Content uploaded by Vasileios Rizos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vasileios Rizos on Jul 04, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
CHEMICAL RECYCLING
OF PLASTICS
CEPS IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
Vasileios Rizos, Patricia Urban, Edoardo Righetti, Amin Kassab
June, 2023 - 11
Technologies, trends and policy implications
SUMMARY
In recent years, the challenge of plastic waste generation has become a prime concern in
the global political arena. At the EU level, a dedicated strategy on plastics was adopted that
led to the Single-Use Plastics Directive. In spite of this, plastic waste management data show
that achieving a circular economy for plastics in the EU is a long way off. Available studies
indicate that plastic waste generation may remain at high levels in the future or even
increase in the absence of ambitious circularity policies. The report looks at the challenges
associated with plastic waste generation and discusses the potential of using chemical
recycling technologies as part of an ecosystem of solutions for increasing the circularity of
plastics. It is based on evidence collected through desk-research and inputs provided during
a series of stakeholder meetings.
Given the myriad applications of plastics, a mix of recycling solutions, combined with efforts
aimed at increasing reuse and waste prevention will be needed. This requires a policy
environment that while enabling all recycling options would at the same time provide a
level playing field between mechanical and chemical recycling. To achieve such a level
playing field, clarification would be needed on how chemical recycling technologies could
contribute to achieving recycled content targets. As these technologies scale up, the
question about whether there is a need to provide clarity about their position in the waste
hierarchy and in the existing recycling definition will also need to be addressed.
There are several data uncertainties about plastic waste feedstocks and composition as well
as the emissions and losses in the chemical recycling processes. The publication of
methodology guidelines for LCAs comparing different treatment options for waste plastics
can support a more informed debate about plastics’ circularity. More integrated
assessments considering the full spectrum of plastic waste streams and how they can be
treated in the most environmentally friendly way can also contribute to this debate.
Vasileios Rizos is heading the Energy, Resources and Climate Change Unit and is also Head of Sustainable
Resources and Circular Economy at CEPS. Patricia Urban and Edoardo Righetti are Researchers and Amin
Kassab is Associate Research Assistant in the Energy, Resources and Climate Change unit at CEPS. This
report has been prepared in the context of the CEPS Chemical Recycling Initiative.
CEPS In-depth Analysis papers offer a deeper and more comprehensive overview of a wide range of key policy
questions facing Europe. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the authors in a
personal capacity and not to any institution with which they are associated.
© CEPS 2023
CEPS ▪ Place du Congrès 1 ▪ B-1000 Brussels ▪ Tel: (32.2) 229.39.11
CONTENTS
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
2. Plastics: current trends, patterns, and environmental challenges ........................................... 3
2.1 Plastics use, production and demand .............................................................................. 3
2.2 Current routes for end-of-life plastics .............................................................................. 5
2.3 Environmental impacts throughout the plastic lifecycle .................................................. 8
2.4 Mechanical recycling of plastics ..................................................................................... 10
3. Chemical recycling technologies and applications ................................................................. 11
3.1 Thermal depolymerisation: Gasification and pyrolysis ................................................... 12
3.1.1 Pyrolysis ............................................................................................................................. 12
3.1.2 Gasification ........................................................................................................................ 13
3.2 Chemical depolymerisation ............................................................................................ 13
3.3 Complementarity with mechanical recycling ................................................................. 15
4. Future trends: what will plastic volumes look like in the coming years? ................................ 16
4.1 Plastic production and use ............................................................................................. 16
4.2 Plastic waste generation ................................................................................................ 19
4.3 Plastic waste treatment ................................................................................................. 21
5. Enabling functioning plastics recycling markets ..................................................................... 23
5.1 Ecodesign for improved circularity of plastics ................................................................ 23
5.2 Improving sorting and collection .................................................................................... 25
5.2.1 Current collection and sorting practices for different types of plastics ......................... 25
5.2.2 Innovations and practices for improved collection and sorting ..................................... 27
5.2.3 Best practice examples ..................................................................................................... 27
5.2.4 Benefits of improved collection and sorting for mechanical and chemical recycling ... 28
5.3 Addressing transparency challenges and comparability of LCA for chemical recycling
technologies ............................................................................................................................... 29
5.3.1 Comparison of mechanical and chemical recycling ........................................................ 30
5.3.2 Comparison of chemical recycling with incineration and landfilling .............................. 31
5.3.3 Existing gaps ...................................................................................................................... 31
5.4 Allocating recycled content ............................................................................................ 32
5.4.1 Chain of custody models .................................................................................................. 33
5.4.2 Mass balance ..................................................................................................................... 34
6. Conclusions and policy messages ........................................................................................... 37
References ...................................................................................................................................... 41
Annex .............................................................................................................................................. 48
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1. Plastics demand by polymer type in the EU27+3 (2021) ............................................... 5
Figure 2. Global plastics use and waste in Mt (1990-2019) .......................................................... 6
Figure 3. Share of plastic waste treatment methods in the EU27+3 ............................................ 7
Figure 4. Plastics demand and waste in the EU27+3 countries (2018) ........................................ 8
Figure 5. Chemical recycling technologies and feedstock ........................................................... 14
Figure 6. Historical and expected evolution of EU plastic production ....................................... 17
Figure 7. Historical and expected evolution of EU plastic use .................................................... 18
Figure 8. Historical and expected evolution of EU plastic waste ................................................ 20
Figure 9. Breakdown of plastic waste treatment in 2030 and 2050, in Mt (above) and %
(below) ................................................................................................................................... 22
Table 1. Polymer types and usage .................................................................................................. 4
| 1
1. INTRODUCTION
Plastics have made a wide impact on global economies since their large-scale industrial
production began in the 1940s (OECD, 2022a; Al-Salem et al., 2009). Owing to their properties
and low-cost, plastics are used in nearly every economic sector and have supported
advancements in sectors such as food storage and distribution, transportation, electronics,
healthcare and buildings (EEA, 2020; Yates et al., 2021). The rate of growth of plastic production
over the decades has been exponential and can only be compared with that of steel and cement
(Geyer et al., 2017). It has been estimated that plastic production has seen a 230-fold increase
since the 1950s (OECD, 2022b) and more than 8 billion tonnes of plastic have been produced
around the globe over the years (Geyer et al., 2017).
The persistent growth in plastic production has been associated with a broad spectrum of
environmental, climate and human health impacts occurring throughout the entire life cycle of
plastics. An important share of these impacts is attributed to the way plastics are managed at
the end-of-life (EOL) stage. According to OECD (2022b), out of the 353 million tonnes of plastic
waste produced globally in 2019, only about 9 % was properly recycled. The rest ended up in
incinerators (19 %), controlled landfills (50 %) or in unofficial routes often leading to plastic
leakage to the environment. For the EU, Plastics Europe estimates that out of the
30 million tonnes of plastic waste produced annually, 35 % is effectively sent to recycling with
the rest being sent to incineration with energy recovery (42 %) or to landfilling (23 %)1. The
practice of incinerating and landfilling such high amounts of plastic each year entails significant
environmental externalities including the release of GHG emissions into the atmosphere2 and
leakage of contaminants into terrestrial and marine environments (EEA, 2020; Lange, 2021).
Waste management policies targeting certain plastic waste streams (i.e. packaging) have been
in place since the 1990s. In recent years, however, the issue of the plastic waste crisis has
received increased attention and has become a priority in the EU political agenda, driven mainly
by the increased attention of the media, NGOs and the civil society on the topic (Filho et al.,
2019; Nielsen et al., 2019). Plastics emerged as one of the priority sectors addressed by the first
EU Circular Economy plan leading to the first EU dedicated strategy on plastics (European
Commission, 2018) and a new Directive focused on addressing the impacts of certain single-
1 As discussed in section 2.2 other studies have estimated that the figure for EU plastic waste generation is higher,
while the share of plastic that is effectively recycled lower.
2 Considering the emissions savings due to the use of plastic for energy recovery, Material Economics (2021)
calculates the EU annual CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere due to the incinerations of plastics at 38
million tonnes.
2 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
use plastic items3. This action on the EU policy front was matched by pledges by many
multinational companies to use more recycled plastics (Kahlert & Bening, 2022). Various
national governments in the EU and beyond4 have put forward commitments on plastics (see
OECD, 2022c), while recently there was an agreement by the UN Member States for new legally
binding instrument to address plastic pollution (UN, 2022).
Still, the challenges linked to managing the large volumes of plastic waste produced each year
persist and could even intensify across the EU in the future if ambitious circularity policies are
not adopted5. Even though recycling rates for certain plastic streams have seen an increase in
recent years, significant improvements in current collection, sorting and recycling systems and
technologies are required. As the need for new solutions increases, there has been growing
interest and research in leveraging chemical recycling (CR) technologies to improve circularity
of plastics. Focusing on producing basic chemicals or other feedstocks from plastic waste, these
technologies are considered as complementary options to existing plastic waste management
options. However, there have also been concerns about their implementation and potential for
delivering substantial environmental benefits (Lee et al., 2021; Manžuch et al., 2021).
This report presents challenges associated with plastic waste generation across the EU and
discusses the potential of using chemical recycling technologies as part of an ecosystem of
solutions for increasing circularity of plastics. It first summarises current trends linked to plastic
use and associated environmental challenges (section 2) and then discusses the key available
chemical recycling technologies for managing different plastic waste streams (section 3). The
report then presents estimates about future plastic use, waste generation and treatment by
different processes including mechanical and chemical recycling (section 4). It then dives into
various aspects and policies related to the development of functioning plastics recycling
markets including sorting and collection of plastics, application of life cycle assessment (LCA)
methodologies, rules for allocation recycled content in plastics and use of ecodesign
approaches (section 5). The report concludes with key messages and recommendations
(section 6).
The report synthesises 12 months of work by the CEPS research team consisting of desk-based
research and the organisation of a series of stakeholder meetings to collect experts’ views. The
meetings brought together representatives from the full spectrum of stakeholders involved in
the discussions on chemical recycling including chemical recycling companies, waste
management companies, academics, NGOs and end-users of recycled polymers (see Annex).
3 Directive (EU) 2019/904 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment also
referred as Single-Use Plastics Directive.
4 For example, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Korea, see OECD (2022c).
5 See section 4.2.
3 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
2. PLASTICS: CURRENT TRENDS, PATTERNS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CHALLENGES
2.1 PLASTICS USE, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND
In the public debate, plastic is often used as a generic term for its integral component, a
chemical linkage of a series of building blocks, called monomers, to form larger molecules,
called polymers (Chamas et al., 2020). These polymers are mostly derived from fossil feedstocks
like crude oil, natural gas, or coal. In Europe, the most prevalent fossil-based polymer types are
Polyethylene (PE), Polypropylene (PP), Polyvinylchloride (PVC), Polyethylene terephthalate
(PET), Polyurethane (PUR), Polystyrene (PS) and Polyamides (PA) (Plastics Europe, 2021).
However, it is also possible to produce virgin plastic from renewable, bio-based, feedstocks,
like corn, casava, sugar beet, and sugar cane. Such bio-based polymers6 account only for a
marginal share of global plastic production (Hamilton et al., 2019).
Plastics have multiple uses across a variety of sectors. Polyethylene can be divided into low-
density Polyethylene (LDPE), medium-density Polyethylene (MDPE) and high-density
Polyethylene (HDPE). Reusable bags, agricultural and food packaging film are typical
applications of LDPE, while MDPE and HDPE are essential for producing toys, milk bottles,
shampoo bottles, houseware, industrial packaging and pipes for water and gas distribution. PP
has similar applications in food packaging, for snack wrappers or microwave containers but also
automotive parts, such as bumpers, pipes and garden furniture. PET is the common polymer
used to produce bottles for drinks or cleaners, and is also used to produce polyester textiles.
PVC is mostly found in construction products, such as window frames, floor and wall covering,
pipes or electric cables. Building insulation is likewise a prominent application of PUR besides
foams, pillows, matrasses, and footwear. PS is frequently used to produce dairy, meat and fish
packaging, fridge interiors and is also used in building insulations, or electrical and electronic
equipment. Lastly, the automotive and the textile industry are large users of PA for their
manufacturing components (Plastics Europe, 2021; Ncube et al., 2021; Andrady & Neal, 2009;
Kondo, et al., 2022). Table 1 below summarises the key types of polymer plastics and examples
of notable uses.
6 Polymers like polylactic acid (PLA), plant-derived PET, or Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) are often mixtures of
polymers from renewable feedstock and petrochemical derived plastics and fibers (Hamilton et al., 2019).
4 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
Table 1. Polymer types and usage
Polymer
Name
Use
LDPE
MDPE
HDPE
Low-Density Polyethylene
Medium-Density
Polyethylene
High-Density Polyethylene
(Polyolefins)
LDPE: plastic bags, plastic cutlery, packaging film
MDPE, HDPE: food containers, liners, shampoo
bottles, pipes, houseware
PP
Polypropylene
(Polyolefin)
Food containers, plastic bottles, plastic bags (more
heat resistant than PE, very durable)
PA
Polyamides, Nylon
Transportation manufacturing, textiles, automotive
industry
PET
Polyethylene
Terephthalate (Polyester)
Plastic bottles for drinks and cleaners, fabrics
(polyester)
PS
Polystyrene
Dairy, meat and fish packaging,
construction/insulation, electrical equipment
PUR
Polyurethane
Different chemical structures - different uses, e.g.
foams, coatings, adhesives (e.g. kitchen sponges),
mattresses, footwear
PVC
Polyvinylchloride
Building, construction, wires and cable, medical
applications (resistant to chemicals and
weathering, does not conduct electricity,
impermeable to germs)
In terms of plastic production, from the 390.7 Mt of plastics produced globally in 2021, the EU-
27+37 accounted for a share of around 15 %, equal to 57.2 Mt. The different PE types
accounted for 24 % of the total production in the EU-27+3 countries, PP for 16,6 %, PVC for
11.4 %, PET for 5.3 %, PUR for 5.5 %, and PS for 6.1 %. Simultaneously, bio-based plastics
represented a share of 2.3 %, and recycled plastics – 10.1 % of the total production (Plastics
Europe, 2022).
7 Including Norway, Switzerland, and the UK.
5 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Figure 1. Plastics demand by polymer type in the EU27+3 (2021)
Source: Plastics Europe (2022). Breakdown of plastics demand in the EU plus the UK, Switzerland, and Norway into the
different polymer types in the year 2021.
As Figure 1 indicates, the breakdown of the demand for different polymer types in the EU-27+3
countries displays a similar pattern. The major polymers represent a share of around 82 % of
the total plastics demand of 50.3 Mt in 2021. Among them, polyethylene, including LDPE, MDPE
and HDPE, accounts for around 30 %. Additionally, PP represents a share of 20 %, PVC a share
of 10 %, both PET and PUR a share of 8 % each, and PS a share 6 % of the European plastics
demand in the given year (Plastics Europe 2022).
The packaging, and the building & construction sectors are the major drivers of European
plastics demand, representing 60.4 % (39.1 % and 21.3 % respectively) of the total plastics
demand in 2021. Other sectors, such as the automotive sector (8.6 %) or electrical and
electronic equipment (6.5 %), play a significantly smaller role (Plastics Europe 2022).
