Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Circular Economy and Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-024-00380-8
1 3
ORIGINAL PAPER
The Normative Role oftheCircular Plastics Alliance
intheEU’s Transition towardsaEuropean Circular Economy
forPlastics
AmyO’Halloran1
Received: 28 March 2023 / Accepted: 11 May 2024 / Published online: 27 May 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Abstract
The global pollution and waste crisis presents us with environmental and economic chal-
lenges which if not properly addressed could destabilise or threaten the survival and
welfare of societies. The European Union is responding to the waste and pollution crisis
through its circular economy agenda that adopts a broad life-cycle approach to the regula-
tion of plastics from production, consumption, disposal, and recycling. To operationalise
its agenda, the European Union seeks to inter alia mobilise all actors towards the objec-
tive of improving the economics of plastic recycling. Given the potential for conflicts and
disputes to proliferate across a broad range of societal actors and interests, it is perhaps not
surprising that when we examine the evolving EU legal and normative framework for a
circular plastics economy, we observe a polycentric governance arrangement that includes
the EU institutions, the Circular Plastics Alliance (CPA), and European standardisation
organisations (i.e. CEN and CENELEC). The normative interactions amongst these gov-
ernance bodies will not easily be unveiled and understood if we enclose our perspectives
and analyses within the limits of traditional legal paradigms that only focus upon the for-
mal law-making processes that flow through the European Parliament, Council, and Com-
mission. However, by applying Karl Llewellyn’s law-jobs theory in this article, it is pos-
sible to analyse how a multiplicity of governance bodies perform certain legal functions
that are contributing to the development of regulatory order for a European circular plastics
economy. This article sets out a number of key findings in relation to the evolving legal and
normative framework for a European circular plastics economy pertaining to the role of
the CPA in framing problems, theorising solutions, and shaping the pathway of normative
development towards a European circular plastics economy. To date, the CPA has identi-
fied obstacles to the expansion of the European recycled plastics market, and mapped the
areas in need of standardisation if such obstacles are to be overcome This work by the CPA
has prompted the European Commission to submit a standardisation request to the CEN
and CENELEC calling for the development of harmonised standards to facilitate greater
plastic recycling. While compliance with CEN and CENELEC standards would be volun-
tary, such standards could interact with the EU’s proposed Ecodesign Regulation and any
delegated acts adopted thereto, thereby creating legal obligations for a wide range of actors
across plastic value chains.
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2860
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
Keywords Circular Plastics Alliance· Standardisation· Law· Regulation· European
Union· Plastic Recycling· Legal Theory
Abbreviations
ABS Acrylonitrite butadiene styrene
CEN European Committee for Standardization
CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization
CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union
CPA Circular Plastics Alliance
EFTA European Free Trade Area
ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute
EU European Union
GDP Gross Domestic Product
Mt Million tonnes
PE Polyethylene
PET Polyethylene terephthalate
PP Polypropylene
PS Polystyrene
PV Photovoltaic
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
Introduction
Certain arenas of human life such as technological development may at first appear to be
entirely technical in nature wherein, they possess no distinctly legal element. However, the
American jurist Karl Llewellyn asserted that “there is almost no part of culture which is
not also ‘legal’ in nature (whatever else it may be as well)” [[1] p 1377]. Adopting a func-
tionalist legal perspective, Llewellyn argued that because social interactions are attended
by risks of conflict or grievance (i.e. ‘trouble’), the law is always in the background regard-
less of how seemingly non-legal the context [1]. He reasoned that when trouble arises the
law usually emerges to perform important functions such as resolving disputes, channelling
conduct, rechannelling conduct, reorientating societies towards collective objectives (i.e.
‘net positive drive’), and restoring and maintaining social harmony. As a result, Llewellyn
concluded that law tends to be “mixed into any coordinated action” such that the law
“infests” human culture [[1] p 1377].
The great environmental crises of our time (i.e. climate; biodiversity loss; pollution and
waste) [2, 3] have engendered ‘trouble’ to a critical level today. These crises, and the risks
they pose to all societies are provoking coordinated action and normative development in
order to avert, mitigate, or adapt to these unfolding crises. Such normative development
is sometimes occurring through new organisational forms that don’t always sit easily
within the legal and political paradigms of State and international law [4]. For example,
in the context of the plastic pollution and waste crisis, the European Union (EU) seeks
to implement a circular economy agenda partly by utilising industrial alliances as pio-
neers in normative development [5]. Industrial alliances have been described by Huang
etal. as an organisational form within industry that is usually purposed towards conquering
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2861
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
technological objectives through the mobilisation of industrial actors [6]. In relation to the
EU’s circular economy ambitions, the establishment of industrial alliances across a number
of key sectors is intended to respond to some of the technological, operational, and eco-
nomic challenges associated with realising a European circular economy [7]. In the plastics
sector, the Circular Plastics Alliance (CPA) was established in 2018 [8], for the purpose of
fostering the growth of the European recycled plastic market through inter alia, progress-
ing normative development towards design-for-recycling standards and guidelines for plas-
tic products, components, and packaging [5].
Novel organisational mechanisms such as industrial alliances and the complex entangle-
ment of social and environmental crises to which they respond, add to existing exigencies
that impel scholars (including legal scholars) to “rethink basic concepts in the organisa-
tion of our societies” [[9] p 25]. As industrial alliances are not formal law-making forums
like State legislatures or the EU institutions, legal scholars are faced with a more polycen-
tric governance context within which they must move beyond “positing simple systems
to using more complex frameworks, theories, and models to understand the diversity of
puzzles and problems facing humans interacting in contemporary societies.” [10] p 641].
Accordingly, this article will assume the task of confronting the conceptual and methodo-
logical challenges of understanding the role of the CPA within the evolving legal and nor-
mative framework for a European circular plastics economy by adopting the functionalist
legal perspective of Karl Llewellyn’s ‘law-jobs theory’ [1]. Llewellyn’s theory was devel-
oped in the 1930’s to address the conceptual and methodological challenges of analys-
ing the legal and normative organisation of indigenous societies in North America whose
institutional structures and practices differed from the types of legal and political systems
that were typically found in Western States [11]. The law-jobs theory, for which William
Twining articulates a contemporary interpretation [11], provides an illuminating research
paradigm for examining functionalist aspects of law and law-like phenomena that do not
fit neatly within the formal unitary law-making structures of particular States [11]. The
law-jobs theory also facilitates analyses of combinations of law and law-like phenomena as
may occur in a polycentric governance arrangement such as the EU wherein the EU institu-
tions, European standardisation organisations, and the CPA mutually interact in the devel-
opment of rules and standards for a European circular economy for plastics [12]. Methodo-
logically, the law-jobs theory may be described as a functionalist research approach that
seeks to identify the point of particular institutions, institutional practices, or institutional
configurations from a legal perspective [11]. In this way, the law-jobs theory is concerned
with the provision of legal order within society and the functions that must be performed
to achieve such order (e.g. channelling of conduct, dispute resolution). It should be empha-
sised that the functionalist approaches of Llewellyn and Twining are based upon an under-
standing that law has a distinctive role in social organisation, wherein law is primarily ori-
entated towards the provision of order rather than the various instrumental objectives that
are pursued through the institution of law. Indeed, there are many different objectives that
may be pursued in furtherance of establishing a circular plastics economy, and there is no
universal conception of what a circular plastics economy entails. Scholars have shown that
articulations of a circular economy are often political statements rather than value neu-
tral statements [13, 14]. Moreover, Yalcin etal. have observed that the plurality of ideas
around circularity mean that particular conceptions of a circular economy may range from
material-focused, to plastics-economy focused, to socio-ecological systems-focused. Mate-
rial focused conceptions may see recycling as a priority towards achieving resource-effi-
ciency, climate-neutrality, and competitiveness [15]. Such conceptions are closely aligned
to the EU’s European Plastic Strategy [16] which seeks to mobilise industry towards more
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2862
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
circular patterns of production. Conceptions that focus on the plastics-economy seeks to
emphasise the benefits of establishing circularity at scale [15]. These conceptions may
assert the importance of plastics utilisation in contemporary life and argue that significant
economic benefits (e.g. new jobs, greater revenue, reducing dependencies) may be accrued
from innovation and economic growth that is orientated towards circularity [15]. Such a
conception of the circular plastics economy sees business and industry as key actors in an
economy-wide transformation towards circularity, and there are aspects of this approach
evident in the EU’s desire to mobilise industry and society towards circular economics.
Socio-ecological systems-focused conceptions of a circular plastics economy may see plas-
tics as unnatural materials that cause significant environmental harm and that paradigmatic
change is needed across society to achieve sustainability. Unlike the plastics-economy con-
ception, the socio-ecological systems-focused conception of circularity is driven by envi-
ronmental concerns as opposed to economic opportunity [15]. Those who subscribe to
socio-ecological systems focused conceptions of circularity may be sceptical that entropy
allows for repetitious recycling of plastic materials, and that economic growth can be
decoupled from environmental harm [15]. The viewpoints that follow from this may seek
to criticise other conceptions of circularity which they perceive to be overly technocratic,
or business orientated, and whose ultimate purpose is considered to be the solidification of
existing economic power structures in society [15, 17]. Views informed by socio-ecologi-
cal systems-focused conceptions of a circular plastic economy are also likely to be scepti-
cal thatthe EU’s circular economy agenda will adequately ensure environmental protection
and sustainability. Accordingly, the typology of circularity discourse developed by Yalcin
etal. reveals that different actors may articulate different conceptions of circularity, and
advocate for competing strategies, that are aligned with divergent aspirations of a circu-
lar plastics economy [15]. Moreover, within these discourses the prevailing urgency for
change may contrast; with some discourses on circularity seeking to promote incremental
reforms to institutions and practices, whereas other discourses may pursue transformational
change by challenging the underlying power and market relationships in the plastics sector
and society [13, 14]. These contests between competing conceptions of a circular plastics
economy are reflective of the struggles that occur within law-making, particularly where
significant interests are at stake.
