireland Poland
Belgium Ukraine North
France Croatia Korea
United States ItalyTurkey Japan
Spain
Greece Syria Iran South
Portugal China
Cyprus Lebanon Korea
Tunisia Pakistan
Morocco Israel India Hong
Kuwait Taiwan
Mexico Cuba UAE Kong
Haiti Dominican Republic Algeria Libya
Puerto Rico Egypt Saudi Arabia Bangladesh
Guatemala Honduras
Trinidad Oman Myanmar Vietnam
El Salvador Nicaragua Nigeria Yemen Philippines
and Tobago Senegal
Venezuela Ghana Thailand
Costa Rica
Panama Guyana Malaysia
Colombia Somalia Sri Lanka
Cote d'Ivoire Singapore
Ecuador
Indonesia Papua New Guinea

Peru Brazil Angola
Mauritius
Chile Australia
Uruguay South Africa
Argentina
Coastal population Plastic waste production
Million people Thousand tonnes per day, 2010 New Zealand
Less than 1
1 to 2 37 Total plastic waste
2 to 10 produced
10
10 to 50
50 to 263 1
0,2 Portion of plastic
Landlocked country waste mismanaged
Figure A2.1 Estimated quantities of plastic waste produced and proportion recycled (based on Jambeck et al. (2015) as shown in
GESAMP (2016)). Reproduced from GRID-Arandal (https://www.grida.no/resources/6931; created by Maphoto/Riccardo Pravettoni).
A2.1.2 Environmental and human health impacts 63 associated with human health hazards and 68
with environmental hazards, with 7 classified in the
JRC (2016) summarises the impacts of plastic litter in
EU as persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic. Frond
the marine environment as ‘... through entanglement
et al. (2018) estimated that the quantities of 20 of
in, or ingestion of, litter items by individuals, resulting
such chemicals could amount to 190 tonnes, while
in death and/or severe suffering; through chemical and
microplastics in coastal areas were associated with
microbial transfer; as a vector for transport of biota
high levels of PCBs, suggesting that plastics are a path
and by altering or modifying assemblages of species.
for potentially toxic chemicals both to enter and to be
Marine litter is a threat not only to marine species and
redistributed in the marine environment.
ecosystems but also carries a risk to human health
and has significant implications to human welfare, Discussing the effects of plastics in the marine
impacting negatively vital economic sectors such as environment often differentiates between macroplastics
tourism, fisheries, aquaculture or energy supply and and microplastics, with a boundary of 5 mm between
bringing economic losses to individuals, enterprises and the two.
communities.’
A2.1.3 Macroplastics
Chemical additives also enter the global oceans in
common plastic debris items, while plastics can also act Entanglement and ingestion of macroplastics
as a means of absorbing trace contaminants already debilitate, mutilate or kill millions of marine animals
present in the marine environment and concentrating each year (Butterworth et al., 2012), with over 500
them up to levels that may have toxicological impacts if marine species shown to be affected by marine litter
ingested. As already noted in Chapter 3, Zimmermann (SCBD, 2012), of which the most visible are birds, turtles
et al. (2019) found that unidentified components in and mammals. Entanglement has been found in all
consumer plastics (PP, LDPE, PS and PLA) exhibited a species of marine turtles, 22 species of seals, 25 species
range of toxicological effects in in vitro studies, while of whales, 103 species of seabirds, 89 species of fish
Groh et al. (2019) found that among the chemicals as well as 92 species of invertebrates. Observations
commonly associated with packaging plastics were suggest that globally from 57,000 to 135,000 pinnipeds

Entanglement Ingestion
Plastics 91% Other 9% Plastics 87% Other 13%
(a) 18000 18000
Sea Turtles Sea Turtles
16000 Birds 16000 Birds
Fish
Number of individuals
Fish
Number of individuals
14000 Marine Mammals 14000 Marine Mammals
12000 12000
10000 10000
8000 8000
6000 6000
4000 4000
2000 2000
0 0

(b) 180 180
160 160
140 140
Number of species
Number of species
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0

(c) 120 120
100 100
Number of papers
Number of papers
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
s s s l r s s r s l r
ing ial
r
ing nt stic ape Glas eta the own ing ial ing nt stic ape Glas eta the own
n ett ater ckag gme opla P M O kn n ett ater ckag gme opla P M O kn
& m pa Fra icr U n & m pa Fr a c r U n
pe ing & M pe ing & Mi
Ro fish ems Ro fish ems
r t r i t
he ct i Debris category he ct
Ot Inta Debris category
Ot Inta
Figure A2.2 Impacts of marine debris on marine life, and scientific evidence base (Gall and Thompson, 2015). Reprinted with
permission from Elsevier (copyright 2015).
(seals and related species) and baleen whales are (Butterworth et. al., 2012) as well as balloons and
entangled each year, in addition to probably millions of plastic bags. Such effects are widespread; for instance,
birds, turtles, fish and other species. Only 3% to 10% of in the North Sea, 93% of the fulmars analysed had
entanglements are likely to be witnessed and reported, ingested plastics (van Franeker et al., 2011), while in a
and the vast majority thus remains undetected. survey of turtles in the Mediterranean and Northeast
Atlantic, 85% of the 120 individuals analysed contained
The plastics mostly responsible are net fragments, rope ingested litter (Matiddi et al., 2017). A review by
and line (e.g. gill and trawl nets, lost or discarded line Gall and Thompson (2015) provides a breakdown of
for pots and traps), monofilament line, packaging reported effects for different species groups (Figure
bands, plastic circular rings and multipack can rings A2.2).

Entanglement can be immediately fatal such as when
a marine mammal cannot resurface and drowns; or it
reduces mobility and agility which makes the animal
more vulnerable to predators or boat strikes or
(together with ingestion) interferes with feeding,
leading to starvation. Growth while entangled leads
to tissue damage including laceration of large blood
vessels (also fatal). While effects are seen at an
individual level, the rate of increased mortality is
sufficiently high to affect populations through loss of
adults and offspring. For instance, the mortality rate of
adult gannets has increased some 10-fold owing
to entanglement.
Ingestion can cause direct physical damage to the Figure A2.3 Fragments of plastic in the stomach of a northern
intestine through perforations, inflammations and fulmar in the North Sea (figure 3.6 in GESAMP, 2015).
ulcerations, and plastic that accumulates in stomachs Photograph reprinted with permission of Jan van Franeker,
may slow down digestion or give signals of satiation Wageningen Marine Research.
which reduce appetite, leading to starvation. Autopsies
on stranded whales and other marine life show a potential risks at individual and ecosystem levels (Cole
propensity to eat large items such as plastic bags either et al., 2011; GESAMP 2015, 2016; Auta et al., 2017).
eaten as mistaken prey or accidentally ingested while As noted earlier, microplastics are widespread in the
feeding. marine environment and are ingested by all marine
organisms ranging from marine birds and mammals,
The adverse impacts from macroplastics are thus
through fish, to invertebrates such as crustaceans,
dominated by the obvious effects on individuals
mussels and zooplankton. The finer-sized particles
and likely effects at the population level — primarily
can even reduce the efficiency with which primary
biodiversity and animal welfare concerns. These have
phytoplankton absorb carbon dioxide (Bhattacharya et
been sufficient to justify policies aimed at eliminating
al., 2010).
plastic waste, as recognised in the EU and G7 in 2018
(Box A2.1). Also, the UN General Assembly adopted a Given the almost infinite potential combinations of
resolution on similar lines50. plastics – particle size, particle shape, crystallinity,
surface chemistry, and polymer and additive
A2.1.4 Microplastics composition (Lambert et al., 2017) and their potential
Macroplastics break down (primarily through exposure interactions throughout the marine ecosystem
to ultraviolet light and physical abrasion) into fragments (Galloway et al., 2017) – conducting an analysis of the
of various shapes and sizes, which are regarded as risks to marine organisms is fraught with difficulty. A
microplastics when they are smaller than 5 mm. In fundamental question is to what extent ingesting small
addition, small particles arise from breakdown during particles that are plastic differs from the natural particles
the use of several major products (e.g. from tyre of sediment or natural organic material of similar size
abrasions, from textiles during washing, from marine (Backhaus and Wagner, 2018; Ogonowski et al., 2018).
paints). Furthermore, microplastics are used as an Some organisms will excrete indigestible particles,
industrial abrasive (e.g. in ship cleaning), and are while others may retain particles above a certain size in
added to some household products from where they their stomach, resulting in malnutrition or starvation,
may enter the marine environment directly or via and transfer to higher trophic levels. Laboratory tests
sewage treatment discharges (see Figure 1 in Hann et inevitably have to simplify to a single type of plastic
al., 2018). However, as can be seen from Figure A2.3 (often a plastic pellet) and single marine organisms. The
(Van Franeker et al., 2011), organisms may be affected wide range of tests reviewed by GESAMP (2015, 2016)
by plastics of any size and the difference can show the nature of potential adverse effects to include
be somewhat arbitrary. physical effects (physical obstruction or damage of
feeding appendages or digestive tract or other physical
International reviews have brought together available harm) and the potential for chemical effects resulting
scientific evidence on sources, types of microplastic and from the additives in plastic, or from contaminants
50
2018 UNEA Resolution 3/7: Marine litter and microplastics; see https://papersmart.unon.org/resolution/uploads/k1800210.english.pdf