2.2 CURRENT ROUTES FOR END-OF-LIFE PLASTICS
Depending on a variety of factors including product design, consumption patterns, type and
sector used, plastic products reach at some point the EoL stage (Geyer, 2020). From this point
onwards the different routes for EoL plastics are reuse, recycling, incineration and landfilling.
The global in-use stock of plastics and the global waste streams, depicted in Figure 2 indicate a
constantly increasing trend.
LDPE; 17%
HDPE & MDPE;
13%
PP; 20%
PS; 6%
PVC; 10%
PET; 8%
PA; 2%
PUR; 8%
Other; 16%
6 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
Figure 2. Global plastics use and waste in Mt (1990-2019)
Source: OECD (2023). Global trends of the in-use stock of plastics and end-of life plastics from 1990 to 2019. Data points are
indicated in five-year intervals and in the year 2019. The differences between global plastics use and global plastics waste in
million tonnes are highlighted in ten-year intervals and in the year 2019.
According to Plastics Europe (2022), about 30 million tonnes8 of post-consumer plastic waste
were generated across the EU in 2020. Waste disposal in landfills – the least preferable route
for end-of-life plastics according to the EU waste hierarchy – remains a common waste
management method with about 23 % of plastic waste ending up in landfills. Then
approximately 42 % of plastics is incinerated for energy recovery which represents the largest
route for plastic waste disposal (Hamilton et al., 2019). The following option in the EU waste
hierarchy which as described later has several environmental benefits over incineration and
landfilling is recycling. Plastic Europe (2022) estimates that around 35 % of plastic waste was
sent to recycling in the EU in 2020, while at the Member States level this figure varies from
21 % to 45 %.
While figures of similar scale about plastic waste generation in the EU have also been reported
by EU publications (see European Commission, 2018), other studies have estimated the amount
of plastic waste generated across the EU at higher levels. Specifically, based on a material flow
analysis, Material Economics (2022) estimates that about 15 million tonnes of plastic waste are
not accounted in current statistics 9 and thus the total amount of plastic waste generated could
be as high as 45 million tonnes10. Out of the 43.6 million tonnes that are treated in the EU, 13 %
are effectively recycled11 with the rest being incinerated (55 %) or landfilled (32 %) (see Figure 3).
8 16% of these 30 million tonnes were exported to countries outside the EU.
9 SYSTEMIQ (2022) estimates a similar gap in the range of between 8-15 Mt.
10 Including approximately 1.6 million tons that were exported to countries outside the EU.
11 This figure includes plastics recycled overseas. Notably, according to the study there are some small quantities
of plastic waste that end up in the environment and oceans, though it is difficult to provide precise estimates
(Material Economics, 2022).
130
171
234
292
349
413
460
86
115
156
204
255
308
353
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Plastics Use Plastics Waste
44
78
94
107
2019
7 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Figure 3. Share of plastic waste treatment methods in the EU27+3
Source: Plastics Europe (2021), Material Economics (2022). Note: The diagram on the left-hand side illustrates the different
routes of treatment of plastic waste for the EU plus the UK, Switzerland, and Norway in 2020 reported by Plastics Europe
(2021), while the right-hand side diagram reveals the data published by Material Economics (2022).
Notably, reuse of plastics is currently limited to certain applications, for example plastic
containers and crates (Al-Salem et al., 2009). Data on reuse of plastics is generally scarce as it
is difficult to develop an account of plastics streams included in products that are traded in
second-hand markets or exchanges between consumers12 (Hsu et al., 2021).
Looking into the plastic demand and waste figures, one can notice some further divergences.
One reason for this trend can be attributed to the lifespan of different applications of plastics
which varies considerably according to the type of application and the sector used. Given the
different product lifetimes of the various applications of plastics in different sectors, there are
large differences across plastics demand and plastics waste produced across sectors of
different applications that are highlighted in Figure 4. For example, while packaging
products13 14 have a mean product lifetime of only 0.5 years, plastic materials in the building &
construction sector can have a lifespan of 35 years15 (Geyer et al., 2017). The usual explanation
for the difference between plastics demand and waste streams in different sectors (see
12 Hsu et al. (2021) estimate that around 183 kt of plastic waste were reused across the EU in 2016, though this
figure is a conservative estimate as it does not include informal and second-hand exchanges.
13 Considering the plastics waste volumes by sector in the EU27+3 countries in 2018, the packaging sector accounts
for the largest share of waste volumes with 17,751 kt, while waste volumes in other sectors lie below 2,000 kt
(Plastics Europe 2019; Deloitte Belgium, 2021).
14 Notably, according to EEA (2022), packaging waste is the only plastic waste stream for which data has been
extensively documented since there is a dedicated piece of EU legislation in place targeting this stream (i.e. the
Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive).
15 SYSTEMIQ (2022) reports that plastic materials in the buildings and construction sector could last up to 100
years.
Recycling;
35%
Landfill;
23%
Incineration
with energy
recovery; 42%
Plastics Europe (2022)
Out of 29.5 million tonnes
Recycling;
13%
Landfill;
32%
Incineration
with energy
recovery ;
55%
Material Economics (2022)
Out of 43.6 million tonnes
8 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
Figure 4) is the long lifespan of some products and the development of in-use stocks of plastics
in some sectors (e.g. plastic in cars, buildings, and household goods).
However, according to SYSTEMIQ (2022) there are additional possible explanations to this
trend16. Firstly, the amount of plastics in mixed waste streams could be significantly larger
compared to what is usually accounted for as also discussed above. Secondly, the average
product lifetime of plastics products may be underestimated. Thirdly, there are higher levels of
exports of secondary goods than reported. Effectively, 8 to 15 Mt of plastics are estimated to
remain unaccounted for in the reported waste statistics (SYSTEMIQ, 2022).
Figure 4. Plastics demand and waste in the EU27+3 countries (2018)
Source: Plastics Europe (2019) and Deloitte Belgium (2021). Demand and waste of plastic products across selected sectors in
the EU 27 countries plus the UK, Switzerland, and Norway.
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THROUGHOUT THE PLASTIC LIFECYCLE
With the continuous surge of global plastics use and waste during the last decades, several
environmental challenges have emerged along their different lifetime stages of plastics, from
the extraction of feedstocks to the production of polymers and the handling of end-of life
plastic products.
The extraction of fossil feedstocks like coal, crude oil, and natural gas, represents the first major
determinant of environmental impacts along the plastic products value chain. The impact
generated by the extraction process varies according to the feedstock type and technology
used. Further, in gasification and refining processes, these feedstocks are converted to obtain
petrochemicals. The two most common petrochemicals are naphtha, derived from crude oil,
16 According to SYSTEMIQ’s (2022) study, calculating the in use-stock growth based on the gap between plastics
demand and waste streams can yield inconsistent results.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Packaging Building &
Construction
Automotive Electrical &
Electronics
Household,
Leisure &
Sports
Agriculture,
Farming &
Gardening
Others
Kt
Demand in kt 2018 Waste volumes in 2018
9 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
and ethane, derived from natural gas. In a second stage, these petrochemicals are processed
into monomers in a steam cracker (Hamilton et al., 2019).
Fossil fuel combustion for the supply of power and heat in these industrial processes, in
particular the processing stage, is the first and largest source of emissions17. Secondly,
produced monomers (e.g., olefins) are then bound to produce the different plastic polymer
types. The emissions occurring during the production process vary depending on feedstock and
the polymer type produced. Due to the high energy intensity required, the production of virgin
PS and PET polymers generates higher emissions compared to low, medium, and high-density
polyethylene types (Hamilton et al., 2019; Ren et al., 2006; Charles & Kimman., 2023).
Further impacts emerge at the end of life of plastics, which largely depend on the way these
products are collected and managed. When end-of life plastics are landfilled, GHG emissions
occur during the transporting stage and the handling of plastics prior to reaching the landfill
point. Various environmental impacts then emerge during the landfilling of plastics. These
include leaching of toxic substances into the soil and waterways18, as well as emissions from
the degradation of plastics (Hamilton et al., 2019). Notably, the rate of surface degradation of
end-of life plastics is contingent on the type of polymer19 (Chamas et al., 2020).
Incineration is an alternative treatment option to landfilling that also entails significant
environmental and human health impacts. Specifically, it is estimated that it generates
approximately 38 million tons of net CO2 emissions in the EU annually after subtracting the
emissions that are offset by replacing other fossil fuels20 (Material Economics, 2022). Even
though the incineration of plastics can replace power generation from other fossil feedstock
fuels, the carbon benefits of this process decrease as the share of electricity from renewable
energy sources increases (Hamilton et al., 2019).
Besides the impacts occurring at different stages of the plastics’ lifetime, the leakage of plastics
waste into the environment has been a key cause of concern in the EU and globally. Plastic
waste that is not managed properly could reach inland waterways, wastewater systems or be
transported by wind and tides to end up in the ocean (Jambeck et al., 2015). The polymers that
represent the largest share of mismanaged plastics are those with the highest demand, namely
PP, LDPE and PE-MD-HD, representing a share of 45 % of all lost macroplastics (Ryberg et al.,
17 The largest part of these emissions stems from the steam cracking process, in which feedstocks, for instance
ethane and naphtha, are heated in cracker furnaces to produce olefins (Hamilton et al., 2019; Charles & Kimman.,
2023; Cabernard et al., 2022).
18 Landfilling PVC and other polymer types that are contained in waste of electric and electronic equipment
(WEEE), for example, entails a high risk of contaminating soil and waterways through the release of leachable
components through rainwater when being landfilled (Lange, 2021).
19 During landfilling and composting, the surface of LDPE degrades up to 11 times higher than PE-HD-MD, while
for PET, PVC, and PS no significant degradation occurs (Chamas et al., 2020).
20 Plastics are typically incinerated in a co-process, burning mixed waste together with coal or biomass in municipal
waste-to-energy plants. Therefore, the emissions generated from the incineration process depend on the energy
feedstock used as well as the composition of the mixed waste (Hamilton et al., 2019).
10 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
2019). Microplastics21 are another important contributor to the leakage of plastics to the
environment. According to Ryberg et al. (2019), they represent around one third of the 9.2 Mt
of plastics that are annually lost in the environment22. Those are submicron pieces of plastic
can leak into the environment for example during the usage or abrasion of plastic products
(Lange, 2021).
2.4 MECHANICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS
To alleviate the environmental impact and resource inefficiency of plastics there is a consensus
among scholars that augmenting recycling should be targeted above energy recovery methods
and landfilling, besides reducing plastics production, promoting reuse, and raising consumer
awareness on waste handling. The standard route for plastic waste recycling, that was already
commercialised globally in the 1970s, is mechanical recycling (Al-Salem et al. 2009). Within the
mechanical recycling process, five major steps need to be followed to convert plastic waste into
secondary raw materials. First, the waste is separated and sorted according to its shape,
density, size, colour or chemical composition. Second, if the plastic is not processed where it is
sorted, it runs through a bailing process to facilitate its transport. Third, all contaminants of the
plastic waste must be removed within a decontamination process (such as washing). Fourth,
grinding reduces the size of the plastic products to flakes. Lastly, the flakes are reprocessed into
a granulate within a compounding and pelletising process to facilitate its use for converters to
produce new products (Ragaert et al. 2017).
The literature concludes that mechanical recycling techniques are usually the preferred
recycling routes for end-of-life plastics from an environmental point of view (see section 4.2).
Nevertheless, these processes have their own limitations. A key constraint is that mechanical
recycling can only cover certain (homogenous) plastic streams and requires extensive pre-
sorting and cleaning. Thus, it is still unsuitable for a considerable share of collected end-of-life
plastics (Padhan & Sreeram, 2019; Al-Salem et al., 2009). Furthermore, mechanically recycled
plastics tend to continuously degrade in the process and are thus unable to retain their quality
after one or more recycling loops. This is especially problematic with regards to food-grade and
contact-sensitive plastic applications. There may be examples of technologies where high-
purity mechanical recycling is able to generate food-grade output, such as for PET and,
potentially, polystyrene (Welle, 2023a and 2023b). However, in many other cases, mechanical
recycling faces difficulties in complying with requirements for food-grade and contact-sensitive
applications (Padhan & Sreeram, 2019). Despite the potential for mechanical recycling to be
further improved through innovation and design for recycling (see section 5.1), and increased
collection and sorting (see section 5.2), it is likely that some waste streams will continue to be
21 Microplastics are ‘[…] often defined as plastic particles up to 5 mm in dimensions with no defined lower size
limit’ (Leslie et al., 2022, p. 1).
22 Tires represent the largest source of microplastics leaked into to the environment, with a share of 47 % percent,
followed by road markings with 19 % and city dust with 15 % (Ryberg et al., 2019).
11 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
untreatable via mechanical recycling, especially when a certain level of output quality is
required. This brings forward the need for complementary recycling approaches for plastics.
3. CHEMICAL RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES AND APPLICATIONS
As previously discussed, while mechanical recycling plays a vital role in dealing with plastic
products at EoL, there are limits to what mechanical recycling can achieve. A group of recycling
processes that focus on changing the chemical structure of plastics to produce basic chemicals
or other feedstocks and are referred to as chemical recycling technologies are considered as
complementary solution to mechanical recycling. Although these processes have been in the
development stage for decades, they have been recently increasingly discussed in both
academic and policy circles (Quicker et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2021). Nevertheless, there is still a
lack of clarity and common understanding among stakeholders about what chemical recycling
is and where its potential lies (Manžuch et al., 2021).
Chemical recycling is an umbrella term describing a range of different technologies to recycle
EoL plastics. Different conceptualisations of CR have emerged in existing reports and studies.
Most of these approaches agree that CR refers to a group of technologies that induce changes
in the chemical structure of plastics, via chemical agents, catalysts, or thermochemical
processes (Crippa et al., 2019). The aim of these diverse chemical engineering processes is to
produce basic chemicals or feedstock for the chemical industry that can be turned into plastics
(Rollinson & Oladejo, 2020). As this definition is rather broad, it is applicable to a range of
different conversion technologies and recycling pathways.
There is debate on which technologies can fit under the umbrella of CR, with varying
categorisations existing in technology reports and research papers. Here, we distinguish
between two different categories of technologies, depending on the level of decomposition of
the plastic waste input: thermal depolymerisation (e.g. pyrolysis and gasification) and chemical
depolymerisation. These different technologies can treat different input streams, vary in their
specific processes and result in different outputs. Some other sources also include solvent-
based purification23 in the list of technologies that can fit under the chemical recycling
umbrella. In this report, however, we have not included it in the list of core chemical recycling
technologies, since it does not break down plastic waste further than the polymer stage, thus
essentially not changing the chemical composition.
23 In the process of solvent-based purification, plastic waste is shredded and dissolved in a solvent that selectively
targets the polymer, but not the contaminants. Thus, the contaminants retain their solid state and can be
separated from the dissolved polymer. After several purification steps, the polymer is recovered from the solution
through precipitation, i.e. re-solidifying the polymer with an anti-solvent (Li et al., 2022). The pure streams of
polymer created in this process can then be reformulated into plastic.