However, law is an institution that is distinct from the instrumental objectives and
policies that prompted the making of law [18]. According to Llewellyn and Twining,
law is primarily orientated towards the provision of order [1, 11]. Therefore, law is
an institution that may serve a different policies, purposes, interests, and aspirations
(e.g. environmental protection, social protection, economic growth, consumer protec-
tion) at different times [13, 14]. However, regardless of the instrumental objectives that
prompted the making of law, the role of law within societies is the provision of order
[1, 11]. Indeed, there may be other ways and means of achieving particular instrumental
objectives that do not involve law (e.g. economic activities, education, political activ-
ism). However, when such objectives are institutionalised through law, then the point is
the provision of order. Through its focus on the functions that contribute to the provi-
sion of order, Llewellyn’s law-jobs theory provides a heuristic framework for examining
the functional role of the CPA within what is becoming an increasingly complex EU
regulatory order. The law jobs theory facilitates an analysis of the functions performed
by the CPA that contribute to the provision of order within the EU regulatory order,
while also avoiding any conflation of the CPA’s role with the particular instrumental
objectives pursued by the CPA (e.g. identifying and addressing the obstacles to the
expansion of the European recycled plastics market).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2863
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
The law-jobs theory is based upon the premise that all citizens and enterprises are mem-
bers of societies and social groups [1]. From this premise the theory postulates that there
are six functions typically performed by law that are necessary for the continuing survival
and welfare of social groups, namely (i) dispute resolution, (ii) the channelling of conduct
and expectations, (iii) the rechannelling of conduct and expectations, (iv) the allocation of
authority to officials and institutions, (v) the provision of ‘net positive drive’ (i.e. estab-
lishing collective aspirations and policy objectives for a social group), (vi) and the juristic
method for decision-making [1]. According to Llewellyn and Twining, the performance
of each of these law-jobs contributes to the provision of order and maintaining harmony
within societies. The most relevant of these law jobs or functions for pursuing an analysis
of the EU’s engagement with the CPA is firstly, the provision of net positive drive by the
EU institutions through their circular economy agenda that steers the output of industrial
alliances towards circularity in the European plastics sector. Secondly, the rechannelling of
conduct and expectations is a law-job performed partly by industrial alliances such as the
CPA, which is tasked with identifying obstacles to the realisation of a European circular
plastics economy and then, stimulating normative development in the direction of more cir-
cular patterns of behaviour. Thirdly, the work of the CPA in progressing normative devel-
opment in the area of European standardisation could help to facilitate the channelling of
conduct and expectations through the interaction of European Standards with proposed EU
legislation (if adopted). The effective channelling of conduct and expectations may require
legal authority to enforce rules and standards in the event of non-compliance. While com-
pliance with European Standards is voluntary, the interaction of such standards with EU
legislation can provide important support to the implementation of EU law, thereby facili-
tating the channelling of conduct and expectations. It should be noted that while the CPA is
orientated towards identifying problems and fostering normative development, the CPA is
not an direct participant in the performance of law-jobs such as dispute resolution, alloca-
tion of authority, the channelling of conduct and expectation, and the institutionalisation
of juristic methods. The CPA does not have the legal or regulatory authority to channel
conduct and expectations through the enforcement of rules and standards. The CPA is not
an adjudicatory body and consequently the CPA does not undertake dispute resolution. The
CPA has not been vested with the legal and political authority to allocate authority to oth-
ers. Lastly, in contrast to systems of appellate courts, the CPA is nota juristic body which
is engaged in the development of legal doctrine and culture. However, despite these func-
tional limitations, the CPA is playing a salient role in the rechannelling of conduct and
expectations for the European recycled plastics market. The contribution of the CPA to the
performance of this function also helps to facilitate the performance of law-jobs by other
bodies within the EU regulatory order such as the EU institutions and European standardi-
sation organisations. For example, the rechannelling of conduct and expectations through
the development of European Standards is an enabling condition that helps to facilitate
the channelling of conduct and expectations through EU law, which will prevail over indi-
vidual interests in the event of a conflict or a dispute [1]. Accordingly, this article will
firstly analyse the provision of net positive drive by the EU institutions, and then examine
the rechannelling of conduct and expectations by the CPA, before considering the practical
implications of these functions in relation to the channelling of conduct and expectations
through an analysis of the normative interactions between the CPA, European standardisa-
tion, and EU legislation.
To analyse the role of the CPA within the EU regulatory order, a desktop study was
conducted based on institutional documentation pertaining to policies, strategies, proce-
dures as well as EU legislation (and proposed EU legislation). It should be noted that the
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2864
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
study did not include primary data from interviews with officials or stakeholders. The fol-
lowing 11 EU institutional documents were considered; the European Commission’s First
Circular Economy Action Plan [19]; Second Circular Economy Action Plan [20]; Euro-
pean Strategy for Plastics [16]; European Green Deal [21]; the EU’s Industrial Strategy
[22]; the updated EU Industrial Strategy [23]; The ‘Blue Guide’ on the implementation
of EU product rules [24]; the European External Action Service (EEAS) Global Strategy
for Foreign and Security Policy [25]; the Vademecum on European standardisation [26];
the Commission’s 2022 standardisation request, and draft standardisation request, that both
called for the development of harmonised standards for the regulation of product design,
the quality of sorted plastic waste, and the quality of plastic recyclates [27, 28]. The study
also analysed 4 documents produced by the CPA, namely: the Declaration of the Circu-
lar Plastics Alliance [29]; Roadmap to 10 Mt recycled content by 2025 [30]; Guidance on
Waste Definitions [31]; and the Design for Recycling Work Plan [32]. Given the potential
for normative interactions between European Standards and EU legislation, this article also
engages with EU legal instruments such as delegated acts adopted by the Commission [33,
34], as well as the Ecodesign Directive [35], the proposed Ecodesign Regulation [36], and
the proposed Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation [37].
The data in the forgoing documents is categorised and analysed in accordance with the
framework of Llewellyn’s law-jobs theory. EU policies and strategies are captured under the
heading; provision of net positive drive which facilitated an analysis of how these policies
and strategies steer society along certain pathways of change. The normative work of the
CPA, and the EU’s standardisation request, are captured under the heading; rechannelling
of conduct and expectations which identifies and analyses law-making and norm-making
processes. EU legislative documents are analysed in relation to their potential interaction
with proposed European Standards for plastic recycling. Such analysis provides a vision of
how European Standards might support the implementation of new EU legislation that will
impose legally-binding obligations that are capable of channelling the conduct and expecta-
tions of economic and societal actors. The next section of this article will begin by looking
at the existence of, or the risk of ‘trouble cases’, which Llewellyn considered to be a prereq-
uisite for the emergence of law. In other words, Llewellyn saw the institutionalisation of law
as a response to problems that could destabilise or threaten social life.
The Trouble Case – Plastic Waste Generation andPollution
Llewellyn expressed the view that one of the fundamental functions of law in society is
resolving and avoiding conflicts and disputes, which if amplified and multiplied, could
potentially threaten the survival or welfare of society. Llewellyn described such conflicts
and disputes as trouble cases [1]. If trouble cases remain unresolved and fester, then they
have a destabilising effect on social harmony, which could in time potentially lead to the
dissolution of social groups [1]. The deterioration of our environment presents many such
trouble cases including the crises of climate, biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste [2].
The pollution and waste crisis has been driven in part by the exponential growth in plastic
production, and plastic waste generation. Indeed, the proliferation of plastic waste and pol-
lution and the attendant risk to society poses a trouble case that has roused the concern
and angst of officials, policy makers, environmentalists, and wider society [38]. For exam-
ple, commenting on the particularly deleterious effects of plastic pollution on the marine
environment, the United Nations Environmental Assembly recently expressed the view that
marine plastic pollution is a “serious environmental problem at a global scale.” [[39] p 1]
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2865
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
Some scholars have described marine plastic pollution as a “wicked” problem owing to the
difficulties and the interdependencies that are associated with addressing the problem [[40]
p 282]. Indeed, the 27th edition of the Oxford Atlas of the World describes the prevalence
of plastic material in the environment as follows;
“Plastics pervade every environment on Earth. Plastic waste can be found in the
remotest areas, far from its place of origin.”[ [41] p 9].
The negative environmental impacts of plastic litter and debris can pose risks to wild-
life, human health and marine activities. For example, marine animals can become entan-
gled or asphyxiated upon coming into contact with plastic debris. There are also risks
associated with plastic debris being ingested by marine animals who mistake it for food
[42–45]. Once ingested, plastic materials and toxins can bioaccumulate in marine animals
[46–50], and thereafter pose a threat to human health through the food chain [51]. Several
species of fish consumed by humans have been found with toxic plastics in their stomachs
(e.g. mackerel, striped bass and Pacific oysters) [52, 53]. There is also a growing concern
regarding the risks of toxins being transferred to humans directly from plastic products and
packaging [42, 54], because chemicals added to plastics with a view to improving product
performance (e.g. plasticizers, stabilizers, and flame retardants) can pose risks to human
health [42]. Plastic pollution can also interfere with human activities and amenities and
there are various examples of plastic pollution impacting upon fishing [55, 56], shipping
and transport [55], and tourism [55].
Despite a number of known negative environmental impacts and risks, it should be
remembered that there are also significant benefits accrued through the utilisation of plas-
tics in meeting important social needs. Plastics are “inexpensive, lightweight, strong, dura-
ble, corrosion resistant, with high thermal and electrical insulation properties.” [[42] p
1973] By virtue of possessing such properties, various plastics have facilitated technologi-
cal advances that have benefited society in the areas of vehicle manufacture, fuel efficiency,
electronics, utilities, medicinal products, and food preservation [42]. Given the utility of
plastics, some scholars have expressed the view that “[a]ny future scenario where plastics
do not play an increasingly important role in human life therefore seems unrealistic.” [[57]
p 1983]. Plastics make our lives “easier, safer, healthier, and more mobile” [[58] p 14].
Indeed, projections indicate that plastic production is going to increase significantly in the
coming decades [59, 60].
Given the utility of plastics in contemporary life, it is not surprising that the plas-
tics industry occupies a position of significant economic importance. Indeed, the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has estimated the value of the
global plastics sector at over US$1 trillion in 2018. This figure represents about 5% of the
value of global trade and these statistics do not account for the value and volume of hidden
plastics embedded in products and packaging [61]. In Europe in 2019, the plastics industry
(producers and convertors) employed over 1.5million people, and generated an aggregate
sectoral turnover of over €350billion which created a positive trade balance of €13.1bil-
lion in then EU28. The sector also contributed around €28.6billion to public finances and
welfare [62].
Accordingly, the utilisation of plastics provides important social and economic bene-
fits for contemporary society. However the way that society manages plastic materials is
attended by significant environmental and human health risks. As a result, public authori-
ties and private actors face the challenge of facilitating the beneficial utilisation of plastics
while also mitigating or eliminating the risk of harm to the environment and human health.
This challenge is made more difficult given that the current scale of waste generation is
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2866
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
unsustainable. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
claims that 22% of plastic waste is mismanaged [63]. Indeed, the pressures on the world’s
waste management systems became particularly salient in recent years following the intro-
duction of waste import restrictions by China (i.e. ‘Green Sword’ policy) [64, 65], Malay-
sia [66, 67], and Turkey [68]. Such restrictions on waste imports have in part contributed
to a 50% reduction in waste exports leaving the EU27 and United Kingdom between 2016
and 2020 [58]. In addition to the environmental risks, the management of European plastic
waste presents an economic challenge in relation to the efficient management of resources.
The generation of plastic waste and the loss of plastic materials in Europe remains high
with around 31% of plastic waste going to landfill, and around 39% going to incineration
in 2016 [16, 69]. The European Commission has estimated that around 95% of the mate-
rial value of plastic packaging material is lost after a single-use, representing an estimated
financial loss of between US$80–100million annually [16, 69]. The Commission has also
estimated that the adoption of circular economic practices that keep plastics in the econ-
omy for longer would result in an increase of 0.5% in EU Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
by 2030, and would lead to the creation of around 700 thousand new jobs, while also pro-
viding significant savings for manufacturers [70].
The foregoing synthesis of some of the main advantages and disadvantages of the uti-
lisation of plastics in contemporary societies illustrates that while plastics contribute pos-
itively to human welfare and the wider economy, plastics may also have a destabilising
effect on social groups if there is a failure to address the significant environmental and
economic risks associated with plastic usage. Accordingly, society’s utilisation of plastics
poses a classic Llewellyn trouble case that possesses the potential to generate many con-
flicts and disputes between competing interests as they face difficult environmental and
economic challenges.
How theLaw Can Address Trouble Cases
Karl Llewellyn explained that social life requires that individual behaviour and expecta-
tions are channelled in order to avoid the proliferation of conflicts and disputes that could
imperil the welfare and survival of social groups [1]. Law plays a key role in the channel-
ling of conduct within society as legal rules and standards are enforceable against recal-
citrant persons in the event of conflicts or disputes. The enforceability of legal rules and
standards means that they have teeth which are capable of biting back against those per-
sons who seek to thwart the legal expectations of society [1, 71, 72] However, in order to
channel the conduct of individuals towards society’s expectations, it is firstly necessary to
determine the lines along which behaviour and expectations are to be channelled [1]. In
a State legal system, this function of rechannelling conduct and expectations is typically
performed by those bodies or actors that are vested with law-making capacity, such as leg-
islatures, judges, officials, and regulators etc [1]. .
However, law-making in relation to the current plastic pollution and waste crisis is
intensely complex. Law-makers are faced with an intricate governance context that:
encompasses many sectors (e.g. agriculture, construction, packaging, electrical and elec-
tronic equipment); traverses all phases of the plastic life-cycle (e.g. extrusion, conversion,
production, consumption, product usage, end-of-life) [73, 74]; and pertains to all stages
of the waste management process (e.g. disposal, collection, sorting, recycling, landfill)
[74]. Accordingly, the plastic pollution and waste crisis challenges law-makers to rechannel
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2867
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
conduct and expectations across many different parts of society. As will be explained
below, the EU seeks to address this governance challenge partly through the strategic use
of the CPA as a forum to progress normative development across the full value chain for
plastics, thereby encompassing relevant aspects of plastic production, branding, retail, as
well as waste collection, sorting, recycling etc [30].