Box A2.1 G7 Oceans Plastic Charter 2018 (Japan and USA refused to sign)
We commit to take action towards a resource efficient lifecycle management approach to plastics in the economy by:
1. Sustainable design, production and after-use markets

a. Working with industry towards 100% reusable, recyclable, or, where viable alternatives do not exist, recoverable, plastics by 2030.
b. Taking into account the full environmental impacts of alternatives, significantly reducing the unnecessary use of single-use plastics.
c. Using green public procurement to reduce waste and support secondary plastics markets and alternatives to plastic.
d. Working with industry towards increasing recycled content by at least 50% in plastic products where applicable by 2030.
e. Supporting secondary markets for plastics including using policy measures and developing international incentives, standards or
requirements for product stewardship, design and recycled content.
f. Working with industry towards reducing the use of plastic microbeads in rinse-off cosmetic and personal care consumer products, to the
extent possible by 2020, and addressing other sources of microplastics.
2. Collection, management and other systems and infrastructure
a. Working with industry and other levels of government, to recycle and reuse at least 55% of plastic packaging by 2030 and recover
100% of all plastics by 2040.
b. Increasing domestic capacity to manage plastics as a resource, prevent their leakage into the marine environment from all sources, and
enable their collection, reuse, recycling, recovery and/or environmentally-sound disposal.
c. Encouraging the application of a whole supply chain approach to plastic production towards greater responsibility and prevent
unnecessary loss, including in pre-production plastic pellets.
d. Accelerating international action and catalyzing investments to address marine litter in global hot spots and vulnerable areas through
public-private funding and capacity development for waste and wastewater management infrastructure, innovative solutions and coastal
clean-up.
e. Working with relevant partners, in particular local governments, to advance efforts to reduce marine litter and plastics waste, notably but
not exclusively in small island and remote communities, including through raising awareness.
3. Sustainable lifestyles and education
a. Strengthening measures, such as MBIs, to prevent plastics from entering the oceans, and strengthening standards for labelling to enable
consumers to make sustainable decisions on plastics, including packaging.
b. Supporting industry leadership initiatives and fostering knowledge exchange through existing alliances and other mechanisms.
c. Promoting the leadership role of women and youth as promoters of sustainable consumption and production practices.
d. Support platforms for information sharing to foster awareness and education efforts on preventing and reducing plastic waste
generation, plastics pollution and eliminating marine litter.
4. Research, innovation and new technologies
a. Assessing current plastics consumption and undertaking prospective analysis on the level of plastic consumption by major sector use,
while identifying and encouraging the elimination of unnecessary uses.
b. Calling on G7 Ministers of Environment at their forthcoming meeting to advance new initiatives, such as a G7 Plastics Innovation
Challenge, to promote research and development of new and more sustainable technologies, design or production methods by the
private sector and innovators to address plastics waste in the oceans with a focus on all stages of the production and supply chain.
c. Promoting the research, development and use of technologies to remove plastics and microplastics from waste water and sewage
sludge.
d. Guiding the development and appropriate use of new innovative plastic materials and alternatives to ensure they are not harmful to the
environment.
e. Harmonizing G7 science-based monitoring methodologies.
f. Collaborating on research on the sources and fate of plastics and their impact on human and marine health.
5. Coastal and shoreline action
a. Encouraging campaigns on marine litter in G7 countries with youth and relevant partners to raise public awareness, collect data and
remove debris from coasts and shorelines globally.
b. Accelerating implementation of the 2015 G7 Leaders’ Action Plan to Combat Marine Litter through the Regional Seas Programs,
initiatives led by RFMOs, where appropriate, and targeted investments for clean-up activities that prove to be environmentally sound in
global hotspots and priority areas, in particular on Abandoned, Lost or Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gears (ALDFG) and wastes generated
and collected by fishery activities.
selectively absorbed from the environment51. mussels or oysters and thus provide a route of human
Experiments have also shown that the smallest particles exposure52.
can cross from the gut to other tissues and are capable
of crossing cell membranes and causing inflammation A recent meta-analysis of published literature ( Foley
and cell damage. Microplastics in prey may be taken up et al., 2018) found that the effects of exposure to
by predators, and by filter-feeding invertebrates, such as microplastics are highly variable across taxa, with many
51
Laboratory study showed that common additives such as phthalates affect reproduction in all marine species studied and impair development in
crustaceans, as well as inducing genetic aberrations (Oehlmann et al., 2009). Tanaka et al. (2013) showed polybrominated compounds transferred
from plastics to birds.
52
Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen (2014), on the basis of amounts found in European shellfish, calculated that the average shellfish consumer
eats 6400 microplastics per year. For fish, Lusher et al. (2013) found that one-third of fish caught off the southwest coast of England were
contaminated with plastic fragments.