12 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
3.1 THERMAL DEPOLYMERISATION: GASIFICATION AND PYROLYSIS
Thermal depolymerisation processes utilise heat treatment to convert polymers into multiple
simpler molecules. Thermal depolymerisation either decomposes plastics to the corresponding
monomers, as is the case with, e.g., polystyrene, or further down into hydrocarbon molecules,
depending on the polymer input (see Figure 1). High temperatures24 are used to decontaminate
and degrade plastic waste inputs. Still, further purification steps are often needed before
converting the resulting hydrocarbons into monomers (Hann & Connock, 2020). Thermal
depolymerisation technologies can produce recycled polymers of virgin-like quality and address
the issue of food-grade and contact-sensitive recycling, but they entail yield losses which
depend on the specific technology and the quality of waste input. Whilst pyrolysis converts
certain polymers into monomers, such as polystyrene into styrene, thermal depolymerisation
converts many polymers into chemical intermediates, such as light hydrocarbons and co-
products that can also be used to produce fuels – a point of much contestation among
stakeholders. Moreover, additional by-products (such as char and gas) lead to production
losses and varying yields (Hann & Connock, 2020).
While there are different thermal depolymerisation techniques, two of the most discussed
approaches in the literature and among stakeholders are pyrolysis and gasification. These are
the main techniques for chemically recycling polyolefins and polystyrene, with the diversity of
possible output products described above.
3.1.1 Pyrolysis
The process of pyrolysis (or cracking) uses heat (typically in the range of 300–650°C) and an
oxygen-deprived environment to break down polymers and obtain simpler hydrocarbon
molecules in the form of pyrolysis oil and non-condensable gases. The pyrolysis oil can in
exceptional cases already contain monomers (specifically derived from polystyrene waste) or
can be converted to monomers for plastics manufacturing or for other petrochemical products
in a steam cracker or refinery (Crippa et al., 2019). Pyrolysis can treat mixed polyolefin plastic
waste (including multilayers and multi-materials) with higher contamination levels than is
possible for mechanical recycling (Li et al., 2022), even though it has its own limitations in terms
of the quality of feedstock it can use (Kusenberg et al., 2022a). To meet current steam cracker
specifications, pyrolysis oils generated from post-consumer plastic waste needs to undergo
different pre-treatment and upgrading steps25. Only then can pyrolysis oil be integrated into
existing petrochemical sites, to partially substitute naphtha. In contrast to (controlled) chemical
depolymerisation (see section 3.2 below), the scission of bonds usually occurs at random points
in the polymer chain (Hann & Connock, 2020). Therefore, the resulting pyrolysis oil is composed
24 Different temperature ranges are recorded in the literature. Generally, pyrolysis techniques utilise lower
temperatures than gasification techniques. Pyrolysis temperatures range from 300–650°C, while gasification
temperatures are at around 500–1300°C (Saeba et al., 2020).
25 According to the literature, hydrogen-based technologies are currently the most effective upgrading technique
(Kusenberg et al., 2022a).
13 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
of a range of hydrocarbon products and requires further purification before it can be used as a
feedstock for polymer production (Hann & Connock, 2020).
As of now, pyrolysis is mainly used for mixed polyolefins (PE and PP), i.e. packaging, bags, films
and mixed plastic waste, as well as polystyrene (PS), e.g. from insulation and food packaging,
or for rubber tires (see Figure 5) (Hann & Connock, 2020). Compared to mechanical recycling,
pyrolysis has a higher potential26 to utilise waste from mixed streams for food contact
applications (Kusenberg et al., 2022b). A challenge linked to the application of pyrolysis
processes refers to the steady flow of consistent quality feedstock in large amounts needed to
make the complex purification and separation processes economically viable (Qureshi et al.,
2020; Ragaert et al., 2017). The treatment of by-products generated throughout the process
can also be challenging and costly. Despite these challenges, there have recently been
increasing examples of pyrolysis plants operating on pilot and commercial scale, aiming to
produce chemical feedstocks for plastics manufacturing or other chemicals. In some cases,
these plants combine their processes with fuel production to increase the economic viability of
their operations (Hann & Connock, 2020).
3.1.2 Gasification
Gasification heats plastic waste (around 500–1300°C) under limited oxygen supply in order to
generate so-called syngas, a mix of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Syngas can be used as a
feedstock to a range of chemical processes (SYSTEMIQ, 2022), including conversion into
polymers via intermediates such as methanol or light hydrocarbons. As a result of the high
operating temperature, gasification technologies have a higher feedstock flexibility. In theory,
any plastic can be used as a feedstock for gasification (see Figure 5), and the process mostly
targets mixed plastic streams. Gasification technologies have, however, mainly been
commercially applied to fuel production instead of plastic-to-plastic recycling (Hann & Connock,
2020). Moreover, there are significant carbon losses that occur from the process of partial
oxidation of plastic waste.
As discussed during the CEPS stakeholder meetings, several gasification projects are currently
in a planning phase, and research is focused on increasing feedstock flexibility, efficiency and
scale (Lee et al., 2021). For example, the Canadian company Enerkem has started several
projects in Spain and the Netherlands to produce ethanol and methanol from sorted municipal
solid waste (Zero Waste Europe, 2019).
3.2 CHEMICAL DEPOLYMERISATION
Chemical depolymerisation turns plastics back into their monomer or oligomer (short polymer)
building blocks. During the process, polymer chains are broken down under controlled
conditions through the use of chemicals (Hong & Chen, 2017). Afterwards, oligomers or
26 It should be noted, however, that quality of feedstock is also an issue for the pyrolysis process and beyond
certain contamination levels there could be risks for the industrial process (Kusenberg et al., 2022a).
14 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
monomers are recovered from the reaction mixture and separated from contaminants (Hann
& Connock, 2020). The recovered molecules are then used, separately or blended with virgin
monomer, to create virgin-grade polymers (Crippa et al., 2019). Thus, chemical
depolymerisation can address the issue of food-grade recycling requirements. There are
different chemical depolymerisation techniques, depending on the chemical agent used for
polymer scission. Examples include glycolysis, hydrolysis and methanolysis (Ragaert et al., 2017).
Potential feedstock for chemical depolymerisation is depicted in Figure 5 and includes PA
(polyamide), PET (polyethylene terephthalate), PUR (polyurethane) and PLA (polylactic acid)
(Zero Waste Europe, 2019; Hann & Connock, 2020; Crippa et al., 2019). Treatable waste
streams thus include bottles, food packaging, textiles, mattresses, fishing lines and nets and
beverage cups. Technologies for additional polymers, such as polystyrene (PS), are coming into
play as well. A disadvantage of chemical depolymerisation is its limitation in processing pre-
sorted and, for economic reasons, relatively clean, mono-streams (i.e., uncontaminated by
other polymers or non-polymers).
Despite the existence of a variety of different chemical depolymerisation technologies currently
being tested, commercialisation of these technologies at scale has been limited, and many
existing plants are at the pilot stage (Hann & Connock, 2020). Most industrial pilots
depolymerise PET from packaging and textiles (Hann & Connock, 2020; Zero Waste Europe,
2019). A few companies have developed chemical depolymerisation processes for recycling
PUR (polyurethane) foams.
Figure 5. Chemical recycling technologies and feedstock
Source: Own design based Crippa et al. (2019) and von Vacano et al. (2022), as well as stakeholder inputs.
15 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
3.3 COMPLEMENTARITY WITH MECHANICAL RECYCLING
Chemical recycling technologies have potential to treat more heterogenous plastic waste
streams with certain levels of contamination that cannot be managed by mechanical recycling
processes (Dogu et al., 2021). Still, these technologies also face limitations. First, the high
energy-intensity of the processes renders them economically challenging and dependent on
demand for recycled feedstocks. Another issue is that of production losses and resulting varying
yields (which are highly impacted by feedstock quality27) and, potentially, a range of co-
products such as fuels (Hann & Connock, 2020). Finally, CR plants require stable and continuous
feedstock supply in sufficiently large quantities in order to be economically viable (Ragaert et
al., 2017). Diverting plastic waste from landfills and incinerators to recycling routes can be a
challenging task, though policy developments such as the inclusion of incinerators in the EU
Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and mandatory recycled content targets can provide
incentives for diverting plastic feedstock to recycling.
While there is a need for diverting plastic waste from landfills and incinerators to recycling
routes, one key aspect is how mechanical and chemical recycling technologies can advance
together while avoiding feedstock competition. This need was also repeatedly expressed by
different stakeholders at the stakeholder events organised by CEPS. Potential levers for
complementarity can occur at the levels of input, process as well as output.
At the input level, potential for complementarity lies in differences in input waste stream
capacities. Mechanical recycling is not suitable for polluted, highly degraded, complex or
heterogeneous plastic. Although most CR technologies also require certain levels of
homogeneity and purity of feedstock, they could generally allow for the processing of some
inputs that cannot be treated by mechanical recycling, as an alternative to incineration and
landfilling.
Concerning the process, CR is more energy-intensive and expensive than mechanical recycling.
Therefore, it seems unlikely that there would be a competition with mechanical recycling unless
the output quality of CR was significantly higher. Still, stakeholders have argued about the need
for regulatory safeguards in order to ensure that the more environmentally friendly recycling
process is always preferred (Zero Waste Europe, 2019).
Regarding the output level, via the mechanical route, polymers cannot be recycled infinitely
without significant reduction of quality and properties. Thus, mechanical recycling generally
leads to downcycling polymers over time and cannot replace the production of virgin polymers.
As described above, CR technologies may have the potential to retain better polymer quality
and properties over time.
As such, an opportunity for complementarity of both recycling routes may arise from recycling
materials through CR either as an alternative to mechanical recycling, where food-grade
27 See Gendell and Lahme (2022).
16 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
recycling or virgin quality due to safety reasons (e.g., automotive plastics) is required, or as an
added step to the mechanical recycling process, to enable a circular plastic economy.
Furthermore, mechanical recycling generally is not able to deal with the challenge of polymer
contamination, whereas some of the chemical recycling technologies have the capacity to
effectively handle contaminated input streams (Zero Waste Europe, 2019; Hann & Connock,
2020).
4. FUTURE TRENDS: WHAT WILL PLASTIC VOLUMES LOOK LIKE IN THE
COMING YEARS?
As discussed in the previous sections, only a share of plastic waste is currently recycled, mainly
through mechanical recycling processes. A key question in this context is how plastic volumes
will evolve in the near and long-term future, and what different recycling processes could
contribute. Different projections or scenarios assessing the evolution of both plastic production
and waste volumes in the EU have been recently developed. Whilst uncertainty remains as to
the impacts of policy and technology developments on future plastics trends, forward-looking
assessments of this kind provide a useful indication of the scale of plastic recycling capacity
required to meet EU targets, the types of plastic waste streams that are likely to increase the
most and, crucially, the recycling technologies mix that can more effectively process them.
Building above these assessments and other existing evidence, this section highlights the major
drivers and examines the relative policy implications.
4.1 PLASTIC PRODUCTION AND USE
According to Plastic Europe (2022), plastic production in the EU27+3 was 57.2 Mt in 2021. If
solely based on the historical trend of plastics production since the early 2000’s28 (i.e., in the
absence of major policy or technology shifts), this volume would increase to about 63 Mt in
2030 and 77 Mt in 205029. However, as the EU builds momentum on policies for plastic
circularity, the growth in plastic production will likely be more moderate. For instance, a
significantly more conservative figure is reported by Material Economics (2019; 2020), whose
net-zero industry scenario expects EU plastic production to reach only 62 Mt by 2050.
Figure 6 below presents both the evolution of waste production based solely on historical
trends and the estimates by Material Economics.
28 See Eurostat (2022).
29 These estimates are based on a 1 % CAGR assumption from now until 2050, in line with the historical evolution
trend observed in ‘manufacturing of plastics in primary forms’ in the EU27 from 2000 to 2021, reported by Eurostat
(2022).
17 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Figure 6. Historical and expected evolution of EU plastic production
Notes: Scope is EU27+3. Production includes primary production and mechanical recycling output.
Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Plastics Europe (2022), Eurostat (2022) and Material Economics (2020).
To showcase how circular economy policies can impact future plastic use30, the OECD (2022)
outlines three policy scenarios with varying level of ambition. The Baseline scenario assumes
no major actions are taken towards plastic circularity, and estimates EU plastic use to increase
from the current 66 Mt to about 75 Mt by 2030. This trend aligns with the plastic production
‘business as usual’ scenario described above in the short-term, though the curve is expected to
become increasingly steeper in the long term, exceeding 100 Mt of plastic use in the mid-
2040s31.
In the Regional Action scenario – which assumes a mix of fiscal and regulatory policies to be
applied at all plastics life-stages, yet with different ambitions among OECD and non-OECD
countries – a slightly slower uptake in plastic use in EU countries is foreseen (-7 % in 2030 and
-14 % in 2050 compared to the Baseline scenario). Finally, the Global Action scenario – where
policy action is adopted with more ambitious targets, more rapidly and at a global scale –
foresees plastic use in the EU to decrease to 59 Mt in 2030 and only increase thereafter up to
80 Mt in 2050 (-21 % in 2030 and -26 % in 2050, compared to the Baseline scenario). In all three
scenarios, plastic use is expected to increase in 2050 irrespective of the ambition of circular
policies for plastics. The scenarios are depicted in Figure 7.
30 It should be noted that the figures by the OECD (2022) do not refer to plastic production but plastic use. While
these quantities are not directly comparable, it can reasonably assumed the two to have fairly similar evolutions
over time.
31 OECD (2022)’s Baseline Scenario foresees a 1.37 % CAGR of plastic use from 2021 to 2030, and of 1.85 % 2030
to 2050 in the EU27.
62.6
76.3
58.6
62.0
57.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mt
‘Business as usual’ scenario (1% CAGR)
Material Economics (2020) net-zero industry scenario
Historical
18 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
Figure 7. Historical and expected evolution of EU plastic use
Notes: Scope is EU-27.
Source: Authors’ elaboration based on OECD (2022).
Over the last 20 years, the major driver of EU plastics’ production has been the packaging
sector, which accounts today for about 40 % of the whole EU plastic demand32 (Plastics Europe,
2022). While future plastic demand is likely to rise across all its applications, the OECD (2022)
expects the global growth of plastics demand to be mostly driven by three predominant
segments, namely packaging, construction and transport. In particular, transport is expected to
see the largest relative growth across sectors – x3.2 times by 2060 compared to 2019 levels –
with packaging and construction growing by 2.7 and 2.5 times over the same period,
respectively (OECD, 2022). SYSTEMIQ (2022) reports similar trends in the EU context, yet with
a more prominent role of construction over the automotive sector. For the former, a 48 %
increase in plastic demand is foreseen by 2050 (from 10 to 15 Mt), as a result of a rapidly
increasing plastic use within the sector, e.g. for insulation purposes. As for the automotive,
plastic demand is expected to grow by 25 % by 2050, again resulting from an increasing plastic
intensity in products (up to a third more plastic per vehicle by 2050) (SYSTEMIQ, 2022).
In terms of polymers, the above trends are likely to reflect an increasing use among those
mostly employed within the fastest-growing sectors, such as PP (packaging) PET (packaging and
automotive) and PVC (construction) (OECD, 2022).
