Analysis of drivers impacting recycling quality : plant level data collection analysis on sorting and recycling of household packaging waste.
Date: 2020-11-26
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: data collection, domestic waste, drilling equipment, environmental standard, polishing and scouring preparations, waste management, waste recycling

Analysis  of Drivers  Impacting  Recycling 
Quality 

Authors: Grant A., Cordle M., Bridgwater E. Eunomia 
Research & Consulting 

Editors: Canfora P., Dri M., Antonopoulos I.S., 
Gaudillat P. Joint Research Centre, European 
Commission 

French translation (abstract and summary): Gaudillat P. 
Joint Research Centre, European Commission 

2020 

 
 
 
 
 
 
This  publication is a report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge s ervice. It aims to provide evidence-
bas ed s cientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European 
Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is  responsible for the use that  might be made of this 
publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source  is  neither Eurostat nor 
other Commission s ervices, users s hould contact the referenced s ource. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not 
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of 
its  authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its  frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information  
Name: Circular Economy and Industrial Leadership Unit, Joint Research Centre, European Commission  
Address: Calle Inca Garcilaso, 3 – 410 92 Sevilla - Spain 
Email: JRC-EMAS-SRD@ec.europa.eu   
Tel.: +34 9 544 88318 

EU Science Hub 
https ://ec.europa.eu/jrc  

JRC12229 4 

P DF 

ISBN 9 78-9 2-76-26817-8 

doi:10 .2760/510855 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European  Union, 2020  

© European Union, 2020  

The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of 
Commission documents (OJ L 330 , 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted,  the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons 
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0 ) licence ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is  allowed provided appropriate 
credit is  given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by t he EU, permission must be 
s ought directly from the copyright holders. 

All content © European Union 2020, except cover page, recycling ink drop 2019, Source: Adobe Stock. 

How to cite this report: Grant, A., Cordle, M. and Bridgwater, E., Analysis of Drivers Impacting Recycling Quality, Canfora, P., Dri, M., Antonopoulos, I. and 
Gaudillat, P. editor(s), Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-26817-8, doi:10.2760/510855, JRC122294. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Analysis of Drivers Impacting 
Recycling Quality 

Plant level data collection analysis on sorting 
and recycling of household packaging waste  

Analyse des facteurs influençant la 
qualité de recyclage  

Analyse des données recueillies auprès des centres de 
traitement sur le tri et le recyclage des déchets 
d’emballage  ménagers  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prepared by 
Eunomia Research & Consulting 
Andy Grant 
Mark Cordle 
Eric Bridgwater 

Editors 
European Commission – Joint Research Centre 
Paolo Canfora 
Marco Dri 
Ioannis Antonopoulos 
Pierre Gaudillat (translation into French) 

The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not  
necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not  
guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor 
any  person  acting  on  the  Commission’s  behalf may be held responsible for the use 
which may be made of the information contained therein. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 

This study, based on a survey of twenty-five sorting plants for household packaging 
across  Europe,  examines  the  drivers  and  parameters  that  influence  the  quality, 
quantity and fate of household packaging recycling. The study examines the dif f erent 
drivers present for plant operators sorting and processing different material st reams, 
the  characteristics  distinguishing  higher qualit y recycling chains from lower quality 
recycling  chains,  and  factors  that  tip  the  balance  in  favour  of  making  quality 
improvements where there is only marginal financial benefit. It summarises findings in 
relation  to  the  impact  that  policy  and  system  design  can  have  on  the  quality  of 
recycling.  

The factors found to be key to determining current quality of recycling were produc er 
demand  for  secondary  raw  materials,  the  extent  to  which  materials  degrade  in 
collection  and  sorting,  and  the  scale  and  presence  of  products  sharing  relevant 
characteristics within collected waste streams. Where making improvements on quality 
had  only  marginal  financial  benefit,  it  was  found  that  producer  responsibility 
organisations  (PROs)  or  other  relevant  authorities  are  likely  to  be  able to improve 
qualities through influencing the scale of sorting operations, specifying sorting out put 
fractions,  as  well  as  influencing  producer behaviour in incentivising recyclability of 
their products and uptake of post-consumer recycled content. 