studies showing little effect. The most consistent effect particularly important in influencing public perceptions
was a reduction in consumption of natural prey when and driving calls such as from UNEP to rid the oceans
microplastics were present. For some taxa, negative of macroplastics and microplastics through measures to
effects on growth, reproduction and even survival promote reduction of plastic use, waste recycling and
were also evident. The key factor in assessing the disposal facilities (see section 8.10).
scale of risks in the environment is the extent to which
environment concentrations approach those using A2.2 Plastics and the terrestrial and freshwater
laboratory testing; here, evidence of levels of exposures environment
and effects on morbidity in the field is very limited.
While much public attention has focused on marine
There have been calls for toxicological studies to take
environments, the vast majority of marine pollution
into account natural background concentrations of
originates from land; consequently, the amounts of
particles and focus on exposure levels that bear some
plastic on land are considerably higher (some 4–23
relation to real environmental concentrations, and
times: Horton et al., 2017; de Souza Machado et
for a structured approach to the testing of different
al., 2018; Horton and Dixon, 2018). Even more than
properties to identify which are the most relevant drivers
is the case with marine plastics, reviews (e.g. Royal
of microplastic toxicity (Lenz et al., 2016; Koelmans et
Society, 2019) find a dearth of information on the
al., 2017). effects of plastics of different plastic sizes on land and
in freshwater. Potential adverse effects can be physical
Microplastics have been reviewed by the SAPEA (2018),
through ingestion of different sizes by birds, mammals
and featured in the 2018 list of emerging health and
and other organisms, and may (either directly or by
environmental issues by SCHEER (2018). Both conclude
adsorption of other contaminants) exert toxic effects
that there is a need for a better assessment of hazard
(see Anderson et al., 2018; de Souza Machado et al.,
and risk53, and two relevant projects under Horizon
2018). Some of the evidence of effects at different
2020 have been proposed54.
scales is summarised in de Souza Machado et al. (2018),
as shown in Figure A2.4.
Regarding risks to human health, several reviews
(e.g. GESAMP, 2016; Wright and Kelly, 2017; Revel
Sources of microplastics, in addition to the general
et al., 2018; Rist et al., 2018) have pointed to the
leakage of plastic packaging, include the following.
presence of microplastics in food destined for human
consumption. In laboratory studies, microplastics may • Microplastics in sewage sludge: Nizzetto et
be expected from general medical research to have the al. (2016) estimated that annual additions of
potential to trigger allergic reactions, asthma, lesions, microplastics to agricultural land from urban sources
cancer or heart disease, as well as the possibility for including sewage sludge were between 125 and
chemical toxicity from monomers, additives or adsorbed 850 tonnes of microplastics per million inhabitants;
environmental pollutants. Evidence on which to base this is equivalent to an annual input of 63,000–
a risk assessment is currently lacking, but the potential 430,000 tonnes across Europe).
effects on human health remain a concern (Vethaak and
Leslie, 2016). • Microplastics in composted domestic and industrial
waste which are applied as soil conditioners (since
However, the basic toxicological approach of comparing most of the bio-waste collected from households
concentrations between laboratory tests and those and industry contains plastics: Weithmann et al.,
encountered in the environment only addresses 2018).
one aspect of the issue. The ubiquitous nature and
extreme persistence of plastics, the inability to retrieve • Residues from controlled release fertilisers (where
them once they have entered the environment, the the plastic pellet in which the fertilisers are
inevitability of ingestion and transfer up the food chain, contained, persist in the soil).
the combination of potential effects that cannot be
simulated in the laboratory, and the continued rapid • Agricultural plastic mulches (around 100,000 tonnes
growth in the extent of contamination raise issues per year in the EU: SWD/2016/64 final55).
that cannot be addressed by standard risk analysis
(Backhaus and Wagner, 2018). Such factors are • Discarded plastics from greenhouses.
53
SCHEER considered that the ‘standardisation of methods for assessing exposure, as well as the development of methods for assessing the
different behaviour in living organisms of micro and nano plastics, represent urgent priorities’.
54
CE-SC5-29-2020: a common European framework to harmonise procedures for plastics pollution monitoring and assessments; CE-
SC5-30-2020: Plastics in the environment: understanding the sources, transport and distribution of plastics pollution.
55
SWD/2016/064 final: Commission staff working document: Impact assessment. Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on the making available on the market of CE marked fertilising products and amending
Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009.

Figure A2.4 Range of potential impacts of plastics contamination of different sizes (de Souza Machado et al., 2018). Specific
effects referenced are: soil biogeochemistry (Steinmetz et al., 2016); ingestion by birds (Gil-Delgado et al., 2017; Holland et al.,
2016; Zhao et al., 2016); reduction in growth of earthworms (Lwanga et al., 2016); lethal toxicity to fungi (Miyazaki et al., 2014,
2015); mammal lung inflammation (Hamoir et al., 2003; Schmid and Stoeger, 2016) and broad cytotoxicity ( Forte et al. 2016) of
nanoplastics. Reprinted from de Souza Machado et al., (2018) with permission from John Wiley and Sons (copyright 2018).
Studies reviewed in Horton et al. (2017), de Souza is already widespread: for instance, Zhao et al. (2016)
Machado et al. (2018) and others have indicated some found microplastic present in the digestive tract of 94%
impacts that have been observed in the field, but many of dead terrestrial birds with diverse foraging behaviour
more potential impacts cannot yet be assessed owing in China.
to the limited amount of work done in the terrestrial
and freshwater environments so far. For instance, Potential chemical effects could result from the
studies have shown how accumulation of microplastics leaching of plastic additives, plasticisers, etc. For
in soils can reach levels that change the biophysical instance, phthalates, bisphenol and many other plastic
additives have been found at moderately high levels
environment and affect soil function. For instance,
in potentially microplastic-rich sludge from water
effects on earthworms are not only on individuals but
treatments used for agricultural purposes. Reviewers
extend to soil structures related to nutrient cycling
such as de Souza Machado et al. (2018) and Royal
and aeration (Lwanga et al., 2016). The presence Society (2019) thus conclude that there is a need to
of additives with endocrine-disrupting properties, prioritise research related to fate and potential effects
other chemicals and effects of plastic particulates has of microplastics in terrestrial ecosystems. In addition to
been suggested as potentially affecting agricultural a need to understand the distribution of microplastics in
productivity (Steinmetz et al., 2016). terrestrial environments and transport, degradation and
disintegration processes, the potential of microplastics
Similar mechanisms found in the marine environment to physically and chemically disrupt physiologically
can also be expected in aquatic and terrestrial important functions is poorly understood, together with
environments: large plastics cause organism any resulting effects at the community or ecosystem
entanglement while smaller particles can be ingested or levels. As cellular and subcellular effects of nanoplastics
inhaled, blocking the digestive tract, or abrading and have been shown in the laboratory, the transport to
irritating mucosa. Contamination in living organisms other parts of the body also remains to be analysed.

Abbreviations
DRS Deposit–return scheme
EASAC European Academies’ Science Advisory Council
EC European Commission
EIA Environmental Investigation Agency
EMF Ellen MacArthur Foundation
EPR Extended producer responsibility
EPS Extended polystyrene
EU European Union
GESAMP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environment Protection
GHG Greenhouse gas
HDPE High-density polyethylene
IEEP Institute for European Environmental Policy
IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
IUPAC International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
JRC Joint Research Centre (EU)
LCA Life cycle assessment
LDPE Low-density polyethylene
MBI Market-based instrument
MMT Million metric tonnes
NAO National Audit Office (UK Parliament)
NIR Near infrared
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PBS Polybutylene succinate
PE Polyethylene
PET Polyethylene terephthalate
PHA Polyhydroxyalkanoates
PHB Polyhydroxy butyrate
PLA Polylactides
PP Polypropylene
PRO Producer responsibility organisation
PS Polystyrene
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
RECOUP RECycling Of Used Plastics
SAPEA Science Advice for Policy by European Academies
SCHEER Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks
SUPs Single-use plastics
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
WRAP Waste and Resources Action Programme