32 Meant as demand from plastic converters.
69
93
74.8
108.0
59
80
66.1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mt
Regional action scenario
Baseline Scenario
Global ambition scenario
Historical
19 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
4.2 PLASTIC WASTE GENERATION
As shown in the previous sections, there have been different assessments on plastic waste
generation in the EU, with varying methodologies and assumptions employed. This section
refers to ‘reported’ plastic waste volumes, which according to Plastic Europe (2022) currently
lay at 29.5 Mt33. Taking into account the historical evolution of post-consumer plastic waste
reported by Plastics Europe, it can be estimated that in a ‘business as usual’ scenario this
volume could grow to roughly 33-34 Mt in 2030, and further to 43-44 Mt in 205034. Still, as we
saw for plastic production and use, the actual future trajectory of plastic waste volume is likely
to deviate from such a growth path depending on how ambitious the circular policies adopted
for plastics are.
Alternative scenarios looking at future development of plastic waste from the (non-industrial)
packaging, construction, household and automotive sectors in the EU have been developed by
SYSTEMIQ (2022)35. In a Current Action Scenario – which reflects current actions taken by
governments and industry to enhance plastic circularity – SYSTEMIQ expects plastic waste from
these sectors to increase from the 25.2 Mt in 2020 to 26.4 Mt in 2030 and 34.2 Mt in 205036.
Applying the same trajectory to the whole plastic waste group (i.e. assuming the same growth
path for sectors not in-scope, namely industrial packaging, agriculture and electronics), this
would lead to about 31.8 Mt in 2030 and 41.2 Mt in 2050. Notably, this would represent only
a marginal improvement compared to a business-as-usual scenario.
To quantify the impact of more ambitious policies, SYSTEMIQ (2022) also outlines a Circularity
Scenario, which sets the pathway to ‘substantially increase plastics system circularity’
(SYSTEMIQ 2022, p. 39). Based on this scenario – and again assuming the same trend for all
waste streams – overall plastic waste volume can be expected to decrease to 27.6 Mt in 2030
and further beyond towards 2040, and increase thereof up to 29.5 Mt (i.e., 2020 level) by
205037. Notably, over 10 Mt of plastic waste per year could be saved by 2050 under such an
ambitious scenario. Fig 8 below presents the estimates about future evolution of EU plastic
waste based on the historical trends (i.e. ‘business as usual’ scenario) and the two scenarios by
SYSTEMIQ.
33 As explained earlier, this figure is based on the historical plastic waste volumes and reflects official EU statistics,
but other studies have suggested that they do not capture the full amount of plastic waste generated within the
EU due to methodological issues. According to Material Economics (2022), up to 15 Mt of so called ‘missing
plastics’ should be added to the present plastic waste reported figure – i.e., about half of the reported volume.
SYSTEMIQ (2022) estimates that the plastic waste data gap in official statistics lies between 8-15 Mt.
34 This estimate is based on a 1.3 % CAGR, i.e. slightly higher than the 1 % CAGR assumed for future plastic
production.
35 Sectors out of scope of SYSTEMIQ (2022) assessment include industrial packaging, electronics and agriculture.
SYSTEMIQ estimates that altogether the sectors within the scope its assessment cover about 75 % of the EU
plastics demand, and 83 % of known post-consumer waste generation.
36 These figures are net of an expected decrease in plastic waste due to reduced plastic consumption, respectively
of a 1.4 Mt in 2030 and 1.6 Mt in 2050, compared to a baseline trajectory.
37 These figures, adapted to comprise all plastic waste groups, account for an expected decrease in plastic waste
resulting from the combined result to reduce plastic consumption and plastic substitution.
20 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
Figure 8. Historical and expected evolution of EU plastic waste
Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Plastics Europe (2022) and SYSTEMIQ (2022).
In terms of the contribution of different sectors to plastic waste generation, according to
Plastics Europe (2022) the current disaggregation sees the packaging sector being by far the
most important waste stream (61 %), followed by electrical and electronics tools (6 %) and the
building and construction sector (6 %) (See Section 1) 38. Looking at the future developments,
SYSTEMIQ (2022) – which nonetheless excludes agriculture, electronics as well as the industrial
packaging sectors from its assessment – foresees packaging plastics waste to still contribute for
the largest share of future plastic waste generation, but yet to lose ground to the household,
automotive and construction sectors. The construction sector in particular is expected to see
the largest growth of plastic waste generation (set to almost triple by 2050), followed by the
automotive sector (about +115 % over the same period). This will be the combined result of
the above-mentioned current (and expected future) tendency to increase plastic use in these
sectors, on one side, and the relatively long lifetimes of these plastic applications (15 to 100
years for the former, about 12 years for the latter) on the other, which leads to a significant
time lag before plastic production trends are reflected in waste volumes. A more stable growth
path is foreseen for the packaging sector (+23 % by 2050) and households goods sectors
(+36 %)39 .
38 It should be noted, however, that while Plastics Europe (2022) reports the ‘houseware, leisure and sports’
products group as having only a marginal impact (4 % of the total, i.e. about 1.4 Mt), according to SYSTEMIQ’s
(2022) assessment the contribution of the ‘household goods’ sector is significantly higher (about 5.2 Mt).
39 Plastic waste generation of household and packaging sectors assume a 1 % CAGR from now until 2050, in line
with historical evolution (SYSTEMIQ, 2022).
33.6
43.5
31.8
41.2
29.5
27.6
29.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Mt
Historical
BAU scenario (1.3% CAGR)
Current Actions Scenario (based on Systemiq (2022))
Circularity Screnario (based on Systemiq (2022))
21 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
4.3 PLASTIC WASTE TREATMENT
With regard to plastic waste treatment, over the last 15 years the EU has seen a steady
decrease in landfilled volumes, in parallel with the sustained growth of both recycling and
incineration. Of the 29.5 Mt of plastic waste collected today, about 12.4 Mt are used for energy
recovery (+77 % compared to 2006), 6.9 Mt are landfilled (-47 %) and 10.2 Mt are sent for
recycling40 (+117 %) (Plastics Europe, 2022). EU plastic recycling capacity is today almost
entirely based on mechanical recycling, with chemical recycling only playing a negligible role
(0.1-0.2 Mt). While these trends are likely to continue in the foreseeable future – with plastic
recycling capacity further expanding and landfilled volumes being gradually diverted towards
either recycling or incineration – the exact evolution of plastic waste treatment in the EU, for
instance in terms of the role of alternative recycling technologies, remains uncertain and
dependent on ongoing and future policy developments.
Different studies have investigated how future EU plastic waste treatment could evolve in
alternative scenarios. In SYSTEMIQ (2022) Current Actions Scenario, the combined output of
mechanical and chemical recycling capacity in the EU – i.e. net of material losses occurring
during the recycling processes – is expected to double from the current 3.5 Mt to about 7 Mt
by 2030, and almost triple by 2050 (10.4 Mt). Mechanical processes are expected to remain
the predominant recycling route (with 5.8 and 7.6 Mt of capacity in 2030 and 2050,
respectively), but chemical recycling output is also expected to grow (1.1 Mt by 2030 and
2.8 Mt by 2050). While landfilled volumes are expected to halve by 2050 (from the current
6.9 Mt to 3.6 Mt), the amount of plastic waste sent to incineration is expected to increase
(12.8 Mt in 2030 and 17.6 Mt in 2050).
In the more ambitious Circularity Scenario, SYSTEMIQ (2022) foresees a far larger role for
recycling, particularly chemical recycling, which is estimated to reach 3.1 Mt capacity by 2030
and 7.3 Mt by 2050 (i.e., 13% and 21% of the whole plastic waste volume, respectively).
Mechanical recycling capacity is also projected to increase faster, yet at a slower pace (5.9 Mt
in 2030, 9.8 Mt in 2050). Coupled with a substantial reduction in plastic consumption (up to
9 Mt saved in 2050, compared to the Current Actions Scenario) this increase in overall recycling
capacity would allow to substantially reduce the role of incineration (7.2 Mt of plastic waste in
2030 and only 2.3 Mt in 2050) and landfilling (3.2 Mt in 2030, and 0.8 Mt in 2050). The
evolution of future EU plastic waste recycling capacity up to 2030 has also been assessed by
Lease et al. (2022). The authors develop 5 alternative scenarios which are differentiated
acccording to the relative importance of mechanical and chemical recycling processes41.
40 Of these, roughly 1 Mt is exported for recycling and 9.1 Mt enter the recycling process in the EU-27+3 (Plastics
Europe, 2021).
41 The scenarios are defined as follows: in S1, best practices of waste collection, sorting and mechanical recycling
are widely applied throughout the EU, though only mechanical recycling is deployed. In S2, chemical recycling
outcompetes mechanical recycling, and all sorted plastic waste is assumed to be treated via chemical recycling. In
S3, chemical recycling is considered as a ‘sub-optimal’ alternative to mechanical processes, primarily dealing mixed
waste streams. In S4, chemical recycling is considered as a complementary technology to mechanical recycling,
used for waste streams that would otherwise be landfilled or incinerated. S5 is identical to S4 though accounts for
the ‘data gap’ in recorded plastic waste (Lase et al., 2023). Scenarios S1-S4 are shown in Figure 9.
22 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
Notably, the study shows how the largest outcome in terms of plastic waste volume recycled is
achieved when the two technologies coexist in the system – i.e. when neither of the two
becomes dominant (scenarios S3 and S4). In these two scenarios, the study estimates that
between 8.6 and 9.6 Mt of mechanical recycling capacity and between 3.1 and 3.6 Mt of
(plastic-to-plastic) chemical recycling capacity could be reached in the EU by 2030 (that is,
enough to process 15-17% of the overall plastic waste volume).
Finally, in Material Economics (2018) projections to 2050 chemical recycling is expected to
remain small compared to mechanical routes, being primarily used for waste streams that
cannot be easily treated via mechanical recycling. As such, 11 % of overall plastic waste is
projected to be chemically recycled, while 51 % is expected to be mechanically recycled. Figure
9 below shows all scenarios to 2030 and 2050 described above.
Figure 9. Breakdown of plastic waste treatment in 2030 and 2050, in Mt (above) and % (below)
Sources: Plastics Europe (2022); Material Economics (2018,2020); SYSTEMIQ (2022); Lase et al. (2023). Notes: Plastics Europe
(2022) and Material Economics (2022) refer to EU+3. SYSTEMIQ (2022) figures refer to EU27+1 and only consider packaging,
household goods, automotive and construction sectors, representing 83 % of the total plastic waste. Lase et al. (2023) refer to
EU27+3 in 2018 and only consider the 10 most used polymers within the packaging, agriculture, building and construction,
4.17 3.2 3.6
12.8
7.2
17.6
2.3
10.1
10.3
4.2 3.3 3.2 4.6
1.4
0.9
1.2
1.3
8.4
5.0 4.6
6.4
1.1
3.1
7.9
3.6 3.1
4.6
2.8
7.3
5.3
2.1
1.2
3.9
5.8
5.9
10.3 8.7 9.6
13.9
7.6
9.8
24.5
2.4
4.8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Mt
Not coll ected Reused
Substitution effect Reduced consum ption effect
Mechanically recycled Chemical recycling non plastic losses
Chemically recy cled (plastic-to -plastic) Other chemical recycling
Mismanaged / informal treatment Export ed
Residual treatment (landfill / incineration) Energy recovery / incineration
Landfilled
16% 14% 11%
48%
31%
56%
7% 21%
49%
20% 16% 15% 15%
5%
4%
4%
4%
40%
24% 22% 21%
4%
14%
38%
17% 15% 15%
9%
21% 11%
9%
11%
22% 26%
49% 41% 46% 45%
24%
28%
51%
5%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Current
Actions
Scen ario
Circularity
Scen ario
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Current
Actions
Scen ario
Circularity
Scen ario
Ambit ious
Circular
Scen ario
SYSTEMIQ (2022) Lase et al. (2023) SYSTEMIQ (2022) Material
Economics
(2018,2020)
2030 2050
2030
2050
23 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
electronics and automotive sectors, which represent about 60% of the total. Lase et al. (2023) S5 scenario and Material
Economics (2018,2022) account for the missing volume of plastic waste discussed in previous sections. These assessments may
include in their scope solvent-based purification for which as discussed in section 3 there is debate as to whether they should
fit under the umbrella of chemical recycling technologies.
Overall, the above scenarios suggest that a form of coexistence between mechanical and
chemical recycling processes is likely to be required to achieve an optimal systemic level of
plastics recycling, particularly in light of the increasing amount of plastics entering the system
in the coming years (see Section 4.1 – 4.2). While the projections on the volume of plastic waste
treated via chemical recycling processes vary considerably depending on the assumptions and
scope of the assessments, even the most conservative scenario foresees a substantial
expansion of chemical recycling capacity compared to current levels. If ambitious actions were
to be taken to increase plastics’ circularity and the role of chemical recycling, in fact, chemical
processing capacity could possibly exceed 3 Mt by 2030, and range from 5 to 7 Mt by 2050. In
relative terms, this implies that about 15 % of plastic waste could be turned into new plastics
via chemical recycling routes by 2030, and over 20 % in 2050.
5. ENABLING FUNCTIONING PLASTICS RECYCLING MARKETS
5.1 ECODESIGN FOR IMPROVED CIRCULARITY OF PLASTICS
The increasing compositional complexity and heterogeneity of many plastic products,
especially packaging, considerably affects collection, sorting and recycling rates. Specific plastic
design choices can make recycling processes more costly and affect both the quality and value
of recycled plastics (European Commission, 2018). Certain additives and colourants make it
increasingly difficult to mechanically recycle plastic packaging. The multi-layers of polymers and
the presence of certain additives also pose challenges for chemical recycling technologies42.
Design choices crucially influence how plastic products are managed at EoL and whether they
are reparable, reusable or recyclable, and how much virgin material will be necessary for a
potential second life. At the same time, the design or products with plastics also influences to
what extend these products can incorporate recycled content inputs (Ragaert et al., 2017).
Adopting ecodesign approaches for plastics therefore holds potential to deliver multiple
benefits including reduction of waste management costs, increase of overall recycling rates of
plastic, improvement of collection efficiency and improvement of recycling output quality
(European Commission, 2018; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Different ecodesign options
for plastics include using mono-materials instead of composites and multilayers, avoiding
additives or fillers that could contaminate the material and using as few different types of
42 For example, PVC layers in films can damage steam crackers and release toxins in pyrolysis processes (Hann &
Connock, 2020). In addition, chemical depolymerisation processes currently cannot process certain polymers, and
often require relatively clean and sorted feedstock – which is impeded by complex and multi-layered plastic
structures.
24 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
materials as possible (Van Doorsselaer, 2022). However, the specific design changes that might
be useful ultimately depend on the material and the application (Tabrizi, 2021).
While ecodesign approaches for plastics can have benefits for both mechanical and chemical
recycling technologies, the various technologies may have different design needs. With regard
to chemical recycling, feedstock composition needs vary between the different CR
technologies, as thermal depolymerisation can tackle more mixed and multi-layered input
materials than chemical depolymerisation (see Section 3.2). Moreover, even though thermal
depolymerisation processes can handle a broader range of plastic inputs, they too would
benefit from certain design choices. For example, research into depolymerisation behaviour of
plastic waste could help identify additives that make pyrolysis and gasification difficult, thereby
supporting design for chemical recycling (Dogu et al., 2021). Innovations in polymer design can
also support chemical depolymerisation. For instance, design for recycling can facilitate
selective depolymerisation under milder conditions, to separate polymers from blends, for
example, in textiles and mixed plastic wastes (Sánchez & Collinson, 2011). Simply put, polymers
can be designed in a way that depolymerisation is selectively triggered by different external
stimuli, such as temperature or light (Hatti-Kaul et al., 2020; Garcia, 2016). However, polymers
that can be easily depolymerised may exhibit undesired thermal and mechanical properties and
decreased material performance (Hong & Chen, 2017). Therefore, more research in this area
is needed.
