With growing concern across the plastics value chain a number of ambitious initiatives have recently been launched. However, a joined up, cross-sector effort is needed to improve communication between producers and recyclers, and to develop national and international standards.
The spotlight on plastics waste has intensified in recent months in a series of high-profile launches and campaigns. Brands like Adidas, Ecover and Procter & Gamble are helping to mainstream the issue, whilst offering circular solutions – albeit in limited numbers – in the form of upcycled ‘ocean waste’ trainers and ‘beach plastic’ shampoo bottles.
While such initiatives have yet to scale, it’s a sharp indication that demand is growing for better capture and repurposing of end-of-life plastics. This January in Davos, the World Economic Forum (WEF) launched its latest New Plastics Economy report in association with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), setting out an ambitious plan to recycle 70% of plastic packaging globally, from the current rate of 14%. The report, which forms part of EMF’s wider New Plastics Economy initiative, is significant as it has the backing of more than 40 industry leaders from across the global plastics value chain.
Lack of Joined-Up Thinking
To achieve these higher recycling rates, the report calls for greater harmonisation and adoption of best practices for collection and sorting systems. According to the study, 50% of plastic packaging could be profitably recycled if improvements were made to both packaging design and end-of-life management systems – this would bring in an additional $90-$140 per tonne of mixed plastics and help remedy the $80-$120 billion of plastic packaging material value lost each year to the economy.
Given the disparate nature of plastics collection systems at almost every level – national, regional, and global – any moves towards harmonisation are considered highly challenging. There are emerging examples, like WRAP’s recycling consistency framework in the UK, and the work of the Closed Loop Fund in the US to develop replicable models for kerbside recycling, but these remain few and far between and don’t specifically target separate plastics collections. Similarly across Europe, most plastic packaging is collected as co-mingled material and capture rates remain woefully low, averaging 12%.
“The systems are hyper-fragmented in what can be processed and what capabilities exist,” says Terracycle’s CEO Tom Szaky, whose company specialises in upcycling hard-to-recycle waste streams. “What’s even worse is that packaging designers are constantly adding more variety, which in turn is creating more fragmentation.”
Szaky says one of the biggest problems is the lack of joined-up thinking between start-of-life and end-of-life considerations. “Historically, the packaging design and production world, and the recycling world have had a very hard time communicating with each other. Packaging designers are designing what they think is the best package, but usually there’s no line of sight for how to recycle it.”
One pragmatic solution, he suggests, could be to establish recycling ‘review courts’ whereby new plastic packaging types are assessed by reprocessors to determine their recyclability before being placed on the market. These appraisals could initially occur at a national level, before being scaled up for greater cross-border convergence.
A Need for Better Legislation
Szarky maintains that recyclers are largely driven by economics rather than environmental concerns, and so will only recycle more materials if there’s value to be derived from doing so. He points to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as an effective push mechanism in this regard, but says there’s more appetite to do that in regions like Europe, which are more accepting of regulation.
Certainly within the EU, plastics packaging legislation is set to become more stringent. The European Commission’s Circular Economy Package has set a prospective 55% plastics recycling and reuse target for 2025 for EU member states, and in January the Commission published a roadmap for its forthcoming plastics strategy, due out later this year.
The roadmap makes no mention of harmonisation, but does highlight a need for better definitions and standards for biodegradable plastics, as well as technology innovation for mixed plastics processing. On a positive note, collaboration between recyclers is starting to happen. The European Association of Plastics Recycling & Recovery Organisations (EPRO) has helped develop EuCertplast, an EU-wide certification for post-consumer plastics recyclers that aims to homogenise operational practices. EPRO says it has engaged with the EMF on its New Plastics Economy agenda – while supportive of the overall aims, the organisation believes more ongoing dialogue is needed.
“In seeking greater convergence of plastics collection and sorting systems, you need to take into account local, regional, national, political and cultural differences,” says EPRO secretary general Peter Sundt. “National waste legislation can also vary quite significantly, with different priorities in terms of the waste hierarchy. There is no one single solution – if you try to impose too much harmonisation, you may soon meet resistance.”
Like Szaky, Sundt points to EPR as a useful lever. “We believe that there should be some harmonisation at EPR level,” he says. “A key focus now in Europe is the circular economy package – higher recycling targets will require more international cooperation, including on packaging design, which is welcome and will hopefully accelerate action on collaboration.”
One multi-stakeholder alliance that could bear some fruit here is the Polyolefin Circular Economy Platform (PCEP) launched last year. PCEP seeks to develop EU-wide quality standards for sorted plastics, harmonise test methods for recycled plastic materials, and develop packaging design guidelines and assessment protocols in line with circular principles.
To help support this work, one of the co-founders PlasticsEurope has set up a Plastics Packaging Circular Economy Group in order to strengthen engagement with all actors along the plastics value chain to promote lifecycle thinking on packaging solutions.
Beyond Europe
In regions like the US, where the waste hierarchy isn’t so enforced and landfill is cheap, opportunities for cooperation are harder to come by. That said, the Closed Loop Fund (CLF) – a social impact fund with $100 million to invest – is prioritising better plastics recycling as a clear value opportunity. “There is a lot of best practice in terms of business models and technology innovation that can happen and that can be leveraged across the US,” says CLF’s head of external affairs, Bridget Croke.
One area the CLF is focusing on is the use of robotics and artificial intelligence in future MRF technology. “It’s very emerging in the MRF and recycling space, but there are companies that are leveraging artificial intelligence to identify and discretely sort material types which will reduce contamination and make it more profitable to recycle this stuff. That’s an example where we feel you could create a lot of industry harmonisation in a cost-effective way.”
She adds: “We are also considering ways to enable MRF [operators] to come to us and say they want a loan to improve their infrastructure, and robotics can be a part of that.”
Asked how plastics collection and sortation systems can be streamlined across different US states, Croke acknowledges that it’s unlikely complete harmonisation will ever happen. “There’s a different model for MRF sophistication depending on the market you’re in, so that’s where harmonisation becomes challenging. I think there’s a need for market segmentation, and to have a few different models that work in different regions and markets.”
Croke says CLF’s approach here is to allocate funds according to three main market segments: mature recycling – these tend to be the denser, larger markets on the US coast; sub-standard recycling; and recycling ‘deserts’ – which can include both rural regions and dense, urban dwellings. “In large municipalities it’s very easy to make the case for a hi-tech MRF that has a lot of automated sortation equipment… in smaller communities it’s much harder to justify that cost, so it’s going to require a different set of solutions.”