References
Abrahamse W. and Steg L. (2013). Social influence approaches Denkstatt, Austria. https://www.plasticseurope.org/download_file/
to encourage resource conservation: A meta-analysis. Global force/1083/181.
Environmental Change 23, 1773–1785.
Brooks A. et al. (2018). The Chinese import ban and its impact on
ACC (2018). Life Cycle in Packs of Plastic Packaging Compared to global plastic waste trade. Science Advances 4, eaat0131.
Substitutes in the US and Canada. Theoretical Substitution Analysis.
Bucknall D. (2019). Polymers as a materials system in a Circular
Report to American Chemical Council.
Economy. Presented at the Royal Society Discussion Meeting ‘Science
Adhikari D. et al. (2016). Degradation of bioplastics in soil and their to enable the Circular Economy’, 24 June 2019.
degradation effects on environmental microorganisms. Journal of https://royalsociety.org/science-events-and-lectures/2019/06/circular-
Agricultural Chemistry and Environment 5, 23–34. economy/.
Aeschelmann F. and Carus M. (2015). Biobased building blocks Butler T.I. and Morris B.A. (2013). PE-based multilayer film structures.
and polymers in the world: capacities, production and applications. In Plastic Films in Food Packaging. William Andrew Publishing, pp.
Industrial Biotechnology 11, 154–159. 21–52.
Albertsson A.-C. and Hakkarainen M. (2017). Design to degrade. Butterworth A. et al. (2012). Untangled – Marine Debris: A Global
Science 538, 872–873. Picture of The Impact on Animal Welfare and of Animal-Focused
Solutions. London: World Society for the Protection of Animals.
Anderson A. et al. (2018). Microplastics and an emerging threat to
terrestrial ecosystems. Global Change Biology 24, 1415–1416. Caruso G. (2015). Plastic degrading microorganisms as a tool for
bioremediation of plastic contamination in aquatic environments.
Austin H. et al. (2018). Characterization and engineering of a Journal of Pollution Effects and Control 3, e112.
plastic-degrading aromatic polyesterase. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the USA 115, E4350–4357. Castro-Aguirre E. et al. (2017). Insights on the aerobic biodegradation
of polymers by analysis of evolved carbon dioxide in simulated
Auta H.S. et al. (2017). Distribution and importance of microplastics composting conditions. Polymer Degradation and Stability 137,
in the marine environment: a review of the sources, fate, effects, and 251–271.
potential solutions. Environment International 102, 165–176.
CE Delft (2017). Costs and Impact of The Deposit on Plans and Small
Backhaus T. and Wagner M. (2018). Microplastics in the environment: Bottles in the Netherlands.
much ado about nothing? A debate. PeerJPreprints, 0–5.
Chanprateep S. (2010). Current trends in biodegradable
Bagheri A.R. et al. (2017). Fate of so-called biodegradable polymers in polyhydroxyalkanoates. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 6,
seawater and freshwater. Global Challenges 1, 17100048. 621–632.
Barnes D.K. et al. (2009). Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic Chen G.-Q. and Patel K.P. (2011). Plastics derived from biological
debris in global environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal sources: present and future: a technical and environmental review.
Society of London B 364, 1985–1998. Chemical Reviews 112, 2082–2099.
Bell P. et al. (2001). Environmental Psychology. London, UK: Lawrence Chen L. et al. (2016). Comparative life cycle assessment of fossil and
Erlbaum. bio-based polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. Journal of Cleaner
Production 137, 667–676.
Bergmann M. et al. (2019). White and wonderful? Microplastics
prevail in snow from the Alps to the Arctic. Scientific Advances 5: Christensen P. et al. (2019). Closed-loop recycling of plastics enabled
eaax1157. by dynamic covalent diketoenamine bonds. Nature Chemistry 11,
442–448.
Bhattacharya P. et al. (2010). Physical adsorption of charged plastic
nanoparticles affects algal photosynthesis. Journal of Physical CIEL (2017). Fueling Plastics. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/
Chemistry C 114, 16556–16561. uploads/2017/09/Fueling-Plastics-How-Fracked-Gas-Cheap-Oil-and-
Unburnable-Coal-are-Driving-the-Plastics-Boom.pdf.
BMUB/UBA (2016). German Federal Ministry for the Environment,
Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (eds). Environmental Concern CIEL (2019). Plastics and Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet.
in Germany 2016 - Results of a Representative Survey. Berlin: Dessau- Centre for International Environment Law, May 2019.
Roßlau. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Plastic-and-
Climate-FINAL-2019.pdf.
Bocken N. et al. (2016). Product design and business models
strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Cole M. et al. (2011). Microplastics as contaminants in the marine
Engineering 33, 308–310. environment: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62, 2588–2597.
CONAI-COREPLA (2017). http://www.conai.org/wp-content/
Böll/BUND (2019). PlastikAtlas Daten und Fakten über eine Welt
uploads/2014/09/The-CONAI-System_-2017.pdf.
voller Kunststoff. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung sowie Bund für Umwelt und
Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND). Convey F. et al. (2007). The most popular tax in Europe - lessons from
the Irish plastic bag levy. Environment and Resource Economics 38
Borrelle S. B. et al. (2017). Why we need an international agreement
(10), 1–11.
on marine plastic pollution. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the USA 114, 9994–9997. Cozar A. et al. (2017) The Arctic Ocean as a dead end for floating
plastics in the North Atlantic branch of the thermohaline circulation.
Boucher J. et al. (2017). Primary Microplastics in the Oceans: Global
Science Advances 3 e1600582.
Evaluation of Sources. Switzerland: International Union for the
Conservation of Nature. Dahibo H. et al. (2018). Recycling potential of post-consumer
packaging waste in Finland. Waste Management 71, 52–61.
Brandt B. and Pilz H. (2011). The Impact of Plastic Packaging on Life
Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Europe. Dahrensbourg D.J. (2007). Making plastics from carbon dioxide: salen

metal complexes as catalysts for the production of polycarbonates EIA (2019b). Checking out on plastic II. Environmental Investigation
from epoxides and CO2. Chemical Reviews 107, 2388–2410. Agency/Greenpeace.
Danish Environmental Protection Agency (2018). Life Cycle Assessment EMF (2016). The New Plastics Economy. Rethinking the Future of
of Grocery Carrier Bags. Plastics. UK: Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
Danso D. et al. (2018). New insights into the function and global EMF (2017). New Plastics Economy - Catalysing Action. Ellen
distribution of polyethylene terephthalate (PET)-degrading bacteria MacArthur Foundation, World Economic Forum, and McKinsey &
and enzymes in marine and terrestrial metagenomes. Appl. Environ. Company.
Microbiol. 84, e02773–17.
EMF (2019). Global Commitment- 2019 Progress Report. UK: Ellen
Darnton A. (2008). GSR Behaviour Change Knowledge Review MacArthur Foundation.
Reference Report: An overview of behaviour change models and their
uses. European Parliament (2018). Report on a European Strategy for
Plastics in a Circular Economy. European Parliament A8–0262/2018.
Dauvergne P. (2018). Why is the global governance of plastic failing
the oceans? Global Environmental Change 51, 22–31. Eriksen M. et al. (2014). Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans: more
than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea.
DellaVigna S. and Pope D. (2017). What motivates effort? Evidence PLoS ONE 9, e111913.
and expert forecasts, The Review of Economic Studies 85, 1029–1069.
Eunomia/ICF (2018). Plastics: reuse, recycling and marine litter. Report
Denkstaff (2011). The impact of plastic packaging on life cycle energy to the European Commission.
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in Europe.
https://denkstatt.eu/publications/. Evans J.S. and Stanovich K.E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher
cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological
Dennis M. L. et al. (1990). Effective dissemination of energy-related Science 8, 223–241.
information: Applying social psychology and evaluation research.
American Psychologist 45, 1109–111. Festinger L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford
University Press.
Deroine M. et al. (2015). Natural degradation and biodegradation of
poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvalerate) in liquid and solid marine Fink M. and Fink M.J. (2002). Plastics recycling coupled with enhanced
environments. Journal of Polymers and the Environment 23, 493–505. oil recovery. A. critical survey of the concept. Journal of Analytical and
Applied Pyrolysis 40–41, 187–200.
Environment Audit Committee (2017). Plastic bottles: Turning Back the
Plastic Tide. Foley C.J. et al. (2018). A meta-analysis of the effects of exposure to
microplastics on fish and aquatic invertebrates. Science of the Total
EarthWatch Institute (2019). Plastic rivers - reducing the plastic Environment 631–632, 550–559.
pollution on our doorstep.
Forte M. et al. (2016). Polystyrene nanoparticles internalization in
EASAC (2013). The Current Status of Biofuels in the European Union. human gastric adenocarcinoma cells. Toxicology in Vitro 31,
EASAC (2015). Circular Economy: Commentary from The Perspectives 126–136.
of Natural and Social Sciences. Frond H.L. et al. (2018). Estimating the mass of chemicals associated
EASAC (2017a). Indicators for a Circular Economy. with ocean plastic pollution to inform mitigation efforts. Integrated
Environmental Assessment and Management 15, 596–606.
EASAC (2017b). Priorities for Critical Materials for a Circular Economy.
Galgani F. et al. 2010. Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Marine
EASAC (2017c). Multifunctionality and Sustainability in the European Litter. EUR 24340 EN – 2010.
Union’s Forests.
Gall S.C. and Thompson R.C. (2015). The impact of debris on marine
EASAC (2019). Forest Bioenergy, Carbon Capture and Storage, and life. Marine Pollution Bulletin 92, 170–179.
Carbon Dioxide Removal.
Galli P. and Vechellio G. (2004). Polyolefins: the most promising large-
EC (2008). Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework volume materials for the 21st century. Journal of Polymer Science A
Directive). https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/. 42, 396–415.
EC (2015). Closing the Loop - An EU Action Plan for The Circular Gallo F. et al. (2018). Marine litter plastics and microplastics and their
Economy. toxic chemicals components: the need for urgent preventive measures.
EC (2018a). A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy. Environmental Sciences Europe 30, 13.
COM(2018) 28 final. Galloway T.S. et al. (2017). Interactions of microplastic debris
EC (2018b). Proposals on the reduction of the impact of certain throughout the marine ecosystem. Nature Ecology and Evolution 1,
plastic products on the environment. COM (2018) 340 final 1–8.
(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1568285091967
Gardini A. et al. (2016). Progress of polymers from renewable sources:
&uri=CELEX:32019L0904).
furans, vegetable oils, and polysaccharides. Chemical Reviews 116,
EC (2018c). Impact Assessment. Reducing Marine Litter: action on 1637–1369.
single-use plastics and fishing gear. SWD(2018) 254 final.
Gasperi J. et al. (2018). Microplastics in air: are we breathing it in?
EC (2019). Directive 2019/904 on the Reduction of the impact of Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 1, 1–5.
certain plastic products on the environment (SUP Directive).
GESAMP (2015). Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the
Eerkes-Medrano et al. (2018). Microplastics in drinking water: a review Marine Environment: A Global Assessment (Kershaw P. J. ed.). Joint
and assessment. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environment
7, 69–75. Protection. Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 90, 96pp.
EIA (2019a). Checking out on plastic. Environmental Investigation GESAMP (2016). Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the
Agency/Greenpeace. marine environment: part two of a global assessment (Kershaw P.J.