If the conduct and expectations of a broad spectrum of European society are to be
rechannelled towards circularity, then there must firstly be a clear idea of what a ‘circular
economy’ means or symbolises in a European context. According to Llewellyn, the coa-
lescence of society around collective ideals and objectives is a prerequisite to orientating
the direction of normative development within a social group [1]. He explained that to
effectively coalesce society in this way requires the provision of a net positive drive that is
capable of mobilising and steering society in the direction of collective ideals and objec-
tives. A net positive drive describes the collective impetus or incentive that is necessary to
propel normative development and policy towards certain collective objectives minus the
centrifugal tendencies of individuals or sub-groups which might pull in the direction of
their own particular interests [1]. Accordingly, the net positive drive of a social group con-
veys the collective aspirations of that social group, and the group’s institutional efficiency
in striving towards such aspirations [1, 12]. As a result, the provision of a net positive drive
is a function typically performed by political and legal institutions that claim to speak for
the whole of society (e.g. governments, legislatures, judges) [1]. In terms of establishing a
European circular economy, net positive drive is provided by the EU institutions through
their circular economy agenda that is intended to coalesce European society around the
long-term overarching objective of establishing a European circular economy for plastics
[1]. Figure1 below illustrates the functional role of the CPA and the EU institutions within
the EU governance configuration for a circular plastics economy.
Provision ofNet Positive Drive bytheEU Institutions
The establishment of a European circular economy will require that the actions of many
different actors are coordinated and synergised [16, 21]. The EU institutions are well
placed to provide the net positive drive capable of orchestrating collective action because
institutions such as the Commission are firstly, in a position to articulate a common ideal
of a European circular economy, and secondly, the Commission has the ability to pursue
policy initiatives and strategies that mobilise actors towards the realisation of a European
circular economy.
While there are many different articulations of what the concept of ‘circular econ-
omy’ represents [13–15, 75, 76], it is the EU institutions that determine what a circular
economy means for the European Union as a whole. For example, the Commission’s
First Circular Economy Action Plan adopted in 2015, articulated the EU’s aspiration of
establishing a European circular economy “where the value of products, materials and
resources is maintained in the economy for as long as possible, and the generation of
waste minimised” [19] p 1]. This vision of a circular economy encompasses the entire
product life-cycle from the design of a product to its end-of-life phase [19]. The Com-
mission’s Second Circular Economy Action Plan which was adopted in 2020, explains
that for European citizens, a circular economy aims to provide “high-quality, functional
and safe products, which are efficient and affordable, last longer and are designed for
reuse, repair, and high-quality recycling.” [20] Sect.1]. Accordingly, the Commission’s
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2868
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
current vision of a European circular economy could be said to entail transformative
changes to market practices that generate circular patterns of production, consumption,
and disposal by means of: reducing the consumption of resources; promoting the use of
recycled materials; and facilitating the reuse and repair of products [76]. Such a vision
Fig. 1 Illustrates the establishment of the CPA and the thrust of its influence in the rechannelling of conduct
and expectations towards the development of European Standards by CEN and CENELEC. Such standards,
if adopted, may support the implementation of EU legislation which channels the conduct and expectations
of actors across plastic life-cycles
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2869
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
could be said to provide a general compass which orientates European society towards
circularity.
However, the provision of net positive drive involves more than just the articulation of
collective ideals and aspirations. A net positive drive also requires that actors are mobilised
towards the realisation of collective objectives. For example, the Commission’s Second
Circular Economy Action Plan seeks to guide the legislative agenda of the EU by stream-
lining regulation and establishing a sustainable product policy framework [20]. In accord-
ance with that action plan, a proposal for a new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regula-
tion has been advanced by the Commission and the Parliament. If adopted, the proposed
Regulation would require that actors along plastic value chains ensure that all packaging is
recyclable by the year 2030, and recyclable at scale by 2035 [37, 77]. The Second Circular
Economy Action Plan also seeks to accelerate the implementation of the European Green
Deal [21] which is an economic strategy that is intended to deliver a more sustainable
future for European citizens by inter alia fostering greater resource-efficiency, improving
competitiveness, and ultimately decoupling economic growth from resource use [19, 21,
78]. The Commission has acknowledged that the transformation of the European economy
in this way will need to draw upon the full collective capacity of the EU, including the
mobilisation of industry [21]. As a result, the Commission has sought to pursue a greater
engagement with industry [21], through its new Industrial Strategy which was published
in 2020 [22], and updated in 2021 [23]. This strategy seeks to mobilise industry towards
circularity by formalising cooperation through industrial alliances. So far, the Commission
has established a number of industrial alliances across sectors such as aviation [79], batter-
ies [80], clean hydrogen technologies [81], edge and cloud technologies [82], plastics [5],
processors and semiconductor technologies [83], raw materials [84], renewable and low
carbon fuels [85], and solar photovoltaic (PV) [86].
In the plastics sector, the CPA was established in 2018 for the purpose of identifying
and addressing the technological, operational, and economic challenges associated with
expanding the European market for recycled plastics [5]. While industrial alliances such as
the CPA possess a degree of autonomy to explore the feasibility of different options, it is
important to emphasise that the net positive drive provided by the EU institutions frames
the objectives of industrial alliances and shapes the environment within which those alli-
ances operate [6]. For example, the CPA is presently orientated towards progressing the
realisation of an objective under the Commission’s European Strategy for Plastics that
aims to expand the European recycled plastics market to 10million tonnes (Mt) by the
year 2025 [16]. The CPA’s progress in furthering this objective will be considered below in
relation to how the Alliance is contributing towards normative development for a circular
plastic economy.
Finally, it should be noted that the force of the EU’s net positive drive can be felt beyond
Europe through the EU’s influence on the global marketplace and the development of
global rules and standards. For example, the Commission has articulated its aspiration that
the EU should position itself as a global leader on plastic recycling through the promotion
of global standards that safeguard the quality of recycled plastics [16, 20, 22, 25, 78]. The
Commission explains that the EU has the ability to pursue green deal diplomacy firstly,
by setting a “credible example”, and secondly, by employing “its influence, expertise and
financial resources to mobilise its neighbours and partners to join it on a sustainable path.”
[21] Sects.1 and 3, 25] Harnessing the external influence of the EU is the central theme of
the EU’s Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy [25] which reasons that interde-
pendent problems such as environmental degradation and resource scarcity cannot easily
be contained within jurisdictional borders, and therefore, such problems necessitate greater
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2870
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
engagement with others beyond Europe [25]. Indeed, the European External Action Ser-
vice (EEAS) warns that without global norms, EU interests and security are at risk [25]. As
a result, the EU seeks to “participate fully in the global marketplace and co-shape the rules
that govern it.” [25] p 17] The ability of the EU to effectively engage in green diplomacy
around the world will depend in part upon how effectively the EU lives up to its own ide-
als of a circular economy within Europe [25]. For instance, the progress of the EU towards
overcoming obstacles to plastic recycling could guide others and support the implementa-
tion of the Global Plastics Treaty that is currently being negotiated [87]. Draft provisions
of the proposed treaty provide for the imposition of ecodesign requirements that would
regulate the plastic content of products [88]. If a Global Plastics Treaty is adopted, and
such provisions become international law, then the work of CPA in progressing normative
development towards the facilitation of plastic recycling could contribute to the implemen-
tation of such a treaty.
If the EU is to realise its own ambitions of a European circular plastics economy then
such aspirations must be operationalised through a rechannelling of conduct and expec-
tations across European society. The task of initiating this shift in conduct and expecta-
tions has been given to the CPA which is purposed towards identifying and addressing any
obstacles or barriers to the expansion of the European recycled plastics market.
Rechannelling ofConduct bytheCircular Plastics Alliance
Rechannelling of conduct is concerned with selecting the future lines along which behav-
iour is to be channelled [1]. In situations where a net positive drive propels a society
towards new ideals and objectives, then a rechannelling of conduct is likely to be necessary
in order to realign individual behaviour with newly established social expectations. The
net positive drive of the EU’s circular economy agenda will require significant changes
for European industry whereby certain activities are redirected from linear patterns of pro-
duction, consumption, and disposal, towards more circular practices that minimise plastic
waste through the retention of plastic materials in the economy for longer. The CPA has
been tasked with rechannelling conduct in the plastics sector in the short term by admin-
istering a pledging campaign that secures voluntary commitments from manufacturers,
brands, retailers, and recyclers in relation to reorientating their practices and operations
towards circularity [16, 89]. In the longer term, the CPA is tasked with progressing the
development of standards and guidelines that would better facilitate plastic recycling by
regulating: product design choices; the qualitative evaluation of plastic waste and plastic
recyclates; and operational practices across various phases of the plastic life-cycle and
waste management processes [5, 89]. The overarching purpose the CPA’s current mandate
is to foster the development of a European recycled plastics market that has the capacity to
provide 10 Mt of recycled plastics by 2025 [30].
However, the voluntary commitments submitted to the CPA will not be enough to
achieve the desired expansion of the European recycled plastics market. While plastic
recyclers have voluntarily committed to supplying an aggregate volume of 11 Mt of plas-
tic recyclates by 2025, manufacturers have only committed to purchasing 6.4 Mt of such
recyclates by the same year [89]. Accordingly, there is a significant gap of 4.6 Mt tonnes
between the supply and demand for recycled plastic [89]. This gap is understood to be
the primary obstacle to establishing a functioning European recycled plastics market [5,
30]. As a result, a key objective of the CPA, is to improve the economics of plastics
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2871
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
recycling by seeking an alignment of both the supply and demand for recycled plastic
materials [30, 89].
The CPA appears to be strategically located to address the 4.6 Mt gap between supply
and demand as the Alliance is a multistakeholder platform whose membership includes
key actors from across plastics value chains [5]. The Alliance currently has over 300 sig-
natories including industrial actors, business organisations, standardisation organisations,
recyclers, and public authorities [8, 30]. The CPA is governed by a Steering Committee
that is representative of the signatories to the Alliance. This Steering Committee organises
the work programme of the CPA through the establishment of various sectoral working
groups (e.g. packaging, automotive, construction, electrical and electronic equipment, and
agriculture) [5, 30]. There are a number of important sectors represented in the Alliance
and it is estimated that 21 Mt of plastic waste is collected from these sectors each year [30].
Accordingly, although the CPA is a voluntary initiative it would appear to be strategically
positioned to identify problems, and formulate measures to rechannel behaviour and expec-
tations across European plastics value chains and thereby maximise the volume of plastic
waste that can be successfully recycled after plastic products, components, and packaging
reach their end-of-life phase.
Thus far, the CPA has identified three problem areas that must be addressed to assist
manufacturers in increasing their uptake of recycled plastics and reducing their reliance
on virgin plastics. Firstly, plastic recyclates need to be of adequate quality and capable of
adaption to the requirements of manufacturers of plastic products, components and packag-
ing. Secondly, the supply of plastic recyclates must be sufficiently secure so as to provide a
reliable source of plastic feedstock for manufacturers. Thirdly, the market for plastic recy-
clates must be competitive relative to the market for virgin plastics [30].
According to the CPA, addressing these problem areas will require: the development of
design-for-recycling standards and guidelines for plastics; improvements to waste collec-
tion and sorting processes; and investment in better recycling technology. The CPA asserts
that together, such actions could increase the volume and the quality of plastic recyclates
on the European market thereby earning the confidence of plastics manufacturers. The
CPA envisages that by building confidence amongst buyers of recycled plastics (i.e. plas-
tics manufacturers), the European recycled plastics market will be able to transition from
the current “push market” that anticipates future demand, to a “pull market” that responds
to the present demand of buyers of plastic recyclate feedstock [30] p 8]. In this way, it
is hoped that the 4.6 Mt gap between supply and demand in the market could be closed.
