THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 1

The New Plastics Economy
Rethinking the future of plastics

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMYRETHINKING THE FUTURE OF PLASTICS

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMYRETHINKING THE FUTURE OF PLASTICS2 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 3

CONTENTS
Preface4Foreword5
In support of the New Plastics Economy

6

Project MainStream

8Disclaimer9
Acknowledgements10
Global partners of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation

14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY15
PART I SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS22

1

The case for rethinking plastics, starting with packaging24

2

The New Plastics Economy: Capturing the opportunity

31

3

The New Plastics Economy demands a new approach

39PART II CREATING AN EFFECTIVE AFTER-USE PLASTICS ECONOMY

44

4

Recycling: Drastically increasing economics, uptake and quality through compounding
and mutually reinforcing actions 

46

5

Reuse: Unlocking material savings and beyond 62

6Compostable packaging: Returning nutrients to the soil for targeted packaging applications68PART III DRASTICALLY REDUCING LEAKAGE OF PLASTICS INTO NATURALSYSTEMS AND MINIMISING OTHER EXTERNALITIES

74

7

Drastically reducing leakage into natural systems and associated negative impacts 76

8

Substances of concern: Capturing value with materials that are safe
in all product phases

79PART IV DECOUPLING PLASTICS FROM FOSSIL FEEDSTOCKS

86

9Dematerialisation: Doing more with less plastic

88

10

Renewably sourced plastics: Decoupling plastics production from fossil feedstocks

92

Appendices97
Appendix A. Global material flow analysis: Definitions and sources

98

Appendix B. Biodegradation

100

Appendix C. Anaerobic digestion

101

Glossary102
List of Figures and Boxes

105

Endnotes106
About the Ellen MacArthur Foundation

117

4 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMYPREFACEThe circular economy is gaining growing attention as a potential way
for our society to increase prosperity, while reducing demands on finite
raw materials and minimising negative externalities. Such a transition
requires a systemic approach, which entails moving beyond incremental
improvements to the existing model as well as developing newcollaboration mechanisms.
The report explores the intersection of these two themes, for plastics andplastic packaging in particular: how can collaboration along the extended
global plastic packaging production and after-use value chain, as wellas with governments and NGOs, achieve systemic change to overcome
stalemates in today’s plastics economy in order to move to a more circularmodel?
The New Plastics Economy aims to set an initial direction and contribute to
the evidence base by synthesising information from across many dispersed
sources. It assesses the benefits and drawbacks of plastic packaging today,and makes the case for rethinking the current plastics economy. It lays out
the ambitions and benefits of the New Plastics Economy — a system aiming
to achieve drastically better economic and environmental outcomes. It
proposes a new approach and action plan to get there.
The report’s objective is not to provide final answers or recommendations.
Rather, it aims to bring together for the first time a comprehensive global
perspective of the broader plastic packaging economy, present a vision andpropose a roadmap as well as a vehicle for progressing this roadmap, andproviding a much needed global focal point to carry this agenda forward.
This report also identifies a number of significant knowledge gaps and open
questions that need to be further explored.
This report is the product of Project MainStream, an initiative thatleverages the convening power of the World Economic Forum, the circular
economy innovation capabilities of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, andthe analytical capabilities of McKinsey & Company. We are grateful to ournumerous partners and advisors for their insights and support throughout
this project, and the Project MainStream Steering Board for their continued
collaboration on the transition towards a circular economy.
For the three institutions that have launched the MainStream initiative,
this report is an encouragement to continue to foster cross-industry
collaboration as a major avenue to accelerate the transition to the muchneeded circular economy. We hope you find this report informative anduseful. We invite you to engage with us on this timely opportunity.

Dame Ellen MacArthur
Founder,Ellen MacArthur Foundation

Dominic Waughray
Head of Public Private Partnership,
World Economic Forum

Martin R. Stuchtey
Director of the McKinsey Center
for Business and Environment

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 5

FOREWORD
H. E. Mogens Lykketoft
President of the UN General Assembly for the 70th session
We live in a defining moment in history — a moment where the international
community has come together to agree on an ambitious framework to resolve
some of the world’s most daunting challenges.
Anchored in a set of universally applicable Sustainable Development Goals, the2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all 193 members of theUnited Nations in September 2015, underlined a common determination to takebold and transformative steps towards a better future for all.
Now is the time for implementation. We must now begin to practise what wehave preached — changing our production and consumption patterns in orderto create virtuous cycles rather than depletive ones and harnessing the global
interconnectedness, communications technology and breakthroughs in materials
science.
All sectors of the economy must respond to these global agreements, and dueto their sheer pervasiveness and scale, some sectors are facing questions as tothe direction they should take. This is particularly the case for plastics, whichhave tangible and substantial benefits, but whose drawbacks are significant,long-term and too obvious to ignore. It is therefore very encouraging to see
an initiative like the New Plastics Economy take shape, supported by a diverse
group of participants from the industry striving for innovative solutions
grounded in systems thinking.
Concrete and game-changing steps have to be taken for us to achieve the future
we want anchored in the SDGs. I therefore welcome wholeheartedly the boldideas, ambitious objectives and comprehensive action plan presented in thisreport. If implemented, it could make an important contribution to transforming
this important sector of the global economy.

6 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

IN SUPPORT OF THE
NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY‘As the Consumer Goods Forum, we welcome thisgroundbreaking report on the New Plastics Economy. Packaging
is integral to the delivery of safe, high-quality consumer products,
but we recognise the need to rethink radically how we use plastics,
creating new circular systems that conserve resources, reduce
pollution and promote efficiency. This report improves substantially ourunderstanding of the solutions we need.’
MIKE BARRY AND JEFF SEABRIGHT
CO-CHAIRS OF THE CONSUMER GOODSFORUM SUSTAINABILITY PILLAR‘The Global Ocean Commission has been working with the Prince of Wales’
International Sustainability Unit to raise political and business awareness of
the urgent need to address plastic waste entering the ocean, and transition to amore circular model for plastics. I am very pleased to see that the Ellen MacArthur
Foundation and its partners have responded to this call to action, through the New
Plastics Economy report, and have developed an ambitious yet realistic plan to address
the issue at its root. I strongly encourage nations and business leaders to consider thecontents of this report and develop corresponding strategies.’
DAVID MILIBAND
CO-CHAIRGLOBAL OCEAN COMMISSION‘It is high time to implement the circular economy principles in the plastic sector. Increasing
plastic recycling would capture significant material value and help reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. As pointed out in this report, plastic production has increased from 15 million
tonnes in the sixties to 311 million tonnes in 2014 and is expected to triple by 2050, when it
would account for 20% of global annual oil consumption. These are exactly the reasons why
Veolia, which is already actively engaged in promoting circular solutions, welcomes andsupports the New Plastics Economy.’
ANTOINE FRÉROTCEOVEOLIA‘Plastic products and packaging have an undeniably important role in our society.
Plastic waste should not. Not only does plastic waste pollute our land and ocean — tothe detriment of wildlife and humans — but the loss of plastic from the current plastic
economy is an economic drain. Plastic waste is a problem we can solve and need tosolve now. And the solutions are many. Near term benefits will be made by better waste
management and less use, especially single use, of plastic. But ultimately this problem
requires a circular economy approach, where used plastic becomes a feedstock rather
than a waste. There has never been more political will and technical ability to solve
our plastic waste problem. Together we can stem the tide of plastic waste suffocating
our ocean. Together we can change the world — and save our ocean.’
CATHERINE NOVELLIU.S. UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FORECONOMIC GROWTH, ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT‘The New Plastics Economy takes a detailed look into one of the world’s
most pervasive modern materials. The report lays out a foundation
for a more sustainable system of making and using plastics andplastic packaging, taking into account the unique challenges andopportunities on the use, reuse, and collection of the material. It isa call to action for an ambitious redesign with a longer term viewof the value at stake and intensive collaboration among various
players.’
DOMINIC BARTONGLOBAL MANAGING DIRECTORMCKINSEY & COMPANY

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 7‘London is already actively taking steps towards a morecircular model for plastics and plastic packaging. However
more can and needs to be done, and I therefore welcome, support
and thank the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, the World Economic Forumand McKinsey for their effort in identifying and promoting the global
innovations required if we are going to continue to enjoy the benefits thatplastics bring to our lives.’
MATTHEW PENCHARZ
DEPUTY MAYOR FOR ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGYGREATER LONDON AUTHORITY‘The New Plastics Economy is an exciting opportunity to inspire a generation of designers
to profoundly rethink plastic packaging and its role in a system that works.’
TIM BROWNCEOIDEO‘In the Global Ocean Commission’s report From Decline to Recovery: A Rescue Package for the
Global Ocean, we identified keeping plastics out of the ocean as one of our key proposals foraction to advance ocean recovery. This report is an excellent next step, offering a root-cause
solution to the problem of ocean plastics as part of a broader rethink and new approach to capture
value in the New Plastics Economy. The economic and environmental case is now clear — I therefore
call on governments and businesses alike to take urgent action to capture the opportunity.’
TREVOR MANUEL
CO-CHAIRGLOBAL OCEAN COMMISSION‘SUEZ was pleased to contribute to the New Plastics Economy report, a collaborative casefor rethinking the current plastics economy. As this report shows, a radical and joint rethinkof both design and after-use processes will be required, in addition to other measures suchas stimulating demand for secondary raw materials. We look forward to continued collaboration
to enable better economic and environmental results in the plastic packaging value chain and toaccelerate the transition towards the circular economy.’
JEAN-LOUIS CHAUSSADE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SUEZ‘Systems thinking and integrated approaches are needed if we are to sustainably use and manage
our global resources in a manner that enables the achievement of the Paris climate change
agreement while advancing a circular economy. In my work with the G7 Alliance on Resource
Efficiency, there’s ongoing discussion about the need to disrupt “business as usual”. The New
Plastics Economy — Rethinking the future of plastics continues in that vein.’
MATHY STANISLAUSUSEPA ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORFOR THE OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT‘This is an important report highlighting some of the key issues related to plastics andtheir leakage into the marine environment. It is also an exciting report that proposes new
approaches within a circular economy framework that could re-orientate society’s use ofplastics and start to address the problems that our current use is creating.’
PROFESSOR STEPHEN DE MORACHIEF EXECUTIVEPLYMOUTH MARINE LABORATORY‘At Desso we are proud to have been part of developing the New Plastics
Economy report, a result of Project MainStream, one of the first cross-industry
collaborations of its kind. The report shows how companies — throughcollaboration, vision and clear research — can build a foundation for atruly circular model for plastics.’
ROLAND JONKHOFFMANAGING DIRECTORDESSO BV (A TARKETT COMPANY)8 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMYPROJECT MAINSTREAM
This report was written under the umbrella of Project MainStream, a multi-industry, global initiative
launched in 2014 by the World Economic Forum and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, with
McKinsey & Company as knowledge partner. MainStream is led by the chief executive officers ofnine global companies: Averda, BT, Desso BV (a Tarkett company), Royal DSM, Ecolab, Indorama,
Philips, SUEZ and Veolia.
MainStream aims to accelerate business-driven innovations and help scale the circular economy.
It focuses on systemic stalemates in global material flows that are too big or too complex for anindividual business, city or government to overcome alone, as well as on enablers of the circular
economy such as digital technologies.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 9

DISCLAIMER
This report has been produced by a team from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which takes full
responsibility for the report’s contents and conclusions. McKinsey & Company provided analyticalsupport. While the project participants, members of the advisory panel and experts consulted
acknowledged on the following pages have provided significant input to the development of thisreport, their participation does not necessarily imply endorsement of the report’s contents or
conclusions.
To quote this report, please use the following reference:
World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company,
The New Plastics Economy — Rethinking the future of plastics(2016, http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications).

10 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMYACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PROJECT FUNDERSINDORAMA

CORE PROJECT TEAMADVISORY PANEL
We are grateful for the supportof our advisory panel members:

ELLEN MACARTHUR
FOUNDATION
Andrew Morlet, CEO
Jocelyn Blériot, Executive
Officer — Communication &Policy Lead
Rob Opsomer, Lead, MainStream
Simon Widmer, Project Manager
Ian Banks, Analyst
Dr Michiel De Smet, Analyst
Joe Murphy, Analyst
Philippa Steventon, Team
Assistant
Sandy Rodger, Lead for Set-Up
Phase
WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM
Dominic Waughray, Head,
Public-Private Partnership,
Member of the Executive
Committee
Nathalie Chalmers, Project Lead,
Circular Economy
James Pennington, Research
Analyst, Global Agenda Councils
Louis Baudoin, Associate
Sander Defruyt, Associate
MCKINSEY & COMPANY
Martin R. Stuchtey, Director of
the McKinsey Center for Businessand Environment
Steven Swartz, Principal
Helga Vanthournout, Senior
ExpertDr Michael Braungart, ScientificDirector, EPEA International
Umweltforschung

UNILEVERPARTICIPATINGORGANISATIONSSpecial thanks go to ourparticipating organisations fortheir multiple contributions andactive involvement:

Michael Carus, CEO, novaInstitute

ABRE

Bruno De Wilde, Lab Manager,
OWS nv

Luciana Pellegrino, Executive
Director

Dr Stephane Guilbert, Professor,
Montpellier SupAgro

ALIPLAST

Dr Lauren Heine, Interim
Executive Director, Northwest
Green Chemistry

Paolo Glerean, PET Films Sales
Director

Dr Jenna Jambeck, Associate
Professor, University of Georgia

AMCOR

William McDonough, Founder,
William McDonough & Partners
Tom McKeag, Executive Director,
Berkeley Center for Green
Chemistry
Andreas Merkl, CEO, Ocean
Conservancy
Gonzalo Muñoz Abogabir, Cofounder and CEO, TriCiclos
Dr Costas Velis, CERRY: Circular
Economy & Resource Recovery
Coordinator, University of Leeds
Dr John Warner, President &Chief Technology Officer, Warner
Babcock Institute for Green
Chemistry, LLC
Dr John R. Williams, Board
Member, BBIA
Doug Woodring, Founder, Ocean
Recovery Alliance and The
Plasticity ForumDavid Clark, Vice President
Safety Environment &Sustainability
Charlie Schwarze, Global
Sustainability Manager
Gerald Rebitzer, Director
Sustainability
Leonore Hijazi, Sustainability
Manager
APK ALUMINIUM UND
KUNSTSTOFFE AG
Klaus Wohnig, Chief Marketing
Officer & CFO
Soren Hein, Strategy Advisor
CITY OF ATLANTA
Kristin Wilson, Deputy Chief
Operating Officer
Monica Fuentes, Chief Service
OfficerStephanie Benfield, Director of
Sustainability

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 11

BPI

IKEA

Andrew Green, Managing
Director

Alexander Grouleff, Project
Leader Recycled/Renewable
Materials Category Plastic

Gerry McGarry, Commercial
Director
CEDO
Ton Emans, Director, Group
Recycling and Purchasing
Department
CITY OF COPENHAGEN
Morten Højer, Special Advisor,
Climate & Economy
Mette Skovgaard, Senior Advisor
CLOSED LOOP FUND
Chris Ladd, Director & CFO
Bridget Croke, Partner
Relationships
COCA-COLA FEMSALuis Dario Ochoa Rodriguez,
Sustainability Manager
CYRAMID AFFILIATESPeter Schroeder, CEO
Julian Blohmke, Practice Leader
DESSO BV (A TARKETTCOMPANY)
Anette Timmer, Director,
Communications & CSR

Bernd Buesing, Senior
Packaging Expert

Nguyen Minh, Category Manager

Lars Lundquist, Senior
Packaging Expert - Packaging
Environmental Sustainability

HARTSFIELD-JACKSONATLANTA INTERNATIONALAIRPORT

Andrea Di Stefano, Special
Projects and BusinessCommunication Director

INDORAMA

Tony Breton, Market Developer,
Source Separation & Recycling

Aradhana Lohia Sharma,
Corporate Strategy & PlanningMark Ruesink, General Manager
Wellman Recycling & Wellman
France Recyclage
Paul Brennan, Commercial
Manager Wellman Recycling &Wellman France Recyclage
KIMBERLY-CLARK
Daniel Locke, Sustainability
Strategy and Business
Development Analyst
John Opsteen, Secondary
Materials Program Leader
LONDON WASTE AND
RECYCLING BOARD (LWARB)DOW CHEMICALMARKS & SPENCER

Jeffrey Wooster, Global
Sustainability Director, Packaging& Specialty Plastics

Kevin Vyse, Packaging
Technologist, Foods & Packaging
Innovation Lead

Bruno Pereira, NBD and
Sustainability Manager

MANGO MATERIALS, INC.

Gaelle Nicolle, Program manager
Eco+
Lukas Hoex, Manager Circular
EconomyDUPONT
Hanane Taidi, Marketing
Communications Director
Xavier Bories-Azeau, Regional
Product Line Manager

NOVAMONT

Liza Milagro, Senior
Sustainability Planner

Wayne Hubbard, Chief
Operating Officer

Fredric Petit, Director,
Innovation & Sustainability at
DSM Engineering Plastics

NESTLÉPer Stoltz, Sustainability
Developer

Rudi Daelmans, Manager, CSR

ROYAL DSM

Erwin Vink, Environmental
Affairs Manager

Dr Molly Morse, CEO
MTM PLASTICS
Dr Michael Scriba, Managing
Partner
MULTI-MATERIAL BC (MMBC)
Allen Langdon, Managing
Director
NATUREWORKS LLC
Mariagiovanna Vetere, EU Public
Affairs Manager
Steve Davies, Public Affairs andCommunication Director

Paul Darby, Area Manager UK &Ireland
NYC DEPARTMENT OFSANITATION
Greg Anderson, Chief of Staff
Bridget Anderson, Deputy
Commissioner, Recycling andSustainability
PACOMBI GROUP
Alan Campbell, Technical
Director
PLASTICBANKDavid Katz, Founder and CEO
PLASTICS RECYCLERS EUROPE
Antonino Furfari, Director
QUALITY CIRCULAR POLYMERS(QCP)Huub Meessen, CEORECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES
Adrian Griffiths, Managing
Director
SABMILLER
Andre Fourie, Head of Water
Security and Environmental
Value
SEALED AIR
Ron Cotterman, Vice President,
Sustainability
Vince Herran, Director, Global
Recycling12 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

SUEZ

WRAP

Frederic Grivel, Vice President,
Marketing

Claire Shrewsbury, Packaging
Programme Area Manager

Peter De Boodt, Director,
Projects Support &Implementation Department

David Tozer, Project Manager

Aurelien Toupet, Directeur
Métiers Tri-Valorisation

Callum Blackburn, Head of
Policy and ResearchZERO WASTE SCOTLAND

Oliver Vilcot, General Manager ­—Plastics Recycling Division

Louise McGregor, Head of
Circular Economy

TERRACYCLETim Baldwin, Sector Manager,
Reprocessing

Tom Szaky, Founder and CEO
Albe Zakes, Global VP,
Communications
Chris Baker, General Manager
UNILEVER
Gavin Warner, Director
Sustainable BusinessLouis Lindenberg, Global
Packaging Sustainability Director
Julie Zaniewski, Packaging
Sustainability Manager
VEOLIA
Gary Crawford, Vice President,International Affairs
Juliette Pouzet, Strategy
Manager, Innovations & Markets
Department
Martin Champel, Sorting &Recycling Activities TechnicalExpert, Technical & Performance
Department
Marc-Antoine Belthé, General
Manager, Veolia Propreté France
Recycling
WASTE CAPITAL PARTNERS
Parag Gupta, Founder
Rob Whiting, Principal
WASTE MANAGEMENTMCDONOUGH SUSTAINABLEINNOVATION COLLABORATION
Larry Black, Senior Advisor andStrategic Business Development

EXPERTS CONSULTED
Thanks also go to the manyleading academic, industry,
NGO and government agency
experts who provided invaluable
perspectives:
Conny Bakker, Associate
Professor, TU Delft
Eben Bayer, Co-founder andCEO, Ecovative
Alice Bazzano, Sustainability
Project Leader, Avery Dennison
Jan Berbee, Founder, Packaging& Distribution Innovators BVUrban Boije af Gennäs, Policy
Officer, European Commission,
DG Environment, Chemicals Unit
Scott Boylston, Graduate
Coordinator, Design for
Sustainability, Savannah Collegeof Art and Design
Phil Brown, Circular Value
Chains Research Engineer,
The High Speed Sustainable
Manufacturing Institute (HSSMI)
Eilidh Brunton, Group Recycling
Consultant, Vegware
Oliver Campbell, Director
Worldwide Procurement, DELL
Lucy Chamberlin, Head ofProgramme, The RSA Great
RecoveryCharles Cocoual, Associate,
McKinsey & Company
Susan Collins, President,
Container Recycling Institute

Bram de Zwart, Co-founder andCEO, 3D Hubs
Sam Deconinck, Marketing &Sales Manager, OWS nv
Daniel Dilges, Senior Research
Analyst, McKinsey & Company
David Dornfeld, Director,
Laboratory for Manufacturing
and Sustainability (LMAS),
University of California, Berkeley
Paul East, Packaging
Technologist, RECOUP
Stuart Foster, Chief Executive
Officer, RECOUP
Jason Foster, Founder and Chief
Reuser, Replenish Bottling
Lucy Frankel, Communications
Director, Vegware
Max Friefeld, Co-founder andCEO, Voodoo Manufacturing
Alysia Garmulewicz, DPhil
Candidate, University of Oxford
Rich Gilbert, Co-founder, The
Agency of Design
Jeroen Gillabel, Researcher
Sustainable Materials
Management, VITO
Nathalie Gontard, Food
Packaging Scientist, Professor& Research Director, INRA &Université MontpellierPeter Goodwin, Director, Closed
Loop Environmental Solutions
Vasudha Gupta, Senior Analyst,
McKinsey & Company
Sophie Hackford, Director,
WIRED Consulting, WIREDMagazine
Dr John Hahladakis, Research
Fellow on Resource Recovery
from Waste, University of Leeds
Prabhdeep S. Hans, GroupManager Strategy and Planning,
BramblesDr Britta Denise Hardesty,
Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO
Keefe Harrison, Executive
Director, The Recycling
Partnership
Frida Hök, Senior Policy Advisor,
ChemSecTHE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 13

Wendela Huisman, Teaching
Assistant Sustainable Design
Engineering, Delft University ofTechnology
Maja Johannessen, Gov. & Cities
Programme Associate, Ellen
MacArthur Foundation
Juan Jose Freijo, Global Head,
Sustainability, Brambles
Hanne Juel, Leader of Circular
Economy Team at Innovation
and Research, Central Denmark
Region Government
Christie Keith, International
Coordinator, Global Alliance forIncinerator Alternatives (GAIA)
Scott Knowles, Co-founder andDirector, ObjectForm
Dr Eleni Lacovidou, Research
Fellow on Resource Recovery
from Waste, University of Leeds
Markus Laubscher, Program
Manager Circular Economy,
Philips Group Sustainability,
Philips
Dr Mats Linder, Project Manager,
Ellen MacArthur Foundation
Jason Locklin, Associate
Professor, College ofEngineering, University ofGeorgia
Guillermo Lopez-Velarde,
Product Development PracticeSenior Expert, McKinsey &Company
Dr Carlos Ludlow-Palafox, CEO,
Enval
Anne-Mette Lysemose
Bendsen, Soil & Waste, Ministryof Environment and Food ofDenmark
Brock Macdonald, CEO,Recycling Council of British
Columbia
Conrad B. MacKerron, SeniorVice President, As You Sow

Nicholas Mallos, Director, Trash
Free Seas Program, Ocean
Conservancy

Marie Seeger, Fellow Senior
Associate, McKinsey & Company

Andrew Mangan, Executive
Director, United States BusinessCouncil for Sustainable
Development

James Sherwood, Research
Scientist, Green Chemistry
Centre of Excellence, University
of York

Prof Dr Jur Helmut Maurer,
Principal Lawyer, European
Commission, DG Environment
Megan McGill, Circular Strategy
Analyst, C&A Foundation
Richard McKinlay, SeniorEngineer, Axion Consulting
Simon Mendes, UK Marketing
Manager, Schoeller Allibert
Limited
Béatrice Meunier, Senior
Manager, PlasticsEurope
Jeff Meyers, Development
Director, The Recycling
PartnershipMark Shayler, Boss, Ape

Joan Marc Simon, Executive
Director, Zero Waste Europe
Neil Spencer, Independent
Consultant (Resource
Management) & SchmidtMacArthur Fellow
Luca Stamare, Secretary, EPBP
Eugene Tseng, J.D., Professor,
University of West Los Angeles
School of Law; Professor,
UCLA Engineering Extension,
Recycling/MSW Management
ProgramAmy Tsui, Associate, McKinsey &Company

Kenneth F. Miller, Manager, KFM& Associates

Ive Vanderreydt, Team Leader,
VITO

Vitaly Negulayev, Knowledge
Specialist, McKinsey & Company

Sari Varpa, Knowledge Expert,
McKinsey & Company

Patrick Peuch, Executive
Director, Petcore Europe

Dr Michael Warhurst, Executive
Director, CHEM Trust

Harald Pilz, Senior Consultant,Denkstatt GmbH

Ken Webster, Head of
Innovation, Ellen MacArthur
Foundation

Juergen Priesters, Business
Development Director, TOMRA
Sorting Solutions
Stefan Ranstrand, President andCEO, TOMRA Systems ASA
Volker Rehrmann, Executive
Vice President and CTO, TOMRA
Sorting Solutions

Dr Renee Wever, Professor ofIndustrial Design Engineering,
Linköping University
Chris Wilcox, Principal Research
Scientist, CSIRO Oceans andAtmosphere Business UnitDavid Rosenberg, Co-founderand CEO, AeroFarms

Adrian Whyle, Resource
Efficiency Senior Manager,
PlasticsEurope

Andrew Russell, Director, Plastic
Disclosure Project

PRODUCTION

MD, MPH Megan Schwarzman,
Associate Director, Berkeley
Center for Green Chemistry,
University of California, Berkeley

Sarah Churchill-Slough, Design

Ruth Sheppard, Terry Gilman,
Len Neufeld, Fabienne Stassen,
Editors14 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

GLOBAL PARTNERS OF THE ELLEN MACARTHUR FOUNDATION

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Plastics have become the ubiquitous workhorse material of the modern economy— combining unrivalled functional properties with low cost. Their use has increased
twenty-fold in the past half-century and is expected to double again in the next 20
years. Today nearly everyone, everywhere, every day comes into contact with plastics— especially plastic packaging, the focus of this report.
While delivering many benefits, the current plastics economy has drawbacks thatare becoming more apparent by the day. After a short first-use cycle, 95% of plastic
packaging material value, or USD 80–120 billion annually, is lost to the economy. A
staggering 32% of plastic packaging escapes collection systems, generating significant
economic costs by reducing the productivity of vital natural systems such as the oceanand clogging urban infrastructure. The cost of such after-use externalities for plastic
packaging, plus the cost associated with greenhouse gas emissions from its production,is conservatively estimated at USD 40 billion annually — exceeding the plastic
packaging industry’s profit pool. In future, these costs will have to be covered. In
overcoming these drawbacks, an opportunity beckons: enhancing system effectivenessto achieve better economic and environmental outcomes while continuing to harness
the many benefits of plastic packaging. The ‘New Plastics Economy’ offers a new vision,aligned with the principles of the circular economy, to capture these opportunities.
With an explicitly systemic and collaborative approach, the New Plastics Economy
aims to overcome the limitations of today’s incremental improvements and fragmented
initiatives, to create a shared sense of direction, to spark a wave of innovation andto move the plastics value chain into a positive spiral of value capture, stronger
economics, and better environmental outcomes. This report outlines a fundamental
rethink for plastic packaging and plastics in general; it offers a new approach with thepotential to transform global plastic packaging materials flows and thereby usher in
the New Plastics Economy.

16 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

BACKGROUND TO THIS WORKThis report presents a compelling opportunity toincrease the system effectiveness of the plastics
economy, illustrated by examples from the plastic
packaging value chain. The vision of a New Plastics
Economy offers a new way of thinking aboutplastics as an effective global material flow, alignedwith the principles of the circular economy.
The New Plastics Economy initiative is, toour knowledge, the first to have developed
a comprehensive overview of global plastic
packaging material flows, assessed the value andbenefits of shifting this archetypally linear sector toa circular economic model, and identified a practical
approach to enabling this shift. This report bases its
findings on interviews with over 180 experts and on
analysis of over 200 reports.
This report is the result of a three-year effort led
by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, in partnershipwith the World Economic Forum and supported by
McKinsey & Company. Initial interest in the topic ofpackaging was stimulated by the second Towards
the Circular Economy report developed by the Ellen
MacArthur Foundation and published in 2013. That
report quantified the economic value of shifting
to a circular economic approach in the global,
fast-moving consumer goods sector, highlighting
the linear consumption pattern of that sector,
which sends goods worth over USD 2.6 trillion
annually to the world’s landfills and incineration
plants. The report showed that shifting to a circularmodel could generate a USD 706 billion economic
opportunity, of which a significant proportion is
attributable to packaging.
The subsequent Towards the Circular Economy
volume 3, published by the Ellen MacArthur
Foundation and the World Economic Forum in
2014, and again supported by McKinsey, exploredthe opportunities and challenges for the circular
economy across global supply chains, focusing on
several sectors — including plastic packaging. This
study triggered the creation of Project MainStream,
which formed material-specific working groups,
including a plastics working group; this group in
turn quickly narrowed its scope of investigation
to plastic packaging due to its omnipresence indaily life all over the globe. The resulting initiative
was the first of its type and included participantsfrom across the global plastic packaging value
chain. It sought to develop a deep understandingof global plastic packaging material flows and to
identify specific ways of promoting the emergenceof a new, circular economic model. It was led by asteering board of nine CEOs and included amongits participants polymer manufacturers; packaging
producers; global brands; representatives of major
cities focused on after-use collection; collection,sorting and reprocessing/recycling companies; anda variety of industry experts and academics.
In the course of the MainStream work, an additional
key theme presented itself: plastics ‘leaking’(escaping) from after-use collection systems andthe resulting degradation of natural systems,
particularly the ocean. Although not the focal point
initially, evidence of the looming degradation ofmarine ecosystems by plastics waste, particularly
plastic packaging, has made plastics leakage apriority topic for MainStream. The economic impact
of marine ecosystem degradation is only just being
established through scientific and socio-economic
research and analysis. However, initial findings
indicate that the presence of hundreds of millions of
tonnes of plastics (of which estimates suggest thatpackaging represents the majority) in the ocean,
whether as microscopic particles or surviving in arecognisable form for hundreds of years, will haveprofoundly negative effects on marine ecosystems
and the economic activities that depend on them.
This report is designed to initiate — not conclude —a deeper exploration of the New Plastics Economy.
It provides an initial fact-base, shared language,
and sense of the opportunities derived from theapplication of circular principles, and a plan forconcerted action for the next three years andbeyond. It also identifies critical questions that
could not be answered sufficiently within the scopeof this work, but need to be in order to triggeraligned action.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 17

THE CASE FOR RETHINKING PLASTICS, STARTING WITH PACKAGING
Plastics and plastic packaging are an integral andimportant part of the global economy. Plastics
production has surged over the past 50 years, from15 million tonnes in 1964 to 311 million tonnes in
2014, and is expected to double again over the next
20 years, as plastics come to serve increasingly
many applications. Plastic packaging, the focus of
this report, is and will remain the largest application;
currently, packaging represents 26% of the total
volume of plastics used. Plastic packaging not
only delivers direct economic benefits, but canalso contribute to increased levels of resource
productivity — for instance, plastic packaging canreduce food waste by extending shelf life and can
reduce fuel consumption for transportation bybringing packaging weight down.
While delivering many benefits, the current
plastics economy also has important drawbacks
that are becoming more apparent by the day.
Today, 95% of plastic packaging material value, or
USD 80–120 billion annually, is lost to the economy
after a short first use. More than 40 years after thelaunch of the first universal recycling symbol, only
14% of plastic packaging is collected for recycling.
When additional value losses in sorting andreprocessing are factored in, only 5% of materialvalue is retained for a subsequent use. Plastics that
do get recycled are mostly recycled into lowervalue applications that are not again recyclable
after use. The recycling rate for plastics in generalis even lower than for plastic packaging, and bothare far below the global recycling rates for paper(58%) and iron and steel (70–90%). In addition,
plastic packaging is almost exclusively single-use,
especially in business-to-consumer applications.
Plastic packaging generates significant negative
externalities, conservatively valued by UNEP at
USD 40 billion and expected to increase withstrong volume growth in a business-as-usual
scenario. Each year, at least 8 million tonnes ofplastics leak into the ocean — which is equivalent
to dumping the contents of one garbage truck into
the ocean every minute. If no action is taken, thisis expected to increase to two per minute by 2030
and four per minute by 2050. Estimates suggestthat plastic packaging represents the major share ofthis leakage. The best research currently available
estimates that there are over 150 million tonnes ofplastics in the ocean today. In a business-as-usual
scenario, the ocean is expected to contain 1 tonneof plastic for every 3 tonnes of fish by 2025, and by
2050, more plastics than fish (by weight).
The production of plastics draws on fossil
feedstocks, with a significant carbon impactthat will become even more significant with the
projected surge in consumption. Over 90% of
plastics produced are derived from virgin fossil
feedstocks. This represents, for all plastics (not justpackaging), about 6% of global oil consumption,
which is equivalent to the oil consumption of the
global aviation sector. If the current strong growthof plastics usage continues as expected, the plastics
sector will account for 20% of total oil consumption
and 15% of the global annual carbon budget by
2050 (this is the budget that must be adhered to inorder to achieve the internationally accepted goal
to remain below a 2°C increase in global warming).
Even though plastics can bring resource efficiency
gains during use, these figures show that it is crucial
to address the greenhouse gas impact of plastics
production and after-use treatment.
Plastics often contain a complex blend of chemical
substances, of which some raise concerns about
potential adverse effects on human health and theenvironment. While scientific evidence on the exact
implications is not always conclusive, especially
due to the difficulty of assessing complex longterm exposure and compounding effects, there aresufficient indications that warrant further research
and accelerated action.
There are many innovation and improvement
efforts that show potential, but to datethese have proved to be too fragmented anduncoordinated to have impact at scale. Today’s
plastics economy is highly fragmented. The lack ofstandards and coordination across the value chain
has allowed a proliferation of materials, formats,labelling, collection schemes, and sorting andreprocessing systems, which collectively hamper
the development of effective markets. Innovation is
also fragmented. The development and introductionof new packaging materials and formats acrossglobal supply and distribution chains is happening
far faster than and is largely disconnected from thedevelopment and deployment of corresponding
after-use systems and infrastructure. At the sametime, hundreds, if not thousands, of small-scale local
initiatives are launched each year, focused on areas
such as improving collection schemes and installing
new sorting and reprocessing technologies. Other
issues, such as the fragmented development andadoption of labelling standards, hinder public
understanding and create confusion.
In overcoming these drawbacks, an opportunity
beckons: using the plastics innovation engine
to move the industry into a positive spiral ofvalue capture, stronger economics, and better
environmental outcomes.

18 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY: CAPTURING THE OPPORTUNITY
The overarching vision of the New Plastics Economy
is that plastics never become waste; rather, theyre-enter the economy as valuable technical or
biological nutrients. The New Plastics Economy
is underpinned by and aligns with principles of
the circular economy. Its ambition is to deliver
better system-wide economic and environmental
outcomes by creating an effective after-use
plastics economy, drastically reducing the leakageof plastics into natural systems (in particular
the ocean) and other negative externalities; anddecoupling from fossil feedstocks.
Even with today’s designs, technologies andsystems, these ambitions can already be at least
partially realised. One recent study found, forexample, that in Europe today 53% of plastic
packaging could be recycled economically andenvironmentally effectively. While the exact figure
can be debated and depends on, amongst others,
the oil price, the message is clear: there are pockets
of opportunities to be captured today — andeven where not entirely feasible today, the New
Plastics Economy offers an attractive target state
for the global value chain and governments tocollaboratively innovate towards.
Given plastic packaging’s many benefits, both thelikelihood and desirability of an across-the-board
drastic reduction in the volume of plastic packaging
used is clearly low. Nevertheless, reduction shouldbe pursued where possible and beneficial, bydematerialising, moving away from single-use as thedefault, and substituting by other materials.
CREATE AN EFFECTIVE AFTER-USE PLASTICSECONOMY.
Creating an effective after-use plastics economy is
the cornerstone of the New Plastics Economy andits first priority. Not only is it crucial to capture morematerial value and increase resource productivity, italso provides a direct economic incentive to avoid
leakage into natural systems and will help enable
the transition to renewably sourced feedstock by
reducing the scale of the transition.
• Radically increase the economics, quality anduptake of recycling. Establish a cross-value
chain dialogue mechanism and develop a Global
Plastics Protocol to set direction on the redesignand convergence of materials, formats, and afteruse systems to substantially improve collection,sorting and reprocessing yields, quality
and economics, while allowing for regional
differences and continued innovation. Enablesecondary markets for recycled materials throughthe introduction and scale-up of matchmaking
mechanisms, industry commitments and/or
policy interventions. Focus on key innovation
opportunities that have the potential to scale up,such as investments in new or improved materials
and reprocessing technologies. Explore theoverall enabling role of policy.
• Scale up the adoption of reusable packaging
within business-to-business applications asa priority, but also in targeted business-toconsumer applications such as plastic bags.
• Scale up the adoption of industriallycompostable plastic packaging for targeted
applications such as garbage bags for organic
waste and food packaging for events, fast
food enterprises, canteens and other closed
systems, where there is low risk of mixing withthe recycling stream and where the pairing ofa compostable package with organic contents
helps return nutrients in the contents to the soil.
DRASTICALLY REDUCE THE LEAKAGE OF
PLASTICS INTO NATURAL SYSTEMS AND OTHER
NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES.
Achieving a drastic reduction in leakage would
require joint efforts along three axes: improving
after-use infrastructure in high-leakage countries,
increasing the economic attractiveness of keeping
materials in the system and reducing the negative
impact of plastic packaging when it does escapecollection and reprocessing systems. In addition,
efforts related to substances of concern could bescaled up and accelerated.
• Improve after-use collection, storage andreprocessing infrastructure in high-leakage
countries. This is a critical first step, but likely
not sufficient in isolation. As discussed in the
Ocean Conservancy’s 2015 report Stemming theTide, even under the very best current scenarios
for improving infrastructure, leakage would only
be stabilised, not eliminated, implying that the
cumulative total volume of plastics in the ocean
would continue to increase strongly. Therefore,
the current report focuses not on the urgently
needed short-term improvements in after-use
infrastructure in high-leakage countries but
rather on the complementary actions required.
• Increase the economic attractiveness of keeping
materials in the system. Creating an effective
after-use plastics economy as described above
contributes to a root-cause solution to leakage.
Improved economics make the build-up of afteruse collection and reprocessing infrastructure
more attractive. Increasing the value of after-use
plastic packaging reduces the likelihood thatit escapes the collection system, especially incountries with an informal waste sector.
• Steer innovation investment towards creating
materials and formats that reduce the negativeTHE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 19

environmental impact of plastic packaging
leakage. Current plastic packaging offers great
functional benefits, but it has an inherent design
failure: its intended useful life is typically lessthan one year; however, the material persists
for centuries, which is particularly damaging if
it leaks outside collection systems, as happens
today with 32% of plastic packaging. The efforts
described above will reduce leakage, but it isdoubtful that leakage can ever be fully eliminated— and even at a leakage rate of just 1%, about 1
million tonnes of plastic packaging would escapecollection systems and accumulate in natural
systems each year. The ambitious objective would
be to develop ‘bio-benign’ plastic packaging thatwould reduce the negative impacts on natural
systems when leaked, while also being recyclable
and competitive in terms of functionality andcosts. Today’s biodegradable plastics rarely
measure up to that ambition, as they are typicallycompostable only under controlled conditions(e.g. in industrial composters). Further researchand game-changing innovation are needed.

• Scale up existing efforts to understand thepotential impact of substances raising concerns
and to accelerate development and applicationof safe alternatives.
DECOUPLE PLASTICS FROM FOSSIL FEEDSTOCKS.
Decoupling plastics from fossil feedstocks would
allow the plastic packaging industry to complement
its contributions to resource productivity during
use with a low-carbon production process, enabling
it to effectively participate in the low-carbon
world that is inevitably drawing closer. Creating aneffective after-use economy is key to decoupling
because it would, along with dematerialisation
levers, reduce the need for virgin feedstock.
Another central part of this effort would be thedevelopment of renewably sourced materials toprovide the virgin feedstock that would still be
required to compensate for remaining cycle losses,
despite the increased recycling and reuse.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY DEMANDS A NEW APPROACH
To move beyond small-scale and incremental
improvements and achieve a systemic shift towards
the New Plastics Economy, existing improvement
initiatives would need to be complemented andguided by a concerted, global, systemic andcollaborative initiative that matches the scale ofthe challenge and the opportunity. An independent
coordinating vehicle would be needed to drive
this initiative. It would need to be set up in a waythat recognises that the innovations required
for the transition to the New Plastics Economy
are driven collaboratively across industry, cities,
governments and NGOs. In this initiative, consumer
goods companies, plastic packaging producers
and plastics manufacturers would play a criticalrole, because they determine what products andmaterials are put on the market. Cities control theafter-use infrastructure in many places and areoften hubs for innovation. Businesses involved incollection, sorting and reprocessing are an equally
critical part of the puzzle. Policymakers canplay an important role in enabling the transition
by realigning incentives, facilitating secondary
markets, defining standards and stimulating
innovation. NGOs can help ensure that broadersocial and environmental considerations are taken
into account. Collaboration would be required
to overcome fragmentation, the chronic lack ofalignment between innovation in design and afteruse, and lack of standards, all challenges that must
be resolved in order to unlock the New Plastics
Economy.