and Rochman C.M., eds). Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Hestin M. et al. (2015). Increased EU Plastics Recycling Targets:
Aspects of Marine Environment Protection. Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. Environmental, Economic and Social Impact Assessment.
93, 220pp. http://www.plasticsrecyclers.eu/environmental-economic-social-
impact-assessment-increased-plasticrecycling.
Geyer et al. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made.
Science Advances 3, e1700782. Holland E.R. et al. (2016). Plastics and other anthropogenic debris in
freshwater birds from Canada. Science of the Total Environment 571,
Gil-Delgado J. A. et al. (2017). Presence of plastic particles in
251–258.
waterbirds faeces collected in Spanish lakes. Environmental Pollution
220, 732–736. Hopewell J. et al. (2009). Plastics recycling: challenges and
opportunities. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
Gitti G. et al. (2015). Marine litter: Market Based Instruments to Face
London B 364, 2115–2126.
The Market Failure. Brussels: Institute of European Environmental
Policy. Hornsey M.J. et al. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and
Ghosh S. et al. (2019). Macroalgal biomass subcritical hydrolysates outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change 6, 622.
for the production of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) by Haloferax Horton A. et al. (2017). Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial
mediterranei. Bioresource Technology 271, 166–173. environments: evaluating the current understanding to identify the
Gómez E. and Michel F. Jr (2013). Biodegradability of conventional knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Science of The Total
and bio-based plastics and natural fiber composites during Environment, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.190.
composting, anaerobic digestion and long-term soil incubation. Horton A.A. and Dixon S.J. (2018). Microplastics: an introduction to
Polymer Degradation and Stability 98, 2583–2591. environmental transport processes. WIREs Water 5, e1268. https://doi.
Goto M. (2009). Chemical recycling of plastics using sub- and org/10.1002/wat2.1268.
supercritical fluids. Journal of Supercritical Fluids 47, 500–507. IEA (2018). The Future of Petrochemicals - Towards More Sustainable
Gradus R. et al. (2017). A cost-effectiveness analysis for incineration or Plastics and Fertilisers. International Energy Agency.
recycling of Dutch household plastic waste. Ecological Economics 135,
IEA (2019). A load of rubbish? Introducing a Deposit Return Scheme
22–28.
to the UK. Institute of Economic Affairs. https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/
Greenpeace (2019). Data from The Global Plastics Waste Trade 2016– uploads/2019/04/SNOWDON-bottle-deposit-scheme-ED.pdf.
2018 and The Offshore Impact of China’s Foreign Waste Import Ban:
IEEP (2017). EPR in the EU Plastics Strategy and The Circular Economy:
An Analysis of Import-Export Data from The Top 21 Exporters and 21
A focus on Plastic Packaging. Brussels: Institute of European
Importers.
Environmental Policy.
Groh K.J. et al. (2019). Overview of known plastic packaging-
Ino H. and Matsueda N. (2019). The Curse of Low-value Plastics.
associated chemicals and their hazards. Science of the Total
Journal of Regulatory Economics 55, 282–306.
Environment 651, 3253–3268.
Hahladakis J. et al. (2018). An overview of chemical additives present IPBES (2019). Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment
in plastics: migration, release and environmental impact during their Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Intergovernmental
use, disposal and recycling. Journal of Hazardous Materials 334, Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
179–199. ISWA (2014). Waste Trafficking, Challenges and Actions to be Taken.
Halvorsen B. (2012). Effects of norms and policy incentives on http://bit.ly/2yvwSrj.
household recycling: an international comparison. Resources, International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (2019).
Conservation and Recycling 67, 18–26. https://www.pssurvival.com/PS/Plastics/Plastic-2017.pdf).
Hamoir J. et al. (2003). Effect of polystyrene particles on lung
Jackson T. (2005). Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review
microvascular permeability in isolated perfused rabbit lungs: role of
of Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change.
size and surface properties. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology
Sustainable Development Research Network.
190, 278–285.
Jacquin J. et al. (2019). Microbial ecotoxicology of marine plastic
Hann S. et al. (2018). Investigating Options for Reducing Releases
debris: a review on colonization and biodegradation by the
in The Aquatic Environment of Microplastics Emitted By (But Not
‘plastisphere’. Frontiers in Microbiology 10, 865.
Intentionally Added In) Products - Final Report. Report for DG ENV EC.
Jambeck J.R. et al. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the
Harrison J.P. et al. (2018). Biodegradability standards for carrier bags
ocean. Science 347, 768–771.
and plastic films in aquatic environments: a critical review. Royal
Society Open Sci. 5, 171792. Jambeck J.R. et al. (2018). Challenges and emerging solutions to the
land-based plastic waste issue in Africa. Marine Policy 96, 256–263.
Hartley B.L. et al. (2018). Exploring public views on marine litter in
Europe: perceived causes, consequences and pathways to change. Johnston B. et al. (2018). The microbial production of
Marine Pollution Bulletin 133, 945–955. polyhydroxyalkanoates from waste polystyrene fragments attained
Hausman C. and Kellogg R. (2015). Welfare and distributional using oxidative degradation. Polymers 10, 957–979.
implications of shale gas. National Bureau of Economic Research, JRC (2016). Harm Caused by Marine Litter.
NBER paper 21115.
JRC (2017). Top Marine Beach Litter Items in Europe.
Heidbreder L.M. et al. (2019). Tackling the plastic problem: a review
on perceptions, behaviours, and interventions. Science of The Total Kaffine D. and O’Reilly P. (2015) What Have We Learned About
Environment 668, 1077–1093. Extended Producer Responsibility in the Past Decade? A Survey of the
Recent EPR Economic Literature. OECD.
Heller M.C. et al. (2018). Mapping the influence of food waste in
food packaging environmental performance assessments. Journal of Karlsson T.M. et al. (2019). The unaccountability case of plastic pellet
Industrial Ecology 23, 480–495. http://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12743. pollution. Marine Pollution Bulletin 129, 52–60.