Résumé  

Cette  étude,  basée  sur  une  enquête  auprès  de  vingt -cinq  usines  de  tri  pour 
emballages ménagers à travers l’Europe, examine les facteurs et les paramèt res qui 
influencent la qualité, la quantité et la destination lors du recyclage des emballages  
ménagers.  L’étude  examine  les  différents  facteurs  auxquels  sont  confrontés  les 
exploitants d’usine qui doivent mener à bien le tri et le traitement de différents flux de 
matériaux,  les  caractéristiques  distinguant  les  chaînes de recyclage de plus haute 
qualité des chaînes de recyclage de moindre qualité et les éléments qui font pencher la 
balance  en  faveur  d'améliorations de qualité lorsqu’il n’existe qu’un faible avantage 
financier.  Elle  résume  les  conclusions  relatives  à  l'impact  que  la  politique  et  la 
conception du système peuvent avoir sur la qualité du recyclage.  

Les  facteurs  qui  se  sont  avérés  essentiels  pour  déterminer  la  qualité  actuelle  du 
recyclage  étaient  la  demande  des  producteurs  de  matières  premières secondaires 
(MPS), la mesure selon laquelle les matériaux se dégradent lors de la collecte et du t ri 
et l’importance et la présence de produits partageant des caractéristiques pertinentes 
dans les flux de déchets collectés. Lorsque la réalisation d'améliorations sur la qualit é 
n'apportait qu'un faible avantage financier, il a été constaté que les organisat ions de 
responsabilité des producteurs (éco-organismes) ou autres autorités compétentes sont 
susceptibles de pouvoir améliorer les qualités en influençant l’ampleur des opérat ions 
de  tri,  en  spéc ifiant  les  fractions  de  sortie  de  tri,  ainsi  qu’en  influençant  le 
comportement  des  producteurs  en  incitant  à  la recyclabilité de leurs produits et à 
l’utilisation de contenu recyclé post-consommation. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Summary 

Report context 

This report has been produced for the Joint Research Centre (JRC) projec t  on Plant  
level data collection analysis on sorting and recycling of household packaging w aste . 
The aim of the project is to support the work of JRC in developing know ledge of  t he 
drivers  and  parameters,  those  both  internal  and  external  to  sorting  and  recycling 
plants, that influence the quality, quantity and fate of household packaging recycling.  

The project aimed to: 

  Develop a definition of “quality of recycling” for household packaging plants in t he  

EU in relation to dry recycling, plastics, paper and glass plants. 

  Understand which factors impact the quality and quant ity of  rec ycling out puts, 

including particular consideration of:  

o  material  input  composition  and  quality  (including  collection  system  and 

deposit return scheme arrangements);  

o 

loss rates and cross-contamination at each proc ess st age and impac t ing 
factors;  

o  equipment, process and technology;  

o  management of plants;  

o  product and industry standards; and 

o  commercial  and  regulatory  considerations  (market  impacts  and  PRO 

arrangements). 

The  findings  will  inform  an  understanding  of  which  operationally  and  commercially 
practicable measures could be implemented in order to increase recycling quantity and 
quality  across 
technologies  and 
commercial/regulatory contexts included in the study. 

the  various  sorting  plants,  processes, 

The project carried out study visits to 25 recycling plants across 11 EU countries. 12 of 
the plants focus on sorting and/or reprocessing specific types of  plast ics and 9 sort  
and/or reprocess a range of light packaging materials, with some of these plant s also 
accepting some non-packaging dry recycling materials including papers. In addit ion, 
visits were also undertaken to 2 paper sorting and 2 glass sorting plants.  

Data from these plants were collected and analysed, alongside insight from interview s 
with those involved in management (including quality management) at the plants. 