The coordinating vehicle would need to bring
together the different actors in a cross-value chain
dialogue mechanism and drive change by focusing
on efforts with compounding effects that together
would have the potential to shift the global market.
Analysis to date indicates that the initial areas offocus could be:
ESTABLISH THE GLOBAL PLASTICS PROTOCOLAND COORDINATE LARGE-SCALE PILOTS AND
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS. Redesign andconverge materials, formats and after-use systems,
starting by investigating questions such as:
To what extent could plastic packaging be designedwith a significantly smaller set of material/additive
combinations, and what would be the economic
benefits if this were done?
What would be the potential to design out smallformat/low-value plastic packaging such as tearoffs, with challenging after-use economics andespecially likely to leak?
What would be the economic benefits if all plastic
packaging had common labelling and chemicalmarking, and these were well aligned withstandardised separation and sorting systems?
What if after-use systems, currently shaped byfragmented decisions at municipal or regional level,
were rethought and redesigned to achieve optimal
scale and economics?

20 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

What would be the best levers to stimulate themarket for recycled plastics?
Set global direction by answering such questions,demonstrate solutions at scale with large-scale
pilots and demonstration projects, and drive global
convergence (allowing for continued innovation
and regional variations) towards the identified
designs and systems with proven economics inorder to overcome the existing fragmentation andto fundamentally shift after-use collection andreprocessing economics and market effectiveness.
MOBILISE LARGE-SCALE ‘MOON SHOT’INNOVATIONS. The world’s leading businesses,
academics and innovators would be invited tocome together and define ‘moon shot’ innovations:focused, practical initiatives with a high potential
for significant impact at scale. Areas to look at forsuch innovations could include the development of
bio-benign materials; the development of materials
designed to facilitate multilayer reprocessing,such as the use of reversible adhesives based on
biomimicry principles; the search for a ‘superpolymer’ with the functionality of today’s polymers
and with superior recyclability; chemical marking
technologies; and chemical recycling technologies
that would overcome some of the environmental
and economic issues facing current technologies.
DEVELOP INSIGHTS AND BUILD AN ECONOMIC
AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE BASE. Many of thecore aspects of plastic material flows and theireconomics are still poorly understood. While thisreport, together with a number of other recent
efforts, aims to provide initial answers, more
research is required. Initial studies could include:
investigating in further detail the economic andenvironmental benefits of solutions discussed inthis report; conducting meta-analyses and researchtargeted to assess the socio-economic impact ofocean plastics waste and substances of concern(including risks and externalities); determining
the scale-up potential for greenhouse gas-based
plastics (renewably sourced plastics produced
using greenhouse gases as feedstock); investigating
the potential role of (and boundary conditionsfor) energy recovery in a transition period; andmanaging and disseminating a repository of global
data and best practices.
ENGAGE POLICYMAKERS in the developmentof a common vision of a more effective system,and provide them with relevant tools, data andinsights related to plastics and plastic packaging.
One specific deliverable could be a plastics
toolkit for policymakers, giving them a structured
methodology for assessing opportunities, barriers
and policy options to overcome these barriers intransitioning towards the New Plastics Economy.
COORDINATE AND DRIVE COMMUNICATIONof the nature of today’s situation, the vision of
the New Plastics Economy, best practices andinsights, as well as specific opportunities andrecommendations, to stakeholders acting along the
global plastic packaging value chain.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 21

22 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMYPART I SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 23

24 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

1

THE CASE FOR RETHINKING PLASTICS,
STARTING WITH PACKAGING

Because of their combination of unrivalled properties and low cost, plastics are theworkhorse material of the modern economy. Their use has increased twenty-fold in thepast half-century, and is expected to double again in the next 20 years. Today nearly
everyone, everywhere, every day comes into contact with plastics — especially plastic
packaging, on which the report focuses.
While delivering many benefits, the current plastics economy has drawbacks thatare becoming more apparent by the day. After a short first-use cycle, 95% of plastic
packaging material value, or USD 80–120 billion annually, is lost to the economy. A
staggering 32% of plastic packaging escapes collection systems, generating significant
economic costs by reducing the productivity of vital natural systems such as the oceanand clogging urban infrastructure. The cost of such after-use externalities for plastic
packaging, plus the cost associated with greenhouse gas emissions from its production,
has been estimated conservatively by UNEP at USD 40 billion — exceeding the plastic
packaging industry’s profit pool. In future, these costs will have to be covered. In
overcoming these drawbacks, an opportunity beckons: enhancing system effectivenessto achieve better economic and environmental outcomes while continuing to reap themany benefits of plastic packaging.

1.1

PLASTICS AND PLASTIC PACKAGING ARE AN INTEGRAL AND IMPORTANT
PART OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

Today, imagining a world without plastics1 is nearly
impossible. Plastics are increasingly used across the
economy, serving as a key enabler for sectors as
diverse as packaging, construction, transportation,
healthcare and electronics. Plastics now make up
roughly 15% of a car2 by weight and about 50% of
the Boeing Dreamliner.3
Plastics have brought massive economic benefits
to these sectors, thanks to their combination of
low cost, versatility, durability and high strengthto-weight ratio.4 The success of plastics is reflectedin the exponential growth in their production
over the past half-century (Figure 1). Since 1964,
plastics production has increased twenty-fold,reaching 311 million tonnes in 2014, the equivalentof more than 900 Empire State Buildings.5 Plastics
production is expected to double again in 20 years
and almost quadruple by 2050. Plastic packaging— the focus of this report — is plastics’ largest
application, representing 26% of the total volume.6
As packaging materials, plastics are especially
inexpensive, lightweight and high performing.
Plastic packaging can also benefit the environment:

its low weight reduces fuel consumption intransportation, and its barrier properties keep
food fresh longer, reducing food waste. As a resultof these characteristics, plastics are increasingly
replacing other packaging materials.
Between 2000 and 2015, the share of plastic
packaging as a share of global packaging volumes
has increased from 17% to 25%7 driven by a strong
growth in the global plastic packaging market8 of
5%9 annually. In 2013, the industry put 78 million
tonnes of plastic packaging on the market, with a
total value of USD 260 billion.10
Plastic packaging volumes are expected to continue
their strong growth, doubling within 15 years andmore than quadrupling by 2050, to 318 million
tonnes annually — more than the entire plastics
industry today.11 The main plastic resin types andtheir packaging applications are shown in Figure 2.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 25

FIGURE 1: GROWTH IN GLOBAL PLASTICS PRODUCTION 1950–2014

311 MT(2014)

350

300

MILLION TONNES

250

x

20

200

150

100

15 MT
(1964)

50

0
1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2014

Note: Production from virgin fossil-based feedstock only (does not include bio-based, greenhouse gas-based or recycled feedstock).
Source: PlasticsEurope, Plastics – the Facts 2013 (2013); PlasticsEurope, Plastics – the Facts 2015 (2015).

FIGURE 2: MAIN PLASTIC RESIN TYPES AND THEIR APPLICATIONS IN PACKAGING

1

WATER AND SOFT DRINK BOTTLES, SALAD DOMES,BISCUIT TRAYS, SALAD DRESSING AND PEANUTBUTTER CONTAINERS

PET2MILK BOTTLES, FREEZER BAGS, DIP TUBS, CRINKLY SHOPPING
BAGS, ICE CREAM CONTAINERS, JUICE BOTTLES, SHAMPOO,CHEMICAL AND DETERGENT BOTTLES

HDPE

3

COSMETIC CONTAINERS, COMMERCIAL CLING WRAPPVC

4SQUEEZE BOTTLES, CLING WRAP, SHRINK WRAP,RUBBISH BAGS

LDPE

5

MICROWAVE DISHES, ICE CREAM TUBS, POTATOCHIP BAGS, AND DIP TUBSPP

6CD CASES, WATER STATION CUPS, PLASTIC CUTLERY,IMITATION ‘CRYSTAL GLASSWARE’, VIDEO CASES

PS

6
EPS

FOAMED POLYSTYRENE HOT DRINK CUPS, HAMBURGER
TAKE-AWAY CLAMSHELLS, FOAMED MEAT TRAYS,PROTECTIVE PACKAGING FOR FRAGILE ITEMS

7OTHERS
Source: Project MainStream analysis.

WATER COOLER BOTTLES, FLEXIBLE FILMS,
MULTI-MATERIAL PACKAGING26 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

1.2

TODAY’S PLASTICS ECONOMY HAS IMPORTANT DRAWBACKS

1.2.1

Plastic packaging is an iconic linear
application with USD 80–120 billion
annual material value loss

Today, 95% of plastic packaging material value or
USD 80–120 billion annually is lost to the economy
after a short first use. More than 40 years after thelaunch of the well-known recycling symbol, only
14% of plastic packaging is collected for recycling.
When additional value losses in sorting andreprocessing are factored in, only 5% of materialvalue is retained for a subsequent use (see Figure3). Plastics that do get recycled are mostly recycled
into lower-value applications that are not again
recyclable after use. The recycling rate for plastics
in general is even lower than for plastic packaging,and both are far below the global recycling rates forpaper (58%)12 and iron and steel (70–90%).13 PET,14
used in beverage bottles, has a higher recycling
rate than any other type of plastic, but even thissuccess story is only a modest one: globally, close
to half of PET is not collected for recycling, andonly 7% is recycled bottle-to-bottle.15 In addition,
plastic packaging is almost exclusively single-use,
especially in business-to-consumer applications.
FIGURE 3: PLASTIC PACKAGING MATERIAL VALUELOSS AFTER ONE USE CYCLE100

VALUE YIELD1 (%)(USD 80–120 billion)2

36

86%

0
14

COLLECTED FOR RECYCLING (%)

Furthermore, an overwhelming 72% of plastic
packaging is not recovered at all: 40% is landfilled,and 32% leaks out of the collection system — that is,either it is not collected at all, or it is collected but
then illegally dumped or mismanaged.
This analysis of the global flows of plastic
packaging materials is based on an aggregationof fragmented data sets, often with varying
definitions and scope. The analysis not only reveals
a significant opportunity to increase circularity
and capture material value, but also highlights theneed for better alignment of reporting standards
and consolidation on a global level. Specific efforts
could be dedicated to improving the data fromdeveloping markets with informal waste sectors.

95% LOSS64%

and/or energy recovery process, mostly throughincineration in mixed solid waste incinerators, butalso through the combustion of refuse-derived
fuel in industrial processes such as cement kilns,and (at a limited scale) pyrolysis or gasification.
While recovering energy is a good thing in itself,
this process still loses the embedded effort andlabour that went into creating the material. Forenergy recovery in mixed solid waste incinerators,
in particular, there are also concerns that overdeployment of such incineration infrastructure cancreate a ‘lock-in’ effect that, because of the large
capital investments but relatively low operating
costs involved in building up and running suchinfrastructure, can effectively push higher-valuemechanisms such as recycling out of the market.
Many organisations have also raised concerns about
the pollutants that are generated during energy
recovery processes, which can have direct negative
health effects if adequate pollution controls are
not in place, as is often the case in the developingworld. Also, even if appropriate pollution controls
are in place, the resulting by-products need to bedisposed of.

100

1 Value yield = volume yield * price yield, where volume yield = output
volumes / input volumes, and price yield = USD per tonne of reprocessedmaterial / USD per tonne of virgin material
2 Current situation based on 14% recycling rate, 72% volume yield and 50%
price yield. Total volume of plastic packaging of 78 Mt, given a weighted
average price of 1,100–1,600 USD/t
Source: Expert interviews; Plastic News; Deloitte, Increased EU Plastics
Recycling Targets: Environmental, Economic and Social Impact Assessment
Final Report (2015); The Plastics Exchange; plasticker; EUWID; Eurostat.

A comprehensive overview of global flows of plastic
packaging materials can be found in Figure 4. In
addition to the 14% of plastic packaging collected
for recycling, another 14% is sent to an incineration

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 27

FIGURE 4: GLOBAL FLOWS OF PLASTIC PACKAGING MATERIALS IN 2013
8% CASCADEDRECYCLING2

4% PROCESSLOSSES

14% COLLECTEDFOR RECYCLING
2% CLOSED-LOOPRECYCLING1

98% VIRGIN
FEEDSTOCK

78 MILLIONTONNES

14% INCINERATION AND/OR ENERGY RECOVERY

40% LANDFILLED(ANNUAL PRODUCTION)
32% LEAKAGE

1 Closed-loop recycling: Recycling of plastics into the sameor similar-quality applications
2 Cascaded recycling: Recycling of plastics into other, lowervalue applications
Source: Project Mainstream analysis – for details please refer
to Appendix A.

1.2.2 Production relies on finite stocks offossil feedstocks
The plastics industry as a whole is highly reliant on
finite stocks of oil and gas, which make up morethan 90% of its feedstock. For plastic packaging,
this number is even higher, as the recycling ofplastics into packaging applications is limited.
Sources vary on the share of oil production used
to make plastics, but a combination of extensive
literature research and modelling indicates that
4–8% of the world’s oil production is used to makeplastics (not just packaging), with 6% as the best
estimate; roughly half of this is used as material
feedstock and half as fuel for the production
process.16 This is equivalent to the oil consumptionof the global aviation sector17 and is in addition
to the natural gas used as material feedstock andfuel. If the current strong growth of plastics usage
continues as expected, the consumption of oil by
the entire plastics sector will account for 20% of thetotal consumption by 2050.18 The use of oil by theplastics industry is expected to increase in line withplastics production (growing by 3.5–3.8% annually);
this is much faster than the growth in overall
demand for oil, which is expected to increase by
only 0.5% annually.19

28 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

1.2.3 Plastics and packaging generatesignificant negative externalities
The externalities related to the use of plastics
and plastic packaging are concentrated in threeareas: degradation of natural systems as a result ofleakage, especially in the ocean; greenhouse gas
emissions resulting from production and after-use
incineration; and health and environmental impacts
from substances of concern. Valuing Plastic, areport by UN Environment Programme and the
Plastics Disclosure Project (PDP) based on researchby Trucost estimated the total natural capital costof plastics in the consumer goods industry at USD
75 billion, of which USD 40 billion was related toplastic packaging, exceeding the profit pool of theplastic packaging industry.20
The continued strong growth expected in the
production and use of both plastics in generaland plastic packaging in particular will spread thebenefits of plastics to ever more people and in evermore useful applications; however, if production anduse continue within the current linear framework,
these negative externalities will be exacerbated, as
laid out in Figure 5 and detailed below.

FIGURE 5: FORECAST OF PLASTICS VOLUME GROWTH, EXTERNALITIES AND OIL CONSUMPTION IN A
BUSINESS-AS-USUAL SCENARIO

2014

2050

311 MT

1,124 MT

1:5

>1:1

OIL

OIL

6%

20%

1%

15%

PLASTICSPRODUCTIONRATIO OF PLASTICS
TO FISH IN THE
OCEAN1(BY WEIGHT)

PLASTICS’ SHAREOF GLOBAL OIL
CONSUMPTION2

PLASTICS' SHAREOF CARBONBUDGET3

1 Fish stocks are assumed to be constant (conservative assumption)
2 Total oil consumption expected to grow slower (0.5% p.a.) than plastics production (3.8% until 2030 then 3.5% to 2050)
3 Carbon from plastics includes energy used in production and carbon released through incineration and/or energy recovery after-use. The latter is based on 14%
incinerated and/or energy recovery in 2014 and 20% in 2050. Carbon budget based on 2 degrees scenario
Source: PlasticsEurope; ICIS Supply and Demand; IEA, World Energy Outlook (2015) (Global GDP projection 2013–2040 and Central ‘New Policies’ scenario oil demand
projection 2014-2040, both assumed to continue to 2050); Ocean Conservancy and McKinsey Center for Business and Environment, Stemming the Tide: Land-based
strategies for a plastic-free ocean (2015); J. R. Jambeck et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean (Science, 13 February 2015); J. Hopewell et al., Plastics
recycling: Challenges and opportunities (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 2009); IEA, CO2 emissions from fuel combustion (2014); IEA, World Energy
Outlook Special Report: Energy and Climate Change (2015); Carbon Tracker Initiative, Unburnable Carbon (2013).

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 29

Degradation of natural systems as a result ofleakage, especially in the ocean. At least 8 million
tonnes of plastics leak into the ocean each year21— which is equivalent to dumping the contents of
one garbage truck into the ocean per minute. If noaction is taken, this will increase to two per minuteby 2030 and four per minute by 2050.22 Estimatesand expert interviews suggest that packaging
represents the major share of the leakage. Not
only is packaging the largest application of plastics
with 26% of volumes, its small size and low residual
value also makes it especially prone to leakage.
One indicative data point is that plastic packaging
comprises more than 62% of all items (including
non-plastics) collected in international coastal
clean-up operations.23
Plastics can remain in the ocean for hundreds ofyears in their original form and even longer in small
particles, which means that the amount of plastic in
the ocean cumulates over time. The best research
currently available estimates that there are over
150 million tonnes of plastic waste in the ocean
today.24 Without significant action, there may be
more plastic than fish in the ocean, by weight, by
2050.25 Even by 2025, the ratio of plastic to fishin the ocean is expected to be one to three, as
plastic stocks in the ocean are forecast to growto 250 million tonnes in 2025.26 As pointed out inthe report Stemming the Tide, even if concerted
abatement efforts were made to reduce the flowof plastics into the ocean, the volume of plastic
waste going into the ocean would stabilise rather
than decline, implying a continued increase in total
ocean plastics volumes, unless those abatement
efforts were coupled with a longer-term systemic
solution, including the adoption of principles of thecircular economy.
Ocean plastics significantly impact maritime natural
capital. While the total economic impact is still
unclear, initial studies suggest that it is at least in
the billions of dollars. According to Valuing Plastic
the annual damage of plastics to marine ecosystems
is at least USD 13 billion per year and Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) estimates thatthe cost of ocean plastics to the tourism, fishingand shipping industries was USD 1.3 billion in that
region alone.27 Even in Europe, where leakage isrelatively limited, potential costs for coastal andbeach cleaning could reach EUR 630 million (USD
695 million) per year.28 In addition to the direct
economic costs, there are potential adverse impacts
on human livelihoods and health, food chains andother essential economic and societal systems.
Leaked plastics can also degrade other natural
systems, such as forests and waterways, and induce
direct economic costs by clogging sewers and otherurban infrastructure. The economic costs of these
impacts need further assessment.
Greenhouse gas emissions. As pointed out above,
plastic packaging can in many cases reduce
the emission of greenhouse gases during its

use phase. Yet, with 6% of global oil production
devoted to the production of plastics (of whichpackaging represents a good quarter), considerable
greenhouse gas emissions are associated withthe production and sometimes the after-use
pathway of plastics. In 2012, these emissions
amounted to approximately 390 million tonnesof CO2 for all plastics (not just packaging).29
According to Valuing Plastic, the manufacturingof plastic feedstock, including the extraction of
the raw materials, gives rise to greenhouse gas
emissions with natural capital costs of USD 23
billion.30 The production phase, which consumes
around half of the fossil feedstocks flowing into theplastics sector, leads to most of these emissions.31
The remaining carbon is captured in the plastic
products themselves, and its release in the formof greenhouse gas emissions strongly depends on
the products’ after-use pathway.32 Incineration andenergy recovery result in a direct release of the
carbon (not taking into account potential carbon
savings by replacing another energy source). If theplastics are landfilled, this feedstock carbon could
be considered sequestered. If it is leaked, carbon
might be released into the atmosphere over many(potentially, hundreds of) years.33
This greenhouse gas footprint will become evenmore significant with the projected surge in
consumption. If the current strong growth ofplastics usage continues as expected, the emissionof greenhouse gases by the global plastics
sector will account for 15% of the global annual
carbon budget by 2050, up from 1% today.34 The
carbon budget for the global economy is basedon restricting global warming to a maximum
increase of 2°C by 2100.35 Even though plastics
can bring real resource efficiency gains and help
reduce carbon emissions during use, these figures
show that it is crucial to address the greenhousegas impact of plastics production and after-use
treatment.
Substances of concern. Plastics are made from apolymer mixed with a complex blend of additives
such as stabilisers, plasticisers and pigments,and might contain unintended substances in theform of impurities and contaminants. Substancessuch as bisphenol A (BPA) and certain phthalates,
which are used as plasticisers in polyvinyl chloride(PVC), have already raised concerns about therisk of adverse effects on human health and theenvironment, concerns that have motivated someregulators and businesses to act.36 In addition, there
are uncertainties about the potential consequencesof long-term exposure to other substances foundin today’s plastics, about their combined effects
and about the consequences of leakage into
the biosphere. The 150 million tonnes of plastics
currently in the ocean include roughly 23 million
tonnes of additives, of which some raise concern.37
While the speed at which these additives leach outof the plastic into the environment is still subject
to debate, estimates suggest that about 225,000
tonnes of such additives could be released into

30 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

the ocean annually. This number could increase to
1.2 million tonnes per year by 2050.38 In addition,
substances of concern might enter the environment
when plastics and plastic packaging are combusted
without proper controls, a common practice inmany developing economies. This suggests theneed for additional research and more transparency.

1.2.4 Current innovation and improvement
efforts fail to have impact at scale
There are many innovation and improvement
efforts that show potential, but to date these have
proven to be too fragmented and uncoordinatedto have impact at scale. Today’s plastics economy
is highly fragmented. The lack of standards
and coordination across the value chain has
allowed the proliferation of materials, formats,labelling, collection schemes, and sorting andreprocessing systems, which collectively hamper
the development of effective markets. Innovation is
also fragmented. The development and introductionof new packaging materials and formats acrossglobal supply and distribution chains is happening

far faster than and is largely disconnected from thedevelopment and deployment of corresponding
after-use systems and infrastructure. At the sametime, hundreds, if not thousands, of small-scale local
initiatives are being launched each year, focusedon areas such as improving collection schemes
and installing new sorting and reprocessing
technologies. Other issues, such as the fragmented
development and adoption of labelling standards,
hinder public understanding and create confusion.
Through overcoming these drawbacks, anopportunity beckons: moving the plastics industry
into a positive spiral of value capture, stronger
economics, and better environmental outcomes.
Actors across the plastic packaging value chain
have proven time and again their capacity toinnovate. Now, harnessing this capability to
improve the circularity of plastic packaging — while
continuing to expand its functionality and reduce its
cost — could create a new engine to move towards
a system that works: a New Plastics Economy.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 31

2 THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY:CAPTURING THE OPPORTUNITY
The overarching vision of the New Plastics Economy is that plastics never become
waste; rather, they re-enter the economy as valuable technical or biologicalnutrients. The New Plastics Economy is underpinned by and aligns with circular
economy principles. It sets the ambition to deliver better system-wide economic andenvironmental outcomes by creating an effective after-use plastics economy (thecornerstone and priority); by drastically reducing the leakage of plastics into natural
systems (in particular the ocean); and by decoupling plastics from fossil feedstocks.

2.1

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY PROPOSES A NEW WAY OF THINKING

The New Plastics Economy builds on and aligns with the principles of the circular economy, anindustrial system that is restorative and regenerative by design (see Box 1). The New Plastics Economy
has three main ambitions (see Figure 6):

1Create an effective after-use plastics economy by improving the economics and uptakeof recycling, reuse and controlled biodegradation for targeted applications. This is thecornerstone of the New Plastics Economy and its first priority, and helps realise the two
following ambitions.

2

Drastically reduce leakage of plastics into natural systems (in particular the ocean) andother negative externalities.

3

Decouple plastics from fossil feedstocks by — in addition to reducing cycle losses anddematerialising — exploring and adopting renewably sourced feedstocks.

FIGURE 6: AMBITIONS OF THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

1CREATE AN EFFECTIVE AFTER-USE
PLASTICS ECONOMY
OTHER
MATERIAL
STREAMSRECYCLING
RADICALLY IMPROVEDECONOMICS & QUALITY

REUSE

DESIGN &PRODUCTIONUSE

RENEWABLY SOURCED
VIRGIN FEEDSTOCK

3

DECOUPLE PLASTICS FROMFOSSIL FEEDSTOCKS

1 Anaerobic digestion
2 The role of, and boundary conditions for, energy recovery in the New Plastics
Economy need to be further investigated
Source: Project Mainstream analysis.

A

N
D A
1

R
D/O

CO

O
MP

I
ST

N

G

ENERGY RECOVERYRECOVERY2 1
ENERGYLEAKAGE

2

DRASTICALLY REDUCE THE
LEAKAGE OF PLASTICS INTO
NATURAL SYSTEMS & OTHER
NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES32 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

Even with today’s designs, technologies andsystems, these ambitions can already be atleast partially realised. One recent study found,for example, that in Europe already today 53%
of plastic packaging could be recycled ‘ecoefficiently’.39 While the exact figure can be debatedand depends on, amongst others, the oil price, themessage is clear: there are pockets of opportunities
to be captured today — and even where not entirely
feasible today, the New Plastics Economy offers an

attractive target state for the global value chain andgovernments to collaboratively innovate towards.
This will not happen overnight. Redesigning
materials, formats and systems, developing newtechnologies and evolving global value chains may
take many years. But this should not discourage
stakeholders or lead to delays — on the contrary,
the time to act is now.

Box 1: The circular economy: Principles and benefits
The circular economy is an industrial system that is restorative and regenerative by design. It rests on threemain principles: preserving and enhancing natural capital, optimising resource yields, and fostering systemeffectiveness (see Figure 7).
Multiple research efforts and the identification of best-practice examples have shown that a transition
towards the circular economy can bring about the lasting benefits of a more innovative, resilient, andproductive economy. For example, the 2015 study Growth Within: A Circular Economy Vision for aCompetitive Europe estimated that a shift to the circular economy development path in just three coreareas — mobility, food and built environment — would generate annual total benefits for Europe of around
EUR 1.8 trillion (USD 2.0 trillion).40

FIGURE 7: OUTLINE OF A CIRCULAR ECONOMYOUTLINE OF A CIRCULAR ECONOMY

PRINCIPLE

1

Regenerate

Substitute materials

RestoreStock management

Parts manufacturer

Biochemical
feedstock

PRINCIPLE

Regeneration

Optimise resource yields
by circulating products,
components and materials
in use at the highest utility
at all times in both technicaland biological cycles
ReSOLVE levers: regenerate,share, optimise, loop

Virtualise

Renewables flow management

Farming/collection1

2

Finite materials

Renewables

Preserve and enhancenatural capital by controlling
finite stocks and balancing
renewable resource flows
ReSOLVE levers: regenerate,virtualise, exchange

Product manufacturer

RecycleBiosphere
Service provider

Refurbish/
remanufacture

Share

Reuse/redistribute
Biogas

Maintain/prolong

Cascades
6 2803 0006 9

Anaerobic
digestion

Consumer

User

Collection

Collection

Extraction ofbiochemical
feedstock2
PRINCIPLE

3

Foster system effectivenessby revealing and designingout negative externalities
All ReSOLVE levers

Minimise systematicleakage and negative
externalities
1. Hunting and fishing
2. Can take both post-harvest and post-consumer waste as an input
Source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation, SUN, and McKinsey Center for
Business and Environment; Drawing from Braungart & McDonough,Cradle to Cradle (C2C).

1 Hunting and fishing
2 Can take both post-harvest and post-consumer waste as an input
Source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation, SUN, and McKinsey Center for Business and Environment; Drawing from Braungart & McDonough, Cradle to Cradle (C2C).

Given plastic packaging’s many benefits, it has
become clear that the likelihood of a drastic
reduction in the volume of plastic packaging is
low — although reduction should be pursued where

possible and beneficial, by moving away fromsingle-use as the default (especially in business-tobusiness applications, but also in targeted business-

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 33

to-consumer applications such as plastic bags), bydematerialising and by substituting other materials.

2.1.1

Create an effective after-use plastics
economyCreating an effective after-use plastics economy
is the cornerstone of the New Plastics Economy
and its first priority. Not only is it critical tocapture more material value and increase resource
productivity, it also provides a direct economic
incentive to avoid leakage into natural systems andhelps enable the transition to renewably sourced
feedstock by reducing its scale.
As evidenced by today’s capture of just 5% ofafter-use plastic packaging material value, there
is significant potential to capture more materialvalue by radically improving recycling economics,
quality and uptake. Coordinated and compounding
action and innovation across the global value
chain are needed to capture the potential. These
actions could include: establishment of a crossvalue chain dialogue mechanism; developmentof a Global Plastics Protocol to set direction
on the redesign and convergence of materials,
formats, and after-use systems to substantially
improve collection, sorting and reprocessing
yields, quality and economics, while allowing forregional differences and continued innovation;
enablement of secondary markets for recycledmaterials through the introduction and scale-up ofmatchmaking mechanisms, industry commitments
and/or policy interventions; pursuit of innovation
opportunities that have the potential to scale up,such as investments in new or improved materials
and reprocessing technologies; and exploration of
the enabling role of policy. Segments within theplastic packaging market with the most attractive
recycling cost-benefit balance are likely commercial(business-to-business) films, beverage bottles andother rigid plastic packaging.41
Reuse could play an important role as well,especially in the business-to-business (B2B)
segment. Reusable B2B packaging can create
substantial cost savings, and if used in pooledsystems across companies and industries,
significant value beyond packaging. In its
most advanced form, it could help enable the‘Physical Internet’ — a logistics system basedon standardised, modularised, shared assets.
Transitioning to the ‘Physical Internet’ could
unlock significant economic value — estimatedto be USD 100 billion and a 33% reduction in CO2emissions annually in the United States alone.42
In the business-to-consumer segment, reuse ismore challenging for many applications, but could
however be pursued for targeted applications suchas plastic bags, and could be increasingly enabled
by new business models.
Industrially compostable plastic packaging could bea good solution and scaled up for certain targeted
applications, if coupled with the appropriate

collection and recovery infrastructure (anaerobic
digestion and/or industrial composting) to returnthe nutrients of the packaged contents (e.g. food)to the soil. Today, plastics are designed to be either
recyclable or compostable (or neither of the two)
— keeping both options open by design is usually
not possible with current materials technology andafter-use infrastructure. For most applications, therecycling pathway is preferable, as this keeps thematerial in the economy, whereas biodegradability
allows plastic to break down into harmless, butessentially low-value elements such as water andCO2. In certain targeted applications, however,industrially compostable packaging could be avaluable mechanism for returning nutrients to thesoil. Most promising applications are the ones thatmeet the following two criteria. First, packaging
is likely to be mixed with organic contents suchas food after use — making packaging in suchapplications compostable can help to bring backnutrients from the packaged contents (e.g. food) tothe soil. Second, packaging does not typically end
up in a plastics recycling stream — compostable
packaging in its current form can interfere withrecycling processes. Examples of applications
fulfilling both criteria are bags for organic waste,
packaging used in closed-loop systems such as
events, fast food restaurants and canteens, andpackaging items such as teabags and coffee
capsules. The city of Milan, for example, morethan tripled its collection of food waste — from28kg to 95kg per inhabitant per year — after the
introduction of compostable bags for organic
waste.43

2.1.2 Drastically reduce the leakage ofplastics into natural systems and othernegative externalities
Plastics should not end up in the ocean or otherparts of the environment. Ensuring this doesn’t
happen requires a coordinated effort to improvecollection systems and recovery infrastructure —especially where the latter lags behind economic
development, as is the case for many rapidly
developing middle-income countries in Asia, which
account for an estimated 80% of leakage. Various
local and global initiatives address the criticaldevelopment of infrastructure and work with theformal and informal waste management sector tostop plastics from leaking into the ocean. Local
initiatives include, for example, the Mother Earth
Foundation and Coastal Cleanup in the Philippines,
while the Trash Free Seas Alliance, initiated by the
Ocean Conservancy, is an example of an effort
aimed at effecting change on a global scale.
But even a concerted effort to improve collection
and recovery infrastructure in high-leakage
countries would likely only stabilise the flow ofplastics into the ocean — not stop it — whichmeans that the total volume of plastics in the ocean
would continue to increase, given the cumulative
nature of ocean plastics.44 As argued by the Ocean

34 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

Conservancy in Stemming the Tide and by manyothers, a long-term root-cause solution would
include the incorporation of circular economy
principles into the plastics sector. Creating aworking economy for after-use plastics would offer
a direct economic incentive to build collection
and recovery infrastructure. Furthermore, because
plastics with high after-use value are less likely
to leak, especially in countries with an informal
waste sector, improving the design of products
and materials to enhance after-use value would
reduce leakage. Finally, levers such as reuse anddematerialisation can be a means of reducing theamount of plastic put on the market and, hence,
reducing leakage proportionally.
Even with all these efforts, leakage is likely toremain significant. Even in the United States andEurope, with advanced collection systems, 170,000
tonnes of plastics leak into the ocean each year.45
Therefore, efforts to avoid leakage into the ocean
would require complementary innovation efforts
to make plastic packaging ‘bio-benign’ when it
does (unintentionally) leak into the environment.
Today’s biodegradable plastics do not measure
up against such an ambition, as they are typicallycompostable only under controlled conditions, as
in industrial composters. Nor has additive-mediatedfragmentation (for example, oxo-fragmentation)
led to a breakthrough — such plastics have notbeen proven truly benign, but rather mostly led
to fragmentation, hence increasing the amount of
microplastics in the ocean.
Hence, game-changing innovation is needed tomake plastics truly bio-benign in case they leakoutside collection systems. Different avenues might
help to reduce the harm of (unintentionally) leaked
plastics: advanced biodegradability in freshwater
and/or marine environments, a material palette
without substances of concern, avoidance ofcolours and shapes that are typically ingested orotherwise harmful to marine life for applications
with high risks of leakage, and radically new smart/
triggered processes that imitate metabolisingprocesses in nature could all contribute to making
materials benign to natural systems. Paper
offers inspiration — a widely used and recyclable
packaging material that is relatively benign if leaked
into the environment (unless it contains substancesof concern, such as certain inks). Developing suchbio-benign materials that are still recyclable andcompetitive in terms of functionality and costs
demands further research of what constitutes biobenign and represents a significant innovation
challenge that will take time to overcome.
While scientific evidence on the exact implicationsof substances of concern is not always conclusive,
especially due to the difficulty of assessing complex
long-term exposure and compounding effects,
there are sufficient indications that warrant further
research into, and accelerated development andapplication of, safe alternatives. These research andinnovation efforts would need to be complemented
with enhanced transparency on material content
of plastics and, where relevant, the application of
the precautionary principle to possibly phase out
specific (sets of) substances raising concerns ofacute negative effects.

2.1.3 Decouple plastics from fossil
feedstocks
Recycling and reuse are critical to decoupling
plastic packaging use from the consumption offossil-based feedstock. However by themselves they
are probably insufficient. Even if global recycling
rates rose from today’s 14% to more than 55% —which would be higher than the rate achieved today
by even the best-performing countries — annual
requirements for virgin feedstock would still double
by 2050.46
The likely remaining, albeit diminishing, cycle losses
from reuse and recycling loops and the attendantneed for virgin feedstock to compensate for thoselosses call for exploring the role of renewablesources — either directly converting greenhousegases like methane and carbon dioxide (GHG-basedsources) or using biomass (bio-based sources).
Innovators claim that production of GHG-based
plastics is already cost competitive to current fossilbased plastics for certain applications and qualify
as carbon negative materials.47 Using bio-basedsources without creating significant externalities
in other domains requires applying regenerative
agricultural principles and taking the impacts of the
agricultural processes, including land use and biodiversity, into account.

Box 2: The role of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool for the systematic evaluation of the environmental aspects of a
product or service system through all stages of its life cycle.48 As such, if implemented well, it can provide
a valuable tool to evaluate different options at any given point in time. Like any tool, however, it has its
limitations. Most fundamentally, while it is well suited to evaluate individual choices today, it is less suitablefor determining the target state towards which a system as a whole could innovate. Also, similar to theprisoner’s dilemma, the classic example from game theory in which the individual maximisation of benefits
by rational actors leads to a suboptimal overall outcome, an LCA optimisation by each individual actor
does not necessarily lead to better system outcomes.
Take the case of electric vehicles. Most people would agree that a mobility system supported by electric,
grid-integrated vehicles and renewable electricity is a more attractive target state than one reliant on

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 35

combustion engines and fossil fuels. However, an LCA study published in 2011 found that the carbon
advantage of an electric vehicle over a similar conventional petrol car could be as small as 4%, and that‘drivers wanting to minimise emissions could be better off buying a small, efficient petrol or diesel car’.49
The right conclusion is clearly not to write off the concept of electric vehicles. Rather, a good conclusion
might be to acknowledge both the inherent attractiveness of the electric vehicle target state while also
acknowledging the innovation opportunity and need to develop better-performing electric vehicles,
improve effectiveness and efficiency of production processes and after-use management, and increase theuptake of renewable sources of electricity.
Similar reasoning can be applied to many of the mechanisms described in the vision for the New Plastics
Economy. An economy in which the value of products and materials is maximised through multiple loops
could be considered inherently more attractive than an economy with one-way linear material flows where
95% of material value is lost after one use cycle. Similarly, an economy in which plastics are sourced
renewably from greenhouse gases or biomass coupled with the application of regenerative agriculturalprinciples, could be considered inherently more attractive than an economy in which plastics are sourced
from finite stocks of greenhouse gas-emitting fossil feedstocks. That preference does not necessarily imply
that every piece of plastic packaging should be recycled or renewably sourced today, but it does offer atarget state for the plastic packaging value chain to innovate towards.
Finally, the life cycle assessments in recent publications on plastic packaging tend to focus on single
measures, such as carbon. While such measures are of the utmost importance, a single-measure focus
inevitably fails to consider the entire impact of plastic across the life cycle, including the effects of leakage
into the natural environment.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY COULD BRING SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITSThe New Plastics Economy aims to create longterm systemic value by fostering a working afteruse economy, drastically reducing leakage anddecoupling plastics from fossil feedstocks.

The New Plastics Economy could help capture
plastic packaging material value. Currently just 5%of material value of plastic packaging is captured
after one use cycle, corresponding to USD 4–6
billion.50 While it is unlikely that the industry could
seize the full potential of material value, concerted
action on redesigning and converging on materials,
formats and after-use systems through a global
plastics protocol, enablement of secondary markets

FIGURE 8: THEORETICAL POTENTIAL TO
CAPTURE MATERIAL VALUE100

USD 80–120
billion(95%)

COMPOUNDING

A business-as-usual scenario for plastics will also
bring growth, innovation and benefits, but if circular
economy principles guide and inspire this growthand innovation, the sum of the benefits will belarger. In particular, the New Plastics Economy
provides several expected additional benefits, themost significant of which are capturing materialvalue and de-risking the value chain by reducing
negative externalities. The ambitions describedin this report, such as increasing the economics
and uptake of recycling and developing renewably
sourced plastics, will help in the seizing of thoseopportunities.

and innovating on technology and materials could
allow to capture a significant share (see Figure 8).

VALUE YIELD (%)

2.2

36

1. DIALOGUE MECHANISM
2. GLOBAL PLASTICS PROTOCOL
3. SECONDARY MARKETS
4. TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
5. ENABLING POLICY
LEVERS

014

COLLECTED FOR RECYCLING (%)

Source: Project MainStream analysis.

100

36 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

Working towards the New Plastics Economy would
significantly reduce the negative externalities
associated with plastics and plastic packaging. As
explained above, the benefits of plastic packaging
are accompanied by substantial and accumulative
degradation of natural systems due, in particular,
to leakage into the ocean and to greenhouse gas
emissions. Through creating effective after-use
markets, the New Plastics Economy provides
a direct incentive to build up collection andreprocessing infrastructure, and hence reduceleakage. Through increased reuse and recycling andby developing renewably sourced plastic materials,
the New Plastics Economy actively mitigates therisk related to greenhouse gas emissions. Recycling
one additional tonne of plastics, for example,
reduces emissions by 1.1–3.0 tonnes of CO2e
compared to producing the same tonne of plastics
from virgin fossil feedstock.51 Some bio-based
plastics also have been shown to have a negative
global warming potential with -2.2 kilogram CO2e
per kilogram of bio-based PE produced comparedto 1.8 kilogram CO2e per kilogram of fossil-based
PE produced.52 By promoting more research on
potential adverse effects, increasing transparency
on material content and developing plastics without
substances of concern, the New Plastics Economy
helps mitigate risks posed by substances ofconcern.
Reducing these negative externalities would result
in real risk-reduction benefits for businesses.
While externalities by definition do not represent a
direct cost to businesses, they expose businesses
to regulatory risks, including the internalisation ofnegative externalities and even banning the use of
specific types of plastic packaging, with potentiallylarge impacts on the plastic packaging industry. The
carbon tax — a tax levied on the carbon content offuels, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions— provides an example of risk internalisation. The

2.3

possibility of an outright ban arose in India in2015 when the National Green Tribunal considered
imposing a ban on the use of plastics for packaging
of all non-essential items, including multilayer
packaging and PET bottles.53 In addition, risks
can also manifest themselves through customers— for example, bottle company SIGG USA wentbankrupt in 2011 following a scandal about someof its products allegedly leaching the controversial
substance bisphenol A.54
The New Plastics Economy can help reduce
exposure to volatility of (fossil-based) virgin
feedstock. Since the turn of the century, oil prices
have been subject to very significant volatility.
Although prices have dropped from the historicalhigh seen in 2008 and are expected by someobservers not to rise again soon, historicallyobserved volatility could remain. The magazine‘The Economist’ predicted in March 1999 that oil
prices, then at USD 10 per barrel, would likely
drop to USD 5.55 By the end of that year they
were at USD 25. Less than 10 years later they wereat USD 145. Most major forecasters at the endof the 1990s agreed that oil prices would likely
stay below USD 30 for the next two decades56— again proven wrong by the events of the next
decade. The unpredictable cost of supply for fossil
feedstock-based plastics is a risk, and one option
for businesses wanting to address their exposure
to that risk could be diversification into recycled
and renewably sourced alternatives. Of course,
these renewably sourced plastics are also derived
from commodity feedstocks with market prices
subject to local market pressures, so price volatility
is still a concern, but diversification spreads therisks. Investments aimed at broadening the arrayof options for recycled materials and renewably
sourced feedstocks would further help to build in
system resilience in the New Plastics Economy.