Design for mechanical recycling may aim to anticipate different waste management needs than
design for chemical recycling. By adapting plastic design with a view to its EoL management,
more valuable plastic waste could be captured by the collection and sorting infrastructure
(World Economic Forum et al., 2016), and mechanical recycling processes could be facilitated,
thus minimising process losses and increasing recyclate quality. Relevant plastic design
considerations include, for example, simplifying material formulations and combinations,
designing for facilitated dismantling and disassembly, and avoiding specific chemical additives
(Le Blevennec et al., 2019).
The different design needs for chemical and mechanical recyclability raise the question of how
to best implement ecodesign in practice. Of course, design choices not only depend on plastic
recycling options, but also on product purposes and end markets. A further aspect that needs
to be considered is that both mechanical and chemical recycling technologies have not reached
the limits of innovation. Added to this, a recent global assessment by OECD of patented
innovations in plastics identifies low levels of innovation at the plastic design stage to improve
recycling43 and reuse (Dussaux & Agrawala, 2022). This implies that there is significant room
for improving the design of plastics and the overall efficiency of different processes. In line with
the priorities of the waste hierarchy, design for improved durability and reparability and
increased lifetimes of plastics should be prioritised in order to support waste prevention
43 Interestingly, according to the assessment, the majority of plastic recycling patents globally have been issued
for mechanical recycling and sorting, while only limited patents have been issued for plastic-to-plastic chemical
recycling (though there have been some signs of growth recently) (Dussaux & Agrawala, 2022).
25 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
(Watkins et al., 2019). Design for recycling would be the subsequent design option, considering
both the aspect of designing plastics that can be more effectively recycled at EoL and the
question of how to incorporate recycled polymers in new products. Combining these two
objectives in the development of design requirements can deliver the higher benefits. Such
design requirements should be based on an assessment of the resource efficiency and climate
change benefits of the specific design options applied for different product groups in order to
achieve the higher overall environmental benefits (Ragaert et al., 2017).
5.2 IMPROVING SORTING AND COLLECTION
As discussed in the previous sections, a large share of EoL plastics today is either incinerated
for energy generation or landfilled. On top this, high volumes of plastic are lost in the sorting
and recycling process. One reason for low recycling rates across Europe are the insufficient
collection and sorting systems in place. As new plastics are developed to allow for improved
applications, such as food preservation, the complexity of the materials increases. This leads to
challenges for collection, sorting and recycling – both mechanical and chemical recycling,
depending on the specific technology. Systems and technologies face difficulties in adapting to
continuously developing materials and products, while consumers struggle to understand how
to correctly separate household plastic waste (Crippa et al., 2019). To divert recyclable plastic
waste from disposal and increase recycling rates, improving current collection, sorting and pre-
treatment schemes is crucial (Tallentire & Steubing, 2020; Bapasola et al., 2023).
5.2.1 Current collection and sorting practices for different types of plastics
Plastic packaging makes up the majority of post-consumer plastic waste. On average, the share
of packaging collected for recycling (i.e. the collection rate) ranges from 40 to 50 % in the EU
(Bapasola et al., 2023). Given that only a fraction of collected waste ends up being recycled due
to process losses, this rate would need to increase considerably to meet the 55 % recycling
target for plastic packaging waste, set in the European Commission’s proposal for a Packaging
and Packing Waste Regulation 44. Even countries with a high efficiency of separate collection,
such as Germany and Belgium, are likely to miss the 2030 target included in the Packaging and
Packing Waste Directive (Bapasola et al., 2023).
Moreover, current collection and sorting practices display stark variations across and within
Member States. Plastic waste is either pre-sorted by consumers at the household level (source
separation), or collected commingled with other types of waste (Miranda et al., 2013). In
addition, some regions have implemented Deposit Return Systems (DRS), financially
incentivising consumers to return EoL beverage containers to a collection point. Source-
separated or commingled waste is then usually collected either through kerbside collection or
through bring banks, i.e. decentralised collection points with big containers for recyclables
(Clausen et al., 2018). In a next step, plastic waste is sorted in a materials recovery
44 The proposal was released in November 2022 as a revision of the existing Packaging and Packaging Waste
Directive (PPWD), with the aim to curb rising plastic waste and to increase circularity (European Commission,
2022).
26 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
facility (MRF), using different technologies and pre-treatment steps, including ballistic
separation and sensor-based sorting (Clausen et al., 2018). Depending on whether the plastic
was collected in single streams or commingled, more pre-treatment steps may be necessary to
allow for high-quality inputs for recycling. While commingled collection can reduce collection
costs and is easier to understand for end users, thus increasing capture rates, it also makes
cross-contamination and decreases in material quality more likely (Miranda et al., 2013).
Differences between collection practices occur across plastic waste streams, and even within
the same polymer. For instance, while PET bottles usually serve as a best practice example for
effective waste management, overall PET recycling rates are low. Only one quarter of all PET
waste in Europe is recycled, despite average recycling rates of 50-55 % for clear PET beverage
bottles (SYSTEMIQ, 2023). This is partly due to the fact that beverage bottles only make up
around half of the European PET consumption. The rest are textiles and trays, of which only 10
and 20 %, respectively, are sent for recycling.
The comparatively high recycling rates of clear PET bottles are a result of widespread collection
and sorting facilities, as well DRS in some Member States, such as Germany and Norway. Still,
collection rates of PET bottles vary significantly across Europe, ranging from below 40 % to
above 90 % (SYSTEMIQ, 2023). Countries with a functional DRS are estimated to have double
the collection rate of countries without DRS (Eunomia and Zero Waste Europe, 2022). Such
unharmonised collection systems, along with a lack of dedicated collection schemes and sorting
processes for textiles and trays, contribute to varying collection rates of PET waste streams in
Europe (SYSTEMIQ, 2023). To achieve the 77 % collection target for 2025 set by the Single-Use-
Plastics (SUP) Directive, let alone the 90 % target for 2029, current rates will need to be
improved in many Member States.
Waste collection may be even more difficult for other types of plastic packaging. Post-consumer
flexible plastics (PCFP), i.e. films mainly serving as consumer packaging, are considered difficult
to recycle (Lase et al., 2022). They consist of a mixture of polymers, mainly LDPE, LLDPE and PP,
but can also be multi-layered and include other polymers such as PET and PA. Due to this
complexity and large amounts of contaminants (Kol et al., 2021), packaging waste is expensive
to collect and often ends up incinerated, landfilled or exported (SYSTEMIQ, 2023). The current
European waste management system mainly targets rigid plastics. Only in a few Member
States, including the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium, is PCFP source separated (i.e.,
manually pre-sorted at the household level) together with rigid plastics packaging, beverage
cartons and metals (Lase et al., 2022). Otherwise, PCFP is directly sent for sorting at an MRF
(Bashirgonbadi et al., 2022). Improving the waste management infrastructure of flexible
packaging waste could effectively contribute to reaching higher recycling rates (Lase et al.,
2022). To improve the current collection and sorting systems and, thereby, ultimately achieve
higher recycling rates of EoL plastics, a range of innovations and practices have been proposed.
27 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
5.2.2 Innovations and practices for improved collection and sorting
One main hurdle to improving collection, sorting and recycling capacity in Europe are the
varying infrastructure and practices between and even within Member States. On the one
hand, adapting the collection and sorting systems to the regional context has certain
advantages, since local circumstances vary per region. On the other hand, however, such a
fragmentation can lead to lower recycling rates, not least because of lack of household
compliance for pre-sorting due to confusing rules (Burgess et al., 2021). To improve current
waste management, it may be beneficial to take into account both of these aspects;
harmonising collection and sorting systems across Europe, while adapting specific solutions to
geographic and socioeconomic conditions (Crippa et al., 2019).
One option to harmonise and optimise current collection schemes on a more systemic level,
while allowing for regional differences in collection, is to improve mixed waste sorting (MWS).
MWS complements existing waste management by recovering recyclable materials from
residual waste not captured by separate collection or DRS. While DRS can ensure high collection
rates in the countries where they are implemented by providing financial incentives to
consumers to contribute to effective sorting, they are currently mostly limited to beverage
containers (TOMRA, 2022). Separate collection is relevant to separate different post-consumer
EoL products, such as paper, glass packaging, light-weight plastic packaging, textiles and organic
waste. Depending on local circumstances, it can be crucial to support recovery of recyclable
materials (Bapasola et al., 2023). Still, these systems are insufficient to significantly increase
recycling rates on their own (TOMRA, 2022).
Moving from broader systems to technologies, innovation is key for improving collection and
sorting rates as well as the quality and yield of recycled plastics. Spectroscopic methods, such
as via infrared, can increase accuracy in automated sorting. Tracer-based sorting can recognise
different types of polymers, as well as different classes of compounds, which may increase
sorting performance. Technologies supported by AI and robotics could improve both source
separation and centralised sorting systems, especially when combined with optical or other
sorting technologies (Crippa et al., 2019). Sorting technology is continuously evolving and
becoming more granular, the limiting factor to innovation often being economic viability rather
than technical feasibility.
5.2.3 Best practice examples
While there are countries and collection facilities across Europe with high collection rates,
currently no country is set to reach the PPWR targets for packaging recycling (Bapasola et al.,
2023). Even high-performing EU Member States, such as Belgium and Germany, could profit
greatly from the introduction of mixed waste sorting (Bapasola et al., 2023). Belgium and
Germany both have a long-standing separate collection system for packaging recycling.
In Belgium, two producer responsibility organisations for household waste and for commercial
and industrial waste, respectively, organise the collection system. The ‘blue bag’ is used across
the country and was expanded from plastic bottles to include other rigid plastic packaging, as
28 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
well as films between 2019 and 2021 (Bapasola et al., 2023). In Germany, there are two
separate waste collection systems for plastic packaging. Through the Duales System
Deutschland (DSD), which has introduced the ‘yellow bag’, household packaging and non-
packaging waste are disposed for commingled collection (Picuno et al., 2021). PET bottles are
collected through a high-performing DRS for plastic, glass and metal beverage containers
(Bapasola et al., 2023). As a result of that system, Germany reports a collection rate for plastic
packaging of 75 % (Herrmann et al., 2021). Nevertheless, incorrect separation by consumers
remains a challenge, as organic residues contaminate recyclables and plastic packaging
disposed with municipal solid waste is lost for the recycling system (Herrmann et al., 2021).
A few mixed waste collection plants have been established across Europe. A case study
conducted at the AVR residual sorting plant in the Netherlands suggests that the introduction
of mixed waste sorting to the existing system could significantly improve collection rates.
Around 12 times the amount of plastic for recycling was captured with the implementation of
the new system (TOMRA, 2022). Another study compared different collection systems in
Norway, equally suggesting potential benefits from recovering otherwise lost plastics from
residual waste. Here, mixed waste sorting increased the collection rates more than twofold
when compared with pick-up, drop-off and optibag systems (Deloitte, 2019).
5.2.4 Benefits of improved collection and sorting for mechanical and chemical
recycling
Increasing the share of collected and sorted EoL plastics would benefit mechanical recycling.
Increased and improved collection would increase the share of plastic waste that is
reprocessed, thus securing feedstock for mechanical recycling. Better sorting could improve
yields and output quality for mechanical recycling. Plastics packaging, for example, is often
highly contaminated with adhesives, organic residues, ink and other materials. These are
blended in the recycling process and pose health risks for consumers, especially for food
contact materials (Kol et al., 2021).
At the same time, chemical recycling technologies would also benefit from improved collection.
Access to sufficient and stable feedstock is often vital to sustain chemical recycling operations,
as a certain scale is needed to make them viable (Qureshi et al., 2021; Kusenberg et al., 2022a).
While technological innovations for gasification and pyrolysis may reduce dependency on
intense sorting (Dogu et al., 2021), waste streams in practice still need to be relatively clean to
ensure that operations do not get contaminated and achieve sufficient yield (Hann & Connock,
2020). Some contaminants45 can cause damage to the CR infrastructure when they are released
during the process of polymer decomposition. They also decrease the quality of pyrolysis oil,
making further upgrades necessary before it can be used as a substitute for naphtha in a steam
45 Such contaminants include nitrogen, oxygen, halogens and metals, originating from certain polymers, additives,
inks and organic and inorganic residues (Kusenberg et al., 2022b).
29 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
cracker (Kusenberg et al., 2022a; 2022b). Therefore, advanced pre-treatment of plastic waste
could considerably improve feedstock quality for chemical recycling.
The discussion above highlights that there is still a lot of scope for improvement of both
practices and technologies of plastic waste collection and sorting. Improved collection and
sorting have the potential to divert waste streams from landfill and incineration. Mixed waste
sorting, in addition to separate collection and DRS, is crucial to recovering recyclable plastics
otherwise lost to incineration or landfill. Capturing these recyclables has the potential to secure
the large levels of feedstock required for cost-effective and functioning chemical recycling. At
the same time, higher quality feedstock, as assured through better sorting of polymers, is
relevant for both mechanical and chemical recycling. Harmonisation of waste management
schemes across regions and Member States may be an important step towards higher
collection and recycling rates.
5.3 ADDRESSING TRANSPARENCY CHALLENGES AND COMPARABILITY OF LCA FOR CHEMICAL
RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES
While chemical recycling technologies are still at the development stage with only limited
capacities available at the moment across the EU, a debate has been launched about how far
they can reduce the environmental impacts associated with plastic waste generation. This is
shown by the growing number of academic articles and studies published during the last few
years that assess the impacts of chemical recycling processes or compare them with other
waste treatment options. This section summarises some of the key messages emerging from
these assessments.
In assessing the potential environmental benefits of CR technologies it is important to
understand the impact of different CR processes due to the use of chemicals, enzymes or heat
treatment to depolymerise EoL plastics. Potential resulting environmental pressures of these
technologies can then be weighed against their benefits – such as closing the plastic loop,
reducing the reliance on virgin materials and avoiding emissions during potential alternative
EoL treatments like incineration. To identify the appropriate plastic waste management
strategy, material recovery must be maximised and (environmental) process impacts minimised
(Garcia-Gutierrez et al., 2023).
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a prominent tool to investigate environmental impacts of
products, services and processes throughout their life cycles. LCA has been applied to different
treatment options for plastic waste by modelling impacts such as carbon emissions, resource
use and energy consumption. Existing LCAs, however, differ in aspects like underlying
assumptions, input data used and technologies and waste treatment options analysed. These
differences often make a direct comparison of studies challenging. Nevertheless, a general
picture emerges.
30 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
5.3.1 Comparison of mechanical and chemical recycling
As raised by many studies and during the CEPS’ roundtable meetings, CR should only serve as
an EoL treatment option for plastic waste that currently cannot be treated via mechanical
recycling46, or where the necessary output quality cannot be achieved via the mechanical route.
In addition, and as pointed out by the Joint Research Centre’s recent study, due to data
availability limitations it is currently unclear whether there are instances where chemical and
mechanical recycling would compete for the same feedstock (Garcia-Gutierrez et al., 2023).