According to the CPA, such reform within the market will require normative development
in the area of design-for-recycling standards and guidelines.
The development of design-for-recycling standards and guidelines has the potential
to improve the economics of plastic recycling by firstly, increasing the supply of sorted
plastic waste that reaches recycling centres, and secondly, by building confidence in the
quality of plastic recyclates produced thereafter. For example, the dismantling of waste
products and the separation of plastic materials prior to recycling can be a difficult labour
intensive process leading to losses of plastic materials [90]. Product design standards
that facilitate recycling processes at the end-of-life phase can overcome such difficulties
and improve the quality of plastic waste by simplifying the segregation and the sorting of
plastic waste types, thereby increasing the volume and the quality of plastic waste that is
forwarded to recycling facilities. Moreover, industry actors have themselves argued that
the introduction of standards and guidelines that regulate the quality and the reliability
of recycled plastics are enabling conditions to stimulate the expansion of the European
recycled plastics market [30].
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2872
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
In response to the need for a normative framework that is facilitative of plastic recy-
cling, the CPA published its Design-for-Recycling Work Plan in September 2021 [32]. This
work plan is geared towards developing design-for-recycling standards and guidelines that:
increase the volume of plastic waste that reaches European sorting facilities to 16.7 Mt by
2025; increase the volume of sorted plastic waste that reaches European recycling facili-
ties to 11.8 Mt by 2025 [30, 32]; and improve the rate of recyclability of sorted plastic
waste from 78 to 80% by 2025 [32]. It is hoped that such design-for-recycling standards
and guidelines could contribute to the establishment of a stable supply of sorted plastic
waste for mechanical recycling processes [32], which in turn may create favourable condi-
tions for investment in complementary recycling methods such as chemical recycling [58].
Thus far, the CPA has identified the following areas where it considers that standardi-
sation and guidelines are required if the obstacles to expanding the European market for
plastic recyclates are to be addressed;
1. Design-for-recycling criteria with regard to future recyclability.
2. Evaluation of the quality of sorted plastic waste.
3. Evaluation of the quality of plastic recyclates.
4. Integration of plastic recyclates into products [30].
Additionally, following requests from industry seeking clarification in relation to the
meaning of term ‘waste’, the CPA also published a guidance document of waste defini-
tions that is addressed to priority sectors which have the most potential to contribute to
a European recycled plastics market (e.g. agriculture; automotive; packaging; electrical
and electronic equipment; and construction) [31]. It should be noted this guidance docu-
ment is not a legal instrument and as a result the guidance provided therein should not be
construed as authoritative from a legal perspective. Instead, the purpose of the guidance
document is to provide clarity to a wide range of operators in relation to their reporting
under the CPA’s monitoring system for tracking plastic recycling outputs that contribute
towards the CPA’s overarching aim of expanding the European recycled plastics market to
10 Mt by 2025 [91].
The normative influence of the CPA’s work thus far, can be seen in a standardisation
request that was submitted by the Commission to the European standardisation organisa-
tions, CEN [92] and CENELEC [93] in 2022, that called for the development of voluntary
harmonised standards and deliverables in relation to plastic recycling and plastic recyclates
[25, 94]. This standardisation request was informed by the CPA’s work in identifying obsta-
cles and barriers to the expansion of the European recycled plastics market, and the CPA’s
articulation of definitional guidance in respect of plastic waste [25, 28]. The progression of
normative development towards European standardisation is an important step as harmo-
nised standards can smooth the implementation of EU legislation, and also facilitate the
free movement of goods thereby buoying the competitiveness of European operators both
in Europe and globally [95].
The EU and the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) have entrusted the development
of voluntary standards to the following European standardisation organisations: Euro-
pean Committee for Standardization (CEN), European Committee for Electrotechnical
Standardization (CENELEC), and European Telecommunications Standards Institute
(ESTI) [95]. These organisations have been tasked with inter alia developing European
standards, harmonised standards, and European standardisation deliverables [95]. Euro-
pean standards can be defined as voluntary technical specifications that are intended for
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2873
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
repeated or continuous application in relation to the regulation of product character-
istics, production methods and processes, and the characteristics of services [95, 96].
Harmonised standards are the subset of European standards that are adopted by CEN,
CENELEC, or ETSI following the submission of an initial standardisation request from
the Commission [95]. Based on this distinction, the Commission’s 2022 standardi-
sation request in respect of plastic recycling and plastic recyclates is calling on CEN
and CENELEC to develop harmonised standards that would regulate aspects of product
design, the quality of sorted plastic waste, and the quality of plastic recyclates [25, 28].
The standardisation request specifically calls for the development of three new harmo-
nised standards relating to: the processes and criteria to be used for the evaluation of
plastic packaging recyclability; definitions and principles to regulate design-for-recycling
of plastic packaging; and the characterisation of Acrylonitrite butadiene styrene (ABS)
recyclates. The standardisation request also calls for the revision of existing standards
relating to: agricultural and horticultural plastic films; the characterisation of plastic
wastes; and the characterisation of the following recyclates - polystyrene (PS), polyeth-
ylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) [25]. The development and revision of harmonised standards across the foregoing
areas is intended to facilitate the free movement of plastics materials and recyclates in
Europe, ensure high levels of interoperability, contribute to the growth of the European
recycled plastics market to at least 10 Mt by 2025, while also advancing the policy goal
of environmental protection by improving the management of plastic waste [25].
Harmonised standards play an important role in the EU legal order by providing opera-
tors with appropriate norms by which they may comply with the essential requirements
set out in EU legislation [95]. Many EU legislative acts, including the current Ecodesign
Directive [35] and the new proposed Ecodesign Regulation [36], expressly state that an
operator’s compliance with relevant harmonised standards generates a presumption of con-
formity with the essential requirements under such EU legislative acts [35, 36, 95]. Accord-
ingly, the interaction between EU legislation and harmonised standards has the dual effect
of supporting the EU legal order while at the same time strengthening the normative force
of harmonised standards through presumptions of conformity. This interaction between
harmonised standards and EU legislation will be discussed further in the next section.
While the Commission’s 2022 standardisation request is evidence of normative progress
towards a European circular plastics economy, it should be emphasised that the establish-
ment of legal and regulatory order for a circular plastics economy is still at a relatively
early stage. Currently, the adoption of harmonised standards is not feasible in all contexts
as best practices for circularity are not sufficiently evolved to enable the articulation and
implementation of standards. As a result, the Commission’s 2022 standardisation request
has also called for the development of European standardisation deliverables [25], which
are technical specifications that are intended to provide guidance to operators and possibly
lay the foundations upon which future European standards can be built [95, 97]. The Com-
mission’s standardisation request calls for the adoption of deliverables pertaining to: qual-
ity assessment of plastic recyclates; grades for the qualitative assessment of sorted plastic
waste; and design-for-recycling guidelines in relation to specific types and aspects of plas-
tic packaging, construction products, electronic and electrical equipment, road vehicles,
and agricultural products [25].
It should be emphasised that because European standardisation deliverables are not
harmonised standards, compliance with such deliverables would not carry a presumption
of conformity with EU legislation (see below). However, that does not mean that Euro-
pean standardisation deliverables can be easily ignored. Such deliverables may prove to be
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2874
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
precursors to future European standards. In this way, European standardisation delivera-
bles may be thought of as exploring and shaping possible pathways for normative develop-
ment. Indeed, a European standardisation organisation may choose to explore more than
one normative pathway in relation to a particular issues through the adoption of competing
technical specifications which allow for the subsequent evaluation and comparison of dif-
ferent solutions [97]. Therefore, European standardisation deliverables may be described
as incipient standards or “pre-standards” that test possible pathways of normative develop-
ment [97] p 124].
To recapitulate, the CPA has exercised an influential role in framing problems, theo-
rising solutions, and shaping the pathway of legal and normative development towards
a circular plastics economy. The CPA has responded to the Commission’s objective of
expanding the European recycled plastics market to 10 Mt by 2025, by firstly adminis-
tering a pledging campaign, and secondly by addressing the need for standardisation and
definitional guidance in respect of plastics. This work represents an important early step
in rechannelling conduct within the European plastic sector towards the EU’s vision of
a circular plastics economy. Indeed, such work has paved the way for the Commission’s
standardisation request that was submitted to CEN and CENELEC calling for the develop-
ment of harmonised standards to facilitate plastic recyclability. While it might be argued
that compliance with any future harmonised standards adopted by CEN and CENELEC
would only be voluntary in nature, such standards play an important role in supporting the
EU legal order and this can in turn influence the normative strength of harmonised stand-
ards in practice. Therefore, to more fully understand the significance of normative progress
to date, it will be necessary to also examine how the EU’s evolving legal framework for
ecodesign might interact with any future harmonised standards for plastic recyclability.
Interaction betweenHarmonised Standards andtheEU’s Evolving
Legal Framework forEcodesign
To understand the interaction between the EU legal order and voluntary harmonised stand-
ards adopted by CEN and CENELEC, it is firstly necessary to discern the distinctive qual-
ity by which law may augment the normative force of voluntary standards. According to
Karl Llewellyn, what distinguishes law from other forms of social organisation is the bind-
ing nature of legal obligations. Accordingly, there is an imperative aspect to law, meaning
that an individual can choose whether to follow non-legal norms or advice, however, an
individual must follow the law or face the consequences [1]. In other words, the law has
teeth meaning that when law comes under attack it will bite back and prevail over other
interests [1]. In this way law is able to channel the conduct and uphold the expectations
of different actors. To consider how conduct and expectations may be channelled to sup-
port a circular plastics economy, this article will now examine the European Commission’s
proposal for a new Ecodesign Regulation [36], which would if adopted, replace the cur-
rent Ecodesign Directive [35]. While the current Directive only applies to energy-related
products, the proposed Regulation would extend the application of an ecodesign approach
to address circularity for plastics, and indeed all physical goods (i.e. products, components,
intermediate products) that are placed on the European market or put into service. How-
ever, it should be noted that there are some exceptions meaning that the scope of the pro-
posed Regulation does not extend to: food, feed, medicinal products, living plants, animals
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2875
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
and microorganisms, products of plants or animals relating to their reproduction, and prod-
ucts of human origin [36].
The overarching objective of the proposed Ecodesign Regulation is to establish a legal
framework that sets out essential requirements for improving the environmental sustain-
ability of products in a way that also ensures the functioning of the internal market [36].
The headline initiatives of the proposed Ecodesign Regulation include the establishment
of: an ecodesign framework for products that are placed on the European market or put
into service; a digital product passport; mandatory criteria for green public procurement;
and a framework to regulate the destruction of unsold consumer products [36]. While all
these complementary initiatives may come to play important roles in regulating the design
of environmentally sustainable products and services, it is perhaps the ecodesign frame-
work for products that would most obviously add some teeth to any future voluntary Euro-
pean standards that provide for design-for-recycling. Accordingly, for present purposes, the
focus of the remainder of this article will be directed towards ascertaining how the ecode-
sign framework under the proposed Regulation might interact with future European stand-
ards adopted by CEN or CENELEC.