NOW IS AN OPPORTUNE MOMENT TO ACT

A favourable alignment of factors makes now an
opportune moment to act. New technologies areunlocking new opportunities, while the building up
of after-use infrastructure in developing countries
has made this a critical crossroads moment forgetting systems right the first time. Concurrently,
increasing regulatory action and growing societal
concerns are morphing from a marginal to anincreasingly central issue, potentially affecting
companies’ licence to operate.
New technologies are unlocking new opportunities
in areas such as material design, separation
technology, reprocessing technology andrenewably sourced and biodegradable plastics.
Dow Chemical recently developed, together with
Printpack and Tyson Foods and for a specific setof applications, a mono-material stand-up pouchwith improved recyclability versus the existing
multi-material alternatives.57 Chemical marker

systems are advancing: the European Union’s
Polymark project, for example, is developing asystem to reliably detect and sort food-contact
PET.58 WRAP is working on machine-readable
fluorescent inks and sorting technologies toimprove polymer identification.59 The adoption of
reprocessing technologies such as depolymerisation
has been limited due to economics, but in the
Netherlands Ioniqa Technologies has developed acost-competitive process for PET that takes placeat relatively low operating temperatures.60 The
production of plastics from captured greenhousegases has been piloted and is claimed to be costcompetitive. For example, Newlight’s AirCarbon
technology can convert methane to PHA, or carbon
dioxide to polyurethane and thermoplastics.
Many developing countries are building up afteruse infrastructure, making this a critical crossroads
moment. Investments made now will determine theTHE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 37

infrastructure for the coming decades. Coordinating
action and agendas across the value chain could
catalyse impact.
A growing number of governments have
implemented — or are considering implementing— policies related to plastic packaging. In Europe,
the European Commission’s recently adopted
Circular Economy package includes the action
to develop a strategy on plastics in the circular
economy, a target to increase plastic packaging
recycling to 55%, a binding target to reduce landfill
to 10% of all waste by 2030, and a total ban on
landfilling of all separately collected waste.61 With
the exception of Iceland, all of the Nordic countries
operate container deposit schemes. Such schemes
have also been deployed in the United States,
where the overall recycling rate is 34%62 while stateswith container deposit laws have an average rate of70%; Michigan’s USD 0.10 deposit is the highest in
the nation, as is its recycling rate of 95% in 2013.63
In 2015, a European Union directive came into force
that required member states to reduce the useof plastic carrier bags.64 France, for example, will
outlaw single-use plastic bags as of January 2016.
Other countries have acted to restrict the use ofplastic bags and other plastic packaging formats
because of their impact on the local environment: In
2002, Bangladesh became the first country to banplastic bags, after they were found to have chokeddrainage systems during devastating floods.65
Rwanda followed suit in 200866; and so did China,also in 2008, reducing the number of plastic bags
in circulation by an estimated 40 billion in just one
year.67 All in all, more than 25 countries around theglobe either ban or tax single-use plastic bags,
and restrictions on the use of other highly litteredpackaging formats are being discussed. Guyana

2.4

has announced plans to ban the import and useof expanded polystyrene (EPS, commonly known
under one of its brand names, Styrofoam) fromJanuary 2016; EPS has been widely adopted as
single-use food service packaging and makes up
2–5% of Guyana’s waste stream.68
The United States has seen activity at city, stateand federal levels. In 2014, Washington DC banned
the use of food service products made of expanded
polystyrene, joining the ranks of tens of other US
cities.69 In 2015, San Francisco took a step towards
its 2020 goal of zero waste by banning the sale ofplastic bottles in all public places.70 At state level,
70 laws were enacted between 1991 and 2011 toestablish extended producer responsibility (EPR)
programmes: 40 of these came in the three years
up to 2011.71 These laws currently cover products likebatteries, carpets and cell phones, not packaging,but they show state governments taking action
to internalise the costs of dealing with negative
externalities.72 State activity can also be a precursor
to federal action; in December 2015, after legislation
had been passed in nine states, the House ofRepresentatives voted to ban the use of synthetic
microplastics in personal care products. If enacted
into federal law, the legislation would supersede allstate bans.73 While this is not a packaging example,
it is indicative of broader policy action in theplastics industry.
Society’s perception of plastics is deteriorating
and perhaps threatening the plastics industry’s
licence to operate. According to PlasticsEurope,
an industry organisation, ‘There is an increasingly
negative perception of plastics in relation to
health, environment and other issues’.74 Issues suchas ocean plastics are increasingly capturing theattention of individuals and policymakers.

WHERE TO STARTThe United States, Europe and Asia jointly accountfor 85% of plastics production, roughly split equally
between the United States and Europe on the one
hand and Asia on the other (see Figure 9). Bothregions are critical in the shift towards the New
Plastics Economy and would be good places tostart.
Given that Asia accounts for more than 80% of
the total leakage of plastic into the ocean — atleast according to the best available data75 — thisregion has been the focus for a variety of crucial
leakage mitigation efforts aimed at improving basic
collection infrastructure.
Europe and the United States are home not only
to significant shares of the production of plastic
packaging, but also to the overwhelming majorityof the top global companies relevant to the global
plastic packaging industry, including the key
global decision-makers at the start of the plastic
packaging value chain — those who determine

design (see Figure 9). Many of the opportunities
around product and material redesign and aroundinnovation in advanced technologies in separation
and reprocessing can be found in these regions.
This report intends to pay special attention to
innovation and redesign, a topic less explored inother work. As a consequence the focus is mainly
on Europe and the United States. The report aims
nevertheless to be relevant globally, at the sametime acknowledging that other regions, especially inthe developing world, will have different challenges,
including putting basic collection and recovery
infrastructure in place, leapfrogging to higherperforming after-use systems (i.e. first time right)
based on expected evolutions, and working with theinformal waste collection sector, including a focus
on workers’ health and safety.

38 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

FIGURE 9: DISTRIBUTION OF PLASTICS HEADQUARTERS, PRODUCTION, AND LEAKAGE
UNITED STATES & EUROPE

ASIAREST OF WORLD

85%
10%

FMCG TOP 20 HQ1

5%

95%
5%

PLASTICS TOP 20 HQ2

40%

45%

PLASTICS PRODUCTION

3

15%

82%
OCEAN
LEAKAGE4

2%

16%

1 Headquarters of the global top 20 FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods) companies (measured by 2014 global net sales)
2 Headquarters of the top 20 plastics and resin manufacturers (measured by 2015 global capacity)
3 Production of plastics material volumes (excluding thermoplastics and polyurethanes)
4 Source of plastics leaked into the oceans (proportion of the total global leakage measured in million tonnes of plastic marine debris leaked per year)
Source: PlasticsEurope, Plastics – the Facts 2015 (2015); Statista; ICIS Supply and Demand; J. R. Jambeck et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean (Science, 13
February 2015).

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 39

3 THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY
DEMANDS A NEW APPROACH
To move beyond small-scale and incremental improvements and achieve a systemic
shift towards the New Plastics Economy, existing improvement initiatives would
need to be complemented and guided by a concerted, global collaboration initiativethat matches the scale of the challenge and the opportunity. Such an initiative does
not exist today, and therefore would need to be set up, driven by an independent
coordinating vehicle.
The aim of such a vehicle would be to stimulate
development of a circular economy approachto plastics and plastic packaging as an integral
part of the future economy. It would also aim for
positive broader economic impacts and — directly
or indirectly — to the protection and restoration ofnatural systems.
At the heart of the vehicle’s design and set-up
would be the recognition that innovation forand transition to the New Plastics Economy
must be driven by joint, urgent, collaborative
initiatives across industries, governments andNGOs. This would make it possible to address
the chronic fragmentation and the lack of global
standards, to benefit the development of effective
markets. In such an initiative, consumer goods
companies, plastic packaging producers andplastics manufacturers would play a critical roleas they define the products and materials thatare put on the market. Cities control the after-use
infrastructure in many places, and are often hubs
for innovation. Businesses involved in collection,sorting and reprocessing are an equally critical partof the puzzle. Policymakers can play an importantrole in enabling the transition by realigningincentives, facilitating secondary markets, defining
standards and stimulating innovation. NGOs canhelp ensure that broader social and environmental
considerations are taken into account. Collaboration
would be required to overcome fragmentation,
the chronic lack of alignment between innovationin the design and after-use stages, and the lackof standards — challenges that must be resolvedin order to unlock the opportunities of the New
Plastics Economy.
This vehicle would need to bring together thedifferent actors in a cross-value chain dialoguemechanism and drive change by focusing on efforts
with compounding effects that together would havethe potential to shift the global market. Analysis todate suggests that the initial areas of focus couldbe:
1.

ESTABLISH THE GLOBAL PLASTICS
PROTOCOL AND COORDINATE LARGE-SCALEPILOTS AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

2.

MOBILISE LARGE-SCALE, TARGETED ‘MOON
SHOT’ INNOVATIONS.

3.

DEVELOP INSIGHTS AND BUILD A BASE OFECONOMIC AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

4.

ENGAGE POLICYMAKERS.

5.

COORDINATE AND DRIVE COMMUNICATION.

ESTABLISH THE GLOBAL PLASTICS PROTOCOLAND COORDINATE LARGE-SCALE PILOTS AND
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Flying around the world without international
air traffic control standards and surfing the web
without global IP standards would be impossible.
While globally adopted standards and protocols
can be found in other complex industries, today’s
plastic packaging value chain lacks such alignment.
A global plastics protocol would be needed toprovide a core set of standards as the basis onwhich to innovate. It could provide guidance on
design, labelling, marking, infrastructure andsecondary markets, allowing for regional differences
and innovation, in order to overcome the existing
fragmentation and to fundamentally shift after-use
collection and reprocessing economics and market
effectiveness.
The Global Plastics Protocol would aim to redesignand converge materials, formats and after-use
systems.
It would investigate questions such as:
To what extent could plastic packaging be designedwith a significantly smaller set of material/additive
combinations, and what would be the resulting
economic benefits? What would be the potentialof designing out small-format/low-value plastic
packaging such as tear-offs with challenging
after-use economics and a high likelihood ofleakage? What would be the economic benefitsof harmonising labelling and chemical marking
across plastic packaging and aligning it withafter-use separation and sorting systems? Whatif after-use systems, currently largely fragmented
across municipalities due to uncoordinated historicdevelopments, were rethought and redesigned
to achieve optimal scale and economics? Whatwould be the best levers to stimulate the market forrecycled plastics?
The Global Plastics Protocol would set global
direction by answering such questions, demonstratesolutions at scale with large-scale pilots and40 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

demonstration projects, and drive global
convergence (allowing for continued innovation andregional variations) towards the identified designs
and systems with proven economics.
Involving players from across the global value chain
in a dialogue mechanism, the protocol would, forexample, build on the following elements:
Set up a global, industry-wide, ongoing effort
to develop and facilitate adoption of globally
recognised plastic packaging design standards.
This effort could leverage existing work on
design guidelines from organisations such as
RECOUP, WRAP, ARP, EPBP and EUPR, and The
Consumer Goods Forum,76 but also go beyond toinvestigate and promote fundamental redesign andconvergence of materials and formats. By aligning
actors along the value chain — such as plastics andpackaging producers, brand owners, retailers andafter-use collection and reprocessing companies —such standards could fundamentally improve thecircularity of material flows.
Converge towards clearly defined global labellingand material marking standards that are alignedwith sorting and separation systems and thatfacilitate the sorting of plastics after use into highvalue resource streams.
Redesign and converge towards a set of clearly
defined collection and sorting archetypes,
allowing for continued innovation and regionalvariation. The fragmentation of current
collection and sorting systems comes withseveral disadvantages: fragmented after-use
systems cannot be aligned with the design stage(most packaging is designed and produced atinternational scale and cannot be tailored toindividual municipalities); citizens are confused
about how plastics should be disposed of; andsystem-wide optimisation and economies of scale
are lacking. While socio-economic differences
need to be accounted for to some extent, there is
ample room for systems redesign and convergence
towards a set of archetypes. Redesigning systems
and converging towards such well-definedarchetypes within the Global Plastics Protocol
would allow alignment across the value chain.
Material and packaging design, for example,
could be optimised for clearly specified sorting
facilities and consistent labelling harmonised acrossregions. This effort would be complementary tomultiple local and global efforts that are focusedon building up collection and sorting infrastructure.
It would inform those efforts at a critical point intheir development and avoid getting locked into
suboptimal infrastructure.
Establish a global framework for the
implementation of modular and reusable businessto-business (B2B) packaging, building on the
Physical Internet — a new logistics paradigm
enabling a new era of modular, reusable B2B
packaging. The convergence of fragmented

activities towards such a framework on a global
scale could significantly improve asset utilisationand global material flows.
Scale up the use of industrially compostable
plastics for targeted applications, returning
nutrients from the organic contents (such asfood) of the packaging to the soil. This needs
to be coupled with adequate infrastructure, as
demonstrated successfully, for example, in the cityof Milan and at the London Olympics.
Transform and strengthen markets for recycledplastics, for example, by introducing and scaling
up matchmaking mechanisms, for example using
aggregator software or platforms to include
companies not yet participating on both sidesof the recycled plastics market — that is, smaller
reprocessing companies and companies that source
recycled content at the small- to medium scale;by allowing for more granular and standardisedmaterial specifications and better matching of
supply and demand; and by strengthening demand
for recycled content through industry commitments
and/or policy.
Demonstrate the viability of high-value
cascaded recycling by establishing cascaded
flows of recycled plastics with a selected groupof companies using the same material. This could
include both packaging and non-packaging
companies using the same polymer type andactivities such as aligning on design choices,material specification and logistic chains to makethe cascade work.
MOBILISE LARGE-SCALE, TARGETED ‘MOON
SHOT’ INNOVATIONS
The world’s leading businesses, academics andinnovators would be invited to come together
and define ‘moon shot’ innovations: focused,practical initiatives with a high potential forsignificant impact at scale. Areas to look at forsuch innovations could include the development of
bio-benign materials; the development of materials
designed to facilitate multilayer reprocessing,such as the use of reversible adhesives based on
biomimicry principles; the search for a ‘superpolymer’ with the functionality of today’s polymers
and with superior recyclability; chemical marking
technologies; and chemical recycling technologies
that would overcome some of the environmental
and economic issues facing current technologies.
Figure 10 provides an overview of example
technologies involved in such ‘moon shots’ and theirmaturity to date.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 41

FIGURE 10: EXAMPLES OF PROMISING ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY AND
THEIR LEVEL OF MATURITY
R&D

REVERSIBLE
ADHESIVESPILOTSCALING

MATURE TECHNOLOGYREMOVING
ADDITIVES

1. CREATING AN
EFFECTIVE
AFTER-USE
PLASTICS ECONOMYNEAR
INFRAREDCHEMICAL
MARKERSNIRPROVEN IN PILOTBENIGN IN
FRESH WATER

MARKET FULLY ADAPTEDBENIGN IN MARINEENVIRONMENTSPROVEN IN LAB

2. DRASTICALLYREDUCINGLEAKAGE INTO
NATURAL SYSTEMSDEPOLYMERISATIONDEMONSTRATED AT INDUSTRIAL SCALE

SUPERPOLYMER

3. DECOUPLING
PLASTICS FROMFOSSILFEEDSTOCKSOIL

GHG-BASEDFEEDSTOCKNATURALGAS

BIO-BASEDFEEDSTOCKSOURCE: Project MainStream analysis

INNOVATIONNIRDESCRIPTIONCURRENT STATE

Removing additives

Separating additives from recovered polymers
to increase recyclate purity

Lab stage: Some technologies exist but withlimited application

Reversible adhesives

Recycling multi-material packaging bydesigning ‘reversible’ adhesives that allow
for triggered separation of different material
layersConceptual stage: Innovation needed todevelop cost-competitive adhesive

Super-polymer

Finding a super-polymer that combines
functionality and cost with superior after-use
properties

Conceptual stage: Innovation needed todevelop cost-competitive polymer with desired
functional and after-use properties

Depolymerisation

Recycling plastics to monomer feedstock(building blocks) for virgin-quality polymers

Lab stage: Proven technically possible forpolyolefins
Limited adoption: Large-scale adoptionof depolymerisation for PET hindered byprocessing costs

Chemical markers

Sorting plastics by using dye, ink or otheradditive markers detectable by automatedsorting technology

Pilot stage: Food-grade markers available
but unproven under commercial operating
conditions

Near infrared

Sorting plastics by using automated opticalsorting technology to distinguish polymer
types

Fragmented adoption: Large-scale adoption
limited by capex demands

Benign in marine
environments

Design plastics that are less harmful to marine
environments in case of leakage

Lab stage: First grades of marine degradable
plastics (one avenue towards benign materials)
already certified as marine degradable —impact of large-scale adoption to be proven

Benign in fresh water

Design plastics that are less harmful tofreshwater environments in case of leakage

Lab stage: Marine degradable plastics
theoretically freshwater degradable. One
certified product — impact of large-scale
adoption to be proven

GHG-based

Sourcing plastics from carbon in greenhousegases released by industrial or waste
management processes

Pilot stage: CO2-based proven cost competitivein pilots; methane-based being scaled up tocommercial volumes

Bio-based

Sourcing plastics from carbon in biomass

Limited adoption: Large-scale adoption
hindered by limited economies of scale andsophistication of global supply chains

Source: Project MainStream analysis.

42 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

DEVELOP INSIGHTS AND BUILD AN ECONOMIC
AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE BASE.
Many of the core aspects of plastics material flows
and their economics are still poorly understood.
While this report, together with a number of otherrecent efforts, aims to provide initial answers, more
research is required. Initial studies could include:
Quantify the socio-economic impact of ocean
plastics. Establish measurement tools and a clear
fact base. Develop a socio-economic value impact
model for ocean plastics. This would enable boththe private and public sectors to factor these costs
into their decision making.
Explore the scale-up potential of GHG-based
plastics. Plastics produced directly fromgreenhouse gases such as methane, CO2 and CO
are appealing because they could help decouple
plastics from the consumption of fossil feedstocks,
without using additional land for agriculture.
Multiple companies are using GHG-based sources
and scaling up quickly. However, the total scaleup potential is unclear at the moment. Therefore,a study aimed at assessing the total scale-up
potential (including the economics, availability offeedstocks, polymer types, and applications) andidentifying specific ways to scale up production
would be helpful.
Explore the potential role of, and boundary
conditions for, energy recovery in a transition
period. While recovering energy from plastics thatcannot (yet) be effectively recycled is in principle
a good thing, today’s energy recovery solutions

have certain drawbacks and risks, as explained
above. However, since 100% reuse and recycling
rates are unlikely to materialise in the near term,
and landfilling is in general not a preferred option,a deep-dive study to assess the potential role ofenergy recovery in a transition period, as well as theessential boundary conditions, could be useful.
Assess the economic impact of substances ofconcern (including risks and externalities) andpotentially, as a next step, prioritise substances ofconcern to be designed out.
ENGAGE POLICYMAKERS, IN A COMMON VISIONTOWARDS A MORE EFFECTIVE SYSTEM, AND
PROVIDE THEM WITH RELEVANT TOOLS, DATA
AND INSIGHTS RELATED TO PLASTICS AND
PLASTIC PACKAGING.
One specific deliverable could be a plastics
toolkit for policymakers, following a structured
methodology for assessing opportunities, barriers
and policy options to overcome these barriers intransitioning towards the New Plastics Economy.
Inspiration could be found in the Ellen MacArthur
Foundation report Delivering the Circular Economy— A Toolkit for Policymakers.
COORDINATE AND DRIVE COMMUNICATION
OF THE NATURE OF TODAY’S SITUATION, THE
VISION OF THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY, BESTPRACTICES AND INSIGHTS, AS WELL AS SPECIFICOPPORTUNITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, TO
STAKEHOLDERS ACTING ALONG THE GLOBAL
PLASTIC PACKAGING VALUE CHAIN.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 43

44 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMYPART II CREATING AN EFFECTIVE
AFTER-USE PLASTICS ECONOMY

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 45

46 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

4 RECYCLING: DRASTICALLYINCREASING ECONOMICS, UPTAKE ANDQUALITY THROUGH COMPOUNDING
AND MUTUALLY REINFORCING ACTIONS
About 95% of plastic packaging material value, or USD 80–120 billion annually, is lostto the economy after a short first-use cycle. This indicates a significant economic
opportunity, even if the industry could only capture part of it. Five levers could — ifwell coordinated along the global value chain — start the process by jointly enabling adrastic improvement in the economics, uptake, and quality of recycling. These levers
are: establish a cross-value chain dialogue mechanism; develop a Global Plastics
Protocol to set direction on the redesign and convergence of materials, formats, andafter-use systems; focus on key innovation opportunities that have the potential toscale up; enable secondary markets for recycled materials; and explore the enablingrole of policy.

4.1

CROSS-VALUE CHAIN ACTION IS REQUIRED TO CAPTURE THE
OPPORTUNITY

Today — more than 40 years after the introductionof the first universal recycling symbol — only
14% of plastic packaging is collected forrecycling, even though almost all plastics used
for packaging are mechanically recyclable withlittle or no quality impairment.77 Plastics that do
get recycled are mostly recycled into lower-value
applications that represent their final use, as theycannot be recycled again (economically). Threebroad types of recycling can be distinguished:mechanical closed-loop, mechanical open-loop,
and chemical recycling (see Box 3 for definitions).
Today, the vast majority of plastic packaging

recycling is mechanical open-loop recycling —meaning that materials are sorted, shredded,
and reprocessed into lower-value, typically nonpackaging applications. For example, around 80%
of recycled PET bottles are turned into polyester
fibres for carpet, clothing and other non-packaging
applications.78 Other large applications for openloop plastics recycling are low-value applications
such as ‘plastic lumber’, plastic pipes, and waste
collection bags. These applications are typically not(economically) recyclable after use, so open-loop
recycling today often adds just one additional use
cycle rather than creating a truly circular model.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 47

Box 3: Different types of recycling
A key principle of the circular economy is that products and materials are circulated at their highest value
at all times (see Chapter 2 for more details). In the technical cycle, this implies that plastic packaging
is reused when possible (circulating the packaging product), then recycled (circulating the packaging
materials). Within recycling, this principle results in a general order of preference:1.

Mechanical recycling in closed loops. This is the most value-preserving loop. Mechanical recycling
keeps polymers intact and hence preserves more value than chemical recycling, where polymers arebroken down. Closed-loop mechanical recycling keeps the quality of the materials at a similar level bycycling materials into the same application (e.g. from PET bottle to PET bottle) or into applications
requiring materials of similar quality. As such, mechanical closed-loop recycling not only preserves thevalue of the material, it also maintains the range of possible applications in future, additional loops.

2.

Mechanical recycling in open loops (‘cascading’). Given the inherent quality loss during mechanicalrecycling,79 closed-loop mechanical recycling cannot continue indefinitely. Open-loop recycling plays
an important role as well. In open-loop mechanical recycling, polymers are also kept intact, but thedegraded quality and/or material properties require applications with lower demands. Cascading to
the highest-value applications each cycle could help maximise value preservation and the number ofpossible loops.

3.

Chemical recycling. Chemical recycling breaks down polymers into individual monomers or otherhydrocarbon products that can then serve as building blocks or feedstock to produce polymers again.
As such, it is less value preserving than mechanical recycling. Chemical recycling technologies are not
yet widespread and/or not yet economically viable for most common packaging plastics. However,as they could enable after-use plastics to be upcycled into virgin-quality polymers again, they could
become an option for materials for which mechanical recycling is not possible (e.g. most multi-material
packaging or plastics that cannot be cascaded any further).

The rank order above offers a general order of preference and target state to innovate towards, but, as
pointed out in Part I of this report, should not be seen as a strict hierarchy for determining the best option
for every single piece of packaging today (see also Figure 11 below).

FIGURE 11: OVERVIEW OF RECYCLING TYPESFOSSIL-BASED OR
RENEWABLY-SOURCED FEEDSTOCK.

REFINING
MONOMERSCHEMICALRECYCLING

POLYMERISATIONPOLYMERSCOMPOUNDING

PLASTICSNON PACKAGINGPRODUCTMANUFACTURING

PACKAGING
MANUFACTURING
PACKAGING

BRAND OWNER /CPG COMPANY
PACKAGED GOOD

RETAILER

CLOSED-LOOP
MECHANICALRECYCLING

PACKAGED GOOD

USER
AFTER-USE PACKAGING

COLLECTION &SORTING

Source: Project MainStream analysis.

OPEN-LOOPMECHANICALRECYCLING

48 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

The collected-for-recycling rate of 14% is a global
average. It varies tremendously by format andmaterial type, indicating the importance offormat and material choice in creating a working
after-use economy. Certain material/format
combinations — mainly PET bottles, HDPE bottles,
and post-commercial films — are already recycled
at relatively high volumes today. More than half of
PET bottles, for example, are collected for recycling
globally, reaching 80–90% in certain markets.80 Most
other packaging types are not yet recycled at scale(see Figure 12). The reason for these differencesin recycling rates is the extent to which the format
and material design enables high-purity after-use
streams at competitive prices and in significant
volumes, a key driver for recycling economics.81
Take the example of beverage bottles. Large andaffordable pure streams of after-use bottles canbe supplied because they are easily recognisableby the citizen — for source separation — as well
as by manual or automated sorting facilities. They
are typically not significantly contaminated with
hard-to-remove food residues, and the chemicalcomposition varies very little between bottles.
Another example is post-commercial mono-material
films, which can typically be collected in bulk asa clean, mono-material after-use stream. Other
packaging types, on the other hand, often havea very wide range of chemical compositions andformats, each of them available in limited volumes.
This makes it harder to separate them into clean,mono-material streams at acceptable cost andin significant volumes. Multi-material packaging,while offering significant functional benefits, poses
another challenge from a recycling perspective (seeBox 4).

Box 4: Multi-material packaging: Definition, advantages, and after-use challenges
Multi-material packaging consists of multiple material types that cannot currently be easily andmechanically separated (a PET bottle with a PP cap is not considered a multi-material packaging inthis context). Such packaging items can be blends of different plastics or products combining layersof different materials — different plastic types, thin metal foils or coatings and/or layers of paper or
cardboard.
The advantage of multi-material packaging products is that they can combine the functional propertiesof different materials in one packaging item. As such, multi-material packaging is a fast-growing market
today. Some of the best-known applications are multilayer films (e.g. crisp bags), stand-up pouches, tubes(e.g. toothpaste), and plastic-aluminium beverage cartons.
As it is currently not possible to separate the different materials in multi-material plastics economically,mechanical recycling into high-purity mono-material recyclates is not possible. Increasingly, recyclers areturning to additives called compatibilisers, already well-known to primary resin producers that want toachieve the combined properties of hard-to-blend polymers. In the recycling process, these additives may
be used to blend normally incompatible resins — multi-material packaging or inseparable materials, as may
be found in the residual fraction coming out a sorting process — and hence allow for mechanical recyclingof previously discarded materials, albeit into low-value applications.82
In future, chemical separation or chemical recycling could offer solutions for multi-material products,
provided the technology is further developed.

The collected-for-recycling rates contributing to
the 14% global average also vary considerably bygeography, indicating the importance of after-use
infrastructure and policy in creating a working
after-use economy. The approx. 50% rate for plastic
packaging collected for recycling achieved inGermany and the Czech Republic83 in 2014 is morethan three times higher than the global average,
and 25% higher than the EU average of 40%84 (seeFigure 12). While this does not mean that 50%
actually gets recycled, and while measurement
methods do differ between countries, the approx.
50% rate does indicate the influence of the choiceof after-use infrastructure and policy on recycling
rates.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 49

FIGURE 12: RECYCLING RATES FOR DIFFERENT MATERIAL-FORMAT COMBINATIONS AND GEOGRAPHIESPLASTIC PACKAGING
COLLECTED-FOR-RECYCLING RATE, %BY FORMAT / MATERIAL TYPEBY GEOGRAPHY

55
50
40

14

14

GLOBALAVERAGE, 2013

GLOBAL PET
BOTTLES, 2012

GLOBALAVERAGE, 2013

EU27+2AVERAGE, 2014

TOP PERFORMING
COUNTRIES, 20141

Note: Reporting on recycling rates is not harmonised across different countries. Most often the reported numbers represent the share of materials collected for recycling.
Given the average recycling yield of 70–78%2, this is not equal to the share of after-use plastics that is actually recycled.
1 Czech Republic (~52%), Germany (~50%), Slovenia and Sweden (~47%), Ireland and Estonia (~46%), Netherlands (~45%)
2 Due to contamination, moisture and sorting mistakes, not all of this weight is being eventually recycled. Deloitte, Increased EU Plastics Recycling Targets:
Environmental, Economic and Social Impact Assessment (2015).
Source: Project Mainstream analysis; Consultic data reported in PlasticsEurope, Plastics – the Fact 2015 (2015); EU27+2 2014 Plastic packaging recycling rate provided by
PlasticsEurope upon request.

Only 35–40% of the virgin material value ofplastics collected for recycling is currently
retained for a next use cycle, indicating the needto complement efforts to increase the collectedfor-recycling rates with actions to drastically
improve recycling quality and economics. Withan average recycling yield of ~70–78%,85 and an
average price discount for recycled plastics of 50%
versus virgin prices,86 only 35–40% of the virginmaterial value of plastics collected-for-recycling
rates is currently retained for a next use cycle.
Coordinated and compounding action is needed
across the global value chain, from design torecyclate markets, in order to increase recycling
economics, uptake, and quality. These actions
could include:• Establish a cross-value chain dialoguemechanism, including players across the global
value chain, to steer and coordinate action.

4.2• Develop a Global Plastics Protocol to set
direction on the redesign and convergence ofmaterials, formats, and after-use systems tosubstantially improve collection, sorting, andreprocessing yields, quality, and economics, whileallowing for regional differences and continued
innovation.
• Pursue technological innovation opportunities
that have the potential to scale up, such as
investments in new or improved materials, sorting
and reprocessing.
• Enable secondary markets for recycledmaterials by making composition moretransparent and implementing and scaling
up matchmaking mechanisms, industry
commitments and/or policy interventions.
• Explore the enabling role of policy.
An initial discussion of what these actions could
entail can be found in the sections below.

ESTABLISH A CROSS-VALUE CHAIN DIALOGUE MECHANISM

A cross-value chain dialogue mechanism, including
players across the global value chain would be
required to overcome existing fragmentation.
Today, innovation in the plastics value chain
happens largely in an uncoordinated andfragmented way. The development and introductionof new packaging materials and formats acrossglobal supply and distribution chains is happening
far faster than, and is largely disconnected from,the development and deployment of corresponding50 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

after-use systems and infrastructure. At the sametime, hundreds, if not thousands, of small-scale local
initiatives are launched each year, focused on areas
such as improving collection schemes and installing
new sorting and reprocessing technologies. A
first step towards improved coordination and aprerequisite for systemic change would therefore
be setting up a global cross-value chain dialoguemechanism that brings together the different actors
across the global value chain (see Figure 13 below).

FIGURE 13: PLASTIC PACKAGING VALUE CHAIN
FOSSIL-BASED OR
RENEWABLY SOURCED FEEDSTOCKREFINING
MONOMERSPOLYMERISATION

Fossil-based: Petrochemical companies distill crude oil in different fractions, of which the naphtha
fraction is the main feedstock for plastics production. This fraction is cracked into monomer building
blocks (e.g. ethylene, propylene). Renewably sourced: Different chemical processes (e.g.
bio-refineries) are used to convert biomass or greenhouse gases into the same or different monomers
as the ones derived from fossil feedstock.
Plastic producers combine a large number of monomers to form polymer chains in a chemical process,called polymerisation. The type of monomers and the structure of the resulting polymer define thepolymer’s characteristics.

POLYMERSCOMPOUNDING

Compounders prepare plastic formulations by mixing and/or blending polymers and additives into
process-ready pellets.

PLASTICSPACKAGING
MANUFACTURING

Packaging manufacturers design and manufacture packaging items.

PACKAGING

BRAND OWNER /CPG COMPANY

Brand owners and consumer good companies package their products or goods.

PACKAGED GOOD

RETAILER

Retailers put packaged goods onto the market.

PACKAGED GOOD

USER

The user unpacks the product or good and most often discards the packaging. Often collection bins
combine plastic packaging with other, plastic and non-plastic, after-use materials.

MIXED AFTER-USE PACKAGING

COLLECTION

Resource management companies collect (often mixed) consumer as well as commercial after-use
materials. This is done through curbside collection, bring systems, deposit systems, etc.

MIXED AFTER-USE PACKAGINGSORTING

After-use materials collected for recycling go to Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) or sorting
facilities where they are sorted in various fractions (e.g. plastics by type, paper, glass, ferrous metals,
non-ferrous metals, organics, rest fraction). The after-use plastic types that have been separated out
are baled for recycling.

BALED AFTER-USE PACKAGINGREPROCESSING

Reprocessors/recyclers conduct some additional sorting steps. Afterwards (in the case of mechanicalrecycling) the material is shredded, cleaned, dried, sometimes sorted by color and compounded to beeventually re-granulated into process-ready pellets again.

Source: PlasticsEurope website (January 2016); Plastics Recyclers Europe website (January 2016); Project MainStream analysis.

4.3

DEVELOP A GLOBAL PLASTICS PROTOCOL TO SET DIRECTION ON THE
REDESIGN AND CONVERGENCE OF MATERIALS, FORMATS, AND AFTERUSE SYSTEMS

Today’s plastics economy is highly fragmented. The
lack of standards and coordination across the value
chain has allowed the proliferation of materials,
formats, labelling, collection schemes, and sorting
and reprocessing systems, which collectively
hamper the development of effective markets.
While there are many innovation and improvement
efforts that show potential, to date these have

proven to be too fragmented and uncoordinatedto have impact at scale. A global plastics protocol
would be needed to provide a core set of standards
as the basis on which to innovate. It would need
to be a cross-value chain effort, building upon
the dialogue mechanism described above. The
protocol could provide guidance on design,labelling, marking, after-use infrastructure andTHE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 51

secondary markets, allowing for regional differences
and innovation, in order to overcome the existing
fragmentation and to fundamentally shift afteruse collection and reprocessing economics andmarket effectiveness. Such guidance would needto go beyond incremental improvements andinvestigate fundamental questions about the designof products and materials as well as the way afteruse systems are set up. This report lays out initialperspectives on guidance for two critical aspects ofa global plastics protocol: (i) develop and facilitate
adoption of global plastic packaging guidelines, and(ii) develop and facilitate adoption of collection andsorting guidelines.

4.3.1 Develop and facilitate adoption of
global plastic packaging design
guidelines
As discussed in Section 4.1, the wide differences inrecycling rates between different material-format
combinations indicate the importance of design
to enhance after-use economics. Design choices
directly impact the complexity and economics ofafter-use processes in different ways:
Sorting: Packaging items consisting of different
elements, such as labels, caps, glues, or different
material layers, can result in separation challenges.
Some polymer types can also be hard to separate,
such as PVC from PET after shredding, or oxodegradable materials from their non-degradable
counterparts. Some formats are more challenging
to handle, such as small-format packaging andfilms. Sorting machines can find it difficult to
identify packaging items, e.g. bottles covered in fullbody sleeves.
Cleaning: Cleaning challenges not only arise fromcontamination but can also be linked to design
choices. Certain types of glues and inks might bedifficult or impossible to remove from the plastic
with common cleaning technology and could
require investment in more extensive cleaning. Also
designing packaging so that no or minimal productresidues remain after use can facilitate cleaning
processes.
Scale: Economic challenges can arise if there are
only small volumes of certain formats or materials,
as it may not be worth investing in the relevantsorting and/or reprocessing technology.
To be successful, global plastic packaging design
guidelines would need to be:• Industry driven. The development of packaging
design guidelines would need to be supported
and driven by industry, involving major players
along the entire value chain (from design torecovery). The effort would need to take into
account the key challenges and performancerequirements in each step of the chain.
• Global. Plastic packaging material flows areglobal: a design decision in Europe might

influence the format and material compositionof a packaging item used in the United Statesand eventually reprocessed in China. As such,the development of guidelines would need tobe globally coordinated, allowing for regionalvariations. Adoption could be driven by avoluntary industry agreement, for example
by building upon existing global platforms
such as the Consumer Goods Forum. Global
design guidelines could also offer a basis forpolicymakers wanting to set up incentive
measures. One example of such measures canbe observed in France, where fees paid into the
Extended Producer Responsibility compliancemechanism can reflect penalties for designs
that are known to impede high-quality recycling(e.g. PET bottles with PVC or aluminium labels
or caps).87 Basing such measures on a set ofglobal design guidelines would ensure that
producers can design towards one standard anddo not have to adapt to a patchwork of regional
regulations.
• Ongoing and allowing for innovation. Defining
design guidelines is not a one-off task, but an
ongoing effort. Innovation in design, production,sorting, washing, and recycling technologies
continuously pushes the boundaries of what
is technically and economically feasible. New
packaging solutions would need to be tested andthe guidelines updated accordingly.
• Coordinated with the development of afteruse infrastructure. The design guidelines would
need to be aligned with the global guidelines forcollection, sorting and reprocessing discussed in
the following section.
As a starting point, the development of global
design guidelines could focus on replacing
formats and/or material designs that impedesorting and/or reprocessing with known, effective
alternatives, and on leveraging existing design
guidelines and experience in setting up industrywide initiatives.
In various cases, format and/or material designs
that impede sorting and/or recycling can be
replaced with existing alternatives, with higher
chances of being recycled and without significantly
impacting performance, costs or other criteria. For
example, for a material like PVC (that can inhibit
PET recycling) there already exist alternatives formost of its packaging applications (see Box 5).
Also, suppliers to the packaging industry havedeveloped easily recyclable solutions ranging fromentire packaging formats to lids, seals, caps, glues,
inks, and labels.
For cases where no clear solutions exist withsimilar cost and functional performance, R&D
and innovation could be focused on developing
alternatives (see Section 4.4 below).

52 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

Box 5: Selected examples of hard-to-recycle materials and corresponding solutions
PVC
PVC is a very versatile and cost-efficient material. It is used in several packaging applications such as rigid
film, flexible film, closures, blisters, and presentation trays. Globally, PVC represents about 5% of the plastic
packaging market.
However, the use of PVC in packaging applications has major drawbacks (for non-packaging applications
such as piping or window frames, PVC could continue to play an important role). In addition to theconcerns addressed in Chapter 7, the presence of PVC in PET recycling leads to significant quality
concerns. Even at concentrations of just 0.005% by weight, PVC can form acids that break down PET.88
This causes the recycled PET to become brittle and yellowish in colour, compromising two of the mostimportant aspects of PET: impact strength and clarity. There are several ways that PVC can end up in the
PET recycling stream, including (i) PVC bottles resembling PET bottles; (ii) PVC safety seals, labels, andsleeves that are used on PET bottles, and (iii) PVC liners that are used inside bottle caps and closures.
Alternatives do exist, and PVC is already being replaced in more and more packaging applications: PVC
bottles are in decline; solutions based on extruded polyethylene foam or more advanced cone-liner types
made from LDPE can replace PVC cap liners; and for labels PE and PP solutions are available. PVC could
also be phased out in non-PET-bottle-related packaging applications: PVC is replaced by LLDPE in pallet
stretch-wrap; PET has found use as blister packaging. Given the clear drawbacks and available alternatives,companies like Unilever and Marks & Spencer have already phased out PVC from their packaging, and PVC
bans or restrictions apply in multiple cities and countries around the world.89(Expanded) Polystyrene or (E)PS
Polystyrene makes up about 3% of today’s plastic packaging market.90 Its main applications in nonexpanded format are trays, cups, and bottles while in expanded format it is mainly used for disposable
food packaging such as hot-beverage cups and clamshells, food trays and for cushioning and ‘packaging
peanuts’ to protect objects during shipping. In addition to packaging EPS is used in large volumes as
insulation material.91
PS has very low recycling rates today — while it is technically possible to recycle, if significant volumes ofclean material are available, this prerequisite is seldom fulfilled. First, the material is often contaminated as
many major applications of PS are food-related. Second, especially EPS is very bulky (low density), which
has direct implications for collection and transport costs. Therefore, very few regions around the world
collect EPS as part of the recyclables stream.
If the barriers for effective and economically viable collection, sorting, cleaning and recycling of PS cannot
be overcome, other packaging solutions could be considered. More recyclable plastics, such as PET and PP
and, to a lesser extent, polylactic acid (PLA) are already substituting general-purpose PS in applications
like trays and yoghurt cups. Paper and cardboard solutions are common alternatives for take-away foodpackaging. PS as shipment protection is already substituted by Ecovative’s mushroom-based Myco Foam92— commercialised by Sealed Air as Restore® Mushroom® Packaging93 and used by companies like Dell —or biodegradable moulded pulp.94 Companies like Marks & Spencer have largely phased PS out of theirproducts and packaging.95 McDonald’s began to phase out its iconic clamshell foam hamburger box in 1990
and is now phasing out styrofoam beverage cups. More than 70 cities across the United States are alreadyenforcing bans on EPS foodware, EPS or even PS — or have set dates for the ban to start — including
Washington DC, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Oakland, Portland, Albany, and Seattle.96
LabelsLabels fulfil an important role in packaging in terms of both branding and information. There are, however,certain types of labels that can cause problems during the recycling process. Full-colour full-body sleeves
for example can cause errors during sorting processes. Paper labels on plastic containers — if not removed— pulp in the washing phase, leaving adhesives residue or disaggregating with its fibres contaminating theplastic stream.97 Moreover, some types of glue do not dissolve in water and, therefore, cannot be removed
from the container. These issues can be addressed by switching to alternatives: plastic labels that coverno more than 40% of the container’s surface and full-body sleeves with sufficient transparency and watersoluble glues.98

Several organisations have published importantdesign guidelines tailored to different packaging
formats (e.g. bottles, trays, pots), and/or converted
them into practical tools.99 One existing example ofan industry-wide initiative to develop such design
guidelines for one specific packaging format is

the European PET Bottle Platform (EPBP). This
voluntary organisation publishes continuously
updated design guidelines for PET bottles, taking
into account the latest innovations and knowledge.
Furthermore, it has established a process to assess
the potential impact of new design or material

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 53

solutions on the sorting and recycling of the bottles.
This process can lead to the publication of an EPBP
statement of conformity with recycling processes.
This system has moved many large companies torequire EPBP statements from all their suppliers of
PET-bottle-related solutions (including materials,
additives, labels, caps). The main driver forcompanies to support and leverage this system is toprotect and improve the high PET bottle recycling
rates — one of the key advantages PET bottles
have over other materials and formats — and to
be able to claim high effective recycling rates ofthe packaging they put on the market.100 Anotherexample of a global industry-wide packaging
initiative is the Global Protocol for Packaging
Sustainability — a document developed by theConsumer Goods Forum that provides metrics
and a common language for packaging designers
to use in discussions and assessments of therelative sustainability of packaging.101 Also the ISO’s
standards on packaging and the environment (ISO
18601 to 18606) are examples of global guidelinesthat could be built upon.
Global plastic packaging design guidelines would
also need to go beyond traditional efforts andincremental improvements, and investigate
fundamental questions about how plastic
packaging could be designed to achieve better
economic and environmental system outcomes.
Examples of questions that could be investigatedare: To what extent could plastic packaging
be designed with a significantly smaller set ofmaterial/additive combinations, and what would
be the resulting economic benefits? What would
be the potential for designing out small-format/
low-value plastic packaging such as tear-offs
with challenging after-use economics and a highlikelihood of leakage? What would be the economic
benefits of harmonising the labelling and chemicalmarking across plastic packaging and aligning thesestandards with after-use separation and sorting
systems?