Kaza S. et al. (2018), What a Waste Global Database: What A Waste Maier N. et al. (2018). Biodegradable Plastics- Approaches and
2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. World Experiences from 16 Members of the EPA Network. European Network
Bank. of the Heads of Environment Protection Agencies (EPA Network) -
Interest Group on Plastics.
KIDV (2017). Opaque Bottles and Recycling.
https://kidv.nl/factsheet-opaque-pet-bottles-and-recycling. Mari A.I. et al. (2019). Economic valuation of biodegradable plastic
films and paper mulches used in open-air grown pepper (Capsicum
Khosa M.A. and Ullah A. (2013). A sustainable role of keratin Annum L.) crops. Agronomy 9, 1–13.
biopolymer in green chemistry: a review. Food Processing & Beverages
1, 1–8. Mason C. et al. (2015). The economics of shale gas development.
Annual Review of Resource Economics 7, 268–289.
Kirstein I.V. et al. (2016). Dangerous hitchhikers? Evidence for
potentially pathogenic Vibrio spp. on microplastic particles. Marine Mason S.A. et al. (2018). Synthetic polymer contamination in bottled
Environmental Research 120, 1–8. water. Frontiers in Chemistry 6, 407.
Klankermayer J. et al. (2016). Selective catalytic synthesis using the Matiddi M. et al. (2017). Loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta):
combination of carbon dioxide and hydrogen: catalytic chess at the a target species for monitoring litter ingested by marine organisms in
interface of energy and chemistry. Angewandte Chemie International the Mediterranean Sea. Environmental Pollution 230, 199–209.
Edition 55, 7296–7343.
Meng Y. et al. (2019). Advances and challenges of microplastic
Koelmans A.A. et al. (2017). Risks of plastic debris: unravelling pollution in freshwater ecosystems: a UK perspective. Environmental
fact, opinion, perception, and belief. Environmental Science and Pollution 256, 113445.
Technology 51, 11513–11519.
Miafodzyeva S. and Brandt N. (2013). Recycling behaviour among
Koelmans A.A. et al. (2019). Microplastics in freshwaters and drinking householders: synthesizing determinants via a meta-analysis. Waste
water: critical review and assessment of data quality. Water Research and Biomass Valorization 4, 221–235.
155, 410–422. Miyazaki J. et al. (2014). Adhesion and internalization of
Kollmuss A. and Agyeman J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people functionalized polystyrene latex nanoparticles toward the yeast
act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Advanced Powder Technology 25, 1394–
behaviour? Environmental Education Research 8, 239–260. 1397.
Korkakaki E. et al. (2016). PHA production from the organic fraction Miyazaki J. et al. (2015). Cytotoxicity and behaviour of polystyrene
of municipal waste (OFMSW). Water Research 96, 74e83. latex nanoparticles to budding yeast. Colloids and Surfaces A 469,
287–293.
Kosuth M. et al. (2018). Anthropogenic contamination of tap water,
beer, and sea salt. PLoS ONE 13, e0194970. Mohammadi P. et al. (2012). Plastic-WVO Biodiesel as an additive to
boost diesel fuel properties. In Proceedings of the 4th International
Krueger M.C. et al. (2015). Prospects for microbiological solutions Conference on Engineering for Waste and Biomass Valorisation,
to environmental pollution with plastics. Applied Microbiology and 10–13 September 2012, Porto, Portugal.
Biotechnology 99, 8857–8874.
National Audit Office (2018). The Packaging Recycle Obligations.
Lambert S. and Wagner M. (2017). Environmental performance of bio- London, UK: National Audit Office.
based and biodegradable plastics: the road ahead. Chemical Society
Reviews 46, 6855–6871. New Economics Foundation (2018). The Price Is Right – Or Is It? The
Case for Taxing Plastics. https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/
Lambert S. et al. (2017). Ecotoxicity testing of microplastics: resource_use/2018/plasticstax_final.pdf.
considering the heterogeneity of physico-chemical properties.
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 13, National Consumer Council (2015). Desperately seeking sustainability.
470–475. Ireland: National Consumer Council.
Newman S. et al. (2015). The economics of marine litter. In: Bergmann

Lebreton L. et al. (2017). River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans.
M., Gutow L. and Klages M. (eds) Marine Anthropogenic Litter, pp.
Nature Communications 8, 15611.
367–394. Springer, Cham
Lenz R. et al. (2016). Microplastic exposure studies should be
Nizzetto L. et al. (2016). Pollution: do microplastics spill on to farm
environmentally realistic. Proceedings of the National Academy of
soils? Nature 537, 438.
Sciences of the USA 113, E4121–E4122.
Nova Institute. (2017). Biobased Economy and Climate Change -
Lofthouse V.A. et al. (2009). Investigating consumer perceptions of
Important Links, Pitfalls and Opportunities. Report to the UN Food and
refillable packaging and assessing business drivers and barriers to their
Agricultural Organization.
use. Packaging Technology and Science 22, 335–348.
OECD (2001). Extended Producer Responsibility: A Guidance Manual
Lusher A.L. et al. (2013). Occurrence of microplastics in the
for Governments. Paris: OECD.
gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English
Channel. Marine Pollution Bulletin 67, 94–99. OECD (2016) Extended Producer Responsibility - Guidance for efficient
waste management. Paris: OECD.
Lusher A.L. et al. (2015). Microplastics in Arctic polar waters: the
first reported values of particles in surface and sub-surface samples. OECD (2018a). Improving Markets for Recycled Plastics. Trends,
Scientific Reports 5, 1494. Prospects and Policy Responses. Paris: OECD.
Lwanga E.H. et al. (2016). Microplastics in the terrestrial ecosystem: OECD (2018b). Improving Plastics Management: Trends, Policy
implications for Lumbricus terrestris (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae). Responses, and the Role of International Co-Operation and Trade.
Environmental Science and Technology 50, 2685–2691. OECD Environment Policy Paper No. 12. Paris: OECD.
Maier M.A.T. (2019). Plant-oil-based polyamides and polyurethanes: Oehlmann J. et al. (2009). A critical analysis of the biological impacts
toward sustainable nitrogen-containing thermoplastic materials. of plasticizers on wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Macromolecular Rapid Communications 40, 1800524. Society of London B 364, 2047–2062.