Quality framework 

‘Quality’ here refers to the extent to which, through the recycling chain, t he d ist inct 
characteristics  of  the  material  are  preserved  or  recovered so as to maximise their 
potential to be re-used in the circular economy. These characteristics inc lude f ood -
contact suitability, structural characteristics (i.e. uniformity and viscosity), clarity and 
colour, form, and odour. 

Findings on key drivers at different types of plants in different contexts 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Findings related to plastics sorting plants 

Plastics require a chain of processes from the point of collec tion t o t he point  w here 
they become secondary raw materials. The chain of these processes is typically quit e 
complex  and  differs  according  to  the  country, EPR scheme and  individual business 
decisions (e.g. the choice by sorting plant owners to integrate reprocessing steps) . In 
all cases surveyed for this study there is more than one sorting plant involved in t he 
recycling  chain.  The  mixture  of  material  types  from  which  plastics  are  separated 
(paper and metals for example) also varies between surveyed plants depending on the 
collection scheme in place.  

A key driver in the implementation of plant operation improvements associated w it h 
material  quality  is  where  the  plant  operator  can  realise  the  benefits  of  additional 
income  from  either  improving  the  quality  of  a  grade  of  material  or  separa ting 
materials into additional grades, and that income outweighs t he investment c ost of  
making  those changes. In addition, the scale of sorting operation s is a key varying 
factor between sorting plants, with plants at a larger scale having a bet t er ec onomi c  
case  for  sorting  more  specific  fractions  (e.g.  white/opaque  HDPE).   However,  in  a 
number of surveyed cases the plant operator does not realise the benefits of additional 
income from either improving the quality of a sorted fraction of material or separati ng 
materials into additional sorted fractions. The more significant driver in most of  t hese 
cases is the need to meet the output specifications set on the grades of mat erials. In 
these cases it is typically the PRO that is contracting t he operator and set t ing t he 
specifications.  The  PRO  could,  therefore,  drive  further  quality  improvements  by 
altering  the  specifications,  though  there  were  no specific instances of this having 
occurred recently from the plants that were surveyed. 

At  the  plant  operator  level,  as  the  cases  for  improving  quality  and  quantities  of 
material  become  more  economically  marginal,  or  in  the  cases  where  they  do  not 
experience  this  economic  driver, then it would seem likely that PROs could play an 
important role in specifying or creating t he economic drivers for: 

o  Further sorting into new sorted fractions; 

o 

Improvements to the quality specifications of existing sorted fractions; and  

o  Tolerances for the amounts of target materials that can be sent for disposal 

rather than recycling. 

Findings related to plastics reprocessors 

Market forces are the primary driver of output qualities from plastic reprocessors. T he 
material  quality  produced,  and  constraints  on  improving  material  qualities,  varies 
between the reprocessors of different polymers. This is because of differences both in 
demand (size of demand and prices paid) for the secondary raw materials and also in 
the nature of the sorted material (polymer permeability, product variability and use).  

  For  rPET  produced  from  bottles,  market  demand  is  high,  particularly  from 
bottle producers. rPET is relatively uniform, impermeable and not degraded in 
collection. 

  The major challenge in PET recycling is the recycling of PET trays. rPET derived 
from trays has a low yield if processed on bottle lines and t he rPET  produc ed 
has  a  lower  intrinsic  viscosity  than  from  bottles  and  is not suitable in large 
quantities for bottle production. 

  There  is  an  emerging  PET  tray  line  capacity  in  Europe,  but  the  market  for 
separated tray recycling is very much in its infanc y, and reprocessing costs per 
tonne of output and losses are higher than for PET bottles.     