4.3.2 Develop and facilitate adoption ofcollection and sorting guidelines
Guidelines that initiate convergence towards a
set of global collection and sorting archetypes,
allowing for regional variation but building
upon a set of common principles, as well as
investigating fundamental questions about theway (plastic) material streams are collected andsorted for reprocessing would be a critical partof substantially improving recycling economics,
quality and uptake. This section provides aninitial exploration of these topics, mostly from adeveloped market perspective.
Convergence towards a set of global collection
and sorting archetypes, allowing for regionalvariation but building upon a set of common
principles, would offer packaging designers acommon system to work towards, create clarity for

citizens, and enable the capture of economies ofscale.
Convergence of after-use systems would
enable global design principles to be developed
accordingly — making it highly synergetic withthe design guidelines explained above. It would
enable innovations in sorting, labelling, tagging,and other technologies to be more focused and toscale up rapidly. For citizens, having the same bins
and sorting rules at home, at work, and in public
spaces could lead to more clarity and fewer sorting
mistakes. Cities and companies active in collection
and sorting would be able to benefit more easily
from economies of scale and share best practices
across their facilities.
Achieving economies of scale throughconvergence. A wide range of studies has
confirmed the potential for economies of scale insorting activities.102 A study done by PwC in 2014
for example, based on data from French sorting
facilities, indicated reductions of plastic sorting
cost per tonne of 35% and 43% for plastic sorting
facilities processing 30,000 and 60,000 tonnes per
year versus a plant processing 10,000 tonnes per
year.103
Economies of scale can be achieved in several ways:• By consolidating smaller local MRFs into largerscale MRFs
• By source separating plastic waste and sorting it
in dedicated larger-scale PRFs (plastic recovery
facilities)• By separating mixed recyclables in local MRFs
and sending plastic fractions to dedicated largerscale PRFs
Next to pure economies of scale, a transition
towards larger-scale sorting facilities could help
justify investments in advanced sorting technology.
An academic study on sorting economics
concluded that economies of scale allow larger
plants to make use of the latest technology
upgrades — such as advances in process control
and automated sorting — while at the sametime achieving a greater level of diversificationin recovered products.104 Furthermore, a more
consolidated network of sorting facilities canenable the separation of more different fractions
while keeping significant volumes of each. Finally,a reduced number of facilities could lead to a more
harmonised quality of bales supplied to the market,
and could allow for better control and optimisationof the resource streams in the economy.
Transportation and investment challenges.
There are some challenges that need to beconsidered to capture economies of scale. First,
a more consolidated network of sorting facilities
could lead to increased transportation. A moredetailed assessment would need to compare theenvironmental and economic benefits of increased
recycling rates and the additional transport. Such

54 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

an assessment would depend on local factors(e.g. SUEZ’s Rotterdam plant leverages waterways
for long-distance transport) and would need
to be forward looking, considering trends suchas electrification and autonomous driving thatare expected to break through at scale in thenext decade, as well as the expected evolution
in material flow volumes. Second, significant
investment could be required in new facility
development. However, expert interviews haveindicated that various sorting companies are
already looking to set up collaborations in specificregions to avoid stranded assets, for example byreplacing two plants that need renovation with one
new larger facility.
Current examples of successful convergence.
Several organisations and governments are
already taking action to increase convergence.
The Scottish government recently announced
The Household Recycling Charter and associated
Code of Practice, aiming to move towards a single
system for recycling, citing the potential to unlock
value in waste collection while creating local jobs.105
The charter sets out principles that councils will
voluntarily commit to. These principles are expected
to lead to greater consistency in the materials
collected for recycling, as well as alignment ofpolicies, operations and communications in linewith the established good practice. Multi-Material
BC (MMBC) has also harmonised and redesigned
collection and post-collection activities in British
Columbia. For collection, it has developed
agreements with local governments, First Nations
and private collectors to operate curbside, multifamily and depot collection programmes in different
communities. While collectors make operational
decisions about their programmes, the set ofmaterials accepted by MMBC is harmonised. ‘This
helps alleviate confusion, allows MMBC to conduct
larger promotion and education campaigns acrossall communities and means that residents don’t
have to re-educate themselves when they move todifferent communities’, Allen Langdon, Managing
Director of MMBC, says. Post-collection an
approach has been developed to service the entire
province as a single after-use shed. This approachallows the province to achieve productivity
previously unavailable to residential recycling
programmes. For example, by sorting all containers
in one central high-performing facility rather thaninvesting in retrofitting 4 or 5 traditional MRFs. In
addition, it has enabled MMBC to start leveraging
this system as a platform for engaging producers inreal-time trials and studies to test and support new
innovations in packaging.
Scale economies already realised in some regions.
The shift towards economies of scale can also
already be observed in different regions. Before
the year 2000, Germany had around 250 plants ofsmall to medium capacity (largest 40,000 tonnes
per year) sorting lightweight packaging (including
plastic, paper, metal packaging). In the following
decade, significant technological advancement

was accompanied by a strong concentration incapacity. By 2011, the number of plants had fallen
to 92 (biggest capacity 100,000–120,000 tonnes
per year).106 In France, there is also a debate aroundconsolidating smaller sorting plants. A study doneby PwC in 2014 concluded that an international
comparison of the average size and costs ofsorting facilities indicated that the current Frenchsorting plants are too small and not equipped tobenefit from economies of scale and advanced
technologies available.107 Other examples ofcompanies reaping the benefits of economies ofscale are SUEZ, which has built a 80,000 tonnes
per annum PRF facility in Rotterdam, processing
70% of all source-separated plastic packaging in
the Netherlands,108 and Veolia, which is operating aplant near London, which processes 50,000 tonnesof plastics per year.
Efforts to develop guidelines for collection
and sorting systems would need to go beyond
convergence and rolling out of current bestpractices, and investigate fundamental questions
about the way (plastic) material streams arecollected and sorted for reprocessing, taking
into account future trends such as urbanisation,
e-commerce, renewable energy, autonomous
driving collection vehicles and the evolution ofplastic packaging (and other material) volumes.
These questions could include: If a new city would
be designed from scratch, how would the collection
and sorting system look like? Would waste becollected by truck or by drone, would all houses beconnected with a piping system for waste transport
like the South Korean city of Songdo109 or would
it look even more different? What would be theeconomic benefits of harmonising the labelling andchemical marking across plastic packaging andaligning these standards with after-use separationand sorting systems? How will the material
composition of waste likely evolve taking into
account trends like light-weighting, digitalisation,and e-commerce? What would be the impact oncollection systems and costs once trucks driveautonomously?
Guidelines for collection and sorting systems
would likely build on two principles: source
separation and comprehensive collection forrecycling.
Source separation. As materials designed forthe biological cycle and materials designed forthe technical cycle need to follow different afteruse pathways, they need to be separated. Evenin the short term, for systems still landfilling or
incinerating waste in large-scale mixed solid waste
incinerators, separating organic and technicalafter-use streams is worthwhile. It eliminates theincineration of mixed organic and non-organic
waste, which is an inefficient energy recovery
process.110 Diverting organic waste from landfill
reduces the amount of methane generated in alandfill, avoiding direct methane emissions forlandfills without methane capture infrastructure.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 55

The separation can be done at the source (e.g.
different bins in households or at drop-off points)
or later on in sorting facilities. Source separationof organic waste from recyclable materials could
increase the cost of separate collection, but would
lead to significantly lower sorting costs. In termsof quality, source separation has the benefit that it
avoids contamination between the biological andthe technical cycle during collection, improving theease, quality and the economics of recycling fortechnical materials and at the same time facilitating
the safe return of biological nutrients to thebiosphere after composting or anaerobic digestion.

Netherlands, municipalities are shifting to thesegregated collection of all plastic packaging(with the exception of large PET bottles, which are
subject to a deposit fee), through a collaboration
with Plastic Heroes, an initiative of the packaging
producers.114 In Belgium, municipalities havelaunched pilots to expand the range from PET
bottles, HDPE bottles and jars to other plastic
packaging such as pots, trays, films, and bags.115 The
comprehensive collection of plastic packaging forrecycling is also important in public spaces. One
third of bottled beverages are consumed away from
home, for example.116

A study for the EU Commission comparing different
waste management options from a greenhousegas perspective concluded that, ‘overall, source
segregation of MSW [municipal solid waste]followed by recycling (for paper, metals, textiles,
and plastics) and composting/AD (for putrescible
wastes) gives the lowest net flux of greenhousegases, compared with other options for thetreatment of bulk MSW’.111

There remain important questions about the setup of collection and sorting systems that would
need to be further investigated.

Comprehensive collection and sorting forrecycling. Today, many countries with establishedcollection systems focus on ‘picking the gold
nuggets’, collecting plastic packaging with mature
recycling markets (e.g. PET and HDPE bottles)
for recycling, while the remaining packaging iscollected as part of the residual waste stream andsent directly to landfill or incineration. This leads
to high recycling rates for these ‘gold nuggets’,
but limits the overall recycling potential — bottles
only represent one-third of total post-consumer
plastic packaging112 — and perpetuates a stalemate:
the lack of collection and sorting infrastructure
disincentivises designing for recyclability andthe development of reprocessing infrastructure,
while the lack of design for recyclability outside
a few ‘gold nuggets’ and the lack of reprocessing
infrastructure dis-incentivises the build-up ofcomprehensive collection and sorting infrastructure.
Coordinated cross-value chain action could enable
overcoming this stalemate.
More and more regions are increasing the range of
packaging items that are collected for recycling.
In Germany, all plastic packaging is collected in
the recycling bin as part of the Green Dot systemor through dedicated collection centres.113 In the

4.4• Collection. What are the respective benefits ofcurbside collection versus take-back systems?
What could be the role of deposit systems for
specific packaging items? Could the transport
costs of bulky after-use plastics be reduced byinstalling a shredding machine on each collection
truck, now that the latest NIR-based sorting
technology can handle plastic flakes as small as
2 mm?117 What would be the impact on collection
costs of driverless trucks, which are already being
tested in real-word traffic today?118 Or would weneed to move away from trucks to drones or topiping systems for waste transport like the South
Korean city of Songdo?119• Sorting. What would need to be the role ofsource separation by citizens versus centralised
sorting, and of manual versus automatedcentral sorting, taking into account economic
and cultural differences between regions? On
automated sorting, would the industry needto continue the current path of improving
technology to recognise plastic types, or would it
need to further explore the option of ‘attaching’
information to each packaging item throughchemical markers, barcodes or chips, so thatsorting facilities would only need to read theinformation (also see the following section for
sorting technology innovation)? Would it besufficient to identify the resin type, or could
recognising the brand, manufacturer and detailed
chemical composition of the item open up newopportunities?

PURSUE TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION OPPORTUNITIES THAT HAVE THE
POTENTIAL TO SCALE UP

Technological innovation could enable cities
and regions to achieve recycling rates, quality,and economics beyond what is feasible today.
Industry-wide coordination and collaboration will
be required to capture the full potential.

4.4.1 Innovate towards material and format
designs for improved recyclability,
without sacrificing functionality
Developing new materials could, if coupled withadapted after-use infrastructure, result in significant
economic and environmental benefits. Finding aplastic type that has the required properties to be56 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

used in a wide variety of packaging applications
while also offering superior recycling properties,
could transform the industry. This search for new
materials could be inspired by, for example, therecycling properties of Nylon 6 or by biomimicry.120
Nylon 6 is a thermoplastic material with great
recycling properties. It can be ‘infinitely’ recycled
in a closed-loop system, using a chemical recycling
process (see Box 6). This process has been used in

the carpet industry since the 1990s,121 where afteruse Nylon 6 carpet face fibres are converted into
virgin-quality caprolactam, the monomer building
block of Nylon 6.122 Can material innovation leadto a similar ‘infinite’ closed-loop system in the
packaging industry? Can Nylon 6 inspire our search
for materials combining similar recycling properties
with the right functional properties to be widelyused and scaled up as a packaging material?

Box 6: Nylon 6: A potential inspiration source as a material with ‘infinite’ closed loops
Nylon 6, the most popular nylon grade, is a polymer built up by synthesising caprolactam, its monomer
building block. Nylon 6 is mainly used as fibres for various applications ranging from textiles to tyre cords.
Non-fibre applications include various plastic parts (e.g. for automotive, electrical, and electronics parts)and plastic films that are mainly used in packaging.
Nylon 6 is one of the very few polymers for which a closed-loop chemical recycling process is alreadyin place on an industrial scale.123 Since the 1990s, end-of-life Nylon 6-based carpet scrap has been
depolymerised into virgin-quality caprolactam. Today Aquafil applies this technology on an industrial scale.
Their Econyl® polymer contains 100% recycled Nylon 6 content, of which at least 50% from post-consumer
sources such as carpets or fishing nets.124 For each tonne of caprolactam produced in the ECONYL® process,16.2 GJ of energy and 7 barrels of oil are saved, 1.1 tonnes of waste is eliminated and 4.1 tonnes of CO2e are
avoided compared to the traditional fossil-based production route.125
While Nylon 6 can offer inspiration, its direct application in plastic packaging is challenging. Due to
its relatively high price and functional properties nylon is currently only a niche packaging polymer
accounting for less than 1%126 of the overall plastic packaging market. Even though Nylon 6 is used for the
packaging of high-value food products including meat, cheese, pasta, and convenience food,127 the majorityof such applications combine Nylon 6 with commodity plastics (mainly PE) in multilayer films to make up
for nylon’s poor moisture barriers.128 Such multilayer films can currently not be effectively recycled.

Biomimicry could inspire the development of new
packaging materials. Biomimicry is an approach toinnovation that seeks solutions to human challenges
by emulating nature’s time-tested patterns andstrategies.129 While humans have developed aplethora of synthetic materials, technology is notable to provide the wide range of functionalities
and complexity of polymers that nature does with
only a limited amount of building blocks.130 The
precise assembly of natural polymers underlies theirselectivities in function, which have been tuned
through successive cycles of evolution against an
enormous diversity of fitness functions.131
Cellulose and starch are instructive examples.
Cellulose, found in wood, cotton and hemp, isstrong, does not dissolve in water and can’t bedigested by humans. Starch, on the other hand,found in potatoes, corn, rice, and grains, dissolves inwater and is digested by humans and other species
as an important source of energy. Yet both thesepolymers are built up from the same monomer —glucose — combined in different 3D structures.
Well-designed molecular structure is also thereason for natural polymers’ exceptional functional
properties. Spider silk, for example, combines highstrength and elasticity and is therefore a model
polymer for development of high-performance
fibres.132 Could any of these examples inspire us
to deploy more controlled assembly of synthetic

monomers in order to develop new highly functional
packaging materials?133
One particular challenge for technological design
innovation is multi-material packaging. Recycling
options are currently limited for this fast-growing
packaging segment (see Box 4). To find solutions
for this growing segment, the following R&D
pathways could be considered:• Develop mono-material solutions that deliver
similar performance. For non-barrier multilayer
pouches for example, Dow developed apolyethylene-only stand-up pouch.134 Amcor
Flexibles Asia Pacific is conducting research in
the use of single-layer films to replace multilayer
packaging for certain applications.135• Develop multi-material packaging or separation
technologies that enable the separation of
the different materials after use. For example
through reversible adhesives based on
biomimicry principles.
Alongside of these design options, parallel efforts
on separation (such as recent developments by
Saperatec136) and reprocessing could be made toenable multi-material recycling.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 57

4.4.2 Innovate in sorting technology toprovide high-purity mono-material
after-use plastic streams
Today, sorting facilities (in developed countries)
combine mechanical sorting techniques, such as
flotation, trommel screens, and magnets, withmanual sorting steps to separate several dry
fractions such as metals, glass, paper, and plastics.
The plastics fraction is unique in the sense that it
consists of a variety of polymer types, each withdifferent grades that need to be further separated
in order to enable recycling. Given that source
separation of many different polymer types andgrades by citizens is challenging, plastic sorting
technology plays a critical role in making highpurity material streams available for recycling.
Sorting technology innovation is exploring several
pathways, each based on different principles.
Optical sorting counts on technology to recognise
polymer types and grades. Image recognition
aims at identifying packaging items throughmachine vision. Marker technologies add an easily
identifiable marker to each packaging item.
Optical sorting technology. Optical sorting
technology recognises polymer types byilluminating the material and analysing the reflection
spectrum. Near Infrared (NIR) spectroscopy is themost common automated sorting technology used
for plastic sorting today. Each NIR machine sorts
out one type of material. State-of-the-art plants
can have up to 20 NIR sorting machines.137 Recently,
TOMRA developed the AUTOSORT flake sorter thatcan sort plastic flakes as small as 2 mm to enablea detailed sorting step after shredding.138 Anotherunit developed by TOMRA uses an extended
wavelength scanner to detect and separate twopolymers grades within one polymer group, andcan achieve purity rates on both end fractions ofclose to 100%. This technology is already in placein Australia to separate food-grade and non-foodgrade materials.139
Image recognition. While optical sorting aims torecognise the material or polymer type, image
recognition could be deployed to recognise specificpackaging items. In the longer term this technology
could identify the item as well as the brand. This
would open up new perspectives. An image
recognition system could be linked to a databaseholding the main characteristics of each item, andcould, for example, be linked to EPR systems tocouple the producers’ contributions to the realcosts of recycling its packaging. To unlock these
possibilities, further technological development
will be required to identify packaging items at highspeed. A 2011 WRAP study tested this technology
to detect milk bottles during the HDPE recycling
process. Their conclusion: ‘The high degree of
deformation of the milk-bottles during the recycling
process means that a 100% rate of detection isunlikely. Although preliminary, experimental worksuggests that a system for achieving good sortingwith very low false acceptance in labelling foodgrade items could be achieved; such a system would
need to incorporate an extensive and updateabletraining process.’140
Marker technology. Another pathway currently
being explored is a system in which packaging
contains a marker that can be read by sorting
machines. This could range from a barcode toinvisible chemical markers. Various pieces of
information might be embedded in such markers
and communicated across the value chain, thereby
unlocking new opportunities. Over the last
decades, a range of patents has been publishedon marker chemistry and related instrumentation.
Marker-based detection products are used forthe security of high-value articles but no markerbased detection system has yet transitioned into
widespread use in the recycling industry.141 Since
2014, the EU-funded Polymark project has beendeveloping a marker-based system, suitable forlarge-scale industrial implementation, to reliably
detect and sort food-contact PET from a PET balecontaining a mixture of food-contact and non-foodcontact packaging.142 The Polymark markers are
food-contact approved and can be removed after
each use cycle to avoid accumulation. WRAP is also
investigating and developing the use of machinereadable fluorescent inks and the associatedsorting technology to assist identification ofdifferent types of polymers during sorting andrecovery for recycling.143 More broadly (chemical)
marker technology could be used in the future todifferentiate various types of plastic items, allowing
more detailed and/or easier sorting in addition toor as a substitute for current NIR technology. To
achieve this, industrial-scale tests are required, andthe detection of multiple markers as ‘binary code’ isstill to be developed.

4.4.3 Innovate in reprocessing technologies
While the efforts described in design, collection,and sorting could lead to significant improvementsin the purity of after-use plastic packaging streams,
these streams will likely never be 100% pure. There
will likely always be food or other contamination,some degree of sorting errors, and a range ofdifferent additives even if the streams containsingle polymers. Therefore, it would be important
to continue developing reprocessing technologies
to enable the recycling of materials that cannot beprocessed into high-quality products today andimprove the quality of recyclates to allow for more
subsequent loops. This could be done by:
Improving the quality of mechanical recycling
processes and the range of materials that can bemechanically recycled into high-quality recycledmaterials.
Further developing and scaling up chemical
recycling technologies to enable upcycling to virgin
quality and establish ‘infinite’ loops. This would offer

58 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

solutions for multi-material packaging and plastics
that cannot be further mechanically recycled.

development would lead to a solution for multimaterial packaging in the future.

Mechanical recycling. Improving the economics
and quality of recycling could be facilitated by, in
addition to the levers discussed before, enhancing
the recycling process itself, including:

Chemical recycling. While mechanical recycling isin general the preferred option, there will always beafter-use plastics that cannot or can no longer bemechanically recycled into a valuable product, suchas multi-material packaging or materials that havecompleted their maximum number of cascading
cycles. This is where chemical recycling could play arole in closing the loop back to chemical feedstock
again, enabling ‘infinite’ loops. Chemical recycling
is not yet applied at large scale. The different
technologies each face different challenges tobecome technically and economically feasible aswell as environmentally desirable:• Cleaning technologies. To retain as much value
and quality as possible in each mechanicalrecycling step, intensive cleaning and granularpost-sorting steps are required. Recyclers
such as Quality Circular Polymers144 (QCP) is
undertaking recycling activities that focus solely
on high-quality end products. QCP has invested
in more, more advanced, and more expensive
cleaning technology in order to produce highquality, high-value recycled PP and PE. Anotheroption would be to go even further and aim forfood-grade-approved recycled polyolefins. Huub
Meessen, CEO of QCP, stresses the importanceof high-quality recyclates: ‘We can only reacha true circular economy for polymers if waste
management companies and recyclers invest andinnovate in quality. And by doing so, enablingbrand owners and plastics convertors to replace“virgin” polymers by circular polymers, also forhigh-end applications. Higher prices for theseproducts will make up for the extra investments
in quality’.145 These quality improvements would,of course, be facilitated by the design and sorting
levers already mentioned.
• Chemical extraction of additives. While cleaning
technology removes dirt and contamination thatis external to the target material, it can also be
advantageous to remove certain additives thatare embedded in the material itself. This prevents
additives from accumulating over several cycles
and might allow to recover (more expensive)
additives separately, and improves product purity
so that polymers can be more easily processed
and targeted to specifications. The German
recycler APK146 has developed a chemical processthat is able to extract certain types of additives
such as starch and part of the colour pigments.
Ideally, further development would enable thedesign of selective processes that leave in the
additives that are desired in the end product andextract the unwanted ones.
• Chemical separation of different polymer
types. Using the same chemical process, APK
is able to separate individual polymer types at
the molecular level — currently PE and PP. Thischemical separation process keeps the polymers
intact, but separates them from each other toenable recycling into mono-material pellets
afterwards. The process is particularly well suited
to mixed plastics streams for which mechanicalprocessing alone cannot deliver high recycling
quality. The most common streams treatedby APK today include automotive shredder
residue and household waste. Ideally, further• Depolymerisation. Depolymerisation requires
further technological improvements to become
an economically viable recycling option for
after-use plastics that cannot or can no longer
be mechanically recycled. Condensation
polymers like polyesters (e.g. PET, PLA) andpolyamides (e.g. nylon), can be depolymerised
through chemolysis with different reagents (e.g.
hydrolysis, methanolysis, glycolysis, aminolysis,etc.) to produce mainly the monomers fromwhich they have been produced or otheroligomers.147 These can then be used as building
blocks for the production of new polymers.
Nylon 6, for example, has been chemicallyrecycled for years (see Box 6). The technology
is also available for PET recycling, but only a few
industrial-scale plants exist. While breaking the
PET chain is relatively easy, separating out themonomers from the colorants and additives isstill costly and energy intensive.148 This makes
it especially challenging for coloured PET, andclear PET is often more easily and cost effectively
mechanically recycled. However, the Dutch
company Ioniqa Technologies has developed
a PET depolymerisation process that it claimsis ‘cost competitive compared to traditional[mechanical] recycling’. The Ioniqa process takes
place at relatively low operating temperaturesand is catalysed by their proprietary Magnetic
Fluids.149• Catalytic cracking. In contrast to polyesters
and polyamides, those polymers that havean extended chain of carbon molecules,
such as polyolefins (PP and PE), cannot be
depolymerised into their monomers with simple
chemicals due to the random scission of the
carbon chains.150 The latter characteristic results
in a range of carbon chains of different lengths(cracking). To increase the economic viabilityof catalytic cracking, academic research ismainly focused on developing catalysts thatallow for better yield (narrowing down therange of end products), shorter reaction times,
and milder conditions (energy requirements).151
The petrochemical industry has decades ofexperience in catalyst development aimed at
improving the speed, quality, and control ofTHE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 59

the polymerisation process in the productionof plastics. The question arises whether theseexperts and their decades of experiments can beleveraged to develop catalysts to better control
the chemical process in the other direction, i.e.
decomposition.
Current research on depolymerisation andcatalytic cracking processes focuses on theconversion of high-purity mono-material plastic
feed. However, these materials can often also bemechanically recycled. Given that mechanicalrecycling is a more value-preserving loop thanchemical recycling, requiring significantly lessenergy, these chemical recycling processes
should not compete with mechanical recycling
for feedstock. Chemical recycling could, however,
become highly complementary with mechanicalrecycling in the future if a way can be found toprocess mixed, low-quality or multi-material
plastic streams.
• Pyrolysis. Today, pyrolysis is mainly used
for energy recovery (plastic to fuel) rather
than material recovery purposes. The main
challenge in using pyrolysis to establish material
recovery loops is to find a way to integrate thehydrocarbon output product into the chemicalindustry as a feedstock. To do this would require
either refining the quality of the output or getting
existing oil refineries to accept the hydrocarbon
wax or oil early on into their refining processes.

4.5

While both options are technologically feasible,
the economics are challenging today: refinementof the pyrolysis oil or wax is costly, and selling thehydrocarbon product without further refinement
might fail to generate sufficient revenues.
Companies like Recycling Technologies, which
produces a filtered and purified hydrocarbon wax
called PlaxxTM, are looking for ways to collaborate
with oil refineries to make the best use of thismaterial as a chemical feedstock.
Alongside such efforts, further optimisation of
the pyrolysis process is possible by reducing
the energy needed to deliver the process heat.
Today, best-in-class plants combust 15–25%of the plastic to deliver the required heat.152
Driving the process with renewable energy inthe future could be another option to explore.
One way to achieve both energy savings andthe electrification that facilitates the shift torenewable energy sources is the microwavedriven pyrolysis process that is currently used by
Enval and Climax Global Energy.153
Despite these hurdles in establishing material
recovery loops for plastics, there are certain
applications in which pyrolysis could play arole today. For plastic-aluminium laminates, apyrolysis process has been developed by Enval.154
For these products, pyrolysis has the advantagethat no combustion takes place, which means thealuminium (having a large footprint) is recoveredat high quality.

ENABLE SECONDARY MARKETS FOR RECYCLED MATERIALSCreating a well-functioning secondary market forrecycled materials could accelerate the transition
to the New Plastics Economy. This can be achievedby better matching supply and demand throughenhanced transparency and matchmaking
mechanisms, and by strengthening the pull
effect on the demand side through industry
commitments and/or policy.

4.5.1 Enable better matching of supply
and demand through enhanced
transparency and matchmaking
mechanisms
To enable effective recyclate markets, it is criticalthat manufacturers are able to find a supplier thatcan deliver recyclates with the right specifications,and recyclers are able to find a buyer for theirrecycled products. It is not only about finding
sufficient volumes but also about finding materials
with the desired specifications in order to meet
manufacturers’ performance requirements.
Compared with virgin-plastic producers, suppliersof recycled plastics can be somewhat more limitedin the material specifications they can deliver,depending on their intake of after-use plastic. So it
is critical to have a well-performing market for thesematerials, with sufficient transparency on material
specifications and composition and the associatedmechanisms to match supply and demand. This
constellation could enable recycled materials to be
used in the highest-quality applications possible,
which would slow the conventional ‘cascading
down’ process, thereby maximising the number ofloops and minimising virgin material requirements.
Increasing the transparency of material
composition and specifications is an important
step in enabling better matchmaking between
supply and demand. Making composition andspecifications more transparent would reduce therisk for manufacturers of sourcing recycled plastics
with suboptimal performance characteristics andthe associated potential for economic, safety, andbrand image consequences. Providing reliableand precise information on the specifications
could thus boost the trust of manufacturers inrecycled feedstock, thereby increasing demand andimproving the economics of recycled materials.
A first step could be to introduce more granular
standards for recycled plastics. The existing material
standards specify only rough categories such as
coloured/non-coloured and food-grade/non-foodgrade. For large manufacturers, which often need to60 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

source recycled plastics from a number of different
smaller suppliers (<50,000–80,000 tonnes peryear), these standards do not provide sufficient
information to ensure limited variability in material
specifications. The lack of transparent material
composition, due to insufficient standardisation,
increases the risk of — often costly — hiccoughs inthe manufacturing process. The current situation
is in stark contrast with the virgin-plastics industry,
which is largely commoditised and supplies large
volumes of standardised materials. In effective
recycled plastics markets, the effort to find a supplyof recycled materials with the desired specifications
should ultimately be roughly similar to the effort
necessary to source virgin materials, i.e. low.
Better matching of supply and demand could
be facilitated by introducing and scaling up
matchmaking mechanisms. An example of thiswould be using aggregator software or platforms
to match both recycler and companies that source
recycled content. Such a platform could be inspiredby the successful US Materials Marketplace pilot
by US BCSD, WBCSD, and the Corporate Eco
Forum. This pilot project involved 23 participatingcompanies and identified 2.4 million tonnes ofunderutilised materials. The set-up included atechnical team that was actively looking for synergy
opportunities among the participants: 68 synergy
opportunities were identified and, at the end of
October 2015, 19 business-to-business transactions
were underway or being explored. Following
the success of this pilot, further expansion of
the platform is planned in order to include morematerials, geographies and participants.155
In October 2014, the Scottish government created
The Scottish Materials Brokerage Service — ‘a onestop shop for growing Scotland’s reprocessing
sector and helping local authorities and the public
sector get a better deal for the recycled materials
collected from their communities.’156 The secondary
materials market in Scotland is fragmented, andmost after-use materials are shipped overseas. The
new brokerage service will help match supply withdemand for high-value recycled materials. The move
will help provide certainty of supply and demand,
encouraging external investment in reprocessing
plants and municipal investment in collection
services, while also creating local jobs.
In addition, suppliers of recycled plastics can tailor
their materials directly to the demand and needsof manufacturers. SUEZ, for example, recently
launched PLAST’Lab to optimize formulationsof recycled plastics and meet the needs ofmanufacturers more effectively. ‘PLAST’lab willallow us to make greater strides towards improving
the quality and quantity of recycled plastics…’
says Jean-Louis Chaussade. With the launch of
PLAST’Lab, SUEZ aims at doubling its production ofrecycled plastics within 5 years.157

4.5.2 Strengthen the pull effect on the
demand side through voluntarycommitments
Stimulating or guaranteeing demand for recycledplastics could generate a ‘pull’ effect to accelerate
the transition towards an effective after-use
plastics economy. This pull effect could be policy
driven (see section below) or industry driven.
Voluntary commitments to use recycled content
by (a group of) large (packaging) manufacturers
or brand owners or an entire industry could createa significant pull effect. Some companies alreadyhave targets in place. By year-end 2016, PET
material used for the plastic packaging of Philips
products is slated to contain at least 25% recycledmaterial in both mature and growth geographies.158
Colgate has committed to using 50% recycledcontent in its packaging by 2020 and IKEA aims touse only recycled or bio-based plastics by 2020.159

4.5.3 Strengthen the pull effect on the
demand side through policy
Several examples of measures by governments toincrease such ‘pull’ can be found at all levels andacross the globe. An entry-level measure is theuse of public procurement rules to generate moredemand for recycled materials: in Europe alone
over 250,000 public authorities spend around 18%
of GDP annually on public procurement.160 Several
countries have integrated strategic criteria in publictenders to increase demand and improve market
conditions for recycled and recyclable plastics.
In the Danish municipality Lolland, recycling andrecyclability criteria for packaging have been
included in their tender for cleaning services: 75%
of material used for bags must be recycled or
biodegradable; non-reusable packaging must be
easy to separate into single material types; monomaterials are to be used if possible; only recyclable
materials must be used; and use of dark colours
must be avoided. Many similar examples of public
procurement measures related to recycled materials
can be found, for example, in the UK, Italy, France,
Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands.161 Mandatory
use of recycled materials is another example. In
California, the Rigid Plastic Packaging Container
Law, enacted in 1991, required producers of rigid
containers to use at least 25% recycled content ormeet one of the other compliance options such assource reduction, refillable packaging or reusable
packaging.162 This has significantly increased theuse of recycled content in containers, and it has
been a big boost to HDPE recycling nationwide.163
Other examples are policy measures that aim
to facilitate or incentivise the use of recycledmaterials. Some experts suggest also investigating
options to abolish or adapt regulation that(unnecessarily) hinders recycling, such as Spain’s
lifting of the prohibition on using recycled plastic

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 61

for food packaging.164 Incentives for the use ofrecycled content could include rebates on Extended
Producer Responsibility (EPR) contributions, and

4.6

other financial support mechanisms such as capitalallowances or tax privileges.

EXPLORE THE ENABLING ROLE OF POLICY

Policymakers can play an important role inenabling businesses and local governments toovercome the barriers to increase the economics,
quality, and uptake of recycling.165 Different
measures could be considered. Aside from thepull measures mentioned in the previous section,

policymakers could also investigate policy measures
such as (adaptive) EPR schemes, levies and/orbans on landfilling and incineration, and carbon or
resource taxes. Such policy measures have not been
the focus of this report, but would merit further
investigation.

62 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

5 REUSE: UNLOCKING MATERIALSAVINGS AND BEYOND
Reuse plays an important role as an ‘inner loop’ to enhance material productivity ina circular economy. In the case of plastics, it can create value in both business-tobusiness (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) applications. In the B2B segment,
different types of reuse systems, from those adopted by individual companies toshared-asset systems like the Physical Internet, can unlock significant value with
benefits that go beyond direct material savings. By sharing standardised, reusable
packaging, market participants are enabled to address structural waste in the logistics
sector. In the B2C segment, adoption of reusable plastic packaging, and associatedbusiness opportunities, are driven by innovative user-centric models, by traditional andnew reverse logistics systems and by policy and industry-led agreements.

5.1

REUSABLE PLASTIC PACKAGING IN B2B CAN UNLOCK SIGNIFICANT VALUEBEYOND MATERIAL SAVINGS

Adoption of reusable packaging in a B2B setting
can clearly deliver substantial material savings
versus the disposable alternative. It can also bring a
range of further benefits, including reduced carbon
footprint, less product damage, and optimised
inventory management. In addition, if standardised,
modularised, and ideally shared across companies,
reusable packaging can serve as an enabler
to address the structural waste in the logistics
sector, and hence create significant value beyond
packaging material savings alone. Characterised by
the number and nature of participants, the different
reuse systems range from individual adoption of
reusable containers and reverse logistics to the
Physical Internet — a logistics system based onstandardised, modularised and reusable containers,
using open networks across industries with pooled
assets and protocols.
Reusable plastic packaging in B2B can create
substantial material savings over single-use
packaging. Even though manufacturing reusable
packaging often requires more material per
packaging unit than the single-use version, theamount of material required on a per trip basis
is usually lower as the required volume is sharedby the total number of lifetime trips. At UK
supermarket Marks & Spencer, for example, eachreusable plastic crate completes on average 300
trips before being repaired or recycled. Hence,
while delivering the same or even better utilityof transporting goods for a total number of trips,
reusable packaging creates material savings versus
single-use alternatives.
Beyond material savings, reusable plastic
packaging in B2B could deliver a range ofadditional benefits including reduced carbon
footprint, less product damage, easier producthandling, and optimised inventory management.
While the exact impact of reusing packaging on
the carbon footprint depends on multiple factors
such as manufacturing and recycling technologies,

transportation distance, and vehicle utilisation,some studies have found that reusable plastic
packaging performs better in this regard thandisposable alternatives. For example, Sustain
Limited calculated, using the PAS 2050 standard166,that Schoeller Allibert’s Maxinest tray, a standard
reusable plastic crate for transporting fruit andvegetables, has a carbon footprint of 26 kg CO2e
per unit, much less than the 71 kg CO2e per unitof standard cardboard boxes.167 Due its sturdinessand potential for additional tools such as Radio
Frequency Identification (RFID), reusable plastic
packaging can result in less product damage, easierproduct handling and optimisation of inventory
management. US tortilla manufacturer Mission
Foods, for example, claims that adopting reusable
plastic packaging with RFID across their supply
chain enabled them to capture value worth USD 18
million over five years.168
In addition, reusable packaging in the B2B
segment can serve as an enabler to address
the structural waste in the logistics sector. As
discussed in the report Growth Within: A Circular
Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe169, large
and mature sectors such as mobility and the built
environment have significant levels of embedded
structural waste. The logistics sector is no
exception. For example, in both the US and Europe
25% of all road-based freight trips are empty,170
and of the non-empty trips only 60%171 of space isutilised, resulting in a load factor of under 50%. In
addition, the high cost of space in urban centres
is forcing distribution centres further out, creatinga demand for ‘last mile’ distribution networks
that cause congestion and exacerbate systeminefficiencies. Additional areas for improvement
are shown in Figure 14. The total opportunity
is substantial; based on the annual revenues of
the European logistics sector, a 10–30% logistics
efficiency gain would be worth USD 100–300 billion
a year.172

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 63

FIGURE 14: AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN THE LOGISTICS SECTORPRODUCTS AND SHIPPINGCONTAINERS ARE NOTSTANDARD OR MODULAR

TRANSPORTATION ASSETSARE FRAGMENTED AND
UNCOORDINATED

INEFFICIENT USE OF
STORAGE AND
TRANSFER CENTRESSUB-OPTIMAL
DELIVERY
ROUTERS

Source: Adapted from original graphic featured in: Science magazine, The Internet gets Physical, (2014).

Reusable, modular and standardised plastic
packaging can be an important enabler to address
this structural waste in the logistics sector, andcapture the corresponding economic opportunity— different models for the application of reusesystems are shown in Figure 15. While each ofthese models has specific benefits, and all havebeen implemented to some extent, reuse systems
based on pooled packaging containers and shared
distribution assets seem to hold the most potential.

FIGURE 15: REUSE SYSTEMS IN B2B PACKAGINGINDIVIDUALADOPTIONDESCRIPTION

Dedicatedreusable
containers andreverse logistics
system for one
company

SINGLE-INDUSTRYPOOLING AS
A SERVICE

Reuse system
operated and(mostly) owned by athird-party pool
operator, offered as aservice to companies
in a single industry

MULTI-INDUSTRYPOOLING AS
A SERVICEPHYSICALINTERNET

Reuse system basedon interconnected
pool operators andnetworked logistics
across industries

Logistics system
based onstandardised,
modularised andreusable containers,
using open networks
across industries withpooled assets andprotocols

LOGISTICS
BENEFITS FORECONOMY AS
A WHOLEINDIVIDUAL
MEASURESGLOBAL
STANDARDS

Source: Project MainStream analysis; Expert interviews.

INDIVIDUAL ADOPTION
Some retailers and brand owners have already
implemented an individual system based on
dedicated reusable containers and reverse
logistics. For example, UK supermarket Marks &Spencer (M&S), operating across 850 stores in theUK, has the scale and distribution infrastructure to
manage its own reusable packaging operation. M&Sships 98% of its products from supplier to store in
reusable packaging crates. And, as it sells almost
exclusively own-brand products, it has control overinventory from production to shelf. This example
illustrates how control over a supply chain can leadto the successful implementation of standardised,reusable crates. Not every retailer is in such a64 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

position but industry collaboration could allow
other players to implement similar solutions, as
demonstrated by the models below.

MULTI-INDUSTRY POOLING AS A SERVICESINGLE-INDUSTRY POOLING AS A SERVICE
Driven by the cost savings available fromstandardisation, modularisation, and scale, somethird-party operators organise a reuse systemthat offers reusable B2B packaging as a service tocompanies in a single industry. In Sweden, Svenska
Retursystem operates such a pool of reusable
packaging that services the whole retail sector —a model that, it claims, captures USD 18.7 million
in savings and reduces waste by 50,000 tonnes
annually.173 This is the result of an industry-led
collaboration. In 2001 the Grocery Manufacturersof Sweden (DLF), an industry organisation, and thetrade association for grocery stores (SDH) launcheda project to implement a reusable packaging
solution across the food and grocery supply chain.
Svenska Retursystem replaced a fragmented,
inefficient model, which relied on single-use
packaging and featured little or no collaboration
between retailers.
Today, almost every perishable product for every
grocery chain in Sweden is delivered in one of six
types of standardised, reusable crates on a reusable
plastic pallet. The supply chain includes the majorityof Swedish food manufacturers, and roughly
200 additional food manufacturers throughout
Europe that export their goods to Sweden. Since
inception in 2001, nearly 1 billion crates have beendelivered (replacing the same number of single-use
packaging items) and the jointly owned operatingcompany employs 135 people and operates
four washing facilities across Sweden. Conny
Swahn, Sales and Marketing Manager at Svenska
Retursystem, explains that ‘Today the (reusable
packaging) system is a natural part of the supply
chain within the Swedish grocery business. It is amodel that could be replicated within any densely
populated area with a high volume of products tomove.’174

Some companies take the model of singleindustry pooling as a service model a step further
by connecting different industries, seizing
opportunities for scale and standardisation.
Brambles is one example of such a reusable
packaging service company. It is active in more than
60 countries, has over 14,000 employees, and owns
around 470 million pallets, crates, and containersthat it operates in a network of 850 service centres.
Thousands of companies use Brambles’ assets
within their supply chain as a pooled resource. The
group operates in a variety of industries, with someoverlap in container sizing and network protocols
across sectors, while maintaining certain flexibility
to meet specific sector demands. In the current
model, the service centres and supporting logistics
are also multi-industry. The key to further unlock
multi-industry pooled reusable packaging lies indesigning a container that offers modular sizing andflexible performance properties.