These points should be kept in mind when attempting to make comparisons between the
environmental benefits of mechanical and chemical recycling.
That said, most studies that directly compare chemical and mechanical recycling routes
conclude that mechanical recycling usually performs better environmentally than chemical
recycling technologies (Davidson et al., 2021). For example, an LCA by Oeko-Institut finds that
mechanical recycling of plastics performs better than pyrolysis since, owing to its relatively low
carbon efficiency, more than half of the carbon in plastics is lost in the modelled pyrolysis
process and would thus need to be replaced by virgin polymers (Möck et al., 2022). Still, such
results should not be simplified and regarded in isolation of other factors. When comparing
those two recycling routes, both the output quality – including the need for food-grade or
virgin-grade recycling in some applications - and the required feedstock quality and
composition should be taken into account.
Moreover, carbon emissions are not the only relevant impact category since there are a range
of different environmental impacts to consider when choosing the most appropriate
management option for a certain waste stream. According to a recent study by the Joint
Research Centre (see Garcia-Gutierrez et al., 2023), establishing a clear ranking of chemical and
mechanical recycling technologies in terms of environmental performance is challenging and
would require improved knowledge about the complex plastic waste streams. Furthermore, it
is currently unclear whether chemical and mechanical recycling would even compete for the
same feedstock (Garcia-Gutierrez et al., 2023). As has been highlighted in previous Sections, a
combination of both routes, instead of competition between them, can lead to significant
savings in GHG emissions in comparison to virgin plastic production (Möck et al., 2022). Given
this positioning of CR within the waste hierarchy, a comparison of CR technologies with waste
management options other than mechanical recycling, i.e. incineration and landfilling, may be
more useful to determine the potential environmental benefits from CR (Ozoemena & Coles,
2023).
46 See, for example, Davidson et al., 2021, Möck et al., 2022, SYSTEMIQ, 2022, Lase et al., 2023 and Ragaert et al.,
2017.
31 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
5.3.2 Comparison of chemical recycling with incineration and landfilling
With regards to climate change impacts, there is a general consensus in the literature that the
different CR technologies appear to perform better than incineration (Garcia-Gutierrez et al.,
2023; Russ et al., 2020; Viveros et al., 2022). While energy recovery from incineration of plastic
waste leads to some emission savings, these are not sufficient to outweigh the burdens from
emissions generated by combusting fossil carbon. Similarly, whereas landfilling in theory may
store carbon contained in plastics instead of emitting it into the atmosphere through
incineration (Viveros et al., 2022; Davidson et al., 2021), carbon emissions from landfills occur
at a later stage due to plastics degradation over time (see Section 2.3). Landfilling is commonly
regarded as the least favourable waste management route from an environmental point of
view, as it prevents valuable plastics in the stored waste from being used further in a circular
economy (Viveros et al., 2022).
Moreover, with increasing decarbonisation of the electricity mix in the future, the benefits of
CR in comparison to incineration are expected to increase (Garcia-Gutierrez et al., 2023; Russ
et al., 2020; Voss et al., 2021). Assuming a higher share of renewables in future electricity
production, credits for energy recovery from incineration will decrease and relative impacts will
rise. At the same time, the environmental advantages of CR are likely to increase (Viveros et al.,
2022), underlining the validity of the EU waste hierarchy (Garcia-Gutierrez et al., 2023).
The advantages of CR compared to incineration are also evident for other impact categories,
such as ozone depletion (Garcia-Gutierrez et al., 2023). When it comes to fossil resource use,
CR performs better than incineration and landfilling, as less virgin material has to be sourced
than in a linear system (Garcia-Gutierrez et al., 2023; Russ et al., 2020).
It should be kept in mind, however, that there are individual impact categories where
incineration can perform better than CR. This applies to acidification, particulate matter and
eutrophication, at least under the current EU energy system (Garcia-Gutierrez et al., 2023; Russ
et al., 2020). For some substances emitted to the air, current incinerators achieve lower
emissions than the EU average energy production mix, which has a high share of coal, nuclear
and heavy fuel power plants. With a cleaner energy mix, however, the gap between recycling
and energy recovery will increase in favour of recycling.
5.3.3 Existing gaps
While an increasing number of LCAs has been conducted on different CR technologies, there
are still several challenges to overcome to accurately estimate the impacts of these emerging
technologies. Common issues refer to a lack in transparency, comprehensiveness and
comparability of LCAs (Keller et al., 2022). LCAs often do not transparently disclose underlying
assumptions and boundary conditions, limiting their comparability with other studies. Another
challenge is a general lack of relevant data. For example, there is little data available on the
characteristics and origin of waste inputs to recycling, which is crucial for identifying the
appropriate waste management option (Garcia-Gutierrez et al., 2023). Moreover, results of
LCAs strongly depend on the technologies and concrete waste streams analysed. Therefore,
32 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
unique aspects for each investigated CR pathway should be considered when conducting the
analysis. In general, while some CR technologies (such as pyrolysis and gasification) offer lower
climate change benefits, they are also able to treat a broader range of input feedstock in
comparison with other technologies, such as chemical depolymerisation, physical and
mechanical recycling (CE Delft, 2020).
Most studies rank mechanical recycling as having the lowest environmental impact, followed
by CR, incineration and finally landfilling. Crucially, CR can enable high-quality recycling of low-
quality waste streams otherwise not suitable for mechanical recycling, and divert them from
incineration and landfill, thereby keeping more plastic in the loop. It has the potential to
contribute to reducing carbon emissions from waste treatment and its relevance is expected
to increase with a cleaner energy mix in the future (Voss et al., 2021). Nevertheless, given the
current lack of data and transparency in LCAs, such results need to be interpreted with caution.
While there is scope to improve LCA assessments and address the existing data gaps, further
attention should be given to solutions higher up the waste hierarchy, such as reuse where
possible and overall waste prevention. The potential of CR lies in its complementarity with other
waste treatment options.
5.4 ALLOCATING RECYCLED CONTENT
Mandatory recycled content targets for plastics will be established in EU Regulation for several
sectors (such as packaging, automotive, electronics), in order to ‘[…] increase uptake of
recycled plastics and contribute to the more sustainable use of plastics’ (European Commission,
2020, p. 9). Meeting these targets requires having a transparent view about the proportion of
recycled content in new plastics. However, tracing recycled content for some chemical
recycling processes is not always as straightforward as it is for mechanical recycling (Broeren et
al., 2022).
Tracking recycled content is particularly challenging for pyrolysis and gasification (i.e. thermal
depolymerisation), at any process stage that has waste (-derived) as well as virgin inputs and
produces multiple outputs. These technologies break down polymers into their building blocks
(i.e. hydrocarbons) to produce certain chemicals that then can be used in chemical production
(Broeren et al., 2022). Blending and co-processing recycled with virgin substances and materials
in existing petrochemical sites has economic advantages, if the former fulfil similar technical
requirements, while at the same time it poses challenges when it comes to tracing recycled
content throughout the process (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019). As a result, there is a
need for a method to allocate recycled content to final products in a transparent and reliable
way, to make valid and credible sustainability claims to consumers and to downstream supply
chain players. One potential approach to addressing this particular challenge is using the mass
balance chain of custody model.
33 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
5.4.1 Chain of custody models
Mass balancing is one among several chain of custody models (CoC). CoC models are tools for
tracing desired properties of materials and products throughout value chains. The nature of
desired properties depends on the context; examples include origin, embedded raw material
consumption, or attributes such as ‘recycled’, ‘organic’ and ‘renewable’. The aim is to establish
a link between inputs and outputs of production processes throughout value chains, in order
to create transparency and trust regarding the proportion of the output materials’ desired
content (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019; Broeren et al., 2022).
Several CoC methods exist to establish these links between input properties and output:
identity preservation, segregation, controlled blending, mass balance, and book and claim. The
three models commonly used in plastics recycling as defined by ISO 22095 are described in
more detail here47:
In the segregation model, physical mixing of certified and non-certified material of the same
commodity is not permitted. However, it does allow for a mixing of different certified inputs of
various origins, as long as these are certified according to the same standards. Thereby,
materials of different sources are kept physically separate but mixed within one common
category (such as organic food). As a result, assurance is guaranteed that products stem from
certified sources, even though physical traceability of one product back to its source may not
be possible (ISO, 2020; ISEAL Alliance, 2016; Beers et al., 2022).
In the controlled blending model, certified and non-certified materials are mixed according to
specified standards, resulting in known proportions of those blended properties in all batches
of the final output (ISO 22095:2020; Beers et al., 2022).
Mass balance is a CoC model where materials with certain characteristics can be mixed with
others in a co-processing procedure. The physical presence of these characteristics varies
across the outputs, and on average only match the initial proportions of the input (ISO
22095:2020). There are different calculation and attribution methods within this model, which
are described in more detail in the next Section.
47 The two models at the end of the spectrum have been deemed inappropriate by stakeholders, according to a
study by Eunomia (2022). In the identity preservation model, certified products from a certified site are kept
separate from (certified or non-certified) products from other sources. The physical separation of materials and
thus, characteristics, is maintained throughout the supply chain, thus allowing for the highest levels of traceability
of desired (certified) content (ISO 22095:2020; ISEAL Alliance, 2016; Beers et al., 2022). In the book and claim
model, the administrative record flow is not necessarily connected to the physical flow of material or product
throughout the supply chain (ISO 22095:2020. This bookkeeping method provides the lowest levels of traceability
of desired content among the CoC models. Credits for the desired property are bought from other companies
lacking the market demand for these properties, irrespective of who actually sells the product with the physical
presence of the property.
34 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
5.4.2 Mass balance
In the mass balance CoC model, the physical mixing of certified and non-certified inputs is
allowed at any stage in the production process, as long as volumes of certified (i.e., recycled)
input are controlled. Thus, volumes of output properties have to be claimed proportionally to
the input, in order to establish the link between (mixed) inputs and outputs of the production
system, while taking into account losses during the production process (Eunomia, 2021; ISEAL,
2016; Beers et al., 2022). This model is commonly used when the technical process does not
allow for a separation of inputs, when it is not economically viable to do so or when the certified
(recycled) input is very low compared to the virgin input. The latter is currently the standard
case for most value chains in the chemical industry.
While the concept of mass balance is not new, its application in the chemical recycling of
polymers is a relatively recent development aiming to support the scale-up of the nascent
thermo-chemical recycling infrastructure (see Beers et al., 2022). Use of mass balance
approaches in other sectors includes certified cotton, forestry, palm oil and aluminium, where
the physical separation of certified and non-certified products is impractical (Beers et al., 2022;
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019; Broeren et al., 2022; ACC, 2021).
Regarding chemical recycling of polymers, mass balance can be applied to account for recycled
inputs when they are blended with virgin materials, in order to allocate recycled content to
specific outputs (Broeren et al., 2022). Not all recycling technologies48 require an accounting
method to keep track of recycled content in their processes. When chemical depolymerisation
is used to directly reproduce the same polymers, authors argue that no mass balance is needed
to determine recycled content (Broeren et al., 2022). If the recycled monomers are however
blended with virgin monomers to produce new plastics or other downstream products, an
accounting method is necessary to allocate recycled content to the output (Broeren et al.,
2022). Mass balance is of particular relevance to thermal depolymerisation, where plastic
waste is in many cases broken down to the hydrocarbon molecules stage and processed in large
and highly integrated operations with mixed inputs and outputs.
Pyrolysis and gasification both produce basic chemicals (pyrolysis oil that can substitute fossil
naphtha or syngas and methanol) that are typically blended with virgin fossil materials before
being fed, for example, into a steam cracker, which then produces basic chemicals for a range
of plastic and non-plastic products. Due to economic constraints and availability of recycled
feedstock, those technologies rely on a mixture of feedstock, instead of recycled inputs only.
48 In the literature there is often a debate about whether solvent-based purification can be considered to be among
the key chemical recycling technologies. In this report, however, we have not included it in the list of core chemical
recycling technologies since it does not break down plastic waste further than the polymer stage, thus essentially
not changing the chemical composition.
35 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
As such, it is very challenging to tell how much recycled content is part of which of the outputs
of the chemical production process. This requires an accounting approach, such as mass
balancing, to trace recycled content. However, this needs to be carried out in a transparent
way, ensuring that the sustainability claims made are valid, and that recycled content claimed
in the outputs does not exceed that of the inputs (Broeren et al., 2022).
Accounting methods
The ISO differentiates between two accounting methods for mass balance, the rolling average
and the credit method (ISO 22095:2020). The rolling average percentage method is applied to
account for fluctuating shares of recycled and non-recycled content in the input over a defined
claim period. An average percentage of recycled content is claimed for the output over the
claim period. The credit method allows producers to transform certified mass balanced output
into a credit, in order to claim any amount of recycled content outputs proportional to the
inputs, minus process losses and taking into account the allocation method (see next Section)
(Eunomia, 2022). Some certification schemes also permit these credits to be transferred within
a company under specific conditions. For example, restricted credit transfer between sites
could apply under certain conditions, such as between identical products only (Eunomia, 2022).
ISCC PLUS or REDcert2, for example, allows for credit transfer between different sites, if they
are part of the same corporate group or joint venture (ISCC, 2023).
Allocation methods
Other variations in mass balancing stem from the specific allocation method applied. Generally,
two different allocation methods can be distinguished: proportional allocation and non-
proportional allocation. Non-proportional allocation can further be divided in polymers only,
fuel use excluded, auto consumption excluded, and free allocation (Hann et al., 2022).
Proportional allocation attributes recycled content evenly to all outputs of the production
process. If n % of recycled input is fed into the process, then each output stream is allocated
n % recycled content credits. This approach is generally favoured by environmental NGOs. On
the other side of the spectrum, free allocation allows for a high degree of flexibility in assigning
recycled content to the production outputs. For example, outputs with a high market demand
for recycled content could be assigned 100 % recycled content, while the rest of the outputs,
where there is no market for recycled content, are claimed to have 0 % recycled content.
Polymers only, fuel use excluded, and auto consumption excluded employ non-proportional
allocation rules as well. Polymers only requires that only the recycled content in outputs directly
related to polymer production can be freely allocated, whereas for fuel use excluded, the
recycled content in all outputs except for fuels can be allocated freely (Broeren et al., 2022;
Beers et al., 2022). In contrast, only the fuel that is burned for energy generation within the
process is excluded in the auto consumption excluded approach (Hann et al., 2022). All of these
36 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
different methods account for production losses. Recycled material that is lost during the
production processes cannot be allocated to the output (Broeren et al., 2022).
While the fuel use excluded approach is consistent with existing legislation on recycling targets,
according to a Eunomia study for the European Commission, ‘there are strong arguments for a
stricter approach that considers the importance of focusing on the credibility of the system and
not further reducing the physical links’ (Hann et al, 2022, p. 150). At the same time, some actors
argue that less strict approaches can spur investment into CR technologies.