The ecodesign framework under the proposed Regulation provides that the Commis-
sion shall improve the environmental sustainability of products through the regulation of
the following product aspects: durability, reliability, reusability, upgradability, reparability,
maintenance, refurbishment, substances of concern, energy, resource efficiency, recycled
content, remanufacturing, recycling, carbon and environmental footprint, and the expected
generation of waste materials [36]. While the proposed Regulation does not explain what
such requirements would specifically entail in particular contexts, the proposed Regulation
does provide that more detailed and specific requirements will be elaborated through the
adoption of delegated acts by the Commission [36]. In the context of the EU, delegated
acts are quasi-legislative instruments that tend to be used where there is a need for frequent
or recurring legislative amendments that update legal rules, standards, and best practices in
light of scientific and technological progress as would likely be the case in the plastics sec-
tor where innovations are continually pursued to improve functionality, resource efficiency,
and environmental performance. For clarification purposes, it should be noted that dele-
gated acts are classified as “non-legislative” under Article 290 of the Treaty on the Func-
tioning of the European Union (TFEU) [98], and therefore, delegated acts are not formally
considered to be a type of EU legislation (i.e. EU legislation only denotes Regulations,
Directives, or Decisions that have been adopted in accordance with the ordinary or special
legislative procedures set out in Articles 289 and 294 of the TFEU) [98]. However, despite
the formal classification of EU delegated acts as non-legislative, in practice, such delegated
acts tend to exhibit many of the characteristics of secondary legislative instruments which
are a significant part of the corpus of national legislation in many countries. Secondary leg-
islation can be described as a type of legislative instrument of general application that typi-
cally establishes legally binding technical rules that give effect to more broadly articulated
essential legal requirements that have been enacted by a national parliament under a statute
(i.e. a ‘primary legislative’ act). Analogously, Article 290 of the TFEU provides that essen-
tial legal requirements must be set out in EU legislative acts (e.g. Regulations, Directives,
Decisions), and that delegated acts “of general application” may be adopted to amend or
supplement “non-essential” aspects of EU legislation [98 Article 290]. The quasi-legisla-
tive nature of delegated acts can also be discerned by contrasting delegated acts with EU
implementing acts that are executive in nature. Under the TFEU, while both delegated acts
and implementing acts are of general application and legally binding, implementing acts
can be distinguished on the basis that they do not amend or supplement EU legislative
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2876
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
acts. Instead, implementing acts are instruments that merely give effect to EU legislation
by establishing uniform conditions for the implementation of EU law [99]. Accordingly,
despite their formal non-legislative status, delegated acts tend to be understood as a type of
secondary legislation, because in practice, they are often utilised as a flexible law-making
instrument by which to elaborate non-essential aspects of EU legislation without having to
fulfil all the requirements of legislative procedure [100, 101].
Under the proposed Ecodesign Regulation, delegated acts have been designated as the
legal medium through which the Commission will articulate many of the specific legal obli-
gations that would be mandated by that Regulation. Significantly, the proposed Regulation
would empower the Commission to adopt delegated acts that are capable of creating legal
obligations requiring that categories of products placed on the European market or put into
service must conform to certain ecodesign and product performance standards [36]. The
creation and imposition of such obligations could extend along entire plastic value chains
to regulate the decisions of manufacturers, authorised representatives of manufacturers,
importers, distributers, dealers, economic operators that place products on the market (e.g.
in relation to labelling and the provision of information, monitoring and reporting), fulfil-
ment service providers, and online marketplaces, and search engines [36]. Accordingly,
despite their formal non-legislative status, in practice such delegated acts could create and
impose legal obligations on a wide range of actors [101].
The next matter to consider is how delegated acts adopted pursuant to the proposed
Regulation might interact with European standards that could be adopted by CEN or
CENELEC in the future. Such interactions can be analysed firstly in relation to those situa-
tions where a delegated act amends the proposed Regulation, and secondly those situations
where a delegated act supplements the proposed Regulation.
The Commission’s powers of amending the proposed Regulation by delegated acts are
confined to two situations where it may be necessary to substitute or add to international
standards that have been stipulated in, and thereby incorporated into, the proposed Regula-
tion. For example, under Article 9(1)(c) of the proposed Regulation, the Commission is
empowered to replace or add to the stipulated international standard (i.e. ISO/IEC 15459-
2:2015) by incorporating other European or international standard(s) that relate to data car-
riers and unique identifiers that are to be contained in product passports [36]. The Commis-
sion is similarly empowered to amend Article 11(1) of the proposed Regulation to replace
or add to the stipulated international standard (i.e. ISO/IEC 15456-2:2015) that would
apply to unique operator identifiers and unique facility identifiers [36]. Accordingly, the
Commission’s powers to amend the proposed Regulation are confined to just two situations
where the stipulated international standard may be replaced or added to in light of techni-
cal and scientific progress. However, neither of these two situations are directly concerned
with matters pertaining to the Commission’s 2022 standardisation request regarding plastic
recycling and recyclates [25, 28]. As a result, it is the Commission’s ability to supplement
the proposed Regulation that appears most likely to give rise to future interactions with
European standards for plastic recycling and recyclates.
The Commission has been vested with a much greater array of powers to adopt del-
egated acts that supplement the proposed Regulation [36]. It is important to emphasise that
such powers are supplementary, meaning that they may only be exercised to augment spec-
ified provisions under the proposed Regulation. The matters over which the Commission
can exercise such delegated powers are mandated by the proposed Regulation, which also
prescribes the content and form that delegated acts must take [36]. The matters over which
the Commission may adopt delegated acts include: the determination of ecodesign require-
ments for particular product groups; product performance requirements; information
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2877
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
requirements; labelling; digital product passports; methods of verification (i.e. tests, meas-
urements, and calculations); conformity assessment procedures; and the establishment of
prohibitions in relation to the destruction of certain types of unsold products [36]. The use
of delegated powers in this way provides a flexible means of elaborating technical require-
ments across what is potentially a wide array of product groups and contexts. Indeed, the
important role that delegated acts play within the EU legal order was recognised in the EU
Institutions Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making which acknowledged the
contribution that such instruments make to ensuring that the EU legislative process is effi-
cient and that legislation is kept up to date [102].
If the Commission were to adopt delegated acts to supplement the proposed Ecode-
sign Regulation then such delegated acts could interact with European standards relating
to matters such as: product design; the quality of sorted plastic waste; and the quality of
plastic recyclates [25]. Under the proposed Regulation such interactions would be likely
to occur firstly, during the formulation of delegated acts by the Commission, and secondly,
through the operation of presumptions of conformity [36]. In relation to the formulation of
delegated acts, Article 5(4)(a) of the proposed Regulation provides that when the Commis-
sion seeks to establish ecodesign requirements through delegated acts, regard must be had
to any relevant European and international standards. This is a familiar requirement across
EU product legislation and the Commission has adopted a number of delegated acts in the
past that expressly refer to European standards covering inter alia: operator requirements
pertaining to technical documentation; labelling information; and compliance and verifi-
cation processes [33, 34]. Accordingly, if CEN or CENELEC were to adopt harmonised
standards in relation to plastic recycling and recyclates, then under the proposed Ecodesign
Regulation the Commission would be obligated to have regard to such standards when for-
mulating delegated acts pursuant to Article 5 of the proposed Regulation.
The second point of interaction between supplementary delegated acts and harmonised
standards concerns the matter of conformity to EU legislative requirements. While har-
monised standards are voluntary in character, compliance with such standards can carry
a presumption of conformity with relevant EU legislation [103]. The origin of such pre-
sumptions of conformity between harmonised standards and EU legislation can be traced
back to circumstances created by the Cassis de Dijon case where the Court of Justice of
the European Union (CJEU) recognised the principle of mutual recognition [104]. This
principle provides that in the absence of harmonised EU legislation, goods that are law-
fully marketed in one Member State must be allowed to enter other Member States with-
out restriction unless the imposition of national restrictions can be justified under certain
mandatory or essential policy requirements (e.g. public policy, public security, public
health, consumer protection) [104]. While the decision in Cassis helped to facilitate the
free movement of goods, it did not address the matter of how Member States were sup-
posed to trust products that had been manufactured in other jurisdictions [24]. The issues
created by Cassis led to a “New Approach” to EU legislation in the 1980s which saw a
greater emphasis on addressing essential policy matters through EU legislation while leav-
ing the development of harmonised technical specifications to the European standardisa-
tion organisations (i.e. CEN, CENELEC, ETSI)[24 p 7, 103 preamble]Many of the EU
legislative acts adopted since that time expressly provide that an operator’s compliance
with harmonised standards carries a presumption of conformity withrelevant requirements
under EU legislation. Such presumptions of conformity assist operators in accessing mar-
kets across Member States, while also ensuring that Member States have confidence in
the quality of the products entering their jurisdictions [103]. In this way, the interaction
of EU legislation and harmonised standards was intended to guarantee compliance with
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2878
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
essential requirements provided for under EU legislation [103]. It follows that if harmo-
nised standards are adopted on foot of the Commission’s 2022 standardisation request in
relation to plastic recycling and recyclates [25, 28], then such standards could come to play
an important role in regulating compliance with the essential sustainability requirements of
the proposed Ecodesign Regulation and any delegated acts adopted thereto. In other words,
if the Commission were to adopt a future delegated act pertaining to the ecodesign of plas-
tic products, then relevant harmonised standards developed by CEN or CENELEC could
come todemonstrate compliance with the proposed Regulation and ultimately determine a
product’s access to the European market.
Accordingly, if the European Parliament and the Council choose to adopt the pro-
posed Ecodesign Regulation then that instrument may provide the legal teeth which Karl
Llewellyn considered were necessary to channel conduct and expectations, and avoid or
minimise conflict and disputes within society [1]. While voluntary commitments, decla-
rations, and pledges made by corporate actors are often not fulfilled [105], the proposed
Ecodesign Regulation and any delegated acts adopted thereto, could create legal obliga-
tions in respect of a wide range of actors across plastic value chains, and such obligations
would have a legal bite that could be enforced in the event of non-compliance [36]. How-
ever, it should also be noted that while a capacity for legal enforcement is usually neces-
sary to uphold the expectations of society, the aftermath of the Cassis de Dijon case [104]
shows that the law is not always able to perform every function necessary to avoid trouble
and conflict [24]. The decision in Cassis did not address the issue of Member States lack-
ing trust in some of the products entering their jurisdictions. Instead that issue was even-
tually addressed through voluntary harmonised standards which carry a presumption of
conformity with relevant requirements of EU legislation [24].
It remains to be seen if the proposed Ecodesign Regulation is adopted and in what form
[36], and what related delegated acts and European standards might emerge in the future.
However, it is clear that normative development concerning plastic recycling and recy-
clates is progressing. In this regard, the work of the CPA has played an important part,
firstly, by identifying obstacles to the expansion of the European recycled plastics mar-
ket [30], and secondly, by mapping the areas in need of standardisation if such obstacles
are to be overcome [32]. As explained above, such work helped to inform the standardisa-
tion request submitted by the Commission to CEN and CENELEC in 2022. If harmonised
standards are adopted on foot of this request, then they could be applied to demonstrate
conformity with the proposed Ecodesign Regulation, and could also influence the formula-
tion of any delegated acts adopted thereto. Accordingly, the CPA is playing an important
role in the rechannelling of conduct and expectations towards a European circular economy
for plastics.
There is one final point to be made about the output of the CPA that could be relevant
in the event that the proposed Ecodesign Regulation is adopted. Article 16 of the proposed
Regulation would impose a duty on the Commission to prioritise the regulation of product
groups that have the most potential to contribute to EU objectives such as the establish-
ment of a European circular plastics economy [36]. In this regard, it should be noted that
the CPA has already identified 26 priority product categories across a number of sectors
(e.g. agriculture, construction, electronic and electrical equipment, and packaging) which
the Alliance considers could benefit from design-for-recycling [32]. These product catego-
ries are cumulatively estimated to account for about 18.4 Mt of the plastic waste that is
available for collection in Europe each year [32]. The prioritisation of these product cat-
egories by the CPA was based on criteria pertaining to the ability of such categories to
contribute to the Commission’s target of expanding the European recycled plastics market
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2879
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
to 10 Mt by the year 2025. The criteria included factors such as: the quantities of plastics
(in tonnes) placed on the EU market each year; the quantities of plastic waste collected
and sorted each year; whether design-for-recycling standards or guidelines could be devel-
oped; and whether design-for-recycling standards or guidelines already exist but could be
improved [32]. Accordingly, if the proposed Ecodesign Regulation is adopted then the sec-
toral knowledge and experience accrued by CPA could assist the Commission in prioritis-
ing the most suitable product categories for the application of ecodesign requirements.