PHYSICAL INTERNET
Physical Internet is a vision of a new logistics
paradigm based on systemic, creative thinking(see Figure 16). Its three fundamental principles
are consistent with a circular economy:• Reuse: Standardised, modular, reusable,
recyclable containers.
• Share: Open networks with pooled assets andprotocols.
• Virtualise: IT infrastructure that allows real-timetracking.

Box 7: Establishing global standards: The case of shipping containers
Standardised, modular, reusable packaging does not only create value in terms of packaging materialsavings, it is also the key to unlocking considerable value across the web of supply chains that govern
today’s material flows.
Global standards can provide the backbone to enable complex systems to scale up. Introduced by Malcom
McLean in 1956, the standardised, stackable shipping container has been credited as the single-largest
driver of globalisation. Before McLean’s maiden voyage, it cost USD 5.86 and took just under an hour toload 1 tonne of cargo. Switching to the container system instantly cut this cost to USD 0.16 per tonne andby 1970 a container crew could load 30 tonnes per hour. Adoption was boosted by the United States’ needto move vast quantities of material during the Vietnam war, and 20-foot and 40-foot containers have been
the global standard since the 1980s.175

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 65

Container dimensions are not compatible with the way trucks are loaded and how goods are storedin warehouses, so the benefits of McLean’s revolution have been limited to rail and sea. Further
standardisation of B2B packaging formats would improve system effectiveness, across all modes oftransportation. Emulating this idea — of modular packaging containers, standardised across all B2B
packaging formats — is also the cornerstone of the concept of open, shared logistics networks known as
the Physical Internet.

FIGURE 16: THE PHYSICAL INTERNET: A NEW LOGISTICS PARADIGM ENABLED BY REUSABLE AND
STANDARDISED PACKAGINGPRODUCTS AND SHIPPINGCONTAINERS BECOME
STANDARD AND MODULAR

TRANSPORTATIONASSETS ARE POOLEDAND INTERCONNECTED

WAREHOUSE ASSETSGET MORE EFFICIENTLYUTILISED... LEADING TO A
MORE LOGICALSUPPLY CHAIN

Source: Adapted from original graphic featured in: Science magazine, The Internet gets Physical, (2014).

Unlike the conventional approach of owning andoptimising assets, participants in the PhysicalInternet aim to optimise delivery of the product,using available assets regardless of ownership. The
model operates like a light rail system in an urban
centre; vehicles run at an adjustable frequency
along designated routes with regular stops. Rather
than every citizen owning her/his own vehicle andoptimising her/his individual route, routes and stops
are designed, and frequencies set, to optimise
system effectiveness.
‘With the Physical Internet, you [as a user] wouldn’t
care about the route. You care about the timeliness,the cost, and the quality of the service.’176
The Physical Internet model relies on a high numberof shared hubs, connected by pooled transportation
assets that carry modular, standardised, reusable
containers from point of supply to point ofpurchase for multiple users. Intelligent asset
technology within the container would allow eachuser to track their product’s location and status in
real-time without having to own the asset being
utilised. Modular containers allow for efficient
stacking and faster changeovers, meaning goods
going to the same destination can be aggregated asthey move through the supply chain.
Given the intelligent asset technology available
today (e.g. tracking), a Physical Internet-typesystem seems a realistic prospect. For example,
RFID tags already allow real time tracking of assets
through the supply chain, and the combination ofpassive, battery-less chips in transport containers
and active, powered, readers at various points
in the supply chain, has enabled greater control

of inventory movements. As outlined in the Ellen
MacArthur Foundation’s report Intelligent Assets— Unlocking the circular economy potential,
the technology is expected to become more
affordable and more accurate, enabling wide spread
adoption.177
The Physical Internet offers significant opportunities— if adopted to service just 25% of the freightflows in the US, the resulting productivity gains
would boost profits by USD 100 billion and cut
CO2 emissions generated by road-based freightby 33% (or 200 million tonnes) annually.178 Specificmodelling using data from French retailers
Carrefour and Casino of ‘non-fresh food’ productflows and their most important 106 suppliers
suggested a 20% reduction in kilometres covered,capturing economic benefits and reducing CO2
emissions generated by the product flows by 60%.179
The Physical Internet is at pilot stage today.
However, there is a clear foundation and growing
awareness of the concept, with research andinitial pilot projects in both the EU and US.
Comprehensive academic research and modellinghas been completed in three key areas: modular
containers, optimal hub networks, and systemprotocols. In parallel, industry initiatives to improve
effectiveness are being implemented acrossdifferent markets and geographies. As logistics isa fragmented, globally integrated, mature market
with a high degree of local optimisation, a joinedup approach will likely be needed to bring abouta paradigm shift and to capture the full potential
offered by the Physical Internet.

66 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

5.2

INNOVATIVE BUSINESSES COMPLEMENT TRADITIONAL MODELS TO
CAPTURE VALUE IN B2C REUSABLE PLASTIC PACKAGING

Increased distance between point of supply andpoint of use, coupled with decreased costs ofsingle-use packaging, has, in many parts of theworld, led to a nearly complete disappearance of
B2C reusable plastic packaging. However, a rise ininnovative business models as well as a potential
continuation in recent policy developments could
put this model back on the map.
Innovative business models can capture value
by capitalising on the willingness of users toreuse in the home. Traditional reusable packaging
models (such as those for returnable glass bottles)
have typically relied on reverse logistics to get the
packaging back to the supplier to be washed andrefilled. However, innovative models, where theresponsibility for refilling takes place in the context
of the household, are demonstrating how reusable
B2C packaging can have success in different
formats.
Splosh and Replenish are two businesses that havedeveloped customer models based on different
reusable packaging formats that enable a user torefill in the home. This model has the potential toreduce the volume and simplify the pallet of plastics
used in packaging.
Replenish estimates that one of its reusable
containers can replace up to 30 single-use
equivalents.180 By first providing reusable
containers and afterwards just packaging theactive ingredients in liquid ‘refill pods’ that fit into
the initial consumer-sized bottles, the company
believes that its format could replace any productthat is largely water based. Replenish estimatesthat in America every year 42.1 billion containers
are used for products that are 70–90% water.181 By
shipping just the active ingredient in concentrate
form and assuming each container is reused in thehome 30 times, the same value and conveniencecan be delivered with significantly reduced levelsof packaging, estimated to be 341,000 tonnes ofplastic packaging per annum in the United Statesalone.182
Once a user invests in the home refill system,
concentrate pods are purchased online, digitalising
the brand. As a result, there is reduced emphasis
on primary packaging to provide brand value.
This could have the effect of simplifying the palletof plastics used versus traditional physical retail
formats. For example, some multilayer packaging
formats used today include an outer layer with thesole purpose of creating a clean finish for printing
inks.
Replenish believes the growth in penetration of
online shopping presents reuse opportunities. As
more fast-moving consumer goods are purchased
online there will be an increased demand for
e-commerce-friendly streams of packaging. Big
businesses are already responding to this trend, forexample Coca-Cola Enterprises recently announced
a pod-based home refill system.183
User-centred reusable packaging is also emerging
in the high street retail environment. Packaging
in bulk, in store is in certain cases becoming
associated with quality as high-end grocery storesin developed markets look to reinforce the message
of small-batch, local sourcing. Planet Organic, ahigh-end organic food retailer based in the UK,
has recently adopted this model by launchingthe ‘Unpackaged’ concept in one of its stores.184
Shoppers are encouraged to bring their own
containers and use self-service weighing machines
to buy what they need from an extensive range offresh and dried grocery products.
Rising packaging costs, improved producttechnologies, and faster distribution networks
will likely boost adoption of innovative models.
The relative cost of packaging is rising for somesegments — in the United States the cost of fresh
produce packaging is expected to grow 32% by2024, while in the same period fresh produce
production will grow only 2% as packaging takes
on a greater role in the protection, traceability,
and marketing of fresh fruits and vegetables.185 As
the costs of packaging and associated logistics
contribute a greater share of the cost of goods sold
(COGS), reusable packaging formats could unlock
economic advantage.
Reuse models reliant on traditional reverse
logistics, which have proven to work for nonplastic applications such as glass bottles,
could become increasingly relevant for plastic
packaging, especially given current trends
in logistics, retail and e-commerce. Increased
distance between point of supply and point of use
has, in many parts of the world, led to a nearlycomplete disappearance of B2C reusable packaging
reliant on reverse logistics. However, under theright conditions, reverse logistics models for
packaging formats that include the end user canbe commercially successful, as is demonstrated
by glass beverage containers. In both developed
and developing markets, deposit systems for glass
bottles exist that effectively incentivise container
return. These models succeed when (i) distances
between point of supply and point of use are kept
short, for example around a growing number ofmicro-breweries with a largely local customer base,or in the case of Belgian retailer Delhaize, which
imports its best-selling wines in bulk and bottles
them close to its local market in reusable bottles,or (ii) where the set-up cost of a reverse logistics
system acts as barrier to entry for new entrants.
Commercially successful examples of reverse
logistics models exist at scale: 47% of SABMiller’scurrent global business is in refillable bottles,186 andCoca-Cola is typically able to cycle its glass bottles
35–45 times.187 Typically a combination of factors

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 67

make reverse logistics systems viable: a high costof raw materials relative to other input costs, lowcost collection and distribution infrastructure (often
the result of efficient back-hauling in developed
economies or low-cost labour in developing
economies), low bargaining power of retailers, andrelatively undifferentiated packaging types. Thisis covered in greater detail in the Ellen MacArthur
Foundation’s report Towards a Circular Economy —Opportunities for the consumer goods sector.188
A new paradigm for B2B logistics, such as the
Physical Internet, could catalyse systemic change
for the B2C segment. Currently, reverse logistics
models that include the user seem viable only
for mostly high-value applications like glass. The
Nespresso coffee pod delivery and collection
system is another example of a B2C reverse
logistics operation; it relies on a high-value productwith high-value aluminium packaging. A new system
based on shared logistics assets could help reducethe cost barrier attached to reverse logistics models
by creating an open infrastructure for new businessmodels to utilise. In such a system, the modular
dimensions that define B2B shipments would set
the boundary conditions for standardisation ofprimary product packaging.
Now is the time to act as divergent trends affecting
the point of supply and point of purchase arestraining the existing logistics infrastructure. The
growth of e-commerce and the increasing numbersof people living in urban centres is forcing a greater
disaggregation of products into the current logistics
system, leading to congestion challenges in urban
environments. The world’s top ten online grocery
markets are forecast to double in size by 2020,and more retailers are moving to capitalise on thisgrowth.189 Amazon’s PrimeNow190 and Dash Button191
services (already available in the United States andthe UK) offer a glimpse of what is to come with
one-hour delivery of everyday items such as cold
beer, and auto-replenish of household essentials,
respectively. It is yet unclear how these trends willaffect B2C packaging in the long term, but if reusemodels provide an effective solution for some of theassociated challenges, then B2C reusable packaging
could become increasingly relevant.
Offline, groceries are returning to the high street,
occupying smaller spaces closer to residential areas
with localised stores that stock a range of products
tailored to the local demographic. The evolution ofhigh-frequency, small-basket transactions means
the idea of one large ‘weekend’ grocery shopping
trip is fading, and the megastore distribution
model with a large-scale, long-haul, hub-andspoke network may no longer be fit for purpose
everywhere.

Box 8: Mumbai tiffin boxes
In Mumbai, India, a popular lunch-box delivery system offers a neat analogy for how the Physical Internet
could work at the user level. Every day, over 200,000 dabbas (a standardised lunch box also known
as the tiffin box), each containing a freshly cooked lunch, make their way across the complex maze ofcity streets and alleys to reach their end consumers. In a setting that combines high population density,
limited infrastructure, congestion, and a largely illiterate workforce, the tiffin system thrives thanks to its
historically evolved routing code of coloured shapes, numbers, and letters that designate the direction of
travel at each hub.
A collecting dabbawala or box carrier, usually on bicycle, collects dabbas either from a worker’s homeor from a supplier. The dabbawala then takes them to a sorting place, where the boxes are sorted into
groups. The grouped boxes are put onto coaches of trains and unloaded at stations according to thecode, which also directs the local dabbawala to the point of delivery. The empty boxes are collected after
lunch or the next day and returned to the respective point of origin with a high degree of accuracy — theunsubstantiated claim is that dabbawalas make less than one mistake in every six million deliveries.192

Policy and industry-led agreements are anotherlever that could have a significant impact on thepotential of reusable plastic packaging in the B2C
segment. One example is the effort to discourage
single-use plastic carrier bags, favouring reusable
or non-plastic alternatives. In 2015, a new European
Directive came into force requiring member states
to reduce the use of lightweight plastic carrierbags by taking measures that either reduce theper capita consumption, or restrict retailers from
distributing them free of charge.193 Policy in thisarea has been evolving over time; Bangladesh
already banned disposable plastic bags in 2002
after they were found to have choked the drainage
system during devastating floods.194 Today, multiple
countries around the world have some type of ban

or tax on single-use plastic bags. Also measuresfor beverages bottles demonstrate how policy candrive adoption of B2C reuse models, away from thesingle-use alternative. In San Francisco, for example,
the sale and free distribution of drinking water insingle-use bottles of 21 ounces or less is prohibitedon city property. At the same time, the legislationcommits the city to install more widespread
drinking fountains and bottle filling stations.195
Similar measures are taken in several municipalities
and campuses around the world.
In addition to policy, industry itself can drive
adoption of reuse systems. In France, for example, avoluntary agreement signed by hypermarket chains
reduced the number of single-use bags from 10.5
billion in 2002 to 700 million in 2013.196

68 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

6 COMPOSTABLE PACKAGING: RETURNINGNUTRIENTS TO THE SOIL FOR TARGETEDPACKAGING APPLICATIONS
For targeted applications, compostable plastic packaging — if coupled with theappropriate collection and recovery infrastructure — can help return nutrients of the
packaged content (e.g. food) to the soil. Today, most plastics are designed to be either
recyclable or compostable or neither of the two. Keeping both options open by design
is usually not possible with current materials technology and after-use infrastructure.
While designing packaging for recycling comes with the advantage of keeping
material value in the economy, designing packaging for composting can be valuablefor targeted applications: it offers a mechanism to return biological nutrients from thecontents of the packaging that would have otherwise been lost, such as the residueof packaged food, back to the soil in the form of fertiliser. Successful initiatives havedemonstrated the potential of compostable packaging at scale.

6.1

WHAT IS COMPOSTABLE PACKAGING?

The term ‘compostable packaging’ will be used in
preference to ‘biodegradable packaging’ in thisreport, since both industrially compostable andhome compostable materials are clearly definedwhereas the term biodegradable packaging is verybroad and not informative (see Appendix B).197
The definitions198 for industrially compostablematerials differ slightly across regions (EN13432
for Europe, ASTM D400 and D6868 for the US). A
material is in essence industrially compostable if itmeets the following four criteria:• Chemical characteristics: it contains at least 50%
organic matter (based on dry weight) and does
not exceed a given concentration for some heavy
metals.
• Biodegradation: it biodegrades by at least 90%(by weight) within six months under controlled
composting conditions (temperature of 58 +/2°C).
• Disintegration: it fragments into pieces smaller
than 2 mm under controlled composting
conditions within 12 weeks.
• Ecotoxicity: the compost obtained at the end of
the process does not cause any negative effects(which could be measured, for example, by theeffect on germination and growth of plants).
Home compostable materials are always also
industrially compostable. However, in contrast
to industrially compostable materials, homecompostable materials can be treated atambient temperatures and the timeframes forbiodegradation and disintegration can be longer.
Moreover, parameters such as moisture content,
aeration, pH, and carbon to nitrogen ratio do notneed to be controlled.
Since industrially compostable plastics are only
compostable under certain conditions and citizens
might mistake loosely defined ‘compostable’
items as home compostable, it is important thatmaterials are clearly labelled. Certification bodies(e.g. Vinçotte and Din Certo in Europe, BPI in theUS) offer testing and certification services, andissue logos with product-specific coding to ensure
traceability and transparency. Each certificationbody produces its own labels which, thoughreferring to the same norms, can be confusing for
citizens. The European Commission will implement(by May 2017) an act to ensure EU-wide recognitionof compostable plastic carrier bags and provide
citizens with information about their properties.199

Box 9: Bio-based, ‘biodegradable’ and compostable plastics are not the same
The term ‘bioplastics’ is often loosely used to refer to plastics that are bio-based, biodegradable, orboth.200 A material’s origin and the available after-use options need to be clearly distinguished. In addition,as outlined above this report gives preference to the term ‘compostable’ over ‘biodegradable’.
The term ‘bio-based’ describes a material’s origin — i.e. wholly or partly derived from biomass201
resources.202 Renewably sourced materials (bio-based and greenhouse gas-based materials) are further
detailed in Chapter 10.
The term ‘compostable’ describes a material’s after-use option — i.e. that a material is suitable for theTHE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 69

after-use pathway of home composting or industrial composting and fulfils the officially defined criteria forthe respective environment. The term ‘biodegradable’ itself describes only that a material can biodegrade
into natural elements with the help of micro-organisms (see Appendix B).203
Bio-based plastics are not necessarily compostable, as shown in Figure 17. Some bio-based plastics
are designed for the technical cycle (bio-PET is recyclable) and some for the biological cycle (PLA isindustrially compostable). Some bio-based plastics, such as PLA and PHA, are technically both recyclable
and industrially compostable, if the right infrastructure is in place.204
Similarly, not only bio-based materials are compostable. Besides greenhouse gas-based plastics, also
certain fossil-based plastics such as PBAT and BASF EcoFlex are industrially compostable. However,as such fossil-based compostable plastics represent a smaller segment of the market, they are notrepresented in Figure 17.

FIGURE 17: PLASTIC SOURCES AND CIRCULAR AFTER-USE PATHWAYSORIGIN

EXAMPLES OF MATERIALSAND APPLICATIONSPOTENTIAL CIRCULAR AFTER-USE
OPTIONS (IF SYSTEMS IN PLACE)1

FOSSIL-BASED3OIL

RENEWABLY
SOURCED: BIO-BASEDOR GREENHOUSEGAS-BASED

RECYCLABLE2 ONLY
PE, PETPE, PET (CHEMICALLYIDENTICAL TO FOSSIL-BASED)

RECYCLABLE2 AND(INDUSTRIALLY)COMPOSTABLE

PLA, PBS, PHA(INCL. PHB)4(INDUSTRIALLY)COMPOSTABLE
STARCH-BLENDS5

1 Pathways shown are theoretical (technical) possibilities. Actual recyclability and compostability depends on after-use infrastructure in place. Incineration/energy
recovery and landfill pathways not shown (possible with all plastics). Home composting not shown either (limited uptake today)
2 ‘Recyclable’ is used here as short-hand for ‘mechanically recyclable’. The alternative, chemical recycling, is not applied at scale today and has – with today’s
technologies – typically significant economic and environmental limitations
3 Some fossil-based plastics are industrially compostable (e.g. PBAT, BASF EcoFlex). They are not represented on this chart since they are not used at scale
4 All thermoplastics can theoretically be melted and recycled; though, in practice, only PLA is recycled in small volumes
5 Starch-blends cannot be recycled because of the variety of compositions of the blends
Source: European Bioplastics, Fact sheet: What are bioplastics (2015); Expert interviews.

6.2

COMPOSTABLE PACKAGING CAN HELP RETURN NUTRIENTS TO THE SOIL

The most promising applications for compostable
packaging fulfil two criteria. First, the packaging
is prone to be mixed with organic contents suchas food after use. Making packaging compostable
for such applications helps to return additional
nutrients to the soil. Second, the packaging follows

controlled material flows and does not typically end
up in plastics recycling streams since compostable
packaging can interfere with recycling processes
with current material technology and after-use
infrastructure. Examples of applications fulfillingboth criteria are bags for organic waste; packaging

70 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

in closed-loop systems such as events, fast foodrestaurants and canteens; and packaging items suchas teabags or coffee capsules.

6.2.1 Compostable packaging can help
return organic nutrients to the soil inapplications that are prone to be mixed
with organic contents after use
In the circular economy, nutrients are kept at thehighest utility at all times in both the technical andbiological cycles.205 Circular systems encourage
biological nutrients to re-enter the biospheresafely for decomposition to regenerate the soil andbecome valuable feedstock for a new cycle. With
increasing agricultural production and utilisation ofsoils, returning biological nutrients back to the soil
becomes even more important.
Compostable packaging can be an importantenabler to return more nutrients of packaged
contents to the soil. While plastic packaging itself
contains little nutrients, the packaged contents
often contain valuable organic nutrients. This isparticularly the case for food packaging. In certain
applications, food might be difficult to separate
from the packaging by default such as in coffee
capsules and teabags.206 Other applications areprone to a high food waste-to-packaging ratio afteruse (e.g. take-away packaging; food packaging at
events, fast food restaurants and canteens).

Today, such biological nutrients are mostly
landfilled or burnt together with the packaging.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organisationof the United Nations, roughly one third of the foodproduced globally is lost or wasted.207 A large shareof this food waste is not returned to the soil. In theUK, for example, only 1.6 million tonnes of 14 million
tonnes of food waste is captured and returned tothe soil through anaerobic digestion every year.208
In Australia, 47% of organic waste that is ‘readily
biodegradable’ is landfilled and another 9% is sent
to energy recovery.209 In the US, uneaten food in
landfills is the largest component of municipal solid
waste.210 In Europe, the average citizen generates 76
kg of food waste at home and an additional 34 kg
outside the household211 (e.g. in restaurants, catering
services, and retail stores) not considering the 70kg of waste per capita that is generated at the
manufacturing level.212 Even if only a fraction of thisfood waste could be returned to the soil throughcompostable packaging, this would make a big
difference.
Compostable bags are one application thathas been proven to be effective in increasing
the amount of food waste returned to the soil.
Compostable bags can be an important enablerin the collection of food waste from households
and reduce the risk that non-compostable plasticbags find their way to industrial composting andanaerobic digestion facilities. Initiatives such asthat in Milan (see Box 10) have proven that boththe amount of food waste collected separately
and the quality of the finished compost can beincreased significantly with the help of compostablebags. Minimum compost quality levels for generaluse, including a maximum level of physicalcontamination for compost, are specified bybodies including The British Standards Institution
and WRAP.213 A study carried out by CIC (ItalianComposting and Biogas Association) indicatesthat if collection at households is carried out with
non-compostable PE bags, the expected content of
non-compostable materials amounts to 9% of the
input whereas it can drop to 1.4% with compostable
plastic bags.214

Box 10: The successful use of industrially compostable bags in Milan
An initiative carried out in Milan illustrates the impact of an effort coordinated along the value chain andthe use of industrially compostable bags on the quantity of nutrients that can be returned to the soil.
In 2011, Milan had a separated food waste collection of 28 kg per inhabitant per year, resulting in a foodwaste collection rate of 19%.215 Food waste in Milan was only collected from commercial sources such as
restaurants, supermarkets, hotels, and schools. Food waste from private households was not collected andmost of it could not be home composted since 80% of Milan’s inhabitants live in high-rise buildings with nooutside space.
As part of a project to increase the food waste collection rate, households were equipped with a vented
bin with compostable plastic bags made with Novamont’s Mater-Bi material. People could then purchasefurther compostable bags or use compostable shopping bags from supermarkets. In order to promote theadoption of industrially compostable plastic bags, single-use non-compostable plastic bags were banned.
The project has been successful and raised the separated food waste collection per inhabitant per year to
95 kg, more than tripling the collection of food waste.216 The average content of non-compostable materials
has been around 4% and has decreased over time, allowing the production of a compost of good quality
for farmers through industrial composting and anaerobic digestion.217

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 71

6.2.2 Streams of compostable and recyclable
materials need to follow separate
pathways after use
Given that compostable plastics can interfere withtoday’s recycling systems of other plastics like
PE,218 and that plastics that are not industriallycompostable can contaminate the finishedcompost, contamination between compostable
and recyclable after-use plastic streams should be
avoided. Hence, compostable packaging is moresuitable in controlled or closed environments where
the risk of contamination is low. While critical today,
as certain plastics are both (technically) recyclable
and compostable, this constraint might becomeless relevant as time progresses. While noncompostable plastics could potentially be separated
from food waste, this can cost up to around EUR
30 per tonne (at 9% contamination),219 representing
more than half of the gate fee received by operatorsof anaerobic digestion facilities and hence affecting
the economics.220

6.2.3 Appropriate industrial composting
and anaerobic digestion infrastructureneeds to be in place
After collection, compostable packaging and thebiological nutrients from the packaged content
can be brought back to the soil through anaerobic
digestion (AD) and/or composting processes. For
home compostable materials, there is the additional
pathway of home composting.
The main difference between anaerobic digestion
and the industrial composting process is thatthe former occurs in the absence of oxygen. As
a result, the anaerobic digestion process yields
biogas in addition to the digestate that can beused as fertiliser.221 This biogas can be used forrenewable power production either in the formof electricity and heat (combined heat and power,
CHP) or — if upgraded and refined — in the form ofnatural gas that can be exported to the grid (biogas
to grid, BtG).222 In the case of CHP, the heat andelectricity produced can be used internally and theelectricity surplus can be sold and exported to thegrid. One tonne of food waste (at 60% moisture)
produces typically 300–500 tonnes of biogas (withmethane concentration around 60%) and hence
produces 1,260 kWh. An average AD plant (withcapacity of 750 kWe) can produce electricity for
approximately 2,500 households (assuming 2,700
kWh per household).223
The anaerobic digestion process is often combinedwith an industrial composting post-treatment
step. Such a post-treatment composting step
allows stabilisation of the digestate and further
biodegradation of any industrially compostable
plastics, such as PLA, that might still be present
in the digestate. Some countries, such as the UK

and Sweden,224 are exceptions to this procedureand the digestate is directly applied to the soil.
Depending on the quality of the material streams
and the source separation, industrial composting
and anaerobic digestion processes require a
pre-treatment step to extract items that do notbiodegrade.
In the recent past, anaerobic digestion capacity
has increased rapidly. The number of plants in
Europe, for example, has increased from 3 in 1990
to 290 in 2015 with a combined capacity of 9
million tonnes per year.225 With improvements inthe biogas yield, biogas production and electrical
power equivalents have grown at an even fasterpace (up to twice as fast).226 Further informationon the anaerobic digestion process can be found in
Appendix C.
For home compostable materials, there is acomplementary third avenue: they can be treatedin home composting environments. However,there are caveats. First, home composting is only
beneficial if the sorting of home compostablematerials and industrially compostable materials
by citizens is supported by a clear distinction
and intuitive labelling of the two material
streams. Second, appropriate home composting
infrastructure might not be available, for example,
in urban areas. Home composting is only helpful inreturning biological nutrients to the soil if the homecomposting conditions allow for full degradationand the finished compost finds a use. In addition,
designing packaging to be home compostable— while fulfilling all packaging performancerequirements — poses an innovation challenge formany applications. Since composting conditionsin industrial facilities are controlled and more‘favourable’ for the degradation process, morematerials are industrially compostable than homecompostable. Last but not least, a higher shareof home compostable packaging does not meanthat collection and recovery infrastructure is notnecessary. Unless all materials in a region would
be home compostable (which is highly unlikely),collection and recovery infrastructure would remainrequired.

72 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

6.3

SUCCESSFUL INITIATIVES HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE POTENTIAL OFCOMPOSTABLE PACKAGING AT SCALE

The London Olympics, the city of Milan, the CoRR227
effort in New York, and events in stadiums in
the US228 have proven the viability of anaerobic
digestion and composting food waste along withindustrially compostable packaging at large scale(several million end users). These initiatives haveshown integrated value chains, from individuals
to material management companies and farmers
using the fertiliser. Lessons learnt from these
initiatives have been well documented229 and can beleveraged to further optimise processes and scale
up the implementation of these initiatives. The main
take-away is that stakeholders along the value chain
need to fully buy into the vision and understandtheir role within the project (this includes citizens
who need to be informed about how to sort foodwaste and packaging). This alignment can beensured by, amongst others, (financial) incentives
to foster cooperation (e.g. based on collection
targets between composters and event organisers),
or, in the documented cases, synchronisation
was facilitated by local authorities providing a
supporting policy framework (e.g. in the Milan casea ban on single-use plastic bags). Further scaleup of industrially compostable packaging could
build on the lessons learnt from these successful
initiatives.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 73

74 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMYPART III DRASTICALLY REDUCING LEAKAGE OF PLASTICS INTO
NATURAL SYSTEMS AND MINIMISING OTHER EXTERNALITIESTHE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 75

76 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

7 DRASTICALLY REDUCING LEAKAGE
INTO NATURAL SYSTEMS AND
ASSOCIATED NEGATIVE IMPACTS
Today, an estimated 32% of plastics and plastic packaging escapes the collection
system globally, generating high costs by reducing the productivity of vital natural
systems such as the ocean and clogging urban infrastructure. The report Valuing Plastic
conservatively estimates the costs of the negative externalities of plastics in the ocean— just one of the ‘sinks’ for leaked plastics — to USD 13 billion. Achieving a drastic
reduction in leakage would require coordinated efforts along three dimensions: first,
improving after-use infrastructure in high-leakage countries, an urgently needed shortterm measure. Second, increasing the economic attractiveness of keeping the materials
in the system. Third, reducing the negative effects of any likely remaining leakage bysteering innovation towards truly ‘bio-benign’ materials, which represents an ambitious
innovation challenge.
An estimated 32% of plastics escape the collection
system globally.230 Plastic packaging is particularly
prone to leakage due to its small size, high rate ofdispersion and low residual value. Today, at least
8 million tonnes of plastics (of which estimatessuggest that plastic packaging represents the
majority) leak into the ocean — just one of the‘sinks’ for leaked plastics — every year.231 Plastics
that leak into oceans and other natural systems
remain there for centuries resulting in higheconomic costs and causing harm to natural
systems. While the total economic impact is still
unclear, initial studies suggest that it is at least in
the billions of dollars. The report Valuing Plastic
conservatively estimates the costs of the negative
externalities of plastics in the oceans to be atleast USD 13 billion.232 The Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) estimates that the cost ofocean plastics to the tourism, fishing and shipping
industries was USD 1.3 billion in that region alone.233
Even in Europe, where leakage is relatively limited,
potential costs for coastal and beach cleaning alone
could reach EUR 630 million (USD 695 million)

7.1

per year.234 Leaked plastics can also degrade othernatural systems, such as forests and waterways, andinduce direct economic costs by clogging sewers
and other urban infrastructure. The economic
costs of these impacts need further assessment.
In addition to the direct economic costs, there arepotential adverse impacts on human livelihoods andhealth, food chains and other essential economic
and societal systems. The negative externalities
also include entanglement and ingestion of plastics
by various species. According to STAP, ‘more than
260 species are already known to be affected byplastic debris through entanglement or ingestion’.235
Plastics in oceans may also contain — or may act
as a sponge for — a range of substances including
some which raise concerns about potentiallynegative effects. The extent of the potential
impact of substances of concern on the marine
biosphere is not yet fully understood by thescientific community, which indicates a need formore research (see Chapter 8) and, where relevant,precautionary measures.

IMPROVE AFTER-USE COLLECTION, STORAGE AND REPROCESSINGINFRASTRUCTURE IN HIGH-LEAKAGE COUNTRIES

A critical first step in addressing leakage would
be to urgently improve after-use infrastructure inhigh-leakage countries. However, this measure in
isolation is likely not sufficient. As discussed in the
Ocean Conservancy’s 2015 report Stemming theTide, even under the very best current scenarios
for improving infrastructure, such measures would
stabilise, not eliminate, leakage into the ocean.236
The expected reduction of global leakage (45% by2025 in a best-case scenario) would be neutralisedby the annual growth of plastics production ofcurrently around 5%. As a consequence of suchstabilised leakage, the cumulative total volumeof plastics in the ocean would continue to risequickly. Hence, ensuring that plastics do not escapecollection and reprocessing systems and end up
in the ocean or other natural systems requires acoordinated effort on multiple fronts. While otherinitiatives are addressing the important issue of
improving after-use collection and reprocessing
infrastructure, this report focuses on thecomplementary actions required.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 77

7.2

INCREASE THE ECONOMIC ATTRACTIVENESS OF KEEPING MATERIALS IN
THE SYSTEM

As described in Parts I and II of this report,
creating an effective after-use plastics economy
would contribute to a root-cause solution toleakage. Improved economics make the build-up of
after-use collection and reprocessing infrastructure
economically more attractive. Increasing the valueof after-use plastic packaging reduces the likelihood

7.3

that it escapes the collection system, especially incountries with an informal waste sector. In addition,
dematerialisation and reuse are levers to ‘do morewith less plastics’ and hold the potential to reduceleakage proportionally with the amount of plastics
put on the market.

STEER INNOVATION INVESTMENT TOWARDS CREATING MATERIALS AND
FORMATS THAT REDUCE THE NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF
PLASTIC PACKAGING LEAKAGE

Today’s plastic packaging offers great functional
benefits, but has an inherent design failure: its
intended useful life is typically less than one year;
however, the material persists for centuries and canbe damaging if it leaks outside collection systems.
Although the efforts described above could
significantly reduce leakage of plastics into
natural systems, it is doubtful that such leakage
will ever be fully eliminated. Even in regions withadvanced collection infrastructure, such as the US
and Europe, 5% of plastics still escape the collection
system, with plastic packaging particularly prone
to leakage. 237 Even in the case that leakage ofplastic packaging could be reduced globallyfrom 32% to 1%, about 1 million tonnes of plastic
packaging would still escape collection systems andaccumulate in natural systems each year.
Therefore, there is a need for innovation towards
truly bio-benign materials that address this design
failure. Such materials would avoid harm to natural
systems in case they escape collection systems. Like
leaves that have fallen from a tree or a banana peelthat has been separated from its packaged content— the banana — such bio-benign materials would
safely and completely degrade after their usefullife. For most applications, bio-benign packaging
would still primarily be designed for recycling (withthe exception of, for example, packaging that isdesigned for industrial composting as described in
Chapter 6). However, its bio-benign characteristic
would reduce the negative effects on natural
systems in the unintended case of leakage. Paper
offers inspiration — a widely used and recycled
packaging material that is relatively benign if leaked
into natural systems (unless it contains substancesof concern such as certain inks).
Different avenues might help reduce the harmof (unintentionally) leaked plastics. Advanced

biodegradability in freshwater and/or marine
environments, a material palette without substancesof concern, avoidance of colours and shapesthat are typically ingested or otherwise harmful
to marine life for applications with high risksof leakage, and radically new smart/ triggered
processes that imitate metabolising processes innature could all contribute to making materials
benign to natural systems. Further research is
required to identify the most promising avenues
towards truly bio-benign plastics.
Today’s biodegradable plastics do not measure
up. As UNEP points out in a recent report, evenplastics that are ‘marketed as biodegradable’ (i.e.
plastics that are industrially or home compostable)
do not ‘provide a solution to the environmental
impacts caused by marine litter’.238 Indeed,industrially or home compostable plastics marketedas ‘biodegradable’ are not necessarily benign inthe case of leakage into natural systems. Additivemediated fragmentation in its current reincarnation
has also not led to a breakthrough. Current ‘oxodegradable’ (or rather ‘oxo-fragmentable’) plastics(as further explained in Appendix B) have notbeen proven truly benign, but rather have mostly
led to fragmentation — increasing the quantity of
microplastics in the ocean.239
Given the scale and importance of the ocean
plastics issue, marine degradability is an important
step in reducing the harm of plastics that escapethe collection system. Marine degradable plastics
are materials that, besides full biodegradation in
a composting test, reach 20% biodegradation in amarine test within a period of six months, and at
least 70% disintegration (i.e. smaller than 2 mm)
in a marine environment within a period of threemonths.240 An aquatic toxicity test is also required.
No finished product has yet been approved as
marine biodegradable. Plastic packaging made of

78 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

marine biodegradable material is not necessarily
marine biodegradable itself. The shape of the
product influences the biodegradation time, which
is one of the criteria of marine biodegradability.
The European Commission Joint Research Center
approved two grades of the Mater-Bi (Novamont)
for marine biodegradation241 and Vinçotte has
already approved one plastic material as marine
biodegradable (PHA produced by MGH).242
However, even certified marine degradable plastics(as defined by ASTM D 7081) might only limit
some of the challenges and negative externalities.
Some of the entanglement and ingestion issues,for example, would remain given the relatively
long degradation timeline of three months. Moreresearch would be needed to assess the exact
requirements.
Developing truly bio-benign plastic packaging
represents a significant innovation challenge thatwill take time to overcome, particularly becausesuch plastics would also need to be functional andcost-effective in order to be a viable alternative atscale.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 79

8 SUBSTANCES OF CONCERN: CAPTURING VALUE
WITH MATERIALS THAT ARE SAFE IN ALL
PRODUCT PHASES
Besides polymers, plastics contain a broad range of other substances. Certain of thesesubstances raise concerns about complex long-term exposure and compound effects
on human health, as well as about their impact upon leakage into natural systems
such as the ocean. While scientific evidence on the exact implications of substances ofconcern is not always conclusive, there are sufficient indications that warrant further
research into and accelerated development and application of safe alternatives. These
research and innovation efforts would need to be complemented with enhanced
transparency on the material content of plastics and, where relevant, the application of
the precautionary principle to phase out specific (sets of) substances raising concernsof acute negative effects. The concerns and potential upside for the industry andbroader society associated with management of substances of concern are motivatorsfor stakeholder action.

8.1

CERTAIN SUBSTANCES IN PLASTIC MATERIAL RAISE CONCERNS DUE TO
POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS AND LIMITED TRANSPARENCY

Plastics are usually made from a polymer mixed
with a complex blend of materials known as
additives. These additives, which include flame
retardants, plasticisers, pigments, fillers, andstabilisers, are used to improve the different
properties of the plastic or to reduce its cost.
There are thousands of additives on the market.
Today, 13.2 million tonnes of additives are produced
annually, and global demand is forecast to continue
increasing in the coming years, at about 4.5%
annually in terms of volume.243 Global plasticiser
consumption, for example, was about 6.4 million
tonnes in 2011, and is expected to grow at a similarrate, with a majority of plasticisers being phthalates(70% in 2014).244 While the exact additives used
depends on the plastic type and its application,
overall the plastic packaging industry uses various

additives, (e.g. to reduce oxidation and to improveslip properties). Moreover, the packaging segment
led the plastic additives market in 2013 and is
projected to continue to be the largest market, withan annual growth of 4.7% between 2014 and 2019 interms of volume.245
Multiple substances of concern are used in plastics— intended, such as through the use of polymer
precursors and additives, and unintended ones likecatalyst residues and unwanted compounds formedby side-reactions.246 Their presence does notnecessarily have a negative effect on human healthor the environment as concentrations might be low
or exposure to them may be limited.

Box 11: Substance of Concern (SoC)
In this report, chemical elements and their compounds are called substances of concern if they may haveserious and often irreversible effects on human health or the environment. This concept involves risk
associated with context and exposure, for which insights continue to evolve as the science progresses.
Concerns about hazards of substances are inherently related to risk, context, and exposure. Individually,certain substances may cause harm if concentrations or length of exposure exceed a certain threshold.
Moreover, recent scientific research shows that, even in low concentrations, the combined effects fromexposure to certain substances over a prolonged period of time may have adverse effects on humanhealth and the environment.247 Adverse effects include causing cancer, inducing mutations in an organism,or endocrine disruption, which means that substances mimic natural hormones in the body and thereby
cause health problems such as diabetes and obesity. As our understanding of substances of concern is still
evolving, it is only possible to consider the currently estimated hazards.248
Similar SoC concepts have been defined by regulations such as the European Commission’s Registration,
Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemical Substances (REACH), or the US Environmental
Protection Agency-administered Toxic Substances Control Act. The European Chemicals Agency,249 forexample, uses REACH’s definition of Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs), i.e. substances with thefollowing properties:80 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY•

Substances meeting the criteria for classification as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction
category 1A or 1B in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CMR substances).

•

Substances which are persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic (PBT) or very persistent and very
bioaccumulative (vPvB) according to REACH (Annex XIII).

•

Substances identified on a case-by-case basis, for which there is scientific evidence of probable serious
effects that cause an equivalent level of concern as with CMR or PBT/vPvB substances.

Even though plastics are widely used in packaging
and their content is often regulated, individuals,scientists, and NGOs have raised concerns
regarding the effect of specific (classes of)substances in this context. While the science is notalways conclusive, some studies have foundevidence for possible adverse effects on humanhealth and the environment in specific cases
relating to substances of concern in plastic
packaging.250 The styrene monomer — a precursor
to polystyrene and several copolymers — has beenfound to leach out of packaging into food(simulants).251 Even if the migrated monomer
concentration is low, concerns are raised because
styrene is listed by the US National ResearchCouncil as ‘reasonably anticipated to be a humancarcinogen’.252 Phthalates are another example as
many are suspected to be toxic for reproductionand endocrine-disrupting, with emerging evidence
linking them to two of the biggest public healththreats facing society — diabetes and obesity.253
Some policymakers have introduced measures toreduce children’s exposure to phthalates, but they
are still found in plastic packaging.254 In Sweden, thegovernment has directly addressed this issue by
asking its chemicals agency to push for the use ofphthalates to be phased out in the country. In
dialogue with industry, the agency is proposing avariety of measures driving the substitution of themost harmful phthalates.255 In a number ofcountries, concerns have been raised about
regulatory frameworks, regarding knowledge gaps,
range of substances or applications covered andenforcement of legislation.256 REACH, for example,
exempts stabilisers (substances added to preserve
the stability of the polymer) from registration.257
Plastics applications may or may not be subject
to specific regulations, as is the case for food

8.2

packaging.258 These regulations are not necessarilyaligned between different product uses or (global)
regions. This fragmented regulatory situation,
combined with the complex plastics material
landscape, increases the lack of transparency
on plastics components. Within the broader
plastics industry there are several examples ofsubstances of concern causing issues, including
risks of adverse effects on human health and theenvironment, and barriers to safely closing theplastics material loops. An example of the former
issue is phthalates, which are most commonly used
as a plasticiser in PVC. Because of their potential
effect on human health, certain phthalates havebeen banned for use in children’s toys in both the
EU and US, impacting manufacturers, distributors,
retailers, and importers.259 An example of thelatter issue is addressed in a resolution adopted
by the European Parliament in 2015 on phthalates
preventing recycling: ‘The EU Commission should
not authorise the recycling of plastics that containthe banned PVC softener diethylhexyl phthalate(DHEP), because it poses a reproductive toxicity
threat to exposed workers and could render theirmale foetuses sterile.’260
Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) are anotherexample. Researchers, investigating the presenceof a recycled polymer waste stream from waste
electric and electronic equipment, have foundthese substances of concern in black plastics usedin kitchen utensils.261 According to a publicationof the Cancer Prevention and Education Society,‘These BFRs have presumably been introduced via
the plastic recycling process, as there would be noneed for them in virgin monomers intended for thispurpose, and they would be forbidden for use inarticles intended for use in food preparation.’262

A PALETTE OF MATERIALS WITHOUT SUBSTANCES OF CONCERN HELPSENABLE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE PLASTIC PACKAGING MATERIAL CYCLES

Substances of concern can create issues when
closing plastic packaging material loops —whether the plastic is recycled, composted, sent
to energy recovery, or leaks into the environment.
Avoiding substances of concern when designing
plastics, and also other packaging components
like inks and adhesives, with intended andunintended after-use pathways in mind, istherefore an important step towards rendering
those pathways safe and effective (see Figure 18).