Credit units and calculation rules
Different physical properties can be measured to determine recycled content in inputs and
outputs: mass allocation, carbon accounting and lower heating value. Calculations based on
mass weigh the recycled and virgin volumes in the input and allocate the recycled output
content based on weight, which is useful when virgin and recycled material are similar (Broeren
et al., 2022). Using carbon as the credit unit, the carbon atoms in both feedstock streams are
counted to determine the percentage of recycled content in the output, which is suitable when
input streams have different compositions and the aim is to trace only the fraction which is to
be recycled (Broeren et al., 2022). The lower heating value is a representation of the energy
content of a material. Using it as a basis for calculations, recycled content is allocated to output
based on the lower heating value of both fossil and recycled input material. This method is
useful when input streams have highly variating compositions (Broeren et al., 2022). Since
waste streams are complex and input compositions often vary in reality, some stakeholders
argue for using the lower heating value as a basis for recycled content calculations (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2019). In contrast, NGOs have criticised both carbon and lower heating
value due to their low levels of physical traceability of recycled content.
37 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
6. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY MESSAGES
Although there have been EU policies in place to address plastic waste for decades, the
emergence of the circular economy agenda brought forward a different vision for the
management of plastics across their full life cycle. The call for a new approach in terms of how
we produce, consume and dispose of plastics has led to the adoption of a dedicated EU strategy
on sustainable plastics, a Directive focused on single-use plastic items and various voluntary
commitments by multinational companies. While there is a general alignment of objectives by
policy, civil society and industry actors, available estimates indicate that the EU will need to
make great leaps in the coming years to improve the circularity of plastics.
It is estimated that the EU still produces about 30 Mt of plastic waste annually, of which only
about one third is recycled while the rest is directed towards incinerators and landfills. There
are also studies that place the amount of plastic waste generated across the EU at much higher
levels49. Existing assessments about future plastic waste generation do not necessarily provide
an improved picture. Specifically, different studies estimate that the amount of plastic waste
generation in the EU could range between 28 and 34 Mt in 2030 and then between 30 and
44 Mt in 2050, depending on the level of ambition of adopted circularity policies. While
packaging is expected to still account for the largest share of future plastic waste generation,
other streams from the automotive and construction sectors are projected to make
increasingly important contributions.
New collection, sorting and recycling systems will therefore need to come into play to enable a
more sustainable EoL management of the complex plastic waste streams. Most studies
assessed for this report conclude that a mix of solutions including both mechanical and
chemical recycling technologies will likely be required to achieve optimal levels of recycling and
to reduce the share of plastics sent to incineration and landfills to minimal levels. While high
heterogeneity exists across the different assessments, even in the most conservative scenario,
chemical recycling technologies are projected to expand compared to current levels and to play
a complementary role to mechanical ones. The need for a mix of recycling solutions, combined
with efforts aimed at increasing reuse and waste prevention was raised during the CEPS’
stakeholder meetings.
Expanding plastics’ recycling markets would require a policy environment that enables all
recycling options while at the same time providing a level playing field between mechanical and
chemical recycling technologies. Some areas where action by both policy and industry actors
can support further growth of such markets are discussed below.
49 See section 2.2.
38 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
Level playing field
While various chemical recycling plants and joint business collaborations have been recently
announced across the EU, a policy environment providing clarity about the role of these
technologies is currently under development. One particular area that has been subject to
debate in the context of the requirements for single-use plastics and packaging and packaging
waste is how to take into account chemical recycling in the calculation of recycled content
targets. This is particularly relevant for thermal depolymerisation (pyrolysis and gasification)
chemical recycling technologies, for which tracing the recycled content throughout the
recycling process is complex. In this context, mass balance is a chain of custody model that is
being discussed as a tool to support traceability. Different methods to allocate the recycled
feedstocks and to communicate this information to the consumer have been extensively
debated. Defining an optimal system that balances all environmental and economic
considerations will be challenging for the thermal depolymerisation options, but there is a need
to provide certainty and to clarify how chemical recycling technologies can make recycled
content contributions. Such a system would need to be based on clear and transparent rules
and claims in order to provide certainty to the market, clarity to consumers and downstream
supply chain players, and a level playing field between different recycling technologies.
Another issue is whether certain provisions in the Waste Framework Directive would need to
be re-assessed during future revisions to give room for all technologies, while prioritising the
options that deliver the highest environmental benefits. Beyond the current definition of
recycling included in the Directive that excludes the use of fuel, there are no further provisions
at the moment for chemical recycling technologies. As these technologies scale-up, there will
be an open question on whether there is a need to provide clarity about their position in the
waste hierarchy and in the existing recycling definition, or whether to allow for more flexibility.
Either way, increasing data availability will be key for this discussion since, as discussed in the
recent study by JRC, establishing an environmental ranking of options for recycling technologies
is currently very difficult due to data limitations. Besides environmental considerations, any
ranking should take into account the different capabilities of chemical and mechanical
recycling. When choosing the optimal EoL management option, the complexity and level of
contamination of input waste streams as well as the desired output quality should be
considered. With continued innovation, the capacity of the different recycling options to treat
complex inputs or to produce high-quality (food-grade or contact-sensitive) outputs may
improve, which suggests potential benefits of enabling some flexibility in the waste hierarchy.
39 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Data availability
As documented in the literature and discussed during the CEPS meetings, there are still several
data gaps related to chemical recycling and plastic waste recycling in general, which creates
uncertainties in the public debate and complicates the discussion about the mix of solutions
that can deliver the highest environmental benefits. When it comes to the impacts of chemical
recycling technologies, there are uncertainties regarding the waste feedstocks to be used as
well as the emissions and losses in the process. There is a general lack of primary data and
complete databases for chemical recycling processes which can also be attributed to the fact
that commercial deployment of these technologies has only just began. Data limitations,
however, extend beyond the effects of chemical recycling technologies to the overall plastic
waste composition and generation across the EU. This is also due to the existence of a very
diverse set of plastic products and applications which makes such assessments very complex.
While the spotlight is often on the packaging waste stream and on single use plastic items,
other streams from buildings and automotive for which available data face further limitations,
may increasingly come into play in the future.
In addition, the focus on existing assessments has been on ranking different EoL treatment
options, with most studies concluding that from a climate change point of view chemical
recycling performs better than incineration but has higher emissions compared to mechanical
recycling. Given the variety of approaches adopted by the growing body of LCA studies
assessing different EoL plastic treatment options, the publication of methodology guidelines or
handbook for such LCAs would support transparency and comparability in terms of the system
boundaries for datasets. In addition, to enable a more informed debate about circularity in the
plastics sector, a move towards more integrated assessments is needed, taking into
consideration what waste streams exist and how they can be treated in the most
environmentally friendly way. This arguably requires higher transparency with regard to the
impacts of plastics recycling and improved availability of data across the various segments of
the plastics supply chain. This challenge can be higher for plastics compared to other materials
given the myriad of plastics applications in nearly every sector of the economy. The
introduction of common frameworks for data sharing across actors along the various lifetime
stages of plastics can support improved data availability. Policy can be a facilitator through the
development of principles and common standards for data sharing that also take into account
confidentiality concerns. This could link to similar efforts currently being undertaken in
different sectors (such as batteries, electronics and textiles) with the introduction of Digital
Product Passports.
40 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
Innovation and ecodesign
A position shared by various experts and existing global assessments for the plastics sector is
that there is still significant room for innovation both at the design and EoL management stage
of plastics. Innovation on these two fronts would benefit both mechanical and chemical
recycling. At the design stage, efforts to support an increased lifetime of plastics should be
prioritised, followed by actions to improve recyclability of EoL plastics. Examples of the latter
include designing product components that can be easily separated, reducing where possible
the multi-layers of polymers and reducing the use of additives and substances. How to
incorporate recycled content in new plastic products is a further aspect that needs to be
considered at the design stage. At the EU level, design requirements can be introduced or
strengthened through the horizontal Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation or
legislations targeting product groups such as the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation
and the upcoming revised End-of-Life Vehicles Directive. Such requirements should be
introduced in a coherent way providing a clear set of harmonised requirements for different
product groups. Given the complexity of different product groups and types of plastics, the
resource efficiency and climate change benefits of different design options should be carefully
assessed.
Moving to the EoL management stage, the varied plastic waste management systems across
the EU coupled with the continuous development of new plastic applications pose challenges
for collection, sorting and recycling – both mechanical and chemical. Harmonising and
increasing collection and sorting systems while taking into account the local circumstances can
support improved recycling of EoL plastics. Innovations on sorting and collection technologies
are also key and would need to be continuously supported through innovation funding by the
EU and Member States. Examples of such innovations include combinations of sorting systems
and digital tools for tracking polymers and digital product passports providing information
about the plastic products and the substances included.
41 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
REFERENCES
ACC (American Chemistry Council) (2021), ‘Principles for the Advanced Recycling of Plastics
Using a Mass Balance Approach’.
Al-Salem, S.M., Lettieri, P. and Baeyens, J. (2009), ‘Recycling and recovery routes of plastic solid
waste (PSW): A review’, Waste Management, Vol. 29, pp. 2625-2643.
Andrady, A. L., and Neal, M. A. (2009). ‘Applications and societal benefits of plastics’,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364, pp. 1977-1984.
Bapasola, A., von Eye, M., Cordle, M., Dionisi, F. and Loo, S. (2023), Mixed Waste Sorting to
meet the EU’s Circular Economy Objectives, Report by Eunomia, commissioned by Zero
Waste Europe.
Bashirgonbadi, A., Lase, I.S., Delva, L., Van Geem, K.M., De Meester, S. and Ragaert, K. (2022),
‘Quality evaluation and economic assessment of an improved mechanical recycling
process for post-consumer flexible plastics’, Waste Management, Vol. 153, pp. 41-51.
Beers, K.L., Schumacher, K., Migler, K., Morris, K.C. and Kneifel, J.D. (2022), An Assessment of
Mass Balance Accounting Methods for Polymers, Workshop Report, Special Publication
(NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Broeren, M., Uijttewaal, M. and Bergsma, G. (2022), ‘Monitoring chemical recycling – How to
include chemical recycling in plastic recycling monitoring?’, CE Delft, Delft.
Burgess, M., Holmes, H., Sharmina, M. and Shaver, M.P. (2021), ‘The future of UK plastics
recycling: one bin to rule them all’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 164,
105191.
Cabernard, L., Pfister, S., Oberschelp, C. and Hellweg, S. (2022), ‘Growing environmental
footprint of plastics driven by coal combustion’, Nature Sustainability, Vol. 5, pp. 139-148.
CE Delft (2020), Exploration chemical recycling – Extended summary. What is the potential
contribution of chemical recycling to Dutch climate policy?
Chamas, A., Moon, H., Zheng, J., Qiu, Y., Tabassum, T., Jang, J. H. and Suh, S. (2020),
‘Degradation Rates of Plastics in the Environment’, ACS Sustainable Chemistry &
Engineering, (8), pp. 3494-3511.
Charles, D. and Kimman, L. (2023), Plastic Waste Makers Index 2023, Broadway Nedlands, WA:
The Minderoo Foundation Pty Ltd.
Clausen, A., Althaus, M. and Pretz, T. (2018), ‘Commingled Waste Collection as Chance for
Technical Separation: Alternative Collection Systems’, in Maletz, R., Dornack, C. and
Ziyang, L. (ed.), Source Separation and Recycling: Implementation and Benefits for a
Circular Economy, Springer International Publishing, pp. 105-118.
Crippa, M., De Wilde, B., Koopmans, R. et al. (2019), ‘A circular economy for plastics – Insights
from research and innovation to inform policy and funding decisions’, European
Commission, Brussels.
42 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
Davidson, M.G., Furlong, R.A. and McManus, M.C. (2021), ‘Developments in the life cycle
assessment of chemical recycling of plastic waste – A review’, Journal of Cleaner
Production, 293, 126163.
Deloitte (2019), Sirkulær plastemballasje i Norge – kartlegging av verdikjeden for
plastemballasje.
Deloitte Belgium (2021), Pathways towards circular plastics – Point of view.
Dogu, O., Pelucchi, M., Van de Vijver, R., Van Steenberge, P.H., D'hooge, D.R., Cuoci, A., Mehl,
M., Frassoldati, A., Faravelli, T. and Van Geem, K.M. (2021), ‘The chemistry of chemical
recycling of solid plastic waste via pyrolysis and gasification: State-of-the-art, challenges,
and future directions’, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, Vol. 84, p. 100901.
Dussaux, D. and Agrawala, S. (2022), Quantifying environmentally relevant and circular plastic
innovation: Historical trends, current landscape and the role of policy, OECD Environment
Working Papers No. 199.
EEA (2020), Plastics, the circular economy and Europe′s environment – A priority for action,
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017), The New Plastics Economy: Catalysing action.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019), CE100 Whitepaper: Enabling a circular economy for
chemicals with the mass balance approach.
Eunomia (2021), A Comparative Assessment of Standards and Certification Schemes for
Verifying Recycled Content in Plastic Products.
Eunomia (2022), Study to Develop Options for Rules on Recycled Plastic Content for the
Implementing Act Related to Single-Use Plastic Bottles Under Directive (EU) 2019/904.
European Commission (2018), A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy,
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,
COM(2018) 28 final, Brussels.
European Commission (2020), A new Circular Economy Action Plan: For a cleaner and more
competitive Europe’, COM(2020) 98 final, Brussels.
European Commission (2022), Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and
Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC, COM(2022) 677 final,
Brussels.
Eurostat (2022), Production in industry - quarterly data https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
databrowser/view/STS_INPR_Q__custom_4396280/default/table?lang=en.
Filho, W.L., Saari, U., Fedoruk, M., Iital, A., Moora, H., Kloga, M. and Voronova, V. (2019), ‘An
overview of the problems posed by plastic products and the role of extended producer
responsibility in Europe’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 214, pp. 550-558.
Garcia, J.M. (2016), ‘Catalyst: design challenges for the future of plastics recycling’, Chem, Vol.
1(6), pp. 813-815.
43 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Garcia-Gutierrez, P., Amadei, A.M., Klenert, D., Nessi, S., Tonini, D., Tosches, D., Ardente, F. and
Saveyn, H. (2023), Environmental and economic assessment of plastic waste recycling – A
comparison of mechanical, physical, chemical recycling and energy recovery of plastic
waste, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, JRC132067.
Gendell, A. and Lahme, V. (2022), Feedstock Quality Guidelines for Pyrolysis of Plastic Waste,
Report for the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd, Bristol.
Geyer, R. (2020), ‘Chapter 2 - Production, use, and fate of synthetic polymers’, in Letcher, T. M.
(ed.), Plastic Waste and Recycling, Academic Press, pp. 13-32.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R. and Law, K.L. (2017), ‘Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever
made’, Science Advances, Vol.3(7).
Grant, A., Lahme, V., Connock, T. and Lugal, L. (2022), How circular is PET? A report on the
circularity of PET bottles, using Europe as a case study, Eunomia and Zero Waste Europe.
Hahladakis, J. N., Purnell, P., Iacovidou, E., Velis, C. A. and Atseyinku, M. (2018), ‘Post-consumer
plastic packaging waste in England: Assessing the yield of multiple collection-recycling
schemes’, Waste Management, Vol. 75, pp. 149-159.
Hamilton, L. A., et al. (2019), Plastic & Climate, The Hidden Costs of a Plastics Planet. Geneva:
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
Hann, S. and Connock, T. (2020), ‘Chemical Recycling: State of Play’, Eunomia Research &
Consulting Ltd., Bristol.
Hann, S., Bapasola, A., Fletcher, E., Lee, T. and Long, L. (2022), ‘Study to Develop Options for
Rules on Recycled Plastic Content for the Implementing Act Related to Single-use Plastic
Bottles Under Directive (EU) 2019/904’, Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd., Bristol.