Ogonowski et al. (2018). What we know and what we think we know Ritch E. et al. (2009). Plastic bag politics: modifying consumer
about microplastic effects – a critical perspective. Current Opinion in behaviour for sustainable development. International Journal of
Environmental Science and Health 1, 41–46. Consumer Studies 33, 168–174.
Pahl S. and Wyles K.J. (2016). The human dimension: how social and Royal Society (2019). Microplastics in Freshwater and Soil. London,
behavioural research methods can help address microplastics in the UK: The Royal Society.
environment. Analytical Methods 9, 1404–1411.
SAPEA (2018). A Scientific Perspective on Microplastics in Nature and
Panno S.V. et al. (2019). Microplastic contamination in karst Society.
groundwater systems. Groundwater 57, 189–196.
Satam C. et al. (2018). Spray-coated multilayer cellulose nanocrystal—
PBL (2012). Sustainability of Biomass in A Bio-based Economy. chitin nanofiber films for barrier applications. ACS Sustainable
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Chemistry & Engineering 68, 10637–10647.
Penca J. (2018). European plastics strategy: what promise for global Scarfato P. et al. (2015). Recent advances and migration issues in
marine litter? Marine Policy 97, 197–201. biodegradable polymers from renewable sources for food packaging.
Peng X. et al. (2018). Microplastics contaminate the deepest part of Journal of Applied Polymer Science 132, 42597.
the world’s ocean. Geochemical Perspectives Letters 9, 1–5.
SCBD (2012). Impacts of Marine Debris on Biodiversity: Current Status
https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering4020054.
and Potential Solutions. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Pittman T. and Steinmetz H. (2017). Polyhydroxyalkanoate production Diversity and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, Technical
on waste water treatment plants: process scheme, operating Series No. 67. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on
conditions and potential analysis for German and European municipal Biological Diversity.
waste water treatment plants. Bioengineering 4, 54.
SCHEER (2018). Statement on Emerging Health and Environmental
Plastics Europe (2018). Plastics - The Facts 2018. Issues. Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging
Risks. https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_
Plastics Europe (2019). Plastics - The Facts 2019.
committees/scheer/docs/scheer_s_002.pdf
Plastics Europe (2020). Towards A Circular Plastics Economy:
Schultz P.W. et al. (2013). Littering in context: personal and
A European Plastics Pact.
environmental predictors of littering behaviour. Environment and
Poortinga W. et al. (2016). The English Plastic Bag Charge: Changes Behavior 45, 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511412179.
in Attitudes and Behaviour. Cardiff, UK: Welsh School of Architecture
and School of Psychology, Cardiff University. Schmid O. and Stoeger T. (2016). Surface area is the biologically
most effective dose metric for acute nanoparticle toxicity in the lung.
Poortinga W. and Whitaker L. (2018). Promoting the use of reusable Journal of Aerosol Science 99, 133–143.
coffee cups through environmental messaging, the provision of
alternatives and financial incentives. Sustainability 10, doi:10.3390/ Schmidt C. et al. (2017). Export of plastic debris by rivers into the sea.
su10030873. Environmental Science & Technology 51, 12246–12253.
Prasun K.R. et al. (2011). Degradable polythene - fantasy or reality? Schwarz A. et al. (2019). Sources, transport, and accumulation of
Environmental Science and Technology 45, 4217–4227. different types of plastic litter in aquatic environments: a review study.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es104042f. Marine Pollution Bulletin 143, 92–100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.04.029.
Punkinen H. et al. (2017). Thermal Conversion of Plastic-containing
Waste: A Review. http://arvifinalreport.fi/files/Thermal%20conversion Searchinger T.D. (2009). Government Policies & Drivers of World
%20of%20plastic-containing%20waste%20A%20review.pdf. Biofuels, Sustainability Criteria, Certification Proposals & Their
Limitations. In R.W. Howarth and S. Bringezu (eds) Biofuels:
Rahimi A. and García J.M. (2017). Chemical recycling of waste plastics Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land
for new materials production. Nature Reviews Chemistry 1, 0046. Use, pp. 37–52. Cornell University (http://cip.cornell.edu/biofuels/).
Raubenheimer K. and McIlgorm A. (2018). Can the Basel and
Shah A.A. et al. (2008). Biological degradation of plastics: a
Stockholm Conventions provide a global framework to reduce the
comprehensive review. Biotechnology Advances 26, 246–265.
impact of marine plastic litter? Marine Policy 96, 285–290.
Sheldon R.A. (2018). The road to biorenewables: carbohydrates to
RECOUP (2017). Recyclability by Design.
commodity chemicals. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 6,
RECOUP (2018). UK Household Plastics Collection Waste Survey. 4464–4480.
Recycling Technologies (2019). Lodestar: A Case Study for Plastics Shen L. et al. (2011). Life cycle energy and GHG emissions of PET
Recycling. recycling: change-oriented effects. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 16, 522–536.
Reddy M. et al. (2013). Biobased plastics and bio-nanocomposites:
current status and future opportunities. Progress in Polymer Science Singh N et al. (2017). Recycling of plastic solid waste: a state
38, 1653–1689. of art review and future applications. Composites B 115,
Revel M. et al. (2018). Micro(nano)plastics: a threat to human health? 409–422.
Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 1, 17–23. Slovic P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science 236, 280–285.
Rico R. (2018). China’s National Sword Policy: Impacts and de Souza Machado A. et al. (2018). Microplastics as an emerging
Opportunities for US Local Governments and Industry threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Global Change Biology 16, 1405–
Stakeholders. Solid Waste Management Annual Conference, 1416.
November 2018.http://gbbinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/
RicoILCSWMA2018NationalSword.pdf. STAP (2018). Plastics and The Circular Economy. Science and
Technology Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility.
Rist S. et al. (2018). A critical perspective on early communications
concerning human health aspects of microplastics. Science of the Total Steffen W. et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: guiding human
Environment 626, 720–726. development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855.

Steffen W. et al. (2018). Trajectories of the Earth System in the UNEP (2015). Biodegradable Plastic and Marine Litter- Misconceptions,
Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of Concerns and Impacts on Marine Environments. Nairobi: United
the USA 115, 8252–8259. Nations Environment Programme.
Steg L. (2016). Values, norms, and intrinsic motivation to act UNEP (2016). Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics – Global Lessons
proenvironmentally. Annual Review of Environment and Resource 41, and Research to Inspire Action and Guide Policy Change. Nairobi:
277–292. United Nations Environment Programme.
Steg L. and Vlek C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: UNEP (2018a). Single-use Plastics: A Roadmap for Sustainability.
an integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.
Psychology 29, 309–317.
UNEP (2018b). Addressing Marine Plastics: A Systemic Approach -
Steg L. et al. (2012). The significance of hedonic values for Stocktaking report. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.
environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions.
Environment and Behavior 46, 163–192. Valavanidis A. (2018). Technological Challenges in Plastic
Recycling. Scientific review. https://www.researchgate.net/
Steinmetz Z. et al. (2016). Plastic mulching in agriculture trading short- publication/325545481_Technological_Challenges_in_Plastic_
term agronomic benefits for long-term soil degradation? Science of Recycling_Can_technological_innnovation_tackle_the_problem_of_
the Total Environment 550, 690–705. plastic_waste.
Stramare L. (2013). Managing plastic waste - the COREPLA experience. Van Cauwenberghe L. and Janssen C.R. (2014). Microplastics in
http://www.eprclub.eu/upload/public/27%20June/Luca%20 bivalves cultured for human consumption. Environmental Pollution
Stramare%20–%20The%20COREPLA%20experience%20–%20Italy. 193, 65–70.
pdf.
van Franeker J.A. et al. (2011). Monitoring plastic ingestion by the
Tamis J. et al. (2018). Pilot-scale polyhydroxyalkanoate production northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis in the North Sea. Environmental
from paper mill wastewater: process characteristics and identification Pollution 159, 2609–2615.
of bottlenecks for full-scale implementation. Journal of Environmental
Engineering 144, 04018107. Vegter A.C. et al. (2014). Global Research Priorities to Mitigate Plastic
Pollution Impacts on Marine Wildlife. US geological Survey.
Tanaka K. et al. (2013). Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00623.
tissues of seabirds ingesting marine plastics. Marine Pollution Bulletin
69, 1–2. Vethaak A.D. and Leslie H.A. (2016). Plastic debris is a human health
issue. Environmental Science and Technology 50, 6825–6826.
Ten Brink P. et al. (2009). Guidelines on the Use of Market-based
Instruments to Address the Problem of Marine Litter. Brussels: Institute Verrips A et al. (2019a). More Environmental Benefits with Recycling
for European Environmental Policy (IEEP). – How? CPB Policy Brief. Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy
Analysis.
Ten Brink P. et al. (2016) Plastics Marine Litter and the Circular
Economy. A briefing by IEEP for the MAVA Foundation. Verrips A. et al. (2019b). The Circular Economy of Plastics in The
Netherlands. In Environmental sustainability and Education for Waste
Thomas G.O. et al. (2019). The English plastic bag charge changed Management, chapter 4. Singapore: Springer Nature.
behaviour and increased support for other charges to reduce plastic
waste. Frontiers in Psychology 10, 266. Wei R. et al. (2016). Engineered bacterial polyester hydrolases
efficiently degrade polyethylene terephthalate due to relieved product
Thomas N.L. et al. (2012). Oxo-degradable plastics: degradation,
inhibition. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 113, 1658–1665.
environmental impact and recycling. Waste and Resource
Management 165, 133–140. Weithmann N. et al. (2018). Organic fertilizer as a vehicle for the
entry of microplastics into the environment. Science Advances 4,
Thunman H. et al. (2019). Circular use of plastics-transformation of
eaap8060.
existing petrochemical clusters into thermochemical recycling plants
with 100% plastics recovery. Sustainable Materials and Technology 22: Welle J. (2011). Twenty years of PET bottle to bottle recycling—
e00124. an overview. Resource, Conservation and Recycling 55, 865–875.
Tijm J. and Verrips A. (2019). Kunststof als secundaire grondstof. The Werland P.O. and Brandelli A. (2005). Characterization of a novel
Hague: CPB Background Document. feather-degrading Bacillus sp. strain. Applied Biochemistry and
Biotechnology 120, 71–79.
Trasande L. et al. (2015). Estimating burden and disease costs of
exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European Union. Wikstrom F. et al. (2019). Packaging strategies that save food. Journal
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 100, 1245–1255. of Industrial Ecology 23, 532–540.
Tuck C.O. et al. (2012). Valorization of biomass: deriving more value Woodall L.C. et al. (2014). The deep sea is a major sink for
from waste. Science 337, 695–699. microplastic debris. Royal Society Open Science 1, 140317.
Turner A. (2018). Black plastics: linear and circular economies, WHO (2019). Microplastics in Drinking-Water. Geneva: World Health
hazardous additives and marine pollution. Environment International Organization.
117, 308–318.
WRAP (2010). Single Trip or Reusable Packaging-Considering the Right
Ünal A.B. et al. (2018). Values versus environmental knowledge as Choice for the Environment.
triggers of a process of activation of personal norms for eco-driving.
Environment and Behavior 50, 1092–1118. WRAP (2018a). A Roadmap to 2025–The UK Plastic Pact.
UNEP (2017). Marine Litter: Socio-economic Study. Nairobi: United WRAP (2018b). Environmental Benefits of Recycling – 2010 Update.
Nations Environment Programme. http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Environmental_benefits_of_
recycling_2010_update.3b174d59.8816.pdf.
UNEP (2014). Valuing Plastic – The Business Case for Measuring,
Managing and Disclosing Plastic Use in The Consumer Goods Industry. WRAP (2019). Rigid Plastic Packaging - Design Tips for Recycling.
Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. http://www.wrap.org.uk/dfr.