Conclusion
While certain arenas of human life such as technological development may on the surface
appear to be entirely technical in nature, by delving deeper it can be seen that law tends to
permeate human culture to perform important functions that contribute to the minimisation of
conflicts and disputes within societies [1]. The global pollution and waste crisis presents com-
plex environmental and economic challenges within which there is the potential for conflicts
and disputes to emerge and proliferate amongst a broad range of societal actors and interests.
Accordingly, it is perhaps not surprising that the evolving EU legal and normative framework
for a circular plastics economy has manifested as a polycentric governance arrangement that
includes the EU institutions, the CPA, and European standardisation organisations (i.e. CEN
and CENELEC). By applying the theoretical framework of Karl Llewellyn’s law-jobs theory
to this governance context, it is possible to analyse how each of the foregoing governance bod-
ies perform certain legal functions (i.e. law-jobs) that contribute to the development of regula-
tory order for a European circular plastics economy. This article has shown that the EU institu-
tions, in particular the Commission, provide a policy framework and impetus (e.g. net positive
drive) through which normative development for a European circular plastics economy takes
place. While there are a plurality of conceptions and articulations in relation to what a circular
plastics economy should be [13–15, 75], it is the EU vision as set out in its circular economy
agenda [16, 19–21] that is currently setting the parameters for normative development by the
CPA and the European Standardisation organisations (e.g. CEN and CENELEC). Within the
EU framework, the CPA and the European standardisation organisations pursue normative
development by identifying regulatory and economic challenges and developing norms that
respond to such challenges. Where a number of governance bodies cooperate and contribute
to the provision of order in this way, then it may be said that such bodies are part of a polycen-
tric governance arrangement [10]. In this case, the CPA, European standardisation organisa-
tions and the EU institutions “generate some degree of ‘polycentric order’ in their patterns
of behaviour, interactions, and outcomes” [106] p 29]. According to Stephan, Marshall, and
McGinnis a statement that a polycentric governance arrangement provides governance can be
justified where the actions of multiple decision-centres influence the actions or choices of each
other [106]. In the case of a European circular economy for plastics, this article has shown that
there is clear evidence of cooperation, coordination, and influence between the EU institu-
tions, European standardisation organisations, and the CPA. Most notably, so far, the work
of the CPA has led to the Commission submitting a standardisation request to the European
standardisation organisations calling for the development of harmonised standards and Euro-
pean standardisation deliverables in relation to plastic recycling and recyclates. Any harmo-
nised standards adopted by CEN or CENELEC on foot of this request, may in time interact
with the proposed Ecodesign Regulation during the formulation of delegated acts by the Com-
mission, or by the application of presumptions of conformity with the proposed Regulation.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2880
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
Accordingly, the CPA, European standardisation organisations, and the EU institutions each
perform specific functional roles that contribute to the provision of order for a European circu-
lar plastics economy, while still maintaining internal decision-making autonomy within their
own particular domains [107]. A theoretical implication of this governance configuration is the
inadequacy of traditional legal paradigms that only focus on the formal law-making processes
that flow through the European Parliament, Council, and Commission. Instead, governance
for a European circular plastics economy presents legal scholars with a more complex and
polycentric governance context that additionally includes the CPA and European standardisa-
tion bodies. Karl Llewellyn’s law-jobs theory provides a heuristic legal perspective from which
it is possible to capture and analyse the functional roles of the EU institutions, European stand-
ardisation bodies, and the CPA [11]. This is an important mode of analysis given the influ-
ence of the CPA in firstly, identifying obstacles (e.g. technological, operational, economic) to
the achievement of European policy objectives, and secondly, progressing the development of
product design standards and guidelines.
In addition to supporting the implementation of the proposed Ecodesign Regulation,
the adoption of harmonised standards for plastic recycling and plastic recyclates, could
also have practical implications for the operation of other EU legislation such as the Waste
Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive [108], and the End-of-Life Vehi-
cles (ELV) Directive [109]. For instance, if harmonised standards are adopted by CEN
and CENELEC pursuant to the Commission’s 2022 standardisation request [25], then such
ecodesign standards could help to facilitate the fulfilment of legal obligations pertaining
to the separate collection and proper treatment of electrical and electronic waste under
Articles 5 and 8 and Annex VII of the WEEE Directive [108]. Similarly, better ecodesign
design practices could also assist the fulfilment of legal obligations requiring the removal
and recycling of plastic components from vehicles (e.g. bumpers, containers, seating, dash-
boards) under the End of Life Vehicles Directive [109]. It should also be noted that the
normative work initiated by the CPA, and the evolving EU regulatory order for a circu-
lar plastics economy, could also have knock-on effects beyond Europe given the influence
of EU norms in the global marketplace. Indeed, the development of pioneering norms in
key jurisdictions such as the EU often have significance beyond their borders through nor-
mative diffusion. There are numerous examples of successful environmental norms being
transplanted around the world (e.g. the precautionary principle originating from Germany,
and environmental impact assessment from the United States) [110–112]. Accordingly, if
the EU can realise its own sustainability ambitions by harnessing the abilities of a broad
coalition of actors across plastic value chains, then Europe could be in a position to become
a global leader in establishing a circular plastics economy.
The example of the CPA shows the importance of mobilising key value chain actors
towards the achievement of circular ambitions. As a result, the CPA may provide lessons for
other industrial alliances such as the Alliance for Zero-Emission Aviation (AZEA) which is
currently undertaking analysis to identify the need for standards to support the certification of
hydrogen and electric aircraft [79, 113]. However, it should be noted that while this article has
shown that the CPA is playing an important role in the initiation of normative development
within the evolving EU regulatory order for a circular plastics economy, the role of the CPA is
not uncontroversial and as a result further study is recommended. There has been criticism of
the exclusive role accorded to the CPA in the early stages of the standardisation process. For
example, in recent years, coalitions of non-governmental organisations (Environmental Coali-
tion on Standards, European Environmental Bureau, Zero Waste Europe, and Rethink Plastics
Alliance) [114–117] have argued that contrary to the Vademecum on European Standardisa-
tion [26], the Commission gave the CPA a privileged role in the drafting process for its 2022
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2881
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
standardisation request [27]. The prioritisation of the CPA, which in turn leads to the margin-
alisation of other viewpoints, runs the risk of limiting stakeholder consultations to just a nar-
row range of technocratic inputs. Such a situation is not reflective of the plurality of concep-
tions, strategies, and aspirations that contribute to evolving discourses on the circular plastics
economy. Furthermore, given the important role that standardisation plays in supporting the
implementation of EU legislation, the formulation of a standardisation request and the objec-
tives contained therein, cannot be said to be an entirely depoliticised process [13]. Accord-
ingly, the important functional role of the CPA within the EU regulatory order for a circular
plastics economy indicates that more study is needed in relation to the input and throughput
legitimacy of the CPA and other industrial alliances within the European standardisation pro-
cess [118, 119]. Further study is also needed to assess the output of the Commission’s 2022
standardisation request as that process is still ongoing through CEN and CENELEC [27].
Lastly, it is suggested that future research might undertake a comparative analysis of the CPA
and other industrial alliances within the European standardisation process and the wider EU
regulatory order. Such analyses could deepen our understanding of the normative role that
industrial alliances are currently playing within the EU.
Acknowledgements The research in the article was undertaken as part of my PhD studies in law which are
funded by the Irish Research Council and the Irish Environmental Protection Agency under Grant Agree-
ment Number: GOIPG/2020/1409.
Author Contributions I am the sole author of this manuscript.
Funding Open Access funding provided by the IReL Consortium. The research in the article was under-
taken as part of my PhD studies in law which are funded by the Irish Research Council and the Irish Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency under Grant Agreement Number: GOIPG/2020/1409.
Data Availability Not applicable.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Competing Interests The research in the article was undertaken as part of my PhD studies in law which are
funded by the Irish Research Council and the Irish Environmental Protection Agency under Grant Agreement
Number: GOIPG/2020/1409. The author has no other relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
1. Llewellyn K (1940) The normative, the Legal, and the Law-Jobs: the Problem of the Juristic Method.
Yale Law J 49:1355–1400. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 792545
2. United Nations Environment Assembly Proceedings of the United Nations Environment Assembly at
its fifth session 24 February 2021 UNEP/EA.5/25. https:// wedocs. unep. org/ bitst ream/ handle/ 20. 500.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2882
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
11822/ 39828/ PROCE EDINGS% 20OF% 20THE% 20UNI TED% 20NAT IONS% 20ENV IRONM ENT%
20ASS EMBLY% 20AT% 20ITS% 20RES UMED% 20FIF TH% 20SES SION.% 20Eng lish. pdf? seque
nce= 1& isAll owed=y. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
3. United Nations Environmental Programme (2021) Making Peace With Nature: A scientific blueprint
to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies. United Nations Environmental Pro-
gramme, Nairobi. https:// www. unep. org/ resou rces/ making- peace- nature. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
4. Walker N (2015) Intimations of Global Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
5. European Commission (2018) Commission launches Circular Plastics Alliance to foster the market of
recycled plastics in Europe. Commission Press Release. https:// ec. europa. eu/ commi ssion/ press corner/
detail/ it/ IP_ 18_ 6728. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
6. Huang J, Wang H, Wu J, Yang Z, Hu X, Bao M (2020) Exploring the Key Driving forces of the sus-
tainable intergenerational evolution of the Industrial Alliance Innovation Ecosystem: evidence from a
case study of China’s TDIA. Sustainability 12:1320. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su120 41320
7. European, Commission (2024) Industrial Alliances. https:// ec. europa. eu/ growth/ indus try/ strat egy/
indus trial- allia nces_ en. Accessed 12th
8. Circular Plastics Alliance (2024) https:// ec. europa. eu/ growth/ indus try/ strat egy/ indus trial- allia nces/
circu lar- plast ics- allia nce_ en. Accessed 12th
9. Sjåell B, Mähönen JT (2020) Interdisciplinarising Legal Theory: Towards a Reconceptualisation of
Business Law. University of Oslo Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2020-36, Nordic & European
Company Law Working Paper No. 22 – 07, SSRN. https:// ssrn. com/ abstr act= 37312 89 or https:// doi.
org/ 10. 2139/ ssrn. 37312 89. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
10. Ostrom E (2010) Beyond markets and states: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic systems.
Am Econ Rev 100:641–672
11. Twining W (2009) General jurisprudence: understanding Law from a global perspective. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
12. Twining W (2012) Karl Llewellyn and the Realist Movement, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press,
New York
13. Fitch-Roy O, Benson D, Monciardini D (2020) Going around in circles? Conceptual recycling, patch-
ing and policy layering in the EU circular economy package. Environ Politics 29:983–1003. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09644 016. 2019. 16739 96
14. Frianta MC, Vermeulena WJV, Salomone R (2020) A typology of circular economy discourses: navi-
gating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resour Conserv Recycl 161:104917. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. resco nrec. 2020. 104917
15. Yalçın NG, Paredis E, Jaeger-Erben M (2024) Contested discourses of a circular plastics economy in
Europe: prioritizing material, economy, or society? Environ Politics 33:2219–2239. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 09644 016. 2023. 21921 45
16. European Commission Communication (2018) A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Econ-
omy. COM(2018) 28 final. https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/ legal- conte nt/ EN/ TXT/ HTML/? uri= CELEX:
52018 DC002 8& from= EN. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
17. Mah A (2022) Plastic unlimited: how corporations are fueling the Ecological Crisis and what we can
do about it. Polity, New York
18. Tamanaha B (2006) Law as a Means to an end: threat to the rule of Law. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ CBO97 80511 511073. 009
19. European Commission Communication (2015) Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Cir-
cular Economy. COM(2015) 614 final. https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/ legal- conte nt/ EN/ TXT/ HTML/? uri=
CELEX: 52015 DC061 4& from= EN. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
20. European Commission Communication (2020) A new Circular Economy Action Plan: For a cleaner
and more competitive Europe. COM(2020) 98 final. https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/ legal- conte nt/ EN/ TXT/
HTML/? uri= CELEX: 52020 DC009 8& from= EN. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
21. European Commission Communication (2019) The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 final.
https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/ legal- conte nt/ EN/ TXT/ HTML/? uri= CELEX: 52019 DC064 0& from= EN.