Hatti-Kaul, R., Nilsson, L.J., Zhang, B., Rehnberg, N. and Lundmark, S. (2020), ‘Designing
biobased recyclable polymers for plastics’, Trends in biotechnology, Vol. 38(1), pp. 50-67.
Herrmann, S., Kast, M., Kühl, C., Philipp, F. and Stuchtey, M. (2021), 'Burning Questions –
Pathways to a circular plastic packaging system in Germany’, WWF Deutschland.
Hong, M. and Chen, E.Y.X. (2017), ‘Chemically recyclable polymers: a circular economy
approach to sustainability’, Green Chemistry, Vol. 19(16), pp.3692-3706.
Hsu, W.-T., Domenech, T., & McDowall, W. (2021), ‘How circular are plastics in the EU?: MFA
of plastics in the EU and pathways to circularity’, Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2,
100004.
ISCC (International Sustainability and Carbon Certification) (2023), ISCC PLUS, Version 3.4.
ISEAL Alliance (2016), Chain of custody models and definitions: A reference document for
sustainability standards systems, and to complement ISEAL’s Sustainability Claims Good
Practice Guide.
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) (2020), ‘ISO 22095:2020. Chain of
custody — General terminology and models’.
Jambeck, J. R., et al. (2015), ‘Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean’, Science, 347, pp.
768-771.
44 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
Kahlert, S. and Bening, C.R. (2022), Why pledges alone will not get plastics recycled: Comparing
recyclate production and anticipated demand, Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Vol.
181, 106279.
Keller, F., Voss, R. and Lee, R.P. (2022), Overcoming Challenges of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
& Techno-Economic Assessment (TEA) for Chemical Recycling, Technical Report.
Kol, R., Roosen, M., Ügdüler, S., Van Geem, K.M., Ragaert, K., Achilias, D.S. and De Meester, S.
(2021), ‘Recent advances in pre-treatment of plastic packaging waste’, in Achilias, D.S.
(ed.), Waste Material Recycling in the Circular Economy: Challenges and Developments,
BoD–Books on Demand.
Kusenberg, M., Eschenbacher, A., Djokic, M.R., Zayoud, A., Ragaert, K., De Meester, S. and Van
Geem, K.M. (2022a), ‘Opportunities and challenges for the application of post-consumer
plastic waste pyrolysis oils as steam cracker feedstocks: To decontaminate or not to
decontaminate?’, Waste Management, Vol. 138, pp. 83-115.
Kusenberg, M., Eschenbacher, A., Delva, L., De Meester, S., Delikonstantis, E., Stefanidis, G.D.,
Ragaert, K. and Van Geem, K.M. (2022b), ‘Towards high-quality petrochemical feedstocks
from mixed plastic packaging waste via advanced recycling: The past, present and future’,
Fuel Processing Technology, Vol. 238, p. 107474.
Lange, J.-P. (2021), ‘Managing Plastic Waste – Sorting, Recycling, Disposal, and Product
Redesign’, ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, Vol. 9(47), pp. 15722-15738.
Lase, I.S., Bashirgonbadi, A., van Rhijn, F., Dewulf, J., Ragaert, K., Delva, L., Roosen, M.,
Brandsma, M., Langen, M. and De Meester, S. (2022), ‘Material flow analysis and recycling
performance of an improved mechanical recycling process for post-consumer flexible
plastics’, Waste Management, Vol. 153, pp. 249-263.
Lase, I.S., Tonini, D., Caro, D., Albizzati, P.F., Cristóbal, J., Roosen, M., Kusenberg, M., Ragaert,
K., Van Geem, K.M., Dewulf, J. and De Meester, S. (2023), ‘How much can chemical
recycling contribute to plastic waste recycling in Europe? An assessment using material
flow analysis modeling’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 192, p. 106916.
Le Blevennec, K., Jepsen, D., Rödig, L. and Wirth, O. (2019), For Better not Worse: Applying
Ecodesign Principles to Plastics in the Circular Economy, study for ECOS produced by VITO
in collaboration with Ökopol.
Lee, R.P., Tschoepe, M. and Voss, R. (2021), ‘Perception of chemical recycling and its role in the
transition towards a circular carbon economy: A case study in Germany’, Waste
Management, Vol. 125, pp. 280-292.
Leslie, H.A., van Velzen, M.J.M., Brandsma, S.H., Vethaak, A. D., Garcia-Vallejo, J.J. and Lamoree,
M.H. (2022), ‘Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood’,
Environment International, Vol. 163, 107199.
Li, H., Aguirre-Villegas, H.A., Allen, R.D., Bai, X., Benson, C.H., Beckham, G.T., Bradshaw, S.L.,
Brown, J.L., Brown, R.C., Cecon, V.S. and Curley, J.B. (2022), ‘Expanding plastics recycling
technologies: chemical aspects, technology status and challenges’, Green Chemistry.
45 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Manžuch, Z., Akelytė, R., Camboni, M. and Carlander, D. (2021), Chemical Recycling of
Polymeric Materials from Waste in the Circular Economy, Final Report prepared for the
European Chemicals Agency, RPA Europe.
Material Economics (2018), The Circular Economy: A Powerful Force for Climate Mitigation.
Transformative innovation for prosperous and low-carbon industry.
Material Economics (2019), Industrial Transformation 2050: Pathways to Net-Zero Emissions
from EU Heavy Industry.
Material Economics (2020), Preserving value in EU industrial materials – A value perspective on
the use of steel, plastics, and aluminium.
Material Economics (2022), Europe’s missing plastics – Taking Stock of EU Plastics Circularity,
Commissioned by Agora Industry.
Miranda, R., Monte, M.C. and Blanco, A. (2013), ‘Analysis of the quality of the recovered paper
from commingled collection systems’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 72, pp.
60-66.
Möck, A., Bulach, B. and Betz, J. (2022), ‘Climate impact of pyrolysis of waste plastic packaging
in comparison with reuse and mechanical recycling’, Oeko-Institut, Darmstadt.
Ncube, L. K., Ude, A. U., Ogunmuyiwa, E. N., Zulkifli, R. and Beas, I. N. (2021), ‘An Overview of
Plastic Waste Generation and Management in Food Packaging Industries’, Recycling, Vol.
6(1).
Nielsen, T., D., Hasselbalch, J., Holmberg, K. and Stripple, J. (2019), ‘Politics and the plastic crisis:
A review throughout the plastic life cycle’, WIREs Energy and Environment, Vol. 9(1).
OECD (2022a), Global Plastics Outlook – Policy Scenarios to 2060, Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2022b), Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy
Options, Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2022c), Environment Ministers’ commitments on plastics – National-level visions,
actions and plans announced at the 2022 OECD Council at Ministerial Level (MCM),
ENV/EPOC(2022)14.
OECD. (2023). Global Plastics Outlook. Retrieved 01 03, 2023, from OECD iLibrary:
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/data/global-plastic-outlook_c0821f81-en
Ozoemena, M.C. and Coles, S.R. (2023). ‘Hydrothermal Treatment of Waste Plastics: An
Environmental Impact Study’, Journal of Polymers and the Environment, pp. 1-11.
Padhan, R. K. and Sreeram, A. (2019), ‘Recycling of Polyethylene Terephthalate Bottles.
Chemical Depolymerization of PET Bottles via Combined Chemolysis Methods’, in
Thomas, S., Rane, A.V., Kanny, K., Abitha, V.K. and Thomas, M.G. (ed.), Recycling of
polyethylene terephthalate bottles, William Andrew, pp. 135-147.
Picuno, C., Alassali, A., Chong, Z.K. and Kuchta, K. (2021), ‘Flows of post-consumer plastic
packaging in Germany: An MFA-aided case study’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
Vol. 169, 105515.
Plastics Europe. (2019). Plastics – The Facts 2019, Brussels: Plastics Europe.
46 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
Plastics Europe. (2021). Plastics – The Facts 2021, Brussels: Plastics Europe.
Plastics Europe. (2022). Plastics – The Facts 2022, Brussels: Plastics Europe.
Quicker, P., Seitz, M. and Voge, J. (2022), Chemical recycling: A critical assessment of potential
process approaches, Waste Management & Research, Vol. 40(10), pp. 1494-1504.
Qureshi, M.S., Oasmaa, A., Pihkola, H., Deviatkin, I., Tenhunen, A., Mannila, J., Minkkinen, H.,
Pohjakallio, M. and Laine-Ylijoki, J. (2020), ‘Pyrolysis of plastic waste: Opportunities and
challenges’, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, Vol. 152, 104804.
Ragaert, K., Delva, L. and Van Geem, K., (2017), ‘Mechanical and chemical recycling of solid
plastic waste’, Waste management, Vol. 69, pp.24-58.
Ren, T., Patel, M. and Blok, K. (2006), ‘Olefins from conventional and heavy feedstocks: Energy
use in steam cracking and alternative processes’, Energy, Vol. 31, pp. 425-451.
Rollinson, A., Oladejo, J. (2020), ‘Chemical Recycling: Status, Sustainability, and Environmental
Impacts’, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Berkeley, CA.
Russ, M., Gonzalez, M., Horlacher, M. (2020), ‘Evaluation of pyrolysis with LCA – 3 case studies’,
study by Sphera, commissioned by BASF.
Ryberg, M. W., Hauschild, M. Z., Wang, F., Averous-Monnery, S. and Laurent, A. (2019), ‘Global
environmental losses of plastics across their value chains, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 151, 104459.
Saeba, D., Ruengrit, P., Arpornwichanop, A. and Patcharavorachot, Y. (2020), ‘Gasification of
plastic waste for synthesis gas production’, Energy Reports, Vol. 6(1), pp. 202-207.
Sánchez, A.C. and Collinson, S.R. (2011), ‘The selective recycling of mixed plastic waste of
polylactic acid and polyethylene terephthalate by control of process conditions’,
European Polymer Journal, Vol. 47(10), pp. 1970-1976.
SYSTEMIQ (2022), ‘ReShaping Plastics: Pathways to a Circular, Climate Neutral Plastics System
in Europe’, London: SYSTEMIQ.
SYSTEMIQ (2023), Circularity of PET/polyester packaging and textiles in Europe – synthesis of
published research.
Tabrizi, S. (2021), Designing for real recycling, not plastic lock-in, Position Paper, Zero Waste
Europe.
Tallentire, C.W., Steubing, B. (2020), ‘The environmental benefits of improving packaging waste
collection in Europe’, Waste Management, Vol. 103, pp. 426-436.
TOMRA (2022), Holistic Resource Systems. A framework approach for improving the
management of waste and taking action against climate change.
UN (2022), End plastic pollution: towards an international legally binding instrument,
Resolution adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly on 2 March 2022,
United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme.
van Doorsselaer, K. (2022), ‘The role of ecodesign in the circular economy’, In: Stefanakis, A.
and Nikolaou, I. (eds.): Circular Economy and Sustainability, pp. 189-205.
47 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Viveros, A., Imren, C. and Loske, F. (2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Chemical Recycling for Food
Grade Film, study by Sphera commissioned by the Consumer Goods Forum.
von Vacano, B., Mangold, H., Vandermeulen, G.W., Battagliarin, G., Hofmann, M., Bean, J. and
Künkel, A. (2022), ‘Sustainable Design of Structural and Functional Polymers for a Circular
Economy’, Angewandte Chemie.
Voss, R., Lee, R.P., Seidl, L., Keller, F. and Fröhling, M. (2021), ‘Global warming potential and
economic performance of gasification-based chemical recycling and incineration
pathways for residual municipal solid waste treatment in Germany’, Waste Management,
Vol. 134, pp. 206-219.
Watkins, E., Schweitzer, J.P., Leinala, E. and Börkey, P. (2019), Policy approaches to incentivise
sustainable plastic design, OECD Environment Working Papers No. 149.
Welle, F. (2023a), ‘Recycling of Post-Consumer Polystyrene Packaging Waste into New Food
Packaging Applications – Part 1: Direct Food Contact’, Recycling 2023, Vol. 8(1), 26.
Welle, F. (2023b), ‘Recycling of Post-Consumer Polystyrene Packaging Waste into New Food
Packaging Applications – Part 2: Co-Extruded Functional Barriers’, Recycling 2023, Vol.
8(2), 39.
World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company (2016), The
New Plastics Economy — Rethinking the future of plastic.
Yates, J., Deeney, M., Rolker, H.B., White, H., Kalamatianou, S. and Kadiyala, S. (2021), ‘A
systematic scoping review of environmental, food security and health impacts of food
system plastics’, Nature Food, Vol. 2, pp. 80-87.
Zero Waste Europe (2019), ‘El Dorado of Chemical Recycling - State of play and policy
challenges’.
48 | VASILEIOS RIZOS, PATRICIA URBAN, EDOARDO RIGHETTI, AMIN KASSAB
ANNEX
This report has been supported by:
• BASF
• Neste
• Pyrowave
• Shell
• TOMRA
STAKEHOLDER EVENTS AND SPEAKERS
Chemical recycling: What contribution can it make to the EU’s unfolding industrial
transformation?
• Kevin M. Van Geem, Professor, Laboratory for Chemical Technology, Faculty of
Engineering, Ghent University
The role of life cycle assessment for chemical recycling deployment and policy decision-
making (online)
• Roh Pin Lee, Head of Technology Assessment Division, Institute of Energy Process
Engineering & Chemical Engineering, TU Bergakademie Freiberg
• Florian Keller, Research Associate, TU Bergakademie Freiberg
• Martijn Broeren, Senior Researcher, CE Delft
• Maiju Helin, Head of Sustainability and Regulatory Transformation, Neste
• Christian Krüger, Circular Economy Expert, BASF
• Lauriane Veillard, Policy Officer, Zero Waste Europe
How to develop an ecosystem of recycling technologies for different plastic feedstocks?
• Daniel Schwaab, SVP, Strategy & Sustainability Recycling, TOMRA
• Adela Putinelu, Head of Policy, Plastic Energy
Allocating recycled content in plastics: What approach is needed?
• Jan Henke, Director, International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC)
• Stefan Gärtner, Circular Economy Expert, International Sustainability and Carbon
Certification (ISCC)
• Janek Vahk, Climate, Energy and Air Pollution Coordinator, Zero Waste Europe
• Lauriane Veillard, Chemical Recycling and Plastic-to-Fuels Policy Officer, Zero Waste
Europe
49 | CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF PLASTICS: TECHNOLOGIES, TRENDS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
THE FOLLOWING ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPATED IN THE MEETINGS:
• BASF
• CE Delft
• ChemSec
• Dow
• ECOS
• Ghent University
• International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC)
• Lux Research
• Neste
• Oeko-Institut
• Plastic Energy
• Plastics Europe
• Plastics Recyclers Europe
• Pryme
• Pyrowave
• REMONDIS
• SABIC
• Shell
• Styrenics Circular Solutions (SCS)
• The Consumer Goods Forum
• TOMRA
• TU Bergakademie Freiberg
• VAUDE
• VNO-NCW - MKB-Nederland
• Zero Waste Europe
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors writing in a personal capacity and do not
necessarily reflect those of CEPS or any other institution with which they are associated.
CEPS
PLACE DU CON GRES 1
B-1000 BRUSS ELS