8.2.1 Effective biological after-use processes
and reduced soil contamination risk
When closing the biological cycle, SoCs cancause problems for the initial after-use treatment
process itself as well as for further product phases.
The presence of heavy metals in packaging or
packaging components can hinder composting asvery high concentrations of, for example, lead or
cadmium used in pigments can inhibit the bacterial

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 81

growth essential for the process. In addition, thepresence of heavy metals in the final compost
is highly detrimental to the quality of compost
and leads to a reduction of the agronomic value
because of its eco-toxicological effects on future
plant growth.263 The cultivation of food crops incontaminated soil could potentially allow SoCs
to enter the food chain and pose a potential risk
to human health.264 ‘Among the possible negative
effects of compost utilisation, the potential releaseof toxic heavy metals into the environment andthe transfer of these elements from the soil into
the food chain generally are claimed as the most
relevant.’265
Governments and other standard-setting bodies
aim to manage these possible negative effects
with standards for plastics and packaging. So far
standards covering biodegradation, disintegration,and impact on the process and the resulting
compost have been introduced. Examples include
the EU requirements for packaging recoverable
through composting and biodegradation, and theInternational Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)
specifications for compostable plastics. These
contain criteria such as maximum levels for heavy
metals. Product certification by a recognised,independent third party should guarantee that
not only the plastic itself is compostable but
also all other components of the product, e.g.
colours, labels, inks, glues, and remnants of thecontent. Avoidance of SoCs in biodegradable
plastic packaging and the associated components
improves the composting process, reduces the riskof SoCs entering the food chain, and reduces costsof compliance with composting regulation.

8.2.2 Reduced risk of SoC contamination andconcentration through recycling andimproved yields and quality
Recycling has to deal with contamination fromall stages of the plastic product life cycle — SoCs
intentionally bound into the plastic as additives or
precursors, residues from catalysts used during
production, and a mix of unidentified substancesfrom different sources in recycling streams. This
SoC contamination could cause issues for therecycling pathway in different ways.
First, potentially harmful substances such as
catalysts, additives, or components of inks andadhesives are not necessarily completely filteredout when packaging is recycled, depending on
the efficiency of the decontamination stage of therecycling process.266 Hence, they remain in the loop
and can be transferred into newly manufactured
goods. When this happens, the additives do
not necessarily contribute to the intended
characteristics of the new material and, worse, may
in some cases pose a hazard to human health.267
The FDA confirms this risk in an industry guidance:‘The possibility that chemical contaminants inplastic materials intended for recycling may
remain in the recycled material and could migrate

into the food the material contacts is one of
the major considerations for the safe use of recycledplastics for food-contact applications.’268
For example, brominated flame retardants,
commonly used in plastics (such as (expanded)
polystyrene and polypropylene), textiles, andelectronic equipment, have been (or are scheduled
to be) phased out via regulation or on a voluntarybasis as they are associated with endocrine
disruption, reproductive toxicity, and cancer.269
However, some hazardous flame retardants arestill found in food packaging and as this presence
is possibly linked to plastics recycling, concerns
remain.270 Combined with limited transparency
on substances in the mix of materials being
recycled, contamination by SoCs could affect the(perceived) value of the recyclate. These concerns
are conceptually similar to, for example, bisphenol
A (BPA) issues in recycled paper.271 Also, substancesof concern could be released during the recycling
process.272
Furthermore, events in other recycling loops(such as ink concentration in recycled paper andthe associated de-inking processes) have led toconcerns about the possible risks posed by theconcentration of SoCs when recycling plastic
packaging. As very little plastic packaging gets
recycled in multiple closed loops today, there is still
uncertainty about these risks over a longer periodof time. Finally and coincidentally, some of the bestknown materials linked to substances of concern
also hinder recycling yields from a technicalperspective, which provides another reason to
design them out (see, for example, PVC in Chapter
4 on recycling for more detail).273 Innovation
towards plastic packaging without SoCs means thatmaterial loops can be closed safely and effectively.
This view is reflected in a green paper on plastic
waste by the European Commission: ‘Reducing
hazardous substances in plastics would increase
their recyclability. Gradual phasing out of those
substances in both new and recycled products
would also reduce risks associated with their use.’274

8.2.3 Reduced hazards, and potentiallycosts, posed by combustion
When burnt, plastic packaging can release or
create substances of concern, including but notlimited to the heavy metals contained in certain
additives, acid gases, dioxins that are a product ofincomplete combustion of chlorinated polymers,
and other persistent organic pollutants that cansignificantly affect human health.275 In addition,
combustion creates ultrafine particles that are toxic
regardless of the hazard potential of the original
material.276 These pollutants are identified by somepolicymakers, in the EU and United States forexample, who have enforced limits on emissions.
For all of these reasons, combustion with energy
recovery requires extensive pollution controls. In
advanced combustion plants, for example, ultrafine
dust is addressed with filters capturing up to82 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

99.99% of particles.277 In several parts of the world,
for example in China, pollution controls are notsufficiently robust resulting in growing concerns
over the pollutant emissions.278
Even if advanced pollution filters are in place —through multiple systems for gas cleaning requiring
additional investment and operating costs — itis still unclear how to characterise the hazards
posed by the remaining particles emissions forhuman health and the environment, especially incomparison to alternative after-use treatments.279
Moreover, waste incinerators generate ash thatis contaminated with SoCs like heavy metals andpersistent organic pollutants and that requires safe
disposal.280 According to the incinerator industry,
most incinerators generate 1 tonne of ash for every
4 tonnes of waste burnt.281 This includes smaller
volumes of air-pollution-control (APC) residue
and larger volumes of incinerator bottom ash(IBA). APC residue is considered hazardous waste
according to European legislation and requires asuitable disposal method after treatment, with costsof EUR 20–250 per tonne of residue.282 IBA could berecycled as a secondary aggregate in construction
applications, subject to specific conditions andgiven further treatment — otherwise it should be
disposed of in a suitable manner.283

8.2.4 Reduced serious hazards resulting fromleakage into the environment
Leakage of plastic packaging creates various
problems, as explained in Chapter 7. In addition topotential issues related to SoCs embedded within
the plastic material, which is the focus of thischapter, two other concerns are often discussed.
The first one is the physical presence of plastic
packaging debris which can cause entanglement,
digestion blockage, and suffocation.284 The second
one relates to microplastics, which can act like asponge and attract hydrophobic substances ofconcern from the surrounding (marine) environment
such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) andpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which
subsequently could enter the food chain if ingested
by marine animals.285
When considering SoCs embedded withinplastic packaging, concerns are raised asmonomers, additives, and non-intentionally added
substances can leach out of plastics and thedischarged leachate can introduce plastic-derived
contaminants into the environment.286 Examples
include vinyl chloride, styrene, BPA, and certain
phthalates, which all have adverse effects on humanhealth and the environment.287 When such SoCs arealso hydrophobic, they can be stored in biologicalsystems and theoretically bio-accumulate up thefood chain.288
The 150 million tonnes of plastics currently inthe ocean include approximately 23 million
tonnes of additives.289 While the speed at whichthese additives leach out of the plastic into theenvironment is still subject to debate, someestimates of this speed suggest that about 225,000
tonnes of such additives are released into theoceans annually. This could increase to 1.2 million
tonnes per year by 2050.290 Hence, the current
situation suggests more research is needed todevelop a comprehensive understanding of the risks
associated with substances derived from (marine)
plastics, including effects of complex long-term
exposure and of combined substances, in addition
to precautionary measures, where relevant.291
As discussed in Chapter 7, designing out substancesof concern is a prerequisite for the development of
bio-benign materials that safely decompose when(unintentionally) leaked, especially into the marine
environment.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 83

FIGURE 18: DESIGNING PLASTICS WITHOUT SUBSTANCES OF CONCERN HELPS ENABLE SAFE AND
EFFECTIVE AFTER-USE PATHWAYS

PLASTICPACKAGING
PRODUCTRECYCLING

BIOLOGICAL CYCLETREATMENTS (AD,COMPOSTING)

Broad range of range ofsubstances, both intended
ones like additives andunintended contaminants
like catalyst residues

COMBUSTION WITH
ENERGY RECOVERYUNINTENTIONALLEAKAGE

More transparency
on recycling process

Improved compostingprocess and compost
quality

Less SoCs to be
captured through air
pollution control

Reducedcontamination ofnatural systems

Reduced risk of
spreading SoCs inother materials or
environment

Reduced risk of
SoCs entering
food chain

Less harmful
residues in
by-products

Reduced risk of
SoCs entering
food chain

More transparency
on substances inrecyclates

Easier to meet
regulatory
requirements

Easier to meet
regulatory
requirements

Source: Project MainStream analysis; Expert interviews.

8.3

THE CONCERNS AND POTENTIAL UPSIDE ASSOCIATED WITH SOCS
MANAGEMENT ARE MOTIVATORS FOR STAKEHOLDER ACTION

While scientific evidence on the exact implicationsof substances of concern is not always conclusive,
some stakeholders are already taking action. They
are motivated by different reasons — regulators
are driven by the precautionary principle andpotential cost to society, and businesses anticipate
reputational risks and aim to capture potential
economic value.
Given the possible impact on human health andthe environment, some policymakers, academic
institutions, and NGOs are raising concerns about
SoCs. Regulators are also putting precautionary
measures in place, even though the evidence is not
yet conclusive on the potential impact of certain
hazards. This is in line with what is called theprecautionary principle:‘When an activity raises threats of harm to humanhealth or the environment, precautionary measures
should be taken even if some cause and effectrelationships are not fully established scientifically.
In this context the proponent of an activity, rather
than the public, should bear the burden of proof.
The process of applying the precautionary principle
must be open, informed and democratic andmust include potentially affected parties. It mustalso involve an examination of the full range ofalternatives, including no action.’292
This principle has been prescribed in the Treatyof Lisbon (article 191) as a base for the European
Union policy on the environment. It also now acts
as a guiding principle in other domains and serves
many different purposes for which international
action is required, such as climate change.293

84 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

Some experts claim that in the absence of direct
information regarding cause and effect, theprecautionary principle is critical to enhancing
reproductive and endocrine health.294 Besides
health concerns, a 2015 study concludes that
exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals(including those found in plastics) in the European
Union contributes substantially to disease anddysfunction, causing health and economic costs
exceeding EUR 150 billion per year (an estimatethat would have been even higher with a broader
analysis).295
The concerns raised have also motivated companies
to start taking measures in order to protect its own
brands. For example, in 2015, the Danish retailer
Coop Denmark stopped selling microwave popcorn
as its packaging contained fluorinated substances,which are endocrine disruptors and have potentiallyadverse health effects. This followed an earlier
phasing out of all fluorinated substances fromits own brands in 2014.296 Unilever committed toeliminating PVC from its packaging in 2009 given
the concern around its disposal. By the end of 2012virtually all Unilever packaging was free of PVC,
which was replaced with alternative materials thatprovide the same functional properties as PVC ata viable cost.297 After discovering issues with the
migration of printing ink chemicals, the global
food and beverage company Nestlé developed
a guidance note on packaging inks, lacquers,
coatings, and varnishes, specifying the substancesthat can be used in its packaging.298 Nestlé thenshared the document with vendors and upwards inthe packaging value chain.
Seeking to preserve value at risk and even create
growth, leading companies are introducing
alternatives for SoCs. Ways to capture sucheconomic value include anticipating changing
customer demand, reducing or avoiding hazardous
waste disposal costs, reducing compliance costsby being ahead of changing legislation, and derisking the production process. For example,
chemicals manufacturing company BASF reported
in 2014 that it had doubled production capacity
for its non-phthalate plasticiser Hexamoll DINCH to
200,000 tonnes per year at its Ludwigshafen site inGermany by opening a second plant. This decision
aimed to satisfy growing customer demand for
non-phthalate plasticisers and strengthen supply
security worldwide, as explained by the president of
BASF Petrochemicals: ‘In the last few years we havebeen experiencing a strong customer demand foralternatives to traditional phthalates and a market
change to non-phthalate plasticisers.’299
Further actions to address concerns and capture
potential upsides associated with SoCs include
expanded research on their effects, enhanced
transparency on plastics content, and continued
development of harmless alternatives with similaror better functionality and costs. Continuing
and expanding research is required to better
understand the effect of substances of concern

on human health and the environment in different
use and after-use pathways, including leakage
into the environment. Following the precautionary
principle, this research should be complemented
by enhancing transparency on the material content
of plastics and plastic packaging as well as byfocusing innovation on replacing substances ofconcern with harmless alternatives that have similaror even better functionality and costs. Substances
for which acute toxicity during use in plastics has
been proved, should be taken out of the current
system and disposed of in a suitable manner. In thisway human health is safeguarded, and an effective
after-use economy is enabled by closing thematerial loops safely.
This scientific progress, enhanced transparency
and material innovation could be supported
by lists of safe (classes of) substances and/or of widely recognised testing criteria (e.g.
endocrine disruption, eco-toxicology, combination
effects), which can build on existing initiatives
and frameworks (e.g. REACH). For example, theordinance by the Swiss Federal Department ofHome Affairs sets out the only substances thatcan be used to manufacture packaging inks.300
The Safer Chemical Ingredients List by the US
EPA is a list of chemical ingredients, arranged
by functional-use class, that the Safer Choice
Program has evaluated and determined to besafer than traditional chemical ingredients.301
CleanGredients® is another example of a databaseof chemical ingredients whose formulations havebeen pre-approved by the US EPA for use in Safer
Choice-labelled products to help manufacturers
find safer chemical alternatives.302 More generally,
the Cradle-to-Cradle certification process helps
designers and manufacturers understand how
chemical hazards combine with likely exposures
regarding potential threats to human health and theenvironment. 303

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 85

86 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMYPART IV DECOUPLING PLASTICS FROM FOSSIL FEEDSTOCKSTHE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 87

88 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

9 DEMATERIALISATION:
DOING MORE
WITH LESS PLASTIC
Dematerialisation is the act of reducing or even eliminating the need for packaging,while maintaining utility. In the light of past impact and future trends, and in addition
to the reuse options discussed in Chapter 5, three levers seem particularly promisingfor packaging dematerialisation: light-weighting; rethinking packaging design; andvirtualisation. While at the moment an across-the-board substitution of plastics byother packaging materials would likely not be beneficial, material substitution could be
a promising avenue for targeted applications and materials.

9.1

LIGHT-WEIGHTING IS AN IMPORTANT LEVER FOR DEMATERIALISATION,
BUT WITH LIMITATIONS FROM A SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE

The process of light-weighting packaging (i.e.
reducing its mass) has achieved considerable
material savings and will continue to be an
important lever to improve efficiency of individual
packaging products. However, from a systems
perspective, it can create a lock-in effect anddiminish overall system effectiveness.

9.1.1

Light-weighting innovation has alreadycaptured significant material savings,
and is expected to continue doing so

Many companies have light-weighted their plastic
packaging over the past 40 years, capturingsignificant material savings. Today, a one-litre
washing-up liquid bottle uses 64% less material
than in the 1970s, a 165g yoghurt pot 43% less, anda two-litre plastic fizzy drink bottle 31% less.304 Morerecently, in their 2011/2012 Sustainability Report,
Coca-Cola announced they had trimmed the weightof their 20-ounce PET bottles by more than 25%.305
Even after years of light-weighting, innovation isstill having an impact. Unilever recently announced
its MuCell Technology,306 which reduces material
density and hence the amount of plastic requiredby using gas injection to create gas bubbles in
the middle layer of the material. The technology
can be applied to bottles, sheets and films used
for consumer packaging. Unilever believes that, if
applied across all its categories, the technology
could save up to 27,000 tonnes of plastic packaging
every year.307
Such results attest to the remarkable innovation
capabilities of the plastic packaging industry andshould in itself be encouraged, but at the sametime it should be taken into account that the lightweighting trend, particularly the evolution towards
more complex formats, could have undesirable
consequences from a systems perspective.

9.1.2 Balancing efficiency and effectiveness,the light-weighting paradox exposes a
systems limitation
The light-weighting paradox is the tension between
efficiency savings in production and usage, andeffective after-use applications. If the after-use
value of the packaging is too low, less will berecycled and more will leak outside collection
systems. Reducing the material value of plastic
packaging thus runs the risk of aggravating
system leakage and creating a lock-in into a linear
infrastructure by disincentivising circular after-use
pathways.
This tension between efficiency and effectiveness is
exposed by light-weighting single-material formats,and, as further efficiency gains in single-material
formats have become harder to achieve, by the
emerging trend of more complex multi-material
packaging (see Box 4). These latter formats are
an ultimate example of the paradox as they areoften difficult to isolate in the waste stream andtheir complexity means recycling is not currently
viable.308 Innovation might offer a solution to these
multi-material after-use challenges by replicating
the utility and efficiency of multi-material
composites using a single material and/or bydesigning reversible adhesives so the multi-material
layers can be separated after use, or by developing
innovative reprocessing techniques. While multimaterial formats are a growing category, somemanufacturers are looking for alternatives. For
example, in 2014 Colgate-Palmolive committed todeveloping a recyclable toothpaste tube — current
tubes are usually made from (non-recyclable)
aluminium and plastic laminates.309 Anotherexample is the mono-material stand-up pouch
recently developed by Dow Chemical, together with
Printpack and Tyson Foods, which has improved
recyclability versus the existing multi-material
alternatives.310

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 89

9.2

RETHINKING THE PACKAGING CONCEPT ITSELF CAN BE AN IMPORTANT
DEMATERIALISATION LEVER

By making material savings a higher priority in thedesign brief, stakeholders across the supply chain
have found innovative solutions that reduce plastic
packaging volumes and capture economic value,highlighting the potential for imaginative rethinkingof the plastic packaging concept.
Several examples show how the rethinking of(plastic) packaging can create value. Mondelez(Cadburys) redesigned their boxed Easter Egg
range so that there was no longer a need for theinternal plastic thermoform. This simple change
resulted in a 10% reduction in weight and achievedsavings of over 1,000 tonnes of CO2e through more
efficient pallet and vehicle utilisation.311 Unileverredesigned their bottles of Vaseline hand lotion,
resulting in a reduction of pack weight of up to 15%
since 2003, depending on pack size, compared toprevious designs.312 In The Disappearing Package,

9.3

designer Aaron Mickelson demonstrates how
rethinking the packaging concept could work for anumber of packaged goods.313 One example is theredesigned packaging for laundry detergent pods,
which often are packed in a multi-material plastic
pouch. Instead he proposes a solution in which thewater-soluble pods would be stitched together
forming a sheet, so the user can tear off a pod eachtime and use them one-by-one. With the last pod,
the package itself is gone.
As consumer habits evolve there is increasing
sensitivity to real or perceived over-packaging —some shoppers prefer to buy concentrated soaps
instead of the diluted version requiring more plastic
packaging.314 Brands and retailers that take aninnovative approach to their packaging designs
could benefit from this trend.

NEW MATERIALS AND PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES COULD REPLACETODAY’S PLASTICS IN SELECTED PACKAGING APPLICATIONS

Plastics are often not the only packaging material
available. Traditional alternatives such as glassand metal typically offer better material loops,
but are sometimes less desirable than plastics
from a functional or life-cycle perspective — acase-by-case analysis is required. Next to the more
traditional alternatives, several new substitutes
continue to emerge, mostly based on innovations
in material or production technologies. As theyoften have specific advantages and disadvantages,
their ability to successfully replace plastic as a
packaging material depends on the application.
Hence, while an across-the-board substitution ofplastics by other packaging materials would likely
not be beneficial, material substitution could be
a promising avenue for targeted applications andmaterials.

9.3.1 Innovative materials
Some of the more recent alternatives to plastic
as packaging material use innovative materials,
enhancing their after-use properties for selected
applications, by being home compostable, watersoluble or even edible. In this way, these newmaterials can improve after-use pathways withoften similar performance as plastics during use.
Ecovative’s mushroom-based solution provides analternative to polystyrene. Its Mushroom® packaging
is literally grown to size using a crop waste
feedstock. The process uses low levels of energy,
produces no residue or waste (it is ‘additive’ in thatsense), and the end product is shock-absorbing,fire resistant, and 100% home compostable.315 Its
deployment in some of DELL’s bulky protective

packaging is one of the success stories in thecomputer technology giant’s quest for substitutepackaging materials.
Polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) is an alternative to plastic
creating additional benefits thanks to being watersoluble, as explained in the following two examples.
MonoSol has developed a range of PVOH-based
films that are used in many applications. Dishwasher
and laundry detergent tablets are common
applications that reduce waste and leakage by
individually wrapping portions of detergent in thewater-soluble film. MonoSol also manufactures
litter bags, medical laundry sacks and agrochemical
packaging.316 Splosh, the company that sells a
range of cleaning products in a refillable system,
distributes its active ingredients in PVOH sachets.317
By dissolving in water PVOH adds viscosity anda mild cleaning action to the mixed solution.318 By
applying such a format, Splosh uses packaging toenhance the utility of their container reuse model.
Made from the shells of crustaceans, chitosan
is an edible coating with excellent antimicrobial
properties. Laboratory tests have shown thata chitosan-based coating, applied directly tovegetables, delays spoilage without affecting
the quality of baby carrots.319 It has also been
demonstrated that chitosan-starch-blended films
have higher flexibility and elongation properties
than single polymer equivalents.320
Edible substitutes derived from organic feedstock
are also being developed to meet a growing
demand in the food packaging market. This
market encompasses the sector of disposable90 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

food wrappers, dishware, and cutlery at fast-foodrestaurants, hospitals, and other facilities, which isworth USD 20 billion in the United States alone.321
WikiCell technology is a skin-like membranethat maintains freshness equal to current plastic
packaging but is edible.322 The membrane ismade by binding molecules sourced from organic
feedstock with carbohydrates and has alreadybeen adopted for a range of Stonyfield Organic
frozen yoghurts sold through Whole Foods storesin Massachusetts, United States.323 Furthermore,
edible, biodegradable alternatives to single-use
plastic containers are being developed fromseaweed feedstock. In the United States, Loliware324
makes FDA-approved cups using seaweed
feedstock and organic sweeteners, flavours andcolorants. London-based Ohoo!325 has developed
a novel alternative to the water bottle, which The
Global Design Forum called one of ‘five ideas toshake the world’.326

9.3.2 Innovative production technologies
Innovative production technologies could reduce
the plastics volume required and simplify material
content by building form and function into a single
material. Nano-printing is such a technology thatallows layering at the micron scale, meaning amaterial can be built from the bottom up in a
LEGO®-like structure. Currently only available inlaboratory conditions, the technology enables
researchers to build various performance properties

9.4

into one single material by structuring the ‘bricks’
in different patterns. Today, to achieve given
properties like strength and flexibility manufacturers
vary the amount of resin used or, for more complex
properties like moisture and oxygen barriers, they
combine multiple resin types in layered structures.
Nano-printing could challenge these techniques
and alter the way we think about plastics, and othermaterials, by using one material to get a varietyof performance properties previously unavailable,
while using less material.
Nature could serve as inspiration for this innovation.
According to Alysia Garmulewicz of the Said
Business School in Oxford: ‘Cellulose is a simple
polymer which exhibits complex behaviours
when structured differently; nano-printing could
enable manufacturers to mimic those performanceoutcomes by integrating the form and function ofmaterials from the micro to macro scales.’327
This may seem a futuristic concept but, underlaboratory conditions, nano-printing is alreadyachieving remarkable results. Material scientists at
Harvard University can print at an accuracy of one
micrometre (one-thousandth of a millimetre) andhave already used the technology to print biologicaltissue interwoven with a complex network ofblood vessels.328 Given ever-improving degrees ofaccuracy, and provided adequate investment, there
could be scope for researchers to recreate theperformance of an organic compound like cellulose
in synthetic materials like plastics.

VIRTUALISATION IS INCREASINGLY DISRUPTING TRADITIONAL
DISTRIBUTION MODELS, REDUCING OR EVEN ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR
PACKAGING

Virtualisation is the act of delivering utility
virtually. It affects traditional distribution models,
resulting in reduced, or even eliminated, need forplastic packaging. Examples in which utility is(partly) delivered virtually include the widespreaduse of digital music, movies and books, as well as
emerging additive manufacturing technologies,
commonly known as 3D printing, all of whichchange the requirements and necessity of
packaging.
Progress in digital technologies, ranging fromincreased wireless internet access to falling costsof electronic devices, has boosted the adoptionof digital versions of CDs, DVDs, books andmagazines. Whether downloaded upfront or
streamed online, the utility of these digital products
is directly delivered to the customer in a virtual
way, disrupting traditional distribution of hardcopies and eliminating the need for packaging. The
increase of online shopping also affects traditional
distribution models by shipping the product directlyfrom the wholesaler to the consumer. In this way,
an intermediate player in the supply chain — theretailer — gets bypassed, simplifying distribution
and reducing the need for packaging.
Additive manufacturing — an umbrella term for afamily of technologies that use heat, light, binders,or pressure to build up materials layer by layer inaccordance with a Computer Aided Design (CAD)
file, and commonly known as 3D printing329 — couldchange how and where goods are produced, andin turn change the requirements for and necessityof packaging.330 Indeed, these technologies offer
the potential for local, small batch production andthus could enable a system of local manufacturingreferred to as distributed manufacturing that couldchange the role of packaging significantly. In thisnew paradigm the digital CAD file becomes thecommodity. Once in possession of a CAD, a user
could turn to any local manufacturer to have thedesign printed. Branding becomes virtualised andgoods are produced closer to where demand arises.
Today, the 3D Hubs platform connects users to a
network of 25,000 3D printers with spare capacity,
across 160 countries, giving over one billion people
access to a 3D printer within 10 miles of their home.
In 2014, all Fairphone cases sold in the company’sTHE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 91

online shop were printed by machines connectedto the 3D Hubs European network.331 While still
relatively small in scale, this is an example of amanufacturer adopting a disruptive new distribution
model. Phone cases that usually come packagedin plastics clamshells or pouches were maderedundant as the user collected the product fromthe point of production. Cost, speed, and accuracy
place limits on widespread adoption but there islittle doubt that additive manufacturing is a set oftechnologies with disruptive potential. The recent
expiration of a number of patents is expected totrigger a wave of innovation,332 and a future of
distributed manufacturing is not unimaginable.333
In this context, the demands on plastic packaging
could be significantly different. For example,
products travelling shorter distances throughfewer (or no) distribution centres would require
no packaging, or packaging with greatly reduced
protective and storage properties.

92 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

10 RENEWABLY SOURCED PLASTICS: DECOUPLING
PLASTICS PRODUCTION FROM FOSSIL
FEEDSTOCKS
Even with tighter loops, diminished cycle losses and increasing dematerialisation,
virgin feedstock is required to replace the plastics that are not looped back (e.g. due tocomposting or unintentional leakage). Sourcing such virgin feedstock from renewablesources — from greenhouse gases or biomass — helps decouple plastics production
from finite fossil feedstocks and reduce the greenhouse gas footprint of plastic
packaging.

10.1

RENEWABLY SOURCED PLASTICS ARE DERIVED FROM BIOMASS OR
GREENHOUSE GASES

Renewably sourced plastics decouple theproduction of plastics from finite resources bysourcing the virgin feedstock either from captured
greenhouse gases (GHG-based) or biomass (biobased).

10.1.1 Virgin feedstock from biomass (biobased feedstock)
As mentioned in Chapter 6, renewably sourced
plastics, including bio-based plastics, are notnecessarily compostable,334 and compostable
plastics are not necessarily bio-based. Bio-based
plastics can be produced from different generationsof feedstock:335
1st generation: Biomass from plants that are richin carbohydrates and that can be used as food oranimal feed (e.g. sugar cane, corn, and wheat).
2nd generation: Biomass from plants that are notsuitable for food or animal feed production. They
can be either non-food crops (e.g. cellulose) or
waste materials from 1st-generation feedstock (e.g.
waste vegetable oil, bagasse, or corn stover).
3rd generation: Biomass derived from algae, which
has a higher growth yield than either 1st- and2nd- generation feedstock, and therefore has been
allocated its own category.

10.1.2 Virgin feedstock from captured
greenhouse gases (GHG-based
feedstock)
In this report, ‘GHG-based plastics’ refers to plastics
for which the carbon used as a feedstock comesfrom the capture of greenhouse gases (GHG)
such as carbon dioxide and methane. While notyet rigorously defined, GHG-based feedstock has
already been coined ‘4th-generation feedstock’ in a
biofuel context.336
Methane and carbon dioxide can be captured frommultiple sources. Methane, on the one hand, can berecovered — typically mixed with carbon dioxide —from landfills (as landfill gas), anaerobic digesters(as biogas), or coal mines (coal mine methane).
Methane capture technology is relatively mature
although biogas yields could still be improved insome cases.337 For the production of PHA methane
does not need to be cleaned. This makes capturing
methane attractive as a feedstock for PLA
compared to buying natural gas at market prices(natural gas still requires cleaning).338
Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, can berecovered as a by-product of industrial andchemical processes and is typically mixed withhydrogen and oxygen in different concentrations
depending on the source.339 Suitable sources forcarbon dioxide capture include the cement industry,
the production of iron, steel, and petrochemicals,
and oil and gas processing.340 However, given thechemical stability of carbon dioxide, breaking it
into its components requires an efficient catalytic
system and a significant amount of energy — bothof which come at a cost.341
In contrast to carbon dioxide, methane can alreadybe captured and utilised, for example, for the
production of energy and electricity (as is often thecase in anaerobic digestion plants). Hence, in the
scenario of high utilisation of methane for energy
and electricity production, capturing carbon dioxidefor plastics production comes with the benefit thata higher share of overall GHG emissions could be
captured and utilised.342

10.1.3 Drop-ins and new materials
Based on their physical and chemical properties,
renewably sourced plastics can be divided into two
categories: drop-ins and new materials. Currently,
bio-based plastics can either be drop-ins (e.g. bioPE, bio-PET) or new materials (e.g. PLA, starchbased materials) whereas GHG-based plastics aremainly new materials such as PHA.
Drop-ins are identical, renewably sourced
counterparts to fossil-based plastics currently inuse (e.g. bio-based PE for PE, bio-based PET for
PET). They have the exact same chemical andphysical properties, which means that they canTHE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 93

be used seamlessly in the existing value chains
before and after use and deliver the same level of
performance: packaging companies do not needto change their equipment or processes to handle
the drop-ins; distributors and retailers get the same
performance; and drop-ins can be collected andrecycled alongside their fossil-based counterparts,
in the same systems.

wide range of packaging applications. Standard
PLA, for example, is used in applications such as
single-use food service packaging, yoghurt pots,or plastic bags.343 Some barriers344 (e.g. to CO2 andoxygen), mechanical, and processing properties
do not necessarily match those of fossil-based
plastics (e.g. PP, PET), but can be enhanced throughthe use of additives.345 New materials such as
PLA and PHA can theoretically be mechanicallyrecycled though they lose some physical properties
after several cycles. Laboratory research is being
conducted to develop new bio-based polymers thatcan be recycled without their physical properties
degrading.346

As shown in Figure 19, 60% of the plastics used
for packaging purposes today could technically be
replaced by drop-ins.
New materials have different chemical and physicalproperties to current fossil-based plastics (e.g.
PLA, PHA). These new materials can be used in a

FIGURE 19: OVERVIEW OF BIO-BASED DROP-INS AND NEW MATERIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR MAJOR RESIN
TYPES
KEY
AVAILABILITY OF A
BIO-BASED DROP-IN AT PILOTOR INDUSTRIAL SCALE

PLA, PHA (limited applications)

AVAILABILITY OF A
BIO-BASED DROP-IN ONLYAT LABORATORY LEVEL

OthersStarch-based, PHA

PVC
5Starch-based, PLA, PHA

PS
4

PP
21

OTHERS

4EXAMPLES OF BIO-BASEDALTERNATIVES FOR
SELECTED APPLICATIONS% of global annual
plastic packaging
production1

PE
51

Starch-based, PLA, PHA

PET15
PEF, PHA(limited applications)

1 Based on distribution in Germany and extrapolated to global volumes
Source: PlasticsEurope, An analysis of European plastics production, demand and waste data (2015); Industrieverband Kunststoffverpackungen, 2014/15 annual report(2015).

94 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

10.2 RENEWABLY SOURCED PLASTICS CAN HELP DECOUPLE PLASTICS
PRODUCTION FROM FINITE FEEDSTOCKS AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GASEMISSIONS
Besides decoupling virgin feedstock from finite
resources, renewably sourced plastics can, undercertain conditions, decrease carbon dioxide
emissions and potentially act as a carbon sinkthroughout their life cycle. For plastics sourced
directly from captured greenhouse gases such as
methane and carbon dioxide, this link is clear.347 For
bio-based plastics, this happens indirectly: plants
capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as
they grow and this carbon is then harnessed in thepolymer.348 The carbon footprint of PE, for example,
has been found to be -2.2 CO2e per kilogram ofbio-based PE produced compared to 1.8 CO2e
per kilogram of fossil-based PE produced.349 A
comparison of fossil-based and bio-based polymers
in terms of their greenhouse gas emissions anddepletion of fossil resources is shown in Figure 20(such an analysis has yet to be conducted for GHGbased feedstock).

FIGURE 20: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DIFFERENT POLYMERS IN TWO IMPACT CATEGORIESGREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSIN KG CO2 e/kg

10
8
FOSSIL-BASEDPOLYMERS1

6
4
2
BIO-BASEDPOLYMERS2

0
-2
-4
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

DEPLETION OF FOSSIL RESOURCES IN MJ/kg
1 PP = Polypropylene, HDPE = High density polyethylene, LDPE = Low density polyethylene, PET = Polyethylene terephthalate, PS Polystyrene, PC = Polycarbonate
2 Bio-based PLA (Polylactic acid), bio-based PHA (Polyhydroxyalkanoate), bio-based PE (Polyethylene)
Source: nova-institut.

10.3 BIO-BASED PLASTICS ARE CURRENTLY THE LARGEST RENEWABLY
SOURCED SEGMENT, BUT OFTEN HAVE CHALLENGING ECONOMICS AND
CAN HAVE UNDESIRED SIDE EFFECTS
In 2014, 1.7 million tonnes of bio-based plastics
were put on the market (approximately 0.6% of
total plastics).350 Some forecasts expect bio-based
plastics production to increase to 7.9 million
tonnes in 2019,351 mainly driven by the productionof drop-ins.352 The largest drop-ins in terms ofvolume are bio-PET and bio-PE (35.4% and 11.8% of
total bio-based plastics production353). The growthof these drop-ins is mainly driven by the demand oflarge companies, such as Coca-Cola — whose biobased PET bottles currently contain 30% bio-PET,
but which, it has been announced, will consist of
100% bio-PET in the future354 — and Braskem, whichuses bio-PE sourced from sugarcane in Brazil.355 The
biggest segments in the new materials category are
PLA and blends of biodegradable polyesters thatare produced on a large scale and expected to growfrom 0.2 million tonnes in 2014 to 0.4 million tonnes
in 2019.356
However, the production of bio-based plastics
is currently often not cost-competitive withfossil-based plastics. Bio-based plastics cancost significantly more than their fossil-based
counterparts,357 depending on the production scale,level of optimisation, and the material produced.
This price difference is driven by the cost of raw
materials and the processing steps required tocreate the feedstock (Figure 21). For example, bioPE and bio-PP sell at ~30% premium compared
to fossil-based PE358 and PP,359 and PLA is about
twice as expensive as PE though it can be pricecompetitive with polystyrene for some applications
because it requires thinner walls and hence can beused in smaller amounts.360

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 95

FIGURE 21: BIO- AND FOSSIL-BASED ROUTES FOR PRODUCTION OF POLYETHYLENE AND INDICATIVE
COSTS

BIO-BASED (CORN)
PROCESSING AND
RAW MATERIAL COSTSETHYLENEETHANOL

BIO-FEEDSTOCK

65 – 75

BYPRODUCT CREDITS(E.G. PROPYLENE,PYROLYSIS GASOLINE)

0–5

PE

10 – 1575 - 95

5 – 155 - 1560 – 90OIL
ETHYLENE

NAPHTHAPEFOSSIL-BASEDPROCESSING AND
RAW MATERIAL COSTS

130 – 140

BYPRODUCT CREDITS(E.G. PROPYLENE,PYROLYSIS GASOLINE)

90 – 100

Note: Processing costs excluding investment costs; based on 2014 US average.

5 – 15135 – 15590 – 100

35 – 65

Source: Project MainStream analysis; Expert interviews.

Fossil-based plastics supply chains have benefited
from several decades of operations at scale,
allowing for multiple cost optimisation exercises. In
contrast, bio-based feedstock supply chains are notyet scaled and hence many cost optimisation levers
are not yet available.
If price parity with fossil-based plastics is difficult
to achieve, it is possible that businesses andindividuals might be prepared to pay a moderate
price premium for bio-based (as well as GHGbased) plastics. Their reasons for paying more
for renewably sourced plastic could include thegreater flexibility of some materials in the after-use

phase (e.g. PLA is in theory both recyclable andcompostable); new performance characteristics;
and because end users might be prepared to pay
more for renewably sourced materials.
The impact of bio-based plastics, and the bioeconomy in general, on issues such as land use,competition with food and impacts on agriculturalprocesses as well as biodiversity have received
widespread attention.361 Fully assessing the impactof bio-based feedstock on these issues is a complex
endeavour. However, negative externalities could be
reduced by applying regenerative principles in the
agricultural processes, for example.362

10.4 GHG-BASED PLASTICS ARE A PROMISING SEGMENT, BUT VIABILITY AT
SCALE STILL NEEDS TO BE PROVEN
Using captured GHG as a feedstock decouples
plastic production from finite fossil-based
resources, utilises feedstock that is widely
available at low cost, and leverages plastics as a
GHG sink — potentially creating materials with anegative carbon footprint.363 GHG-based plastics
also come with the inherent benefit that feedstock
production does not have undesired side-effects
such as impact on land use or biodiversity. As aresult, the production of plastics from captured
GHG has been an important research topic forcompanies and academics.

Building on recent technological progress, somecompanies are now at a stage of scaling up theirproduction. Newlight, for example, has recently
signed a binding off-take agreement with Vinmar
for 1 billion pounds over 20 years (approximately
450 thousand tonnes).364 In addition, there is a‘possible expansion of the contract for delivery
to Vinmar of up to 19 billion pounds [8.6 million
tonnes] over the same two decades’ and production
capacity is planned to be scaled up with 50-million,
300-million and 600-million-pound facilities(approximately 23 thousand tonnes, 136 thousand
tonnes and 272 thousand tonnes respectively).

96 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

Novomer announced a ‘large-scale manufacturing
run of polypropylene carbonate (PPC) polyol’.365
Bayer MaterialScience plans to open a new plant in
2016, which will have a capacity of several thousand
tonnes.366
Currently, production of PHA from methane
capture (e.g. Newlight and Mango Materials) andpolyurethane from carbon dioxide capture (e.g.
Bayer MaterialScience) are most common. PHA
can be used in a wide range of applications (e.g.
cutlery, cups, films, bottles, surgical tools) andcould replace fossil-based plastics such as PE or
PET. Polyurethane is used, for example, to produce
foams.367 However, there are also other materials.
Novomer, for example, produces polyols (40%carbon dioxide), which can be used subsequently inthe polyurethane production process.368
Some companies claim that GHG-based materials
are cost-competitive with current fossil-based
plastics (e.g. PE, PP, PVC) at pilot level. However,production costs might increase if production atscale requires access to additional and potentiallyless profitable sources of GHG than those currently
available for smaller production batches. Hencecost-competitiveness and viability at scale still need
to be proven.369

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 97

APPENDICES

98 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

APPENDIX A. GLOBAL MATERIAL FLOW ANALYSIS:DEFINITIONS AND SOURCES
This analysis of the global flows of plastic
packaging materials is based on an aggregationof fragmented data sets, often with varying
definitions and scope. The analysis not only reveals
a significant opportunity to increase circularity

and capture material value, but also highlights theneed for better alignment of reporting standards
and consolidation on a global level. Specific efforts
could be dedicated to improving the data fromdeveloping markets with informal waste sectors.

FIGURE A1: DEFINITIONS FOR OVERVIEW OF GLOBAL PLASTIC PACKAGING MATERIAL FLOWS

1 Including domestically collected waste only (no imported waste), irrespective of where (locally or abroad) it is processed (landfilled, incinerated or recycled)
2 Landfills in low-income countries are considered dump sites according to the definitions used by J. R. Jambeck et al. Given small volumes this assumption does not
significantly affect numbers
Source: PlasticsEurope; Transparency market research.