Accessed 12 Jan 2024
22. European Commission Communication (2020) A New Industrial Strategy for Europe. COM/2020/102
final. https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/ legal- conte nt/ EN/ TXT/ HTML/? uri= CELEX: 52020 DC010 2& from=
EN. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
23. European Commission Communication (2021) Updating the 2020 New Industrial Strategy: Build-
ing a stronger Single Market for Europe’s Recovery. COM(2021) 350 final. https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/
legal- conte nt/ EN/ TXT/ HTML/? uri= CELEX: 52021 DC035 0& from= EN. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2883
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
24. European Commission Notice (2022) The ‘Blue Guide’ on the implementation of EU product rules
2022. Official Journal of the European Union, C 247. https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/ legal- conte nt/ EN/
TXT/ HTML/? uri= OJ:C: 2022: 247: FULL& from= EN. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
25. European External Action Service (EEAS) (2016) Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger
Europe – A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy. https:// www. eeas.
europa. eu/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ eugs_ review_ web_0. pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
26. European Commission (2024) Vademecum on European Standardisation. https:// single- market- econo my. ec.
europa. eu/ single- market/ europ ean- stand ards/ vadem ecum- europ ean- stand ardis ation_ en. date accessed 29th
27. European Commission, Implementing Decision on a standardisation request to the European Com-
mittee for Standardisation and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation as
regards plastics recycling and recycled plastics in support of the European Strategy for Plastics in a
Circular Economy. C (2022) 5372 final. https:// ec. europa. eu/ trans paren cy/ docum ents- regis ter/ detail?
ref= C(2022) 5372⟨= en. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
28. European Commission (2022) Draft standardisation request as regards plastics recycling and recycled
plastics in support of the implementation of the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy.
https:// ec. europa. eu/ docsr oom/ docum ents/ 48814. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
29. Circular Plastics Alliance (2019) Declaration of the Circular Plastics Alliance. https:// ec. europa. eu/
docsr oom/ docum ents/ 36361. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
30. Circular Plastics Alliance (2021) Roadmap to 10 Mt recycled content by 2025. https:// ec. europa. eu/
docsr oom/ docum ents/ 46956. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
31. Circular Plastics Alliance (2021) Guidance on Waste Definitions. https:// www. google. com/ url? sa= t&
rct= j&q= & esrc= s& source= web& cd= & ved= 2ahUK Ewi85 rCw1L 73AhV KUMAK HTGLB h8QFn
oECA0 QAQ& url= https% 3A% 2F% 2Fec. europa. eu% 2Fdoc sroom% 2Fdoc uments% 2F469 54% 2Fatt
achme nts% 2F8% 2Ftra nslat ions% 2Fen% 2Fren ditio ns% 2Fpdf & usg= AOvVa w16ut wHMhv CUqDe
K7P7k WfG. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
32. Circular Plastics Alliance (2021) Design for Recycling Work Plan. https:// ec. europa. eu/ docsr oom/
docum ents/ 47334. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
33. European Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2013 supplementing Regulation (EU)
2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of elec-
tronic displays and repealing Commission Delegated Regulation. (EU) 1062/2010 ([2019] OJ L 315)
34. European Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 392/2012 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of
the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of household tumble dri-
ers ([2012] OJ L 123)
35. European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/125/EC establishing a framework for the setting of
ecodesign requirements for energy-related products ([2009] OJ L 285)
36. European, Commission (2022) Proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework for setting ecode-
sign requirements for sustainable products and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC. COM 142 final.
https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/ legal- conte nt/ EN/ TXT/ HTML/? uri= CELEX: 52022 PC014 2& from= EN.
Accessed 12 Jan 2024
37. 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 677 final. https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/ legal-
conte nt/ EN/ TXT/ HTML/? uri= CELEX: 52022 PC067 7& from= EN. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
38. United Nations Environment Programme (2014) Year Book 2014: emerging issues in our global
environment: plastic debris in the ocean. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. https://
wedocs. unep. org/ 20. 500. 11822/ 9240. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
39. United Nations Environment Assembly, Resolution adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly on
15 March 2019 UNEP/EA.4/Res.6. https:// wedocs. unep. org/ bitst ream/ handle/ 20. 500. 11822/ 28340/ K1901
091% 20-% 20UNEP- EA-4- Res-6% 20-% 20Adv ance.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
40. McIntyre O (2020) Addressing marine plastic pollution as a ‘wicked’ problem of transnational environ-
mental governance. Environ Liability: Law Policy Practice 25:282–295. https:// papers. ssrn. com/ sol3/
papers. cfm? abstr act_ id= 36374 82. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
41. (2020) Oxford Atlas of the World, 27th edn. Oxford University Press, London
42. Thompson RC, Swan SH, Moore CJ, vom Saal FS (2009) Our plastic age. Philosophical Transac-
tions: Biol Sci 364:1973–1976. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1098/ rstb. 2009. 0054
43. Barnes DKA, Galgani F, Thompson RC, Barlaz M (2009) Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic
debris in global environments. Philosophical Transactions: Biol Sci 364:1985–1998. https:// doi. org/
10. 1098/ rstb. 2008. 0205
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2884
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
44. Gregory MR (2009) Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings—entanglement,
ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philosophical Transactions: Biol
Sci. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1098/ rstb. 2008. 0265
45. Savoca MS, Tyson CW, McGill M, Slager CJ (2017) Odours from marine plastic debris induce food search
behaviours in a forage fish. Proc B Royal Soc Biol Sci 284:1–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1098/ rspb. 2017. 1000
46. Maphoto/Riccardo Pravettoni (2016) An example of how microplastics could end up on a consumer’s plate.
GRID Arendal Marine Litter Vital Graphics. https:// www. grida. no/ resou rces/ 6915. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
47. Maphoto/Riccardo Pravettoni (2018) How plastics enter the food web. GRID Arendal Marine Litter
Vital Graphics. https:// www. grida. no/ resou rces/ 6904. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
48. Lusher A (2015) Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Distribution, Interactions and Effects. In:
Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M (eds) Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer Open, pp 245–308.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 319- 16510-3
49. Maphoto/Riccardo Pravettoni (2018) Plasticized animal species. GRID Arendal Marine Litter Vital
Graphics. https:// www. grida. no/ resou rces/ 6927. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
50. Kühn S, Bravo Rebolledo EL, van Franeker JA (2015) Deleterious Effects of Litter on Marine
Life. In Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M, (eds.) Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer Open.pp
75–116.https:// doi- org. ucc. idm. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 319- 16510-3
51. Groh KJ, Backhaus T, Carney-Almroth B, Geueke B, Inostroza PA, Lennquist A, Leslie HA, Maffini M, Slunge
D, Trasande L, Warhurst M, Muncke J (2019) Overview of known plastic packaging-associated chemicals
and their hazards. Sci Total Environ 651:3253–3268. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scito tenv. 2018. 10. 015
52. Savoca M (2017) Bait and switch: Anchovies eat plastic because it smells like prey. The Conversa-
tion. https:// theco nvers ation. com/ bait- and- switch- ancho vies- eat- plast ic- becau se- it- smells- like- prey-
81607. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
53. Rochman CM, Tahir A, Williams SL, Baxa DV, Lam R, Miller JT, Teh FC, Werorilangi S, Teh SJ
(2015) Anthropogenic debris in seafood: plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves
sold for human consumption. Sci Rep 5:14340. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ srep1 4340
54. Wagner M, Oehlmann J (2009) Endocrine disruptors in bottled mineral water: total estrogenic burden
and migration from plastic bottles. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 16:278–286. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11356- 009- 0107-7
55. McIlgorm A, Raubenheimer K, McIlgorm DE (2020) Update of 2009 APEC report on Economic
Costs of Marine Debris to APEC Economies. A report to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) Ocean and Fisheries Working Group by the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources
and Security (ANCORS), University of Wollongong, Australia. https:// www. apec. org/ Publi catio ns/
2020/ 03/ Update- of- 2009- APEC- Report- on- Econo mic- Costs- of- Marine- Debris- to- APEC- Econo mies.
Accessed 12 Jan 2024
56. Ng J, Tam J (2012) Sinopec admits owning plastic pellets in spill. South China Morning Post. https:// www.
scmp. com/ artic le/ 10143 72/ sinop ec- admits- owning- plast ic- pelle ts- spill. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
57. Andrady AL, Neal MA (2009) Applications and societal benefits of Plastics. Philosophical Transac-
tions: Biol Sci 364:1977–1984.
58. PlasticsEurope (2022) The Circular Economy for Plastics – A European Overview. PlasticsEurope,
Brussels. https:// plast icseu rope. org/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2022/ 06/ Plast icsEu rope- Circu larit yRepo rt-
2022_ 2804- Light. pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
59. Maphoto/Riccardo Pravettoni (2018) Global plastic production and future trends. GRID Arendal
Marine Litter Vital Graphics. https:// www. grida. no/ resou rces/ 6923. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
60. Ryan PG (2015) A Brief History of Marine Litter Research. In Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M,
(eds.) Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer Open pp 1–28.
61. Barrowclough D, Deere Birkbeck C, Christen J (2020) Global trade in plastics: insights from the first
life-cycle trade database. UNCTAD Research Paper No. 53 UNCTAD/SER.RP/2020/12. https:// unctad.
org/ webfl yer/ global- trade- plast ics- insig hts- first- life- cycle- trade- datab ase. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
62. PlasticsEurope (2020) Plastics – the Facts 2020: An analysis of European plastics production, demand
and waste data. Plastics Europe, Brussels. https:// plast icseu rope. org/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2021/ 09/
Plast ics_ the_ facts- WEB- 2020_ versi onJun 21_ final. pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
63. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2022) Plastic pollution is grow-
ing relentlessly as waste management and recycling fall short, says OECD. https:// www. oecd. org/
envir onment/ plast ic- pollu tion- is- growi ng- relen tless ly- as- waste- manag ement- and- recyc ling- fall- short.
htm Accessed 12 Jan 2024
64. Hook L, Reed J (2018) Why the world’s recycling system stopped working. Financial Times. https://
www. ft. com/ conte nt/ 360e2 524- d71a- 11e8- a854- 33d6f 82e62 f8. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
65. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2017) Sustainable Materials Management (SMM)
Web Academy Webinar: China’s Green Sword: Impacts to State and Local Governments. https://
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2885
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
www. epa. gov/ smm/ susta inable- mater ials- manag ement- smm- web- acade my- webin ar- chinas- green-
sword- impac ts- state- and. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
66. Reuters (2021) Malaysia permits import of U.S. plastic waste shipment after it passes new UN treaty
test. Reuters Environ. https:// www. reute rs. com/ artic le/ us- malay sia- envir onment- plast ic- idUSK
BN2BG 0ZL/. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
67. BBC News (2020) Malaysia returns 42 containers of ‘illegal’ plastic waste to UK. British Broadcast-
ing Corporation News. https:// www. bbc. com/ news/ uk- 51176 312. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
68. Laville S (2021) Turkey to ban plastic waste imports. The Guardian. https:// www. thegu ardian. com/
world/ 2021/ may/ 19/ turkey- to- ban- plast ic- waste- impor ts. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
69. World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company (2016) The New
Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics. https:// emf. third light. com/ file/ 24/_A- BkCs_
skP18I_ Am1g_ JWxFrX/ The% 20New% 20Pla stics% 20Eco nomy% 3A% 20Ret hinki ng% 20the% 20fut
ure% 20of% 20pla stics. pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
70. Cambridge Econometrics, Trinomics ICF (2018) Impacts of circular economy policies on the labour
market: final report and annexes. European Commission, Brussels. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2779/ 574719.