Wright S.L. and Kelly F.J. (2017). Plastic and human health: a micro Zehner O. (2012). Unintended Consequences of Green Technologies.
issue? Environmental Science and Technology 51, 6634–6647. University of California, Berkeley. https://www.academia.edu/838612/
Unintended_Consequences_of_Green_Technologies.
Wright S.L. et al. (2019). Atmospheric microplastic deposition in an
urban environment and an evaluation of transport. Environment Zhang Y. et al. (2010). Dissolution of waste plastic in biodiesel.
International https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105411. Polymer Engineering & Science 50, 863–870.
Wu J. et al. (2014). Facile route to produce chitin nanofibers Zhang Y. et al. (2019). Importance of atmospheric transport for
as precursors for flexible and transparent gas barrier materials. microplastics deposited in remote areas. Environmental Pollution A
Biomacromolecules 15, 4614–4620. 254, 112953.
Yamane K. and Kawasaki K. (2012). A study of polystyrene solubility Zhao S. et al. (2016). Microscopic anthropogenic litter in terrestrial
in biodiesel. In Biofuels - Status and Perspective, chapter 10, pp. birds from Shanghai, China: not only plastics but also natural fibers.
205–221. INTECH. Science of the Total Environment 550, 1110–1115.
Yang H. et al. (2018). Waste management, informal recycling, Zhu Y. et al. (2016). Sustainable polymers from renewable resources.
environmental pollution and public health. Journal of Epidemiology Nature 540, 354–362.
and Community Health 72, 237–243.
Zimmermann L. et al. (2019). Benchmarking the in vitro toxicity and
Yoshida S. et al. (2016). A bacterium that degrades and assimilates chemical composition of plastic consumer products. Environmental
poly(ethylene terephthalate). Science 351, 1196–1199. Science and Technology 53, 11467–11477.

EASAC, the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council, consists of representatives of the following
European national academies and academic bodies who have issued this report:
The Austrian Academy of Sciences
The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
The Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts
The Cyprus Academy of Sciences, Letters and Arts
The Czech Academy of Sciences
The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
The Estonian Academy of Sciences
The Council of Finnish Academies
The Académie des sciences (France)
The German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina
The Academy of Athens
The Hungarian Academy of Sciences
The Royal Irish Academy
The Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
The Latvian Academy of Sciences
The Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
The Polish Academy of Sciences
The Academy of Sciences of Lisbon
The Romanian Academy
The Slovak Academy of Sciences
The Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
The Spanish Royal Academy of Sciences
The Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
The Royal Society (United Kingdom)
Academia Europaea
ALLEA
For further information:
EASAC Secretariat EASAC Brussels Office

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina Royal Academies for Science and the
German National Academy of Sciences Arts of Belgium (RASAB)
Postfach 110543 Hertogsstraat 1 Rue Ducale
06019 Halle (Saale) 1000 Brussels
Germany Belgium
tel +49 (0)345 4723 9833 tel +32 (2) 550 23 32
fax +49 (0)345 4723 9839 [email protected]
[email protected]
The affiliated network for Europe of EASAC contributes to the implementation of the
Printed by Schaefer Druck und Verlag GmbH, Teutschenthal, Germany

EASAC - Packaging Plastics in The Circular Economy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EASAC - Packaging Plastics in The Circular Economy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EASAC - Packaging Plastics in The Circular Economy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ea sac

Packaging plastics in the circular economy

EASAC policy report 39

This report can be found at

© German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina 2020

This version updated April 2020.

Telephone: +49 345 4723 9833

Cover image: created by unicom Werbeagentur GmbH, Berlin, Germany

ii | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

3 Extended producer responsibility 18

4 Technical factors in recycling 21

6 ‘Bio’ plastics and degradability 30

7 Research and innovation 35

EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | iii

Annex 2 Plastics and the environment 52

iv | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | v

EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | 1

Stage in the System failure Policy options Report

2 | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | 3

4 | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | 5

6 | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | 7

8 | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | 9

14% INCINERATION AND/

10 | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

Shifting to a more circular use pattern requires

This chain offers several points at which regulatory

EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | 11

12 | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | 13

Table 1 Top 10 SUP items found in beach surveys

14 | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

Entanglement Ingestion Pollution of Transport Microbial Economic Economic Potential

Box 4 Existing framework for addressing marine plastic pollution

EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | 15

Item Sub-option 2a Sub-option 2b Sub-option 2c Sub-option 2d

16 | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | 17

• Environmental: to reduce environmental • whether PROs have just financial responsibility or

18 | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | 19

Box 5 Some national and corporate commitments under plastics pacts

A. UK plastic pact and roadmap for implementation (WRAP, 2018a)

Targets for 2025:

B. Europe-wide (Plastics Europe, 2020)

C. Unilever’s 2017 commitment15

20 | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | 21

22 | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

2. Limit dark colours, which make polymer recognition

EASAC Packaging plastics in the circular economy | March 2020 | 23

24 | March 2020 | Packaging plastics in the circular economy EASAC

Avoidance of plastic items:

Plastic waste taken to

Figure 5 Examples of consumer influences (source: Expert Group).