FIGURE A2: DETAILED CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND GLOBAL PLASTIC PACKAGING
MATERIAL FLOWS (1/2)
GLOBAL PLASTIC PACKAGING, 2013

1 Jambeck et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into the oceans (2015)

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 99

FIGURE A2: DETAILED CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND GLOBAL PLASTIC PACKAGING
MATERIAL FLOWS (2/2)
GLOBAL PLASTIC PACKAGING, 2013, DEEP DIVE GLOBAL RECYCLING, INCINERATION/ENERGY RECOVERY
AND LANDFILL RATESFIGURE A3: SOURCES FOR GLOBAL PLASTICS PRODUCTION CALCULATION

1 1.6 mn tonnes reported by European Bioplastics (PA, PBAT, PBS, PE, PET, PHA, PLA, PTT and starch in plastic compounds) plus biobased thermosets (epoxies (1.2 mn
tonnes), polyurethanes (1.2 mn tonnes) and ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber (0.04 mn tonnes)) and cellulose acetate (0.9 mn tonnes)
2 Deloitte, Increased EU Plastics Recycling Targets: Environmental, Economic and Social Impact Assessment (2015)

100 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

APPENDIX B. BIODEGRADATION
Biodegradation is a bio-chemical process in whichmaterials, with the help of micro-organisms,
break down into natural elements (e.g. water,
carbon dioxide, new biomass). The availability ofoxygen determines which molecules the organiccarbon is converted to (partly into carbon dioxidein the presence of oxygen, partly into methane
without oxygen).370 There are schemes andstandards to certify that a material biodegradesin a specific environment within a specified
timescale. However, this does not mean thatsuch a material biodegrades in any environment
within a short timescale. Industrially compostablematerials, for example, are biodegradable (i.e.
they break down into natural elements with thehelp of micro-organisms) within the conditions
and timescale specified in industrial composting
standards. However, they do not biodegrade inhome composting [lower temperature] conditions
within the same timescale. Hence, the term
‘biodegradable’ is very broad and can easily be
misinterpreted. As pointed out by European
Bioplastics, ‘“biodegradable” by itself is not more
informative than the adjective “tasty” used toadvertise food products’.371

FIGURE B1: RELATION BETWEEN ENVIRONMENT AND SPEED OF BIODEGRADATIONENVIRONMENTTEMPERATURE
CONDITIONSMICRO-ORGANISMS
INVOLVEDPRESENCE
OF OXYGENANAEROBICDIGESTION(THERMOPHILIC)

INDUSTRIALCOMPOSTING

SPEED OFBIODEGRADATIONBACTERIA
AND FUNGIHOMECOMPOSTING

SOIL

FRESH
WATER

BACTERIA

MARINEWATER

DILUTED BACTERIA

Source: Building on B. De Wilde et al., Report on current relevant biodegradation and ecotoxicity standards (2013).

Oxo-degradable (or oxo-fragmentable) plastics
are conventional materials that are combined withadditives that trigger fragmentation of the plastics
triggered by heat or UV irradiation.372 As explainedin Box B1, oxo-fragmentable plastics are not provento biodegrade373 and the fragments could increase
the level of microplastics in the oceans and hence

their environmental benefits are questionable.
Oxo-fragmentable plastics are not recommended,until innovation unlocks safe and complete
biodegradability of such materials that is backed up
by a solid fact base and consensus of the scientificcommunity.

Box B1: Additive-mediated fragmentation (e.g. oxo-fragmentation)
Additive-mediated fragmentation entails that a conventional plastic is combined with special additives,
which trigger the degradation of the product.374 Additive-mediated conventional plastics can be either
oxo-fragmentable or enzyme-mediated plastics; as pointed out in a recent report by European Bioplastics,
these plastics do not biodegrade as defined by the norm EN 13432 for industrial composting (see Box 3 in
Chapter 3 for a more detailed discussion).375
Oxo-fragmentable plastics are conventional plastics (e.g. PE, PP, PS, PET, PVC) that are combined withadditives that trigger fragmentation of the plastics triggered by heat or UV irradiation.376 OWS, a company
specialised in anaerobic digestion, states in a report that ‘the term oxo-degradable (oxo-fragmentable)
plastics is being used for commercial reasons but is not yet standardised […] and not yet unanimouslyTHE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 101

utilised or accepted by the industry’.377
In the current state of the technology, oxo-fragmentable plastics do not seem to be a viable option. The
benefits provided by oxo-degradable plastics are being questioned. An extensive literature study by OWS
in 2013 could only find ‘two scientific articles indicating a considerable percentage of biodegradationof oxo-degradable material. All other articles reported no or only a (very) low level of biodegradation’.
Therefore they concluded that ‘the rate and level of biodegradation of oxo-degradable plastics are atleast questionable and irreproducible’ and that ‘oxo-degradable plastics do not meet the requirements ofindustrial and/or home composting’.378 Given the questionable benefits, and the potential damage thesematerials can cause if they enter the recycling stream, the EU Commission is debating a potential ban.379
Two UK supermarkets, Tesco and the Co-operative Food, have already stopped using oxo-degradable
bags.380

APPENDIX C. ANAEROBIC DIGESTIONIn the anaerobic digestion process organic matter isbroken down by a microbial population of bacteria
in the absence of oxygen.381 The carbon of thematerial is partly converted to biogas, which is a
mixture of carbon dioxide (25–50%) and methane(50–75%)382 and, depending on the composition of
the feed, several trace compounds.383
There are several types of anaerobic digestion
plants. They are mainly distinguished by theirtemperature (mesophilic between 35 and 40 °C andthermophilic between 55 and 60 °C), their moisture
content (wet below 15% of solid matter by weight,
dry above 15%) and their regime of digesters which
can be continuous or in batch.

Wet reactors are necessarily fed by a continuous
process. Wet mesophilic and dry (mesophilic andthermophilic) systems are the dominant systems
for the digestion of solid materials including foodwaste. As WRAP explains, ‘the system chosen will
largely depend on the feedstock to be processed.
For example, “high solids”, such as garden andfood waste mixture, tend to be processed at athermophilic temperature using the batch system,
while “low solids”, such as animal slurry mixed withindustrial and municipal food wastes, are more likely
to be processed at a lower temperature using acontinuous flow system.’384

FIGURE C1: PROCESS OF A DRY MESOPHILIC ANAEROBIC DIGESTERBAG OPENING(WHERE BAGSALLOWED)MIXING 70/30

STORAGE 40C(3-4 DAYS)ANAEROBICDIGESTION

BIOGAS
KITCHEN WASTE &COMPOSTABLE
FOOD SERVICE(WHERE ALLOWED)RESIDUES

WHOLE DIGESTATEOVERSIZEFRACTIONGARDEN WASTE

SHREDDINGACTIVECOMPOSTING(14 DAYS)

MATURATION(45 DAYS)

REFINING

MATUREQUALITYCOMPOST

Source: Process scheme of the Smartferm AD plan in California by Christian Garaffa in: Open-Bio, Review on standards for biogasification.

Currently, there is no standard to define
the biodegradability of materials in an AD
environment.385 The biodegradation behaviour of
products under aerobic composting conditions is
not identical to that under anaerobic conditions(e.g. different fungi activity, temperatures,
pretreatments) and hence a product that isdegraded under industrial composting conditions
might pass through an AD plant unaltered. For
example, a thick PLA packaging will go througha mesophilic AD plant without significant

biodegradation or disintegration and would be in
the digestate if spread onto the land. Therefore,
anaerobic digestion is often preceded by apretreatment step and followed by an industrial
composting step.

102 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMYGLOSSARY
Anaerobic
digestion (AD)After-use pathway

Anaerobic digestion is a process in which organic matter is degraded by amicrobial population of bacteria in the absence of oxygen.
A defined route that a material travels and the process steps it undergoes tobe redeployed or disposed of, following its initial use cycle. Materials not being
defined and controlled after-use pathways are referred to as ‘leakage’.

B2C

Business to consumer.

B2B

Business to business.

Bio-based

A material is bio-based if it is wholly or partly derived from biomass.

Bio-benign

A material is bio-benign if it is harmless to natural systems in case it
unintentionally escapes collection and recovery systems.

Biodegradable

Chemicalrecycling

Compostable

A material is biodegradable if it can, with the help of micro-organisms, break
down into natural elements (e.g. water, carbon dioxide, biomass).

A process to break down polymers into individual monomers or other chemical
feedstock that are then be used as building blocks to produce polymers again.

Compostable materials can be either industrial or home compostable, see below.

Cracking

In this report cracking refers to chemical processes that break down polymers
into a wide range of hydrocarbon products. This can include thermal processes(e.g. pyrolysis, gasification) or catalytic cracking processes.

Decomposition ordegradation

The process of molecular unbinding of a compound due to physical, chemical or
biological actions (e.g. UV exposure, temperature, microbial activity) that may
lead to the loss of the initial properties of the compound.

Dematerialisation

The act of reducing or even even eliminating the need for materials in a product,
while maintaining its utility.

Depolymerisation

In this report depolymerisation refers to chemolytical processes (e.g. hydrolysis,
methanolysis, glycolysis, aminolysis, etc) that break down polymers and produce
mainly the monomers from which they have been produced or other oligomers(short chains of monomers). These can then be used as building blocks forthe production of new polymers. These processes only apply to condensation
polymers like polyesters (e.g. PET, PLA) and polyamides (e.g. nylon).

Drop-in

Renewably sourced counterparts of fossil-based plastics currently in use (e.g.
bio-PE for PE, bio-PET for PET), with the same chemical and physical properties.

EPS

Feedstock

Fragmentation

Expanded polystyrene. A rigid tough product, made from polystyrene beads
that have been expanded and packed to form a closed cellular foam structure.

Any bulk raw material that is the principal input for an industrial production
process.

The process by which plastics break into pieces over time. A plastic canfragment into microscopic pieces while not being biodegradable.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 103

GHG-based

A material is GHG-based if it is wholly or partly derived from greenhouse gases
such as carbon dioxide or methane.

Greenhouse gas(GHG)

Any gaseous compound that is capable of absorbing infrared radiation. By
trapping and holding heat in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases are responsible
for the greenhouse effect, which ultimately leads to climate change.

Global plastics
protocol

A core set of standards and guidelines that establish design, labelling, marking,infrastructure and secondary market standards, allowing for regional differences
and innovation.

HDPE

High-density polyethylene, a type of polymer.

Home
compostable

Compostable in an uncontrolled environment (under naturally occurring
conditions).

Industriallycompostable

Compostable in a controlled environment.

LDPE

Leakage

Light-weighting

LinearMechanicalrecycling

Natural capital

Physical Internet

PET

Plastics

Low-density polyethylene, a type of polymer.

Materials that do not follow an intended pathway and ‘escape’ or are otherwise
lost to the system. Litter is an example of system leakage.

Design and manufacturing processes that reduce packaging mass.

Used in the context of the linear economy; linear refers to any process that
follows the straight line of take, make and dispose. Once a material has beenused for its intended purpose it is discarded and lost to the system.
Operations that recover after-use plastics via mechanical processes (grinding,washing, separating, drying, re-granulating, compounding), without significantly
changing the chemical structure of the material.
Natural capital refers to the world’s stocks of natural assets, which include
geology, soil, air, water, and all living things.

A concept (or vision) for an open global logistics system founded on physical,
digital, and operational interconnectivity.

Polyethylene terephthalate, a type of polymer.

Polymers that include thermoplastics, polyurethanes, thermosets, elastomers,
adhesives, coatings and sealants and PP fibres.

Plastic lumber(PL)

Construction material that can be used as an alternative to wood. Can be madefrom 100% recycled plastic.

Plastic packaging

A sub-set of plastic usage, referring to all packaging made of plastic material.
This report includes rigid (e.g. bottles, jars, canisters, cups, buckets, containers,
trays, clamshells) and flexible (e.g. bags, films, foils, pallet shrouds, pouches,
blister packs, envelopes) plastic packaging, for both consumer and industrial
purposes.

Polymer

Natural or synthetic macro-molecules composed of many repeated sub-units
bonded together; plastics are typically organic polymers.

104 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMYPPPolypropylene, a type of polymer.

PS

Polystyrene, a type of polymer.

PVC

Polyvinyl chloride, a type of polymer.

Pyrolysis

A process of thermochemical decomposition of organic material at elevatedtemperatures and in the absence of oxygen.

Recyclate

Waste material that is to be sold and used for recycling in manufacturing;
secondary material.

Renewablysourced

Derived from renewable sources, either biomass or captured greenhouse gases.

Resin

A natural or synthetic solid or viscous organic polymer used as the basis ofplastics, adhesives, varnishes, or other products.

Substances ofconcern

Chemical elements and their compounds that may have serious and often
irreversible effects on human health or the environment.

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 105

LIST OF FIGURES AND BOXES
Figure 1: Growth in global plastics production 1950–2014

25

Figure 2: Main plastic resin types and their applications in packaging

25

Figure 3: Plastic packaging material value loss after one use cycle

26

Figure 4: Global flows of plastic packaging materials in 2013

27

Figure 5: Forecast of plastics volume growth, externalities and oil consumption in a business-as-usual scenario

28

Figure 6: Ambitions of the New Plastics Economy 

31

Figure 7: Outline of a circular economy

32

Figure 8: Theoretical potential to capture material value

35

Figure 9: Distribution of plastics headquarters, production and leakage

38

Figure 10: Examples of promising enabling technologies for the New Plastics Economy and their level of maturity

41

Figure 11: Overview of recycling types

47

Figure 12: Recycling rates for different material-format combinations and geographies

49

Figure 13: Plastic packaging value chain

50

Figure 14: Areas for improvement in the logistics sector

63

Figure 15: Reuse systems in B2B packaging

63

Figure 16: The Physical Internet: A new logistics paradigm enabled by reusable and standardised packaging

65

Figure 17: Plastic sources and circular after-use pathways 

69

Figure 18: Designing plastics without substances of concern helps enable safe and effective after-use pathways

83

Figure 19: Overview of bio-based drop-ins and new material alternatives for major resin types

93

Figure 20: Environmental impacts of different polymers in two impact categories

94

Figure 21: Bio- and fossil-based routes for production of polyethylene and indicative costs

95

Figure A1: Definitions for overview of global plastic packaging material flows

98

Figure A2: Detailed calculations and assumptions behind global plastic packaging material flows (1/2)

98

Figure A2: Detailed calculations and assumptions behind global plastic packaging material flows (2/2)

99

Figure A3: Sources for global plastics production calculation

99

Figure B1: Relation between environment and speed of biodegradation

100

Figure C1: Process of a dry mesophilic anaerobic digester101

Box 1: The circular economy: Principles and benefits

32

Box 2: The role of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 34

Box 3: Different types of recycling 

47

Box 4: Multi-material packaging: Definition, advantages, and after-use challenges 48

Box 5: Selected examples of hard-to-recycle materials and corresponding solutions52

Box 6: Nylon 6: A potential inspiration source as a material with ‘infinite’ closed loops

56

Box 7: Establishing global standards: The case of shipping containers 64

Box 8: Mumbai tiffin boxes

67

Box 9: Bio-based, ‘biodegradable’ and compostable plastics are not the same 68

Box 10: The successful use of industrially compostable bags in Milan 70

Box 11: Substance of Concern (SoC)

79

Box B1: Additive-mediated fragmentation (e.g. oxo-fragmentation)

100

106 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMYENDNOTES
1This report uses the following definition of ‘plastics’:‘Polymers that include thermoplastics, polyurethanes,
thermosets, elastomers, adhesives, coatings and sealants
and PP-fibres.’ This definition is based on PlasticsEurope,
Plastics – The Facts 2014/2015 (2015).

2

A. T. Kearney, Plastics: The Future for Automakers andChemical Companies (2012).

3

A. Anrady and M. Neal, Applications and societal benefits ofplastics (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B,2009).

4

Ibid.

5

PlasticsEurope, taken from a chart in United Nations
Environment Programme, UNEP Year Book 2014: Emerging
issues in our Global Environment (2014), Chapter 8: Plastic
Debris in the Ocean.

6

Share of 26% is based on 78 million tonnes of plastic
packaging and 299 million tonnes of plastics production
in 2013 (Transparency Market Research, Plastic Packaging
Market: Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth,
Trends and Forecast, 2014–2020 (2015); PlasticsEurope,
Plastics – the Facts (2015)). Other sources claim a higher
share of packaging as a percentage of the plastics market,
but data on a global level on plastics and plastic packaging
in one publicly available source has not been found.
Acknowledging the need for further efforts to harmonise
data sets and reporting on a global level, this report builds
on the two public sources outlined above. As the share of
26% might be on the lower side, figures such as the size ofthe market and the material value to be captured could evenbe larger than currently presented.

7Euromonitor, Off-trade and retail plastics packaging volume(2015).

8This report uses the following definition of ‘plastic
packaging’: ‘Including rigid (e.g. bottles, jars, canisters, cups,
buckets, containers, trays, clamshells) and flexible (e.g. bags,
films, foils, pallet shrouds, pouches, blister packs, envelopes)
plastic packaging for ‘consumer’ and industrial purposes.’This is based on Transparency Market Research, Plastic
Packaging Market: Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share,
Growth, Trends and Forecast, 2014–2020 (2015).

2035 (February 2015); IEA, World Energy Outlook (2014);
J. Hopewell et al., Plastics recycling: Challenges andopportunities (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B, 2009); and PlasticsEurope, Plastics – the Facts(2015).
17

IEA, World Energy Outlook (2014).

18

The midpoint of the 4–8% range referred to in Section
1.2.2 is taken as the plastics’ industry share of global oil
production and growth rates of consumption in line withprojected industry growth of 3.8% annually 2015–2030(ICIS) and 3.5% annually 2030–2050 (International Energy
Agency World Energy Outlook 2015 (2015)). (BP notes that
increases in efficiency are limited BP, Energy Outlook 2035,(February 2015)).

19

In its central New Policies scenario, the International Energy
Agency in its World Energy Outlook 2015 projects that oil
demand will increase by 0.5% annually 2014–2040.

20

United Nations Environment Programme, Valuing Plastic:
The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing
Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry (2014). The
research was conducted by natural capital analysts Trucost
on behalf of the Plastics Disclosure Project (PDP). Bothfigures (USD 75 billion and USD 40 billion) only consider thenatural capital costs of consumer goods. By also consideringexternalities of other segments such as medical, tourism/
hospitality, transport etc. the natural capital costs would beeven higher. ‘Natural Capital can be defined as the world’s
stocks of natural assets which include geology, soil, air,water and all living things’ (Natural Capital Forum, http://
naturalcapitalforum.com/about/). Profit pool estimatedbased on plastic packaging market revenues of USD 260bn
and an average EBITDA margin range of 10–15%, the global
plastic packaging profit pool is estimated to be USD
26–39bn (sources: Transparency Market Research, Plastic
Packaging Market — Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share,
Growth, Trends and Forecast 2014–2020 (2015), Deloitte
Corporate Finance LLC, Packaging Update Q1 2015 (2015), U.
Reiners, Profitability of plastic packaging (The Third GPCA
Plastics Summit, 2012)).

21

J. R. Jambeck et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into theocean (Science, 13 February 2015).

22

2015-2025 projection of plastics in the ocean based onan estimated stock of 150 million tonnes in 2015 (Ocean
Conservancy and McKinsey Center for Business andEnvironment, Stemming the Tide (2015)), estimated annualleakage rates of plastics into the ocean by Jambeck et al. of
8 million tonnes in 2010 and 9.1 million tonnes in 2015 (J. R.
Jambeck et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean(Science, 2015), taken from the middle scenario), and annual
growth in leakage flows of plastics into the ocean of 5% up
to 2025 (conservatively taken below the 6.8% annual growthrate in ocean plastics leakage into the ocean between 2015
and 2025 as estimated in Plastic waste inputs from land into
the ocean, middle scenario). 2025-2050 projections basedon a plastics leakage into the ocean growth rate of 3.5% p.a.,in line with long-term GDP growth estimates (International
Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2015 (2015)).

23

Ocean Conservancy, International Coastal Cleanup (2014).
Excludes cigarette butts from calculation. D. Barnes et al.,Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global
environments (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B, 2009).

9Euromonitor, Off-trade and retail plastics packaging volume(2015).

10

Transparency Market Research, Plastic Packaging Market:
Global Industry Analysis (2015).

11

Based on 4.8% growth rate 2013–2020 (Technavio forecastof April 2015 for market growth over the period 2014–2019);
4.5% for 2021–2030 (ICIS), and 3.5% for 2031–2050, using a
conservative assumption of growth beyond 2030 following
the long-term trend in global GDP growth of 3.5% annually(International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2015
(2015)).

12

International Council of Forest and Paper Associations,
Statement on Paper Recycling (2014).

13

United Nations Environment Programme, Recycling Rates ofMetals: A Status Report (2011).

14

Polyethylene terephthalate. This resin is commonly used inbeverage bottles and many injection-moulded consumer
product containers. It is clear and tough, and has goodgas and moisture barrier properties (source: American
Chemistry Council).

24

Ocean Conservancy and McKinsey Center for Business andEnvironment, Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies fora plastic-free ocean (2015).

15

Project MainStream analysis.

25

16

For this analysis, natural gas liquids are included in theoil category. This is in line with the definitions used by
the International Energy Agency. Project MainStream
analysis drawing on sources including BP, Energy Outlook

By weight. 2015-2050 projection of plastics in the ocean
as described in Endnote 22. 2015-2050 projections of fishstocks based on an estimated 812 million tonnes (Ocean
Conservancy, based on S. Jennings et al., Global-scalepredictions of community and ecosystem properties from
simple ecological theory (Proceedings of the Royal Society,2008)). The stock of fish is assumed to stay constantTHE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 107

between 2015 and 2050 (a conservative assumption giventhat fish stocks could decline as a result of overfishing).
26

Ocean Conservancy and McKinsey Center for Business andEnvironment, Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies fora plastic-free ocean (2015).

27

United Nations Environment Programme, Valuing Plastic:
The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing
Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry (2014).

28

European Commission, Directorate General for Environment,
website, Our Oceans, Seas and Coasts: 10: Marine
Litter (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/goodenvironmental-status/descriptor-10/index_en.htm). Basedon exchange rate of EUR 1 to USD 1.10 (10 December 2015).

29

Project MainStream calculation based on data fromInternational Energy Agency (IEA), CO2 emissions from fuelcombustion (2014). It assumes that half of plastics industry
CO2 emissions are generated through fuel combustion andthat, of the other half used as feedstock, 15% generates
CO2 emissions through incineration. Does not include
CO2 emissions from the use of (dry) natural gas or thegeneration of electricity used to run the processes involvedin plastic production.

(Environmental Health Perspectives, 2015); K. M. Rodgers,
Phthalates in Food Packaging, Consumer Products, andIndoor Environment (Toxicants in Food Packaging andHousehold Plastics, Molecular and Integrative Toxicology,
Springer, 2014); K. C. Makris et al., Association between
water consumption from polycarbonate containers andbisphenol A intake during harsh environmental conditionsin Summer (Environmental Science & Technology 47, 2013);
R. A. Rudel et al., Food Packaging and Bisphenol A andBis (2-Ethyhexyl) Phthalate Exposure: Findings from a
Dietary Intervention (Environmental Health Perspectives
119, 2011); J. L. Carwile et al., Polycarbonate Bottle Use andUrinary Bisphenol A Concentrations (Environmental Health
Perspectives 117, 2009); E. L. Teuten et al., Transport andrelease of chemicals from plastics to the environment andto wildlife (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society:
Plastics, the environment and human health, 2009); C.
Kubwabo et al., Migration of bisphenol A from plastic baby
bottles, baby bottle liners and reusable polycarbonate
drinking bottles (Food Additives & Contaminants 26, 2009).
37

Assumes an average of 15% additives as share of plastics
across plastic types.

38

Assumes a leaching rate of 1%, following an estimates rangeof 0.16%–2% (OECD, Emission scenario document on plastic
additives (2009); T. Rydberg et al., Emissions of Additives
from Plastics in the Societal Material Stock: A Case Study
for Sweden (Global Risk-Based Management of Chemical
Additives I, The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry 18,2012).

30

United Nations Environment Programme, Valuing Plastic:
The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing
Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry (2014).

31

J. Hopewell et al., Plastics recycling: Challenges andopportunities (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B, 2009).

39

Denkstatt, The potential for plastic packaging to contributeto a circular and resource-efficient economy (Identiplast,2015).

32

M. Patel, Cumulative Energy Demand and Cumulative CO2Emissions for Products of the Organic Chemical Industry(Energy, 2003).

40

33

The discussion here is on direct CO2 emissions and does
not include indirect emissions (those associated with thegeneration of any electricity used in the manufacturing
process). It also does not consider the full life-cycle
emissions, which include, for example, those related tothe extraction, refining and transportation of the plastic
feedstock.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, SUN and McKinsey Center
for Business and Environment, Growth Within: A Circular
Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe (2015). Based on
exchange rate of EUR 1 to USD 1.10 (10 December 2015).

41

Denkstatt, The potential for plastic packaging to contributeto a circular and resource-efficient economy (Identiplast,2015).

42

R. Meller et al., From Horizontal Collaboration to the PhysicalInternet: Quantifying the Effects on Sustainability and Profits
When Shifting to Interconnected Logistics Systems, Final
Research Report of the CELDi Physical Internet Project,
Phase I (2012).

43

City of Milan, Food waste recycling in a densely populated
European city: the case study of Milan (2015).

International agreement to limit global warming to no morethan 2°C by 2100 compared to pre-industrial levels wasreached at the COP16 of the UNFCCC in 2010 at Cancun(see http://unfccc.int/key_steps/cancun_agreements/
items/6132.php) and reinforced at COP21 in Paris in 2015.
The assumption is that CO2 emissions from plastics will
increase at 3.8% annually 2013–2030 and at 3.5% annually
2030–2050 (source: ICIS and International Energy Agency,
World Energy Outlook 2015 (2015)). A further assumption
is that the proportion of oil used as plastics feedstock (3%)
incinerated annually will increase from 15% in 2015 to 20% in
2050 under business as usual. Including plastics incineration
in total combustion emissions is supported by the inclusionof municipal waste as a fuel in total CO2 emissions from fuelcombustion (International Energy Agency, CO2 Emissions
from Fuel Combustion, 2015, and IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2006). The carbon
budget for CO2 from fuel combustion is set with reference
to the IEA 450 scenario (consistent with 2°C) CO2 emissions
from fuel combustion as set out in International Energy
Agency, World Energy Outlook 2015, and to the total CO2
budget of 1,075 Gt CO2 as described in Carbon Tracker
Initiative, Unburnable Carbon 2013: Wasted capital andstranded assets (2013).

44

Ocean Conservancy and McKinsey Center for Business andEnvironment, Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies fora plastic-free ocean (2015).

45

J. R. Jambeck et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into theocean (Science, 13 February 2015).

46

Assuming a recycling rate of 55% and the following growthforecast: 4.8% p.a. between 2013–2020 (Technavio); 4.5%
p.a. between 2020 and 2030 (ICIS); 3.5% p.a. between
2030 and 2050 (IEA WEO 2015 GDP forecast 2013–2040,
assumed to continue until 2050).

47

Newlight Technologies website, ‘AirCarbon™ has been
independently-verified on a cradle-to-grave basis as acarbon-negative material, including all energy, materials,
transportation, product use, and end-of-life/disposal
associated with the material.’ (http://newlight.com/
aircarbon/).

48

United Nations Environment Programme website, Life Cycle
Assessment (http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/
Consumption/StandardsandLabels/MeasuringSustainability/
LifeCycleAssessment/tabid/101348/Default.aspx).

S. H. Swan et al., First trimester phthalate exposure andanogenital distance in newborns (Human Reproduction,
Oxford Journals, 2015); Y. J. Lien et al., Prenatal exposure
to phthalate esters and behavioral syndromes in children
at 8 years of age: Taiwan Maternal and Infant Cohort Study

49

Ben Webster, Electric cars may not be so green after all, says
British study (The Times/The Australian, 10 June 2011). Other
press reactions to the study differed in their conclusions,

34

35

36

This does not consider a potential shift towards combustion
in a business-as-usual scenario (in the case that landfilling is
becoming less popular), which would result in a higher shareof the carbon budget in 2050. On the other hand, the shareof the carbon budget in 2050 could be lowered, if energy
input for production shifts towards more renewable sources.

108 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

which shows the sensitivity of life cycle assessments todifferent assumptions.

in the US (December 2015; www.no-burn.org/polystyrenefood-ware-bans-in-the-us).

50

Based on current volume and virgin feedstock prices asdetailed in Figure 8.

70

The Department of the City and County of San Francisco
website, http://www.sfenvironment.org/zero-waste

51

Direct emissions from recycling: 0.3–0.5 tonne CO2e
per tonne of plastics recycled, and 1.6–3.3 tonnes CO2e
per tonne of plastics produced from fossil-based virgin
feedstock, depending on plastic resin type. (Deloitte,
Increased EU Plastics Recycling Targets: Environmental,
Economic and Social Impact Assessment – Final Report(2015)).

71

J. Nash et al., Extended Producer Responsibility in the
United States: Full Speed Ahead? (2013).

72

Product Stewardship Institute; http://www.
productstewardship.us73

M. Burke, U.S. House approves bill to ban plastic microbeads(The Detroit News, December 2015; http://www.detroitnews.
com/story/news/politics/2015/12/07/house-bill-ban-plasticmicrobeads).

74

PlasticsEurope, Plastics – The Wonder Material (September
2013; http://www.plasticseurope.org/documents/
document/20131017112406-10_plastics_the_wonder_
material_final_sept_2013.pdf).

75

J. R. Jambeck et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into theocean (Science, 13 February 2015).

76

Non-exhaustive list of examples: RECOUP, Plastic packaging:
Recyclability by design – The essential guide for all those
involved in the development and design of plastic packaging(2015); The Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers,
The APR DesignTM Guide for Plastics Recyclability (1994,
last revised 2014); Plastic Recyclers Europe, Recyclass tool
(http://www.plasticsrecyclers.eu/recyclass); Morrisons’
packaging environmental assessment form developed incollaboration with RECOUP and reported on by WRAP.
GreenBlue, Design guidelines for sustainable packaging(2006). The Consumer Goods Forum, Global Protocol on
Packaging Sustainability 2.0 (2011).

77‘In principle all types of (thermo-) plastics can bemechanically recycled with little or no quality impairment.’,
PlasticsEurope website, http://www.plasticseurope.org/

78

Project MainStream analysis.

79

The quality loss is due to (1) contamination or mixing ofdifferent polymers, polymer grades and/or additives and(2) thermal degradation (reduced average molecular weight
due to breaking of polymer chains) during reheating/smelting.

80

Project Mainstream analysis; Swissinfo website, Switzerland’splastic bottle mountain (28 April 2015; http://www.
swissinfo.ch/eng/weak-point_switzerland-s-plastic-bottlemountain/41392488).

81

Widely agreed consensus based on various interviews withexperts and business leaders in the sector. It is not due to a
gap in virgin material prices, as the most recycled plastics
such as PET and PE have lower virgin material prices thanless recycled plastics such as PP and PS.

82

SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association, Compatibilizers:
Creating New Opportunity for Mixed Plastics (2015).

83

2014 data from Consultic study reported in PlasticsEurope,
Plastics – the Facts 2015 (2015). Please note that recycling
rates are reported very differently in different countries.
Most often the reported numbers represent the share ofmaterials sent to recycling. This is not equal to the share ofafter-use plastics that is actually recycled.

84

Plastic packaging recycling rate of 39.5% provided by
PlasticsEurope upon request.

85

The 14% recycling rate is based on the tonnage of material
going into recycling industry. Due to contamination,
moisture and sorting mistakes, not all of this weight isbeing eventually recycled. Deloitte, Increased EU Plastics
Recycling Targets: Environmental, Economic and Social
Impact Assessment: Final Report, prepared for Plastic
Recyclers Europe (2015). Data (for 2012) on the recycling
yields by plastic resin were provided by European recyclers
through PRE. Data by resin derives from the actual recycling
operations currently available in EU-28 and reflect the52

4Tech and LCAworks, Environmental assessment of
Braskem’s biobased PE resin (2013).

53

Strategy& (formerly Booz & Company), Plastic Packaging –the sustainable and smarter choice (2015).

54

Katy Stech, U.S. Distributor of Sigg Bottles Enters Chapter
11 (The Wall Street Journal, 23 May 2011; http://blogs.wsj.
com/bankruptcy/2011/05/23/u-s-distributor-of-sigg-bottlesenters-chapter-11/).

55

The Economist, We woz wrong (16 December 1999; http://
www.economist.com/node/268752).

56

Vaclav Smil, Energy at the Crossroads: Global Perspectives
and Uncertainties (The MIT Press, 2003).

57

Rick Lingle, Tyson Foods debuts the first 100 percent
recyclable stand-up pouch (Packaging Digest, 20 October
2013; http://www.packagingdigest.com/flexible-packaging/tyson-foods-debuts-first-100-percent-recyclable-standpouch).

58

http://www.polymark.org/ and interview with Patrick Peuch(Petcore Europe), who is involved in the Polymark project:
Polymark – Novel Identification Technology for High-value
Plastics Waste Stream (FP7-SME-AG-2012-311177).

59

WRAP, Optimising the use of machine readable inks for foodpackaging sorting (2014).

60

ioniqa, PET Cradle-to-Cradle solution ‘…a game changer…’ (9December 2013; www.ioniqa.com/pet-recycling/).

61

European Commission, Closing the Loop: An Ambitious EU
Circular Economy Package (2015).

62

The Economist, In the Bin (April 2015; http://www.economist.
com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/04/recyclingamerica).

63

Michigan Department of Treasury, Bottle Deposit
Information Chart, 1990–2013 (2013).

64European Commission, Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging
and Packaging Waste (2015).

65

Jane Onyanga-Omara, Plastic bag backlash gains
momentum (BBC News, 14 September 2013; www.bbc.co.uk/
news/uk-24090603).

66

Emile Clavel, Think you can’t live without plastic bags?
Consider this: Rwanda did it (The Guardian, 15 February
2014; http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/
feb/15/rwanda-banned-plastic-bags-so-can-we).

67

Jonathan Watts, China plastic bag ban ‘has saved 1.6m
tonnes of oil’ (The Guardian, 22 May 2009; http://www.
theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/22/china-plasticbags-ban-success).

68

The Guyana Times, The Ban on Styrofoam (October 2015;
http://www.guyanatimesgy.com/2015/10/24/the-ban-onstyrofoam/).

69

The DC.gov Department of Energy & Environment website,
http://doee.dc.gov/foam; GAIA, Polystyrene food-ware bans

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 109

efficiencies in processing different plastic resins received
from one or more waste streams to the recycling plants.
86

GreenBlue, Design guidelines for sustainable packaging(2006).

Average price discount estimate of 50% is based oncomparison of prices for virgin and recycled plastics (2015sample averaged over 6 resin types, Plastic News) andexpert interviews.

100Interview with EPBP (November 2015).

101

The Consumer Goods Forum, Global Protocol on Packaging
Sustainability 2.0 (2011).

87

INSEAD, Extended Producer Responsibility: Stakeholder
Concerns and Future Developments (2014); http://www.
ecoemballages.fr/

102

88

Plastic Recycling Machine, Professional manufacturer of PET
bottle washing lines (http://www.petbottlewashingline.com/
pvc-in-pet-bottle-recycling/); some of the world’s biggest
soft drinks companies even request PVC contaminationlevels below 0.001%. Waste Management World, Tackling
Complex Plastic Recycling Challenges (16 July 2015).

WRAP, Recovering value from MRFs: A review of key studies
relating to the specification, operation and costs of Materials
Recovery Facilities; PwC, Synthèse de l’expérimentation dutri et du recyclage des emballages ménagers en plastiqueautres que bouteilles et flacons. Rapport 2: Projet dedéveloppement du recyclage des emballages ménagers enplastique (2014).

103

PwC, Synthèse de l’expérimentation du tri et du recyclage
des emballages ménagers en plastique autres que bouteilles
et flacons. Rapport 2: Projet de développement du recyclage
des emballages ménagers en plastique (2014).

104

C. Cimpan, H. Wenzel et al., Insight into economies of scale
for waste packaging sorting plants (2015).

105

Zero Waste Taskforce, Charter for Household Recycling in
Scotland, (9 December 2015)

106

C. Cimpan, H. Wenzel, et al., Insight into economies of scale
for waste packaging sorting plants (2015).

107

PwC, Synthèse de l’expérimentation du tri et du recyclage
des emballages ménagers en plastique autres que bouteilles
et flacons. Rapport 2: Projet de développement du recyclage
des emballages ménagers en plastique (2014).

89

90

Marks & Spencer, Food Packaging Charter, Plan A(2008); Liz Gyeke, M&S meets ‘Plan A’ packaging
target (PackagingNews, 8 June 2012; http://www.
packagingnews.co.uk/news/marks-and-spencer-packagingtarget-08-06-2012); Unilever, Unilever Sustainable Living
Plan, Progress report 2012 (2012); http://www.chej.org/
pvcfactsheets/PVC_Policies_Around_The_World.html;
http://www.en.nvc.nl/news/item/nl-pvdc-valt-onder-banpvc-in-supermarktverpakkingen/
Benchmark for Germany; Industrieverband
Kunststoffverpackungen, Jahresbericht 2014/15 (2015).

91

70% of EPS in Europe is used in building and construction(source: http://www.plasticseurope.org/).

92

Ecovative website, http://www.ecovativedesign.com/

108

93

Sealed Air, Restore® Mushroom® Packaging (http://sealedair.
com/product-care/product-care-products/restoremushroom-packaging).

Interview with Peter De Boodt, Vice President Marketing,
SUEZ environnement SAS.

109

94

UFP Technologies, EPS Alternative (http://www.moldedpulp.com/environment/eps-alternative.html).

Ross Arbes and Charles Bethea, Songdo, South Korea: Cityof the Future? (27 September 2014; http://www.theatlantic.
com/international/archive/2014/09/songdo-south-koreathe-city-of-the-future/380849/).

95

Liz Gyeke, M&S meets ‘Plan A’ packaging target(PackagingNews, 8 June 2012).

110

96

Leigh Stringer, New York restaurants scramble foralternatives after city bans foam packaging (The Guardian,
22 January 2015; http://www.theguardian.com/sustainablebusiness/2015/jan/22/new-york-styrofoam-ban-foampackaging-food-restaurants); Surfrider Foundation website,
Polystyrene Ordinances (http://www.surfrider.org/pages/
polystyrene-ordinances).

For average conditions of MSW incineration in Europe,
the net CO2 benefit is negative. Denkstatt, Criteria foreco-efficient (sustainable) plastic recycling and waste
management – Fact based findings from 20 years ofDenkstatt studies, presentation (11 September 2014).

111

AEA Technology, Waste Management Options and Climate
Change, Final report to the European Commission (2001).

112

Based on European data. Denkstatt, Criteria for eco-efficient(sustainable) plastic recycling and waste management –Fact based findings from 20 years of Denkstatt studies,
Background report for associated presentation (2014).

113

http://www.gruener-punkt.de/en/

114

Expert interview.

115

Minder streng sorteren met paarse pmd-zak (Het Laatste
Nieuws, 8 October 2015).

116

Expert interview with TOMRA CEO, Stefan Ranstrand.

117

R. Uepping & F. Durand, Tackling Complex Plastic Recycling
Challenges (Waste Management World, 16 July 2015);
interview with TOMRA sorting experts.

118

Tom Wyke, Driverless truck is tested on the German
autobahn for the first time using radar and cameras to stopit crashing into other motorists (Daily Mail, 4 October 2015).

119

Ross Arbes and Charles Bethea, Songdo, South Korea: Cityof the Future? (27 September 2014; http://www.theatlantic.

97

98

99

The Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers, The APR
DesignTM Guide for Plastics Recyclability (1994, last revised2014).
RECOUP, Recyclability by design – The essential guide forall those involved in the development and design of plastic
packaging (2015).
Non-exhaustive list of examples: RECOUP, Plastic packaging:
Recyclability by design – The essential guide for all those
involved in the development and design of plastic packaging(2015); The Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers,
The APR DesignTM Guide for Plastics Recyclability (1994,
last revised 2014); Plastic Recyclers Europe, ‘Recyclasstool’, http://www.plasticsrecyclers.eu/recyclass; Morrisons’
packaging environmental assessment form developed incollaboration with RECOUP and reported on by WRAP.

110 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

com/international/archive/2014/09/songdo-south-koreathe-city-of-the-future/380849/).

Polymark — Novel Identification Technology for High-value
Plastics Waste Stream (FP7-SME-AG-2012-311177).

120

Refer to, for example, the Biomimicry Institute website:www.biomimicry.org

143

WRAP, Optimising the use of machine readable inks for foodpackaging sorting (2014).

121

The ‘6ix Again’ programme initiated at BASF and now partof Honeywell Nylon Inc., has been in operation since 1994
(source: www.nylonplasticrecycling.com).

144

QCP website: http://www.qcpolymers.com/

145

Expert interview with Huub Meessen, CEO of QCP.

122

ECO USA website: www.nylonplasticrecycling.com

146

sAPK website: https://www.apk-ag.de/en/

123

Russ DeLozier, Re-Start of Evergreen nylon Recycling, CARE
Conference (2006).

147

124

Aquafil, Environmental product declaration for ECONYL®
polymer (2013).

D. Achilias et al., Recent Advances in the Chemical Recyclingof Polymers (PP, PS, LDPE, HDPE, PVC, PC, Nylon, PMMA),
Material Recycling: Trends and Perspectives (2012).

148

125

Aquafil, 2012 sustainability report (2013).

Expert interviews with European PET Bottle Platform(EPBP), European Plastic Recyclers (EUPR).

126

0.6% of the German plastic packaging market;
Industrieverband Kunststoffverpackungen, Jahresbericht
2014/15 (2015).

149

ioniqa, PET Cradle-to-Cradle solution ‘…a game changer…’ (9December 2013; www.ioniqa.com/pet-recycling/).

150

D. Achilias et al., Recent Advances in the Chemical Recyclingof Polymers (PP, PS, LDPE, HDPE, PVC, PC, Nylon, PMMA),
Material Recycling: Trends and Perspectives (2012).

151

Ibid.

152

Based on several expert interviews.

153

Zero Waste Scotland, Plastics to oil products – Final report(2013).

127

Dr Walter Goetz, Polyamide for flexible packaging film,
PLACE conference (2003).