Accessed 12 Jan 2024
71. Fuller LL (1969) Human Interaction and the Law. Am J Jurisprud (Notre Dame) 14:1. https:// doi. org/
10. 1093/ ajj/ 14.1.1
72. MacCormick N Institutions of Law: An Essay in Legal Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ acprof: oso/ 97801 98267 911. 003. 0001
73. PlasticsEurope (2019) The Circular Economy For Plastics. PlasticsEurope, Brussels. https:// plast icseu rope.
org/ knowl edge- hub/ the- circu lar- econo my- for- plast ics-a- europ ean- overv iew/. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
74. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2022) Global Plastics Outlook:
Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1787/ de747 aef- en.
Accessed 12 Jan 2024
75. Kirchherr J, Yang NHN, Schulze-Spüntrup F, Heerink MJ, Hartley K (2023) Conceptualizing the Cir-
cular Economy (Revisited): An Analysis of 221 Definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
194, 107001. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. resco nrec. 2023. 107001 Accessed 12 Jan 2024
76. Lanaras-Mamounis G, Kipritsis A, Tsalis TA, Vatalis KI, Nikolaou IE (2022) A Framework for
assessing the contribution of firms to Circular Economy: a Triple-Level Approach. Circ Econ Sust
2:883–902. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s43615- 021- 00144-8
77. European Parliament (2023) Parliament adopts revamped rules to reduce, reuse and recycle packaging. Euro-
pean Parliament Press Release. https:// www. europ arl. europa. eu/ news/ en/ press- room/ 20231 117IP R12213/
parli ament- adopts- revam ped- rules- to- reduce- reuse- and- recyc le- packa ging Accessed 12 Jan 2024
78. von der Leyen U (2019) A Union that strives for more: my agenda for Europe: political guidelines for
the next commission (2019–2024). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://
doi. org/ 10. 2775/ 018127
79. European Commission (2021) Factsheet - Alliance for Zero-Emission Aviation (AZEA). European
Union. https:// defen ce- indus try- space. ec. europa. eu/ system/ files/ 2022- 06/ Facts heet% 20-% 20AZEA.
pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
80. European Commission (2017) Statement by Vice-President for Energy Union Maroš Šefčovic following the
high-level meeting on battery development and production in Europe. European Commission Press Release.
https:// ec. europa. eu/ commi ssion/ press corner/ detail/ en/ STATE MENT_ 17_ 3861. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
81. European Clean Hydrogen Alliance (2020) Declaration of the European Clean Hydrogen Alliance.
https:// ec. europa. eu/ docsr oom/ docum ents/ 43526. Accessed 12th January 2024
82. European Alliance for Industrial Data, Edge and Cloud (2021) Declaration of the European Alliance
for Industrial Data, Edge and Cloud. https:// ec. europa. eu/ newsr oom/ dae/ redir ection/ docum ent/ 78362.
Accessed 12 Jan 2024
83. Industrial Alliance for Processors and Semiconductor Technologies (2021) Declaration of the Indus-
trial Alliance for Processors and Semiconductor Technologies. https:// ec. europa. eu/ newsr oom/ repos
itory/ docum ent/ 2021- 29/ Decla ration_ DEC_ Allia nce_ Proce ssors_ and_ semic onduc tor_ techn ologi es_
FINAL_ July_ 19th__ sPXrc nHRbm bbxty O0f7N XRuc_ 78327. pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
84. European Raw Materials Alliance (2020) EIT RawMaterials will manage newly launched European
Raw Materials Alliance (ERMA). European Raw Materials Alliance Press Team, Press Release.
https:// eitra wmate rials. eu/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2020/ 09/ EIT- RawMa teria ls- will- manage- ERMA-
Press- Relea se. pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
85. Renewable and Low-Carbon Fuels Value Chain Industrial Alliance (2022) Renewable and Low-Car-
bon Fuels Value Chain Industrial Alliance Annual Programme for 2022–2023. https:// trans port. ec.
europa. eu/ system/ files/ 2022- 07/ RLCF% 20All iance% 20-% 20Work% 20Pro gramme% 202022- 2023%
20-% 20end orsed. pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2886
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
86. European Solar Photovoltaic Industry Alliance (2022) Declaration of the European Solar PV Industry
Alliance. https:// ec. europa. eu/ docsr oom/ docum ents/ 52034. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
87. European Commission (2023) Reducing plastic pollution: Negotiations towards a new global instrument
to combat plastic pollution advance. News Article. https:// envir onment. ec. europa. eu/ news/ negot iatio ns-
towar ds- new- global- instr ument- combat- plast ic- pollu tion- advan ce- 2023- 11- 20_ en. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
88. United Nations Environmental Programme (2023) ‘Zero draft text of the international legally bind-
ing instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment’. UNEP/PP/INC. https://
wedocs. unep. org/ bitst ream/ handle/ 20. 500. 11822/ 43239/ ZEROD RAFT. pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
89. European Commission (2019) Commission Staff Working Document: Assessment report of the
voluntary pledges under Annex III of the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy.
European Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2019) 91 final. https:// ec. europa. eu/ docsr
oom/ docum ents/ 34267 Accessed 12th January 2024
90. Lase IS, Ragaert K, Dewulf J, De Meester S, Resources (2021) Multivariate input-output and
material flow analysis of current and future plastic recycling rates from waste electrical and elec-
tronic. Conserv Recycl 174:105772. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. resco nrec. 2021. 105772
91. Circular Plastics Alliance (2021) Monitoring System Methodology. https:// www. google. com/ url?
sa= t& rct= j&q= & esrc= s& source= web& cd= & ved= 2ahUK Ewj1n uCazt iDAxW lUkEA HS6RC
dcQFn oECA4 QAQ& url= https% 3A% 2F% 2Fec. europa. eu% 2Fdoc sroom% 2Fdoc uments% 2F469
54% 2Fatt achme nts% 2F9% 2Ftra nslat ions% 2Fen% 2Fren ditio ns% 2Fpdf & usg= AOvVa w1xQ7 Ql-
eI7sj dgQOJ RDRXr & opi= 89978 449 Accessed 12 Jan 2024
92. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2024) https:// www. cence nelec. eu/ about- cen/.
Accessed 12 Jan 2024
93. European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) (2024) https:// www. cence
nelec. eu/ about- cenel ec/. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
94. CEN-CENELEC (2022) European Standards support the European Strategy for Plastics in a Cir-
cular Economy. https:// www. cence nelec. eu/ news- and- events/ news/ 2022/ brief- news/ 2022- 09- 07-
plast ics- in- circu lar- econo my/. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
95. European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 on European standardisation,
amending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/EEC and Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC,
95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 2007/23/EC, 2009/23/EC and 2009/105/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decision 87/95/EEC and Decision
No 1673/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ([2012] OJ L 316).
96. CEN-CENELEC (2003) General Guidelines for the Cooperation between CEN, CENELEC and ETSI
and the European Commission and the European Free Trade Association. https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/
legal- conte nt/ EN/ TXT/ HTML/? uri= CELEX: 52003 XC041 6(03) Accessed 12 Jan 2024
97. European Commission, European Commission Staff Working Paper COM (2011) Impact Assess-
ment for Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25
October 2012 on European standardisation, amending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/
EEC and Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 2007/23/
EC, 2009/105/EC, and 2009/23/EC. (2011) 315 final. https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/ legal- conte nt/ EN/
TXT/? uri= celex% 3A520 11SC0 671. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
98. European Union Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
([2012] OJ C 326)
99. European Commission Communication (2009) Implementation of Article 290 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. COM(2009) 673 final. https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/ legal- conte nt/
EN/ TXT/ HTML/? uri= CELEX: 52009 DC067 3& from= EN. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
100. de Búrca G, Craig P (2015) EU Law text, cases and materials, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
101. The European Convention Secretariat (2002) Final Report of Working Group IX on Simplifica-
tion. The European Convention Secretariat, Brussels, CONV 424/02. https:// ec. europa. eu/ dorie/
fileD ownlo ad. do; jsess ionid= IZQHi SeKN8 KXLFv rZj5G PEgS8 w0QvS Jrepj dxMwD h1cec EG0Ej
LQ!- 89803 1139? docId= 28415 9& cardId= 284159. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
102. European Parliament, Council of the European Parliament, European Commission (2006) Interin-
stitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and
the European Commission on Better Law-Making. OJ L 123. https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/ legal- conte
nt/ EN/ TXT/ HTML/? uri= CELEX: 32016 Q0512 (01) & from= EN. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
103. Council Resolution 85/C 136/01 on a new approach to technical harmonization and standards
([1985] OJ C 136)
104. C-120/78 Rewe-Zentrale AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein [1979] ECR 649 (Cas-
sis de Dijon). https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/ legal- conte nt/ EN/ TXT/ HTML/? uri= CELEX: 61978 CJ012 0&
from= EN. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2887
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2024) 4:2859–2887
1 3
105. Kahlert S, Bening CR (2022) Why pledges alone will not get plastics recycled: Comparing recyclate
production and anticipated demand. Resourc Conserv & Recycl 181:106279
106. Stephan M, Marshall G, McGinnis M (2019) An introduction to polycentricity and governance. In:
Thiel A, Blomquist WA, Garrick DE (eds) Governing complexity: analyzing and applying polycen-
tricity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108325721
107. Oakerson R, Parks RB (2011) The study of local public economies: Multi-organizational, multi-level institu-
tional analysis and development. Policy Stud J 39:1147. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1541- 0072. 2010. 00400.x
108. European Parliament and Council Directive 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment
(WEEE) ([2012] OJ L 197)
109. European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of life vehicles – Commission State-
ments ([2000] OJ L 269)
110. Wiener JB (2001) Something borrowed for something Blue: legal transplants and the evolution of
Global Environmental Law. Ecol Law Q 27:1295–1372
111. Dauvergne P (2018) The power of environmental norms: marine plastic pollution and the politics of
microbeads. Environ Politics 27:579–597. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09644 016. 2018. 14490 90
112. Scott J (2009) From Brussels with Love: the transatlantic travels of European Law and the Chemistry
of Regulatory Attraction. Am J Comp Law 57:897–942
113. Alliance for Zero-Emission Aviation (2023) Working Group 4 Current Standardization Landscape.
Brussels, Belgium https:// defen ce- indus try- space. ec. europa. eu/ system/ files/ 2023- 06/ Curre nt% 20Sta
ndard izati on% 20Lan dscape. pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2024
114. Environmental Coalition on Standards ECOS, Zero Waste Europe, and, Plastics R (2021) Plastics
recycling: A call to stop the development of an overarching standardisation request. https:// rethi nkpla
stica llian ce. eu/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2022/ 02/ ECOS- RPa- ZWE- letter_ plast ics- recyc ling- SR- and- CPA_
20210 526-1- 2. pdf. Accessed 29 Feb 2024
115. Environmental Coalition on Standards ECOS (2022) World’s top polluters holding pen on new EU
standards for recycled plastics? Press Release. https:// ecost andard. org/ news_ events/ worlds- top- pollu
ters- holdi ng- pen- on- new- eu- stand ards- for- recyc led- plast ics/. Accessed 29 Feb 2024
116. Environmental Coalition on Standards ECOS, Zero Waste Europe, and, Plastics R (2022) Standardi-
sation request process: Request to cease development of Standardisation Requeston ‘plastics recycling
and recycled plastics. https:// ecost andard. org/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2022/ 02/ 20220 201_ ECOS- RPa-
ZWE- letter_ SReq- proce ss- issues_ Plast ics- recyc ling. pdf. Accessed 29 Feb 2024
117. Environmental Coalition on Standards ECOS, European Environmental Bureau, Zero Waste Europe
(2019) Joint Press Release: The Circular Plastics Alliance, a missed opportunity (2019) Press Release.
https:// ecost andard. org/ news_ events/ joint- press- relea se- the- circu lar- plast ics- allia nce-a- missed- oppor
tunity/. Accessed 29 Feb 2024
118. Scharpf FW (1997) Economic integration, democracy and the welfare state. J Eur Public Policy 4:18.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13501 76973 44217
119. Schmidt VA (2013) Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, output and
‘Throughput. Polit Stud 61:2. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 9248. 2012. 00962.x
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Authors and Aliations
AmyO’Halloran1
* Amy O’Halloran
aohalloran@ucc.ie
1 School ofLaw, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