128

Nylon-6 Promotional Group website, www.npg-6.com,
example: http://www.dsm.com/markets/packaging-graphicarts/en_US/products-brands/akulon.html

129

www.biomimicry.org

130

Janine Benyus talk on www.core77.com

154

Enval website: http://www.enval.com/

131

F. Ciciriello, G. Costanzo et al., Molecular Complexity Favours
the Evolution of Ribopolymers (Biochemistry 47/9, 2008),
2732–2742.

155

Interview with US BCSD (2015).

156

Zero Waste Scotland; The Materials Brokerage Service(2015).

157

SUEZ Environment, Press release: SUEZ Environnement
opens Plast’Lab® (1 December 2014, http://newsroom.
SUEZ-environnement.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CPInauguration-Plastlab_01_12-2014_VA.pdf).

158

Philips, Sustainable Packaging Material Policy (2015; http://
www.philips.com/shared/assets/global/sustainability/
Packaging-Policy.pdf).

159

Colgate, 2015–2020 Sustainability Strategy (2014; www.
colgate.com); IKEA, People & Planet Positive IKEA Group
Sustainability Strategy for 2020 (2014).

160

European Commission, Public Procurement (November
2015; http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/publicprocurement/index_en.htm).

161

Plastic ZERO, Green Public Procurement Manual on
Plastic Waste Prevention (2014); Adelphi, Strategic Public
Procurement in Europe — Final Report to the European
Commission (2011).

132

I. Agnarsson et al., Bioprospecting Finds the Toughest
Biological Material: Extraordinary Silk from a Giant Riverine
Orb Spider (Plos One 5/9, 16 September 2010), e11234.

133

With the exception of artificial peptides, oligonucleotides
and dendrimers, which have been synthesised in precise but
intensive step-wise procedures, synthetic polymers havethus not possessed the intricacies of structure or functionof their natural counterparts. G. Pasparakis et al., Controlled
polymer synthesis – from biomimicry towards synthetic
biology (Chemical Society Reviews, 2009).

134

Polyethylene stand-up pouches are in certain applications
today already and can be recycled with polyethylene films(if appropriate collection and sorting systems are in place).
Source: expert interview, http://www.dow.com/en-us/
packaging/innovation/pe-stand-up-pouch

135

AMCOR, Packaging innovation for a better tomorrow –Sustainability Review 2015 (2015).

136

saperatec website: http://www.saperatec.de/137

C. Cimpan, H. Wenzel et al., Insight into economies of scale
for waste packaging sorting plants (2015).

162

Website of California’s Department of Resources Recycling
and Recovery, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/

138

R. Uepping & F. Durand, Tackling Complex Plastic Recycling
Challenges (Waste Management World, 16 July 2015);
interview with TOMRA sorting experts.

163

Interview with Container Recycling Institute.

164

E. Andrés, El uso de plástico reciclado en envases para
contacto alimentario (Interempresas.com, October 2009;http://www.interempresas.net/Plastico/Articulos/35108El-uso-de-plastico-reciclado-en-envases-para-contactoalimentario.html).

165

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Delivering the circular
economy – A toolkit for policymakers (2015; http://www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/).

166

PAS (Publicly Available Specification) 2050: 2008
Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions ofGoods and Services introduced and endorsed in the UK by
the Carbon Trust and its partners.

167

The Maxinest tray is compared with a standard cardboard
box from FEFCO (code 0411), 600 x 400 x 180mm,
weighing 0.654 kg, used for a single trip and then collected
and disposed of/recycled using typical waste scenarios.
Calculation is based on each crate performing 92 return
trips on a 20-day cycle over five years. The findings took

139

R. Uepping & F. Durand, Tackling Complex Plastic Recycling
Challenges (Waste Management World, 16 July 2015).

140

WRAP, Using Machine Vision to Sort Plastics – A pilot study
in detecting milk bottles during the HDPE recycling process(2011).

141

Polymark project, Removable Identification Technology
to Differentiate Food Contact PET in Mixed Waste
Streams: Interim Report. Polymark – Novel Identification
Technology for High-value Plastics Waste Stream (FP7-SMEAG-2012-311177) (2015).

142

http://www.polymark.org/ and interview with Patrick Peuch(Petcore Europe), who is involved in the Polymark project:THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 111

into account all the raw materials, transport and energy use
involved in its manufacture, usage and disposal, as well as, incase of the plastic crate, transport through the supply chain
to the mechanical washing. (source: WRAP, Single Trip or
Reusable Packaging — Considering the Right Choice for theEnvironment (2010), Sustain Limited, RTP proves its green
credentials (2009)).
168

Technology Container Corporation, Sustainability and Cost
Reduction Thru Reusable Packaging (2011).

169

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, SUN and McKinsey Center
for Business and Environment, Growth Within: A Circular
Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe (2015).

170

171

172

EuroStat 2007, Average loads, distances and empty
running in road freight transport ­— 2005, extracted from:
B. Montreuil et al., An Open Logistics Interconnection
model for the Physical Internet (2012); R. Meller et al., From
Horizontal Collaboration to the Physical Internet: Quantifying
the Effects on Sustainability and Profits When Shifting toInterconnected Logistics Systems (2012).
R. Meller et al., From Horizontal Collaboration to the
Physical Internet: Quantifying the Effects on Sustainability
and Profits When Shifting to Interconnected Logistics
Systems (2012); A. McKinnon, European Freight Transport
Statistics: Limitations, Misinterpretations and Aspiration,
report prepared for the 15th ACEA Scientific Advisory Group
Meeting (2010).
Calculated on the total annual revenue of the European
logistics sector in 2009 of EUR 950 billion, extracted from:
Alliance for European Logistics, A Technology Roadmap for
Logistics (2010).

173

Reusable Packaging Association, Svenska Retursystem(2015).

174

Conny Swahn quoted in: Reusable Packaging Association,
Svenska Retursystem (2015).

175

The Economist, The humble hero (18 May 2013).

176

J. Franklin, Head of Executive Education at Kühne Logistics
University quoted in The Internet gets Physical (Science,2014).

177

World Economic Forum and Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
Intelligent Assets – Unlocking the circular economy
potential (2016; http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/
publications).

178

179

180

Data used covered a period of 12 consecutive weeks in
2006; R. Meller et al., From Horizontal Collaboration to the
Physical Internet: Quantifying the Effects on Sustainability
and Profits When Shifting to Interconnected Logistics
Systems (2012).
R. Sarraj et al., Interconnected logistic networks andprotocols: simulation-based efficiency assessment(International Journal of Production Research, 2014). Driss
Hakimi et al., Simulating a physical internet enabled mobility
web: the case of mass distribution in France (2012).
Replenish website, The Opportunity (http://www.
myreplenish.com/#opportunity).

181

Expert interview with Jason Foster Founder/Chief Reuser at
Replenish.

182

Assuming each Replenish 15g container will last for ten
5g refills, and each refill replaces three 10g single-use
equivalents, every Replenish container will replace 30 singleuse equivalents saving 235g of plastic (~80%). Assuming
42.1 billion 10g single-use containers, the material savings
would be 341,000 tonnes of plastic.

183

Jan Moye, Coca-Cola, Introducing Keurig KOLD: Home
System Delivers Fresh-Made Beverages, Including CocaCola, With Push of a Button (28 September 2015; www.
coca-colacompany.com/innovation/introducing-keurig-kold-home-system-delivers-fresh-made-beverages-includingcoca-cola-with-push-of-a-button/).
184

Planet Organic website, Unpackaged at Planet Organic(www.planetorganic.com/unpackaged-at-planet-organic/).

185

Freedonia, Industry Study #3319 Produce Packaging (2015).

186

Interview with Peter Koegler, Senior Manager Environmental
Value, SABMiller; extracted from The Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, Towards a Circular Economy – Opportunities forthe consumer goods sector (2013).

187

Interview with Dr Klaus Stadler, Director Environment& Water Resources Europe, The Coca-Cola Company;
extracted from Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Towards a
Circular Economy – Opportunities for the consumer goods
sector (2013).

188

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Towards a Circular Economy –Opportunities for the consumer goods sector (2013; http://
www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/).

189

Lisa Byfield-Green, Five Online Grocery Trends to Watch(Essential Retail magazine/The Institute of Grocery
Distribution, 29 September 2015).

190

Launched in 2015, see Amazon website for details:
primenow.amazon.co.uk

191

Launched in early 2015, see Amazon website for moredetails: www.amazon.com/oc/dash-button

192

Luke Harding, A Bombay lunchbox (The Guardian, 24 June
2002).

193

Zero Waste Europe, Press Release: International Bag FreeDay – New EU Directive paves the way for a Europe without
plastic bags (2015).

194

Jane Onyanga-Omara, Plastic bag backlash gains
momentum (BBC News, 14 September 2013; www.bbc.co.uk/
news/uk-24090603).

195

The Department of the City and County of San Francisco
website, http://www.sfenvironment.org/zero-waste.

196

The Connexion, MPs ban plastic bags and cutlery (12October 2014).

197

Where compostable is not further specified, it comprises
both home compostable and industrially compostablematerials.

198

S. Deconinck and B. De Wilde, Benefits and challenges ofbio- and oxo-degradable plastics – A comparative literature
study (OWS/PlasticsEurope, August 2013).

199

Directive 94/62/EC.

200European Bioplastics, Fact sheet: What are bioplastics?
(2015).

201

Material of biological origin excluding material embedded ingeological formations and/or fossilised.

202

CEN, EN16575:2014 Bio-based products – Vocabulary (2014).

203

S. Deconinck and B. De Wilde, Benefits and challenges ofbio- and oxo-degradable plastics – A comparative literature
study (OWS/PlasticsEurope, August 2013).

204

European Bioplastics, Fact sheet: What are bioplastics?
(2015).

205

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (January 2015: http://www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/overview/principles).

206

Zero Waste website, Are Nespresso-type coffee capsulescompatible with Zero Waste? (May 2011; http://www.

112 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

zerowasteeurope.eu/2011/05/coffee-capsules-and-zerowaste/).
207

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(May 2011; http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/
icode/).

208

EC, Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27 (2010);
DBA, Anaerobic Digestion Market Report (2015).

209

Australian Government, Department of the Environment(January 2015; http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/
environment-protection/nwp/reporting/organic-waste).

210

Natural Resources Defense Council (August 2012; https://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-ip.pdf).

211

Barilla center for food and nutrition, Food waste: causes,
impacts and proposals (2012).

212

Ibid.

213

PAS 100:2011.

214

CIC, Annual report of the Italian composting and biogas
association (2015).

215

Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition, Food waste: causes,
impacts and proposals (2012), reports an average foodwaste volume in Italy of 149 kg per capita in 2012; City of
Milan, Food waste recycling in a densily populated European
city: the case study of Milan (2015).

216

City of Milan, Food waste recycling in a densily populated
European city: the case study of Milan (2015).

217

Typically, contracts require a contamination rate by nonorganic materials of below 5%.

218

N. Thomas et al., Assessing the Environmental Impacts of
Oxo-degradable Plastics Across Their Life Cycle – A research
report completed for the Department for Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs (Loughborough University, 2010).

219

CIC and Novamont, Minimising contamination at bio-waste
facilities: learning from the Italian experience (2012).

220

WRAP, Gate Fees Report 2015 (2015).

221

DEFRA, Applying the waste hierarchy, Evidence summary(2011); WRAP, Applying the waste hierarchy (2011).

222

WRAP website, Operational AD sites (http://www.wrap.org.
uk/content/operational-ad-sites).

223

Enerdata (2014).

224

European Bioplastics, Fact sheet: Anaerobic digestion(2015).

225

Ibid.

226

ADBA, Anaerobic Digestion Market Report (2015).

227

Coalition for Resources Recovery.

228

Natureworks website, Case Study: The ‘Green Magic’ of theGames (http://www.natureworksllc.com/The-Ingeo-Journey/
End-of-Life-Options/Case-Studies/LondonBioPackagingOlympics-Use-Ingeo-Foodserviceware).

229

By WRAP and Natureworks for the London Olympics; by thecity of Milan and Novamont for the case of Milan.

230

J. R. Jambeck et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into theocean (Science, 13 February 2015).

231

Further information on global material streams and leakage
can be found in Appendix A.

232

United Nations Environment Programme, Valuing Plastic:
The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing
Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry (2014).

233

Ibid.

234

European Commission, Directorate General for Environment,
website, Our Oceans, Seas and Coasts: 10: Marine

Litter (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/goodenvironmental-status/descriptor-10/index_en.htm). Basedon exchange rate of EUR 1 to USD 1.10 (10 December 2015).
235

STAP, Marine debris as a global environmental problem(2011).

236

Ocean Conservancy and McKinsey Center for Business andEnvironment, Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies fora plastic-free ocean (2015).

237

Modelling based on expert interviews, McKinsey internal
knowledge, and Transparency Market Research studies.

238

UNEP, Biodegradable plastics and marine litter:misconceptions, concerns, and impacts on marine
environments (2015).

239

OWS, Benefits and challenges of oxo-biodegradable plastics(2013); Norm ASTM D 7081.

240

S. Deconinck and B. De Wilde, Benefits and challenges ofbio- and oxo-degradable plastics – A comparative literature
study (OWS/PlasticsEurope, August 2013).

241

Under aerobic conditions – Certiquality, Statement ofverification VN20150004 (2015).

242

Vinçotte, Conformity marks (2015).

243

Grand View Research, Plastics Additives Market Analysis
By Function, By Product and Segment Forecasts To 2022
(October 2015; http://www.grandviewresearch.com/
industry-analysis/plastic-additives-market).

244

IHS, Chemical Economics Handbook: Plasticizers, abstract(2015); S. Cullen, Eastman Chemical Company, Global
Plasticizer Update, SPI Flexible Vinyl Products Conference(2012).

245

Markets and Markets, Plastic Additives Market by Type,
Plastic, and by Application – Global Trends & Forecasts to2019 (2015).

246

C. Nerin et al., The challenge of identifying non-intentionallyadded substances from food packaging materials: A
review (Analytica Chimica Acta 775, 2013); C. Nerin et al.,Compounds from multilayer plastic bags cause reproductive
failures in artificial insemination (Scientific Reports 4, 2014).

247

N. Coulea et al., Effects of Endocrine Disruptor Compounds,
Alone or in Combination, on Human Macrophage-Like
THP-1 Cell Response (Plos One, 2015); A. Kortenkamp, Ten
years of mixing cocktails: a review of combination effects
of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (Environmental Health
Perspectives, 2007).

248

M. Warhurst, Creating clean material cycles: Problems
and Solutions, paper from EEA stakeholder conference:‘Transition to a Circular Economy’ (October 2015).

249

European Chemicals Agency website, REACH: Authorisation(http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/regulations/reach/authorisation).

250

J. Hahladakis et al., A review on the fate, release andenvironmental impact of additives used in plastics.
Challenges and complications in ‘closing the loop’(Unpublished Draft, 2015); S. S. Andra, A Perspective on
Human Exposures to Plastics Additives in Water-Packaging
Materials (Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 2013).

251

S. Genualdi et al., Updated evaluation of the migration ofstyrene monomer and oligomers from polystyrene foodcontact materials to foods and food simulants (Food
Additives and Contaminants 31, 2014); D. Paraskevopoulou
et al., Migration of styrene from plastic packaging basedon polystyrene into food simulants (Polymer International61, 2012); M. Ahmad, A. S. Bajahlan, Leaching of styrene
and other aromatic compounds in drinking water from PS
bottles (Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2007); J. Miltz
and V. Rosen-Doody, Migration of styrene from polystyrene
packaging materials into food simulants (Journal of
Food Processing and Preservation, 2007); J. O. Choi etal., Migration of styrene monomer, dimers and trimers

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 113

from polystyrene to food simulants (Food Additives andContaminants 22, 2005).
252

National Research Council, Review of the styrene
assessment in the National Toxicology Program, 12th Reporton Carcinogens (2011).

253

A. C. Gore et al., Executive Summary to EDC-2: The
Endocrine Society’s Second Scientific Statement on
Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals (Endocrine Reviews 37,2015); S. H. Swan et al., First trimester phthalate exposureand anogenital distance in newborns (Human Reproduction,
Oxford Journals, 2015); Y. J. Lien et al., Prenatal exposure
to phthalate esters and behavioral syndromes in children
at 8 years of age: Taiwan Maternal and Infant Cohort Study(Environmental Health Perspectives, 2015); L. López-Carrillo
et al., Exposure to Phthalates and Breast Cancer Risk inNorthern Mexico (Environmental Health Perspectives 118,
2010).

254

R. A. Rudel et al., Food Packaging and Bisphenol A andBis(2-Ethyhexyl) Phthalate Exposure: Findings from a
Dietary Intervention (Environmental Health Perspectives,(2011); K. M. Rodgers, Phthalates in Food Packaging,Consumer Products, and Indoor Environments (Toxicantsin Food Packaging and Household Plastics, Molecular andIntegrative Toxicology, Springer, 2014).

255

KemI Swedish Chemicals Agency, Phthalates which are toxic
for reproduction and endocrine-disrupting – proposals for aphase-out in Sweden (2015).

256

European Environmental Bureau, A Roadmap to Revitalise
REACH (2015); M. Warhurst, Are EU laws on chemicals –like REACH – being properly enforced? (ChemTrust, 20
October 2014, http://www.chemtrust.org.uk/are-eu-lawson-chemicals-like-reach-being-properly-enforced/); T. G.
Neltner et al., Data gaps in toxicity testing of chemicals
allowed in food in the United States (Reproductive
Toxicology 42, 2013); The European Chemical Industry
Council website, Harmonising enforcement throughout
Europe is no easy task (http://www.cefic.org/Policy-Centre/
Environment--health/REACH---Enforcement/).

257

More precisely, stabilisers are considered to be part ofthe polymer, which are exempted from the provisions on
registration of Title II of REACH (Article 2(9)). Requirements
for monomers and any other substances apply under certain
conditions (ECHA, Guidance for monomers and polymers,2012).

258

Examples of such regulations include the Commission
Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 on plastic materials and articles
intended to come into contact with food, the Commission
Regulation (EC) No 282/2008 on recycled plastic materials
and articles intended to come into contact with foods, andthe Food Contact Notification Program by the US Food andDrug Administration.

259

Directive 2005/84/EC of the European Parliament and theof the Council; US Consumer Product Safety Improvement
Act (CPSIA) of 2008.

260

European Parliament, Press release: Don’t allow recycling ofplastics that contain toxic phthalate DEHP, warn MEPs (25November 2015; http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdfs/news/
expert/infopress/20151120IPR03616/20151120IPR03616_
en.pdf ).

261

J. Samsonek and F. Puype, Occurrence of brominatedflame retardants in black thermo cups and selected kitchenutensils purchased on the European market (Food Additives
and Contaminants 30, 2013).

262

Cancer Prevention and Education Society, Chemicals in thecircular economy (Health & Environment, 2015).

263

C. J. Weber, Biobased packaging materials for the foodindustry, Status and perspectives (KVL, The Royal Veterinary
and Agricultural University, November 2000).

264

C. Lopes et al., Inventory of heavy metal content in organic
waste applied as fertilizer in agriculture: evaluating the riskof transfer into the food chain (Environmental Science and
Pollution Research International 18, 2011).
265

L. F. Diaz et al., Compost Science and Technology (Waste
Management Series 8, 2007).

266

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on foodcontact materials, enzymes, flavourings and processing
aids, Scientific Opinion on the criteria to be used for safety
evaluation of a mechanical recycling process to produce
recycled PET intended to be used for manufacture ofmaterials and articles in contact with food (2011).

267

A. I. Ionas et al., Downsides of the recycling process:Harmful organic chemicals in children’s toys (Environment
International, 2014).

268

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), US
FDA, Guidance for Industry: Use of Recycled Plastics in Food
Packaging: Chemistry Considerations (2006).

269

US EPA, An alternatives assessment for the flame retardant
decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE) (2014).

270

S. D. Shaw et al., Brominated Flame Retardants andTheir Replacements in Food Packaging and Household
Products: Uses, Human Exposure, and Health Effects(Molecular and Integrative Toxicology, Toxicants in Food
Packaging and Household Plastics, 2014); M. Rania et al.,Hexabromocyclododecane in polystyrene based consumer
products: An evidence of unregulated use (Chemosphere,2014); J. Samsonek and F. Puype, Occurrence of brominatedflame retardants in black thermocups and selected kitchenutensils purchased on the European market (Food Additives& Contamination: Part A, 2013).

271

M. Biedermann and K. Grob, Is recycled newspaper suitablefor food contact materials? Technical grade mineral oils fromprinting inks (European Food Research and Technology,2010); A. Vinggaard et al., Identification and quantificationof estrogenic compounds in recycled and virgin paper forhousehold use as determined by an in vitro yeast estrogen
screen and chemical analysis (Chemical Research in
Toxicology, 2000).

272

Z. He et al., Pollution characteristics and health risk
assessment of volatile organic compounds emitted
from different plastic solid waste recycling workshops(Environment International, 2015); D.-Y. Huang et al.,Pollution characteristics of volatile organic compounds,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and phthalate esters
emitted from plastic wastes recycling granulation plants in
Xingtan Town, South China (Atmospheric Environment 71,2013).

273

PVC often contains the human carcinogen vinyl chloride
monomers and many additives, including phthalates, aclass which contains substances of concern (see above
and R. K. Walter et al., Investigation of factors affecting theaccumulation of vinyl chloride in polyvinyl chloride piping
used in drinking water distribution systems (Water Research
45, 2011).

274

European Commission, Green Paper: On a European
Strategy on Plastic Waste in the Environment (2013).

275

T. Shibamoto et al., Dioxin formation from waste incineration(Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
190, 2007); K. Marsh and B. Bugusu, Food Packaging –Roles, Materials, and Environmental Issues (Institute ofFood Technologists, 2007); J. Thompson and H. Anthony,
The health effects of waste incinerators (4th Report of the
British Society for Ecological Medicine, 2008); US EPA, An
inventory of sources and environmental releases of dioxinlike compounds in the United States for the years 1987, 1995,
and 2000, Update (2006).

276

C. V. Howard, Statement of Evidence. Particulate Emissionsand Health (2009); K. Donaldson et al., Ultrafine particles:
mechanisms of lung injury (Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society A: Ultrafine particles in the atmosphere358/1775, 2000); G. Oberdürster, Toxicology of ultrafine
particles: in vivo studies (Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society A: Ultrafine particles in the atmosphere358/1775, 2000).

277

G. Buonanno, Nanoparticles in the environment: fate andeffects (Air emissions from waste-to-energy plants: fine114 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

and ultrafine particles, workshop, 2014); G. Buonanno etal., Chemical, dimensional and morphological ultrafine
particle characterization from a waste-to-energy plant(Waste Management 31, 2011); Directive 2001/80/EC of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001
on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the
air from large combustion plants (2001).
278

H. Hu et al., A Critical Evaluation of Waste Incineration Plants
in Wuhan (China) Based on Site Selection, Environmental
Influence, Public Health and Public Participation(International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health 12, 2015); The World Bank, Press release, GEF Grant
to Enhance the Environmental Performance of Municipal
Solid Waste Incinerators in Chinese Cities (2014); Z. Ang
and M. Da, Incineration: A Dangerous Policy Option for
China’s Municipal Solid Waste (Environmental Change andSecurity Program, 2011); H. Cheng and Y. Hu, Curbing dioxin
emissions from municipal solid waste incineration in China:
Re-thinking about management policies and practices(Environmental Pollution 158, 2010); H. Cheng and Y. Hu,
Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source ofenergy: Current and future practices in China (Bioresource
Technology 101, 2010).

Study (Environmental Health Perspectives, 2015); K. C.
Makris et al., Association between water consumption
from polycarbonate containers and bisphenol A intake
during harsh environmental conditions in summer(Environmental Science & Technology 47, 2013); National
Research Council, Review of the styrene assessment in the
National Toxicology Program, 12th Report on Carcinogens(2011); J. L. Carwile et al., Polycarbonate Bottle Use andUrinary Bisphenol A Concentrations (Environmental Health
Perspectives 117, 2009); C. Kubwabo et al., Migration ofbisphenol A from plastic baby bottles, baby bottle liners andreusable polycarbonate drinking bottles (Food Additives& Contaminants 26, 2009); H. H. Le et al., Bisphenol A isreleased from polycarbonate drinking bottles and mimics
the neurotoxic actions of estrogen in developing cerebellar
neurons (Toxicology Letters 176, 2008); M. Ahmad and
A. S. Bajahlan, Leaching of styrene and other aromaticcompounds in drinking water from PS bottles (Journal ofEnvironmental Sciences, 2007); M. Sugiura-Ogasawara etal., Exposure to bisphenol A is associated with recurrent
miscarriage (Human Reproduction, Oxford Journals, 20,2005).
288

J. D. Meeker et al., Phthalates and other additives inplastics: human exposure and associated health outcomes(Philosophical Transactions A: Plastics, the environmentand human health 364/1526, July 2009); US EPA,
Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) Action Plan
(Washington, DC, 2009); E. L. Teuten et al., Transport andrelease of chemicals from plastics to the environment andto wildlife (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society:
Plastics, the environment and human health, 2009).

289

Assumed an average of 15% additives as share of plastics
across plastic types.

290

Assumed leaching rate of 1%, following estimates range of
0.16–2% (OECD, Emission scenario document on plastic
additives (2009); T. Rydberg et al., Emissions of Additives
from Plastics in the Societal Material Stock: A Case Study
for Sweden (Global Risk-Based Management of Chemical
Additives I, The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry 18,2012)).

291

International Solid Waste Association, Working Group on
Thermal Treatment of Waste, Management of Bottom Ashfrom WTE Plants, An overview of management options
and treatment methods (2006); UK Department forEnvironment, Food & Rural Affairs, Incineration of Municipal
Solid Waste (2013); European Commission, Decision
2000/532/EC on the list of waste pursuant to Directive
2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(2000).

A. A. Koelmans et al., Leaching of plastic additives tomarine organisms (Environmental Pollution 187, 2014); J.
Oehlmann et al., A critical analysis of the biological impactsof plasticizers on wildlife (Philosophical Transactions of theRoyal Society: Plastics, the environment and human health,2009).

292

Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle (26January 1998).

293

284

UNEP, Biodegradable plastics and marine litter:misconceptions, concerns, and impacts on marine
environments (2015).

Oslo Principles on Global Climate Change Obligations:
http://globaljustice.macmillan.yale.edu/news/oslo-principlesglobal-climate-change-obligations

294

285

M. A. Browne et al., Ingested Microscopic Plastic
Translocates to the Circulatory System of the Mussel, Mytilus
edulis (L.) (Environmental Science and Technology 42,2008); C. M. Rochman et al., Long-Term Field Measurementof orption of Organic Contaminants to Five Types of Plastic
Pellets: Implications for Plastic Marine Debris (Environmental
Science and Technology 47, 2013); R. E. Engler, US EPA,The Complex Interaction between Marine Debris andToxic Chemicals in the Ocean (Environmental Science andTechnology 46, 2012).

E. Diamanti-Kandarakis et al., Endocrine-Disrupting
Chemicals: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement(Endocrine Reviews, 2009).

295

L. Trasande, et al., Estimating burden and disease costs of
exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European
union (Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism,
Endocrine Society, 2015).

296

Greta Stieger, Coop Denmark rejects fluorinated foodpackaging (Food Packaging Forum website, 18 May 2015;
http://www.foodpackagingforum.org/news/coop-denmarkrejects-fluorinated-food-packaging).

297

Unilever website, Sustainable packaging? (2009); Unilever,
Unilever Sustainable Living Plan, Progress report (2012).

298

The document stipulates that only ink ingredients listed in
the Swiss Ordinance on Materials and Articles can be used,with even some of the listed components excluded for
Nestlé packaging.

299

BASF website, Press release: BASF doubles production
capacity of Hexamoll® DINCH® to 200,000 metric tons (7279

M. J. Quina et al., Air Pollution Control in Municipal Solid
Waste Incinerators in M. Khallaf (ed.), The Impact of Air
Pollution on Health, Economy, Environment and Agricultural
Sources (InTech, 2011).

280

J. Thompson and H. Anthony, The health effects of waste
incinerators (4th Report of the British Society for Ecological
Medicine, 2008).

281

J. Vehlow, Bottom ash and APC residue management(Proceedings of the Expert Meeting on Power Production
and Waste and Biomass, 2002).

282

283

286

287

International Solid Waste Association, Working Group on
Thermal Treatment of Waste, Management of APC residues
from W-t-E Plants (2008); European Commission, Decision
2000/532/EC on the list of waste pursuant to Directive
2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(2000); Y. Hu et al., Effect of drying on leaching testing oftreated municipal solid waste incineration APC-residues(Waste Management and Research, ISWA, 2008).

E. L. Teuten et al., Transport and release of chemicals fromplastics to the environment and to wildlife (PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society: Plastics, the environmentand human health, 2009).
S. H. Swan et al., First trimester phthalate exposure andanogenital distance in newborns (Human Reproduction,
Oxford Journals (2015); Y. J. Lien et al., Prenatal exposure
to phthalate esters and behavioral syndromes in children
at 8 years of age: Taiwan Maternal and Infant Cohort

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 115

May 2014; https://www.basf.com/en/company/news-andmedia/news-releases/2014/05/p-14-231.html).

www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-02-28/davidedwardss-wikicell-makes-edible-food-packaging).

300

Ordinance of the FDHA on Materials and Articles(817.023.21).

322

Quantum Designs website, wikifoods (http://
quantumdesigns.com/wikifoods/#wikipearl).

301

United States Environmental Protection Agency website,
Safer Chemical Ingredients List (http://www2.epa.gov/
saferchoice/safer-ingredients).

323

Stonyfield website, A bite of the Future. No Cup or Spoon
Required (17 March 2014; http://www.stonyfield.com/blog/
frozen-yogurt-pearls/).

302

Cleangredients website: http://www.cleangredients.org

324

Loliware website: www.loliware.com

303

Cradle to Cradle website: http://www.c2ccertified.org

325

Ohoo! website: www.skippingrockslab.com

304

INCPEN website, Factsheet: Too much packaging? (http://
www.incpen.org/displayarticle.asp?a=12&c=2).

326

305

Coca-Cola, 2011/2012 Sustainability Report (2012).

Emily Gosden, Drink your water? Now eat the bottle it camein (The Telegraph, 15 September 2014; www.telegraph.co.uk/
news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11095793/Drunk-yourwater-Now-eat-the-bottle-it-came-in.html).

306

Unilever website, Press release: Unilever launches
breakthrough packaging that uses 15% less plastic(24 April 2014; https://www.unilever.com/news/pressreleases/2014/14-04-24-Unilever-launches-breakthroughpackaging-technology-that-uses-15pc-less-plastic.html).

327

Expert interview.

328David Rotman, Microscale 3D-Printing (2014; www.
technologyreview.com/featuredstory/526521/microscale-3d-printing/)

Unilever website, Core Values: recycling and the Unilever
Sustainable Living Plan (https://brightfuture.unilever.us/
stories/425684/Core-Values--Recycling--And-The-UnileverSustainable-Living-Plan.aspx).

329

Alysia Garmulewicz, Getting Smart About 3D Printing.
Circulate website: www.circulatenews.org (2015).

330

The Economist, The PC all over again? (1 December 2012).

308

Flexible Packaging Association, Flexible Packaging Resource
Recovery: A Work-in-Progress (2014).

331

309

As You Sow, Colgate Commits to 100% Recyclable
Packaging by 2020 for Three of Four Product Categories(2014).

Fairphone press release: Fairphone and 3D Hubs launch
second 3D printing challenge, combining community
creativity with on demand production (2014).

332

Intellectual Property office, 3D Printing A Patent Overview(2013).

310

Rick Lingle, Tyson Foods debuts the first 100 percent
recyclable stand-up pouch (Packaging Digest, 20 October
2013; http://www.packagingdigest.com/flexible-packaging/tyson-foods-debuts-first-100-percent-recyclable-standpouch)

333

H. Kühnle (ed.), Distributed Manufacturing: Paradigm,
Concepts, Solutions and Examples (Springer, 2010).

334

As explained in Chapter 6, the term compostable is used in
preference to biodegradable.

311

WRAP, Courtauld Commitment 2: Signatory Case Studies,(2013)

335

European Bioplastics, Bioplastics Glossary 2015 (2015).

312

Unilever, Global: Design & lightweighting (2015).

336

313

The Disappearing Package website: www.
disappearingpackage.com

Energy from Waste and Wood website, Generations of
Biofuels (http://energyfromwasteandwood.weebly.com/
generations-of-biofuels.html).

337

ADBA, Anaerobic Digestion Market Report (2015).

314

S. Sanna and J. Klocker, INCPEN/University of Bath,School of Management, Customers Attitudes towards
the Environmental Components of Packaging at
M&S (18 September 2015; http://www.incpen.org/
docs/2015ConsumerAttitudesToPackaging.pdf ).

338

Expert interview.

339

J. L. Young and J. M. De Simone, Frontiers in green
chemistry utilizing carbon dioxide for polymer synthesis
and applications (Pure Applied Chemistry, vol.72/7, 2000);
IPCC, Carbon dioxide capture and storage (2005); Expert
interview (Mango Materials).

340

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Overview
of Greenhouse Gases, (http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/
ghgemissions/gases/co2.html); IPCC, Carbon dioxide
capture and storage (2005).

341

IPCC, Carbon dioxide capture and storage (2005); Expert
interview (Mango Materials, Michael Carus from Nova
Institute).

342

US Environmental Protection Agency website, Overview ofGreenhouse Gases (http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/
ghgemissions/gases.html); expert interviews.

343

Corbion, Sustainibility is key driver for bioplastics growth(2013).

344

Lin Xiao et al., Poly(Lactic Acid)-Based Biomaterials:
Synthesis, Modification and Applications (InTech, 2012;
http://www.intechopen.com/books/biomedicalscience-

307

315

Ecovative Design, Dell announces project to use Mushroom®
Packaging! (2011).

316

MonoSol website: www.monosol.com

317

Splosh website: www.splosh.com

318

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Splosh Case Study (2014).

319

I. Leceta et al., Quality attributes of map packaged ready-toeat baby carrots by using chitosan-based coatings (2015).

320

S. Zivanovic et al., Physical, Mechanical, andAntibacterial Properties of Chitosan/PEO Blend Films(Biomacromolecules 8/5, 2007).

321

Meg Tirrell, David Edwards’s WikiCell Makes Edible Food
Packaging (Bloomberg Business, 28 February 2013; http://116 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

engineering-and-technology/poly-lactic-acid-basedbiomaterials-synthesis-modification-andapplications).
345

Corbion, PLA neat resin (2015); Wacker, Improved
processing for highly transparent PLA films (2015).

346

Anne Ju Manning, Recyclable bioplastics cooled down,
cooked up in CSU chem lab (2 December 2015; http://source.
colostate.edu/recyclable-bioplastics-cooled-down-cookedup-in-csu-chem-lab/). .

347

Karen Laird, Newlight Aircarbon hits market running(Plastics Today, 21 May 2014; http://www.plasticstoday.com/
articles/newlight-aircarbon-hits-market-running-14521%20).

348

Natureworks, Life cycle inventory and impact assessment
data for 2014 Ingeo (2015).

349

E4Tech and LCAworks, Environmental assessment of
Braskem’s biobased PE resin (2013).

350

IfBB, Biopolymers facts and statistics (2015).

351

Ibid.

352

nova-Institut, Bio-based building blocks and polymers in theworld, 3rd edition (2015).

353

Team analysis based on CEBR data.

354

A 100% bio-based PET bottle developed under laboratory
conditions has been unveiled at Milan World Expo, June
2015.

355

Braskem, Green PE: the renewable choice for packaging(2013).

356

IfBB, Biopolymers facts and statistics (2015).

357

Expert interviews.

358

University of Utrecht, Product Overview and market
projection of emerging bio-based plastics (2009).

359

Industry experts interview.

360

Rhoda Miel, Danone converting some yogurt packaging
to PLA (Plastics News, 19 February 2014; http://www.
plasticsnews.com/article/20140219/NEWS/140219903/
danone-converting-some-yogurt-packaging-to-pla).

361

Bioplastics Feedstock Alliance, Responsible Plastics,
Sustainable sourcing and the Circular Economy (2015);
Future Earth, A planetary boundary for biodiversity (6February 2015, http://www.futureearth.org/blog/2015-feb-6/
planetary-boundary-biodiversity); Steffen et al., Planetary
boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing
planet (Science, January 2015).

362

363

As outlined in Chapter 2 and in publications on theprinciples of the circular economy by the Ellen MacArthur
Foundation at www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/
publications; P. Hawken et al., Natural Capitalism: Creating
the Next Industrial Revolution (1999).
Newlight Technologies website, ‘AirCarbon™ has been
independently-verified on a cradle-to-grave basis as acarbon-negative material, including all energy, materials,
transportation, product use, and end-of-life/disposal

associated with the material.’ (http://newlight.com/
aircarbon/).
364

Newlight website (http://newlight.com/news/);
Plastics News website (http://www.plasticsnews.com/
article/20150717/NEWS/150719923/newlight-inks-supplydeal-for-its-methane-based-pha).

365

Physic Ventures, Novomer Completes World’s First LargeScale PPC Polyol Manufacturing Run (19 February 2013),(http://www.physicventures.com/news/novomer-completesworlds-first-large-scale-ppc-polyol-manufacturing-run)

366

British Plastics & Rubber website, Bayer ‘right on schedule’to make plastics from CO2 in 2016 (1 June 2015; http://www.
britishplastics.co.uk/materials/bayer-right-on-schedule-tomake-plastics-from-co2-in-2016/).

367

Novomer website (http://www.novomer.com/foams).

368

Novomer website, Converge® Polyols (http://www.novomer.
com/converge%C2%AE-polyols); British Plastics & Rubber
website, Bayer ‘right on schedule’ to make plastics from
CO2 in 2016 (1 June 2015; http://www.britishplastics.co.uk/
materials/bayer-right-on-schedule-to-make-plastics-fromCO2in-2016/).

369

Expert interviews.

370

European Bioplastics, Environmental communication guide(2014).

371

European Bioplastics, ‘Oxo-biodegradable’ plastics (2009).

372

Ibid.

373

S. Deconinck and B. De Wilde, Benefits and challenges ofbio- and oxo-degradable plastics – A comparative literature
study (OWS/PlasticsEurope, August 2013).

374

European Bioplastics, ‘Oxo-biodegradable’ plastics andother plastics with additives for degradation (2015).

375

Ibid.

376

Ibid.

377

S. Deconinck and B. De Wilde, Benefits and challenges ofbio- and oxo-degradable plastics – A comparative literature
study (OWS/PlasticsEurope, August 2013)

378

Ibid.

379

European Bioplastics, Press release: Greenwashing: misuseof EU composting standard EN 13432 (13 October 2015).

380

The Daily Telegraph, ‘Biodegradable’ plastic bags may not
be as eco-friendly as thought (11 March 2010); Liz Gyeke,
Tesco drops oxo biodegradable bags (PackagingNews, 17
August 2011).

381

European Bioplastics, Bioplastics Glossary 2015 (2015).

382

Open-Bio, Review on standards for biogasification (2014).

383

Ibid.

384

WRAP website, Anaerobic digestion (http://www.wrap.org.
uk/content/anaerobic-digestion-1).

385

Open-Bio, Review on standards for biogasification (2014).

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 117

ABOUT THE ELLEN MACARTHUR FOUNDATIONThe Ellen MacArthur Foundation was established in 2010 with the aim of accelerating
the transition to the circular economy. Since its creation the Foundation has emerged
as a global thought leader, establishing circular economy on the agenda of decisionmakers across business, government and academia. The Foundation’s work focuses onfour interlinking areas:
Education — Inspiring learners to rethink the future throughthe circular economy framework
The Foundation is creating a global teaching and learning platform built around the circular
economy framework, working in both formal and informal education. With an emphasis on online
learning, the Foundation provides cutting-edge insights and content to support circular economy
education and the systems thinking required to accelerate a transition. Our formal education work
includes comprehensive Higher Education programmes with partners in Europe, the US, India, China
and South America, international curriculum development with schools and colleges, and corporate
capacity building programmes. In the informal education arena our work includes Re-thinking
Progress, an open house educational event, and the Disruptive Innovation Festival, a global online
opportunity to explore the changing economy and how best to respond to it.

Business and Government — Catalysing circular innovation andcreating the conditions for it to flourish
Since its launch, the Foundation has emphasised the real-world relevance of its activities andunderstands that business innovation sits at the heart of any transition to the circular economy.
The Foundation works with Global Partners (Cisco, Google, H&M, Intesa Sanpaolo, Kingfisher,Philips, Renault, and Unilever) to develop circular business initiatives and to address challenges toimplementing them. In 2013, with the support of its Global Partners, it created the first dedicatedcircular economy innovation programme, the Circular Economy 100. Programme members compriseindustry-leading corporations, emerging innovators (SMEs), affiliate networks, government
authorities, regions and cities. The CE100 provides a unique forum for building circular capabilities,
addressing common barriers to progress, understanding the necessary enabling conditions, andpiloting circular practices in a collaborative environment.

Insight and Analysis — Providing robust evidence about thebenefits of the transition
The Foundation works to quantify the economic potential of the circular model and to develop
approaches for capturing this value. Our insight and analysis feed into a growing body of economic
reports highlighting the rationale for an accelerated transition towards the circular economy, andexploring the potential benefits across different stakeholders and sectors. The Foundation believes
the circular economy is an evolving framework, and continues to widen its understanding by
working with international experts including key thinkers and leading academics.

Communications — Engaging a global audience around the circular economy
The Foundation communicates cutting edge ideas and insight through its circular economy
research, reports, case studies and books disseminated through its publications arm. It uses
new and relevant digital media to reach audiences who can accelerate the transition, globally.
In addition, the Foundation aggregates, curates, and makes knowledge accessible throughcirculatenews.org, an online location dedicated to providing up-to-date news and unique insight on
the circular economy and related subjects.

118 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY

THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY • • • 119

120 • • • THE NEW PLASTICS ECONOMY© ELLEN MACARTHUR FOUNDATION 2016
Charity Registration No. 1130306 • OSCR Registration No. SC043120 • EU transparency register N°389996116741-55