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  HDPE  and  PP  are  currently  mostly  found  in  single  use  packaging  in  the 
recycling chains that exist for the surveyed plants. In all plant s st udied ,  t he 
majority  of  HDPE  and PP were reprocessed into secondary raw materials for 
uses other than single use packaging. These secondary raw materials are used 
for the manufacture of items such as garden furniture, pipes, equipment c ases 
and  domestic  items  such  as  buckets.  The  exception  to  this  might be some 
quantities of rHDPE that are recycled into HDPE non-food contact bottles. HDPE 
and PP are polymers that are ’absorbent’ to some chemicals and c ompounds. 
In  the  plants  that  were  surveyed  as  reprocessing  these  polymers ,  it  was 
acknowledged  that  the  secondary  raw  materials  still  had  some  of  these 
contaminants in the polymers. Plants varied in the extent t o w hic h t hey t ook 
additional steps to improve the purity and reduce the odour of rHDPE  and rPP 
outputs, with slightly higher prices available for these outputs. None considered 
more  extensive  odour  reduction  for  their  outputs,  as  the  costs  of 
decontaminating  these  polymers  further  would  not  be  recovered  by  any 
increase in the sales revenues for the resulting material. 

  PE films sorted in the surveyed plants are typically recycled into rLDPE t hat  is 
used  in  the  manufacturing  of  bin  bags  and  construction  films.  The  quality 
specifications for these outcomes can be met by the current plant  proc esses. 
However, the costs of improving the secondary raw materials signif ic antly t o 
‘higher  end’  applications  (e.g.  transparent  film  packaging  applications)  was 
thought to be too high to be recovered by any additional revenues t hat could 
be obtained. Examples of investments that had been made to improve  qualit y 
were focused on addressing deteriorating qualities of mat erial obt ained f rom 
sorting plants prior to its onward transfer to the reprocessing plant. 

Findings related to paper sorters 

Drivers to improve the quality of material output differed between the paper sort ing 
plants  studied,  depending  on  how  exposed  they  were  to  the  benefit  of  additional 
material  revenues.  However,  well  established  quality  grades  and  a  focus  on 
maximising  yields of the highest grades (de-inking grades) to meet the specifications 
of paper mills  keep the quality of recycling relatively high. Plants consider themselves 
at the limits of what they can achieve with available technology. 

Findings related to glass sorters/reprocessors 

Drivers to improve the quality of material output differed between t he glass sort ing 
plants  studied,  depending  on  how  exposed  they  were  to  the  benefit  of  additional 
material  revenues.  However,  this  did  not  significantly  impact  on  actual  qualities 
produced,  or  on  longer  term  investment  choices  (with  large  capital  investments 
provided by the plants’ owners). Strong demand from glass packaging manufacturers, 
exacting quality requirements for glass packaging re-melt and the fact that glass does 
not degrade in use, mean that the recycling chain can provide high qualit y out put s 
(provided sufficient subsidy is provided from producers). The biggest impact on quality 
outcomes (in particular, losses of target material) came from factors associated w it h 
product design and handling, which can create higher levels of rejects and fines.   

Findings on key drivers across the whole recycling chain 

Across recycling chains, the following factors are key in determining current qualities:  

  Market  demand  for  secondary  raw  material  at  different  qualities  (and  virgin 

material prices); 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Material  vulnerability  to  degradation  (and  degradation  through  product  use  or 

collection systems); and 

  Product uniformity and presence in collected waste streams at suff icient scale t o 

justify sorting. 

High quality recycling chains exhibit: 

  Strong market demand for high quality secondary raw materials; 

  Prices paid for the secondary raw material that allow for the costs of the necessary 

recycling chain to deliver the quality required; 

  Materials not vulnerable to degradation through use and collection; and  

  Sufficient quantities of the material available with relatively uniform characteristics 

in context with the scale of the plant(s). 

Within  all  the  recycling  chains studied there are examples of quality improvements 
that  are  on  the  margins  of  being  economically  viable  under  the  current  market 
conditions. Some of the examples found were: 

  Sorters sorting green and opaque PET;  

  Light packaging sorters sorting PET trays from PET bottles; 

  Sorting natural or white coloured HDPE bottles from other colours of HDPE bottles; 

and 

  Reducing odour and improving structural consistency of HDPE and PP outputs . 

In those cases where quality improvements are on the economic margins at  a plant , 
the factors key to increasing qualities of recycling within the plants studied are: 

  Growth in market demand for higher qualities of material; 

  Sorting  and/or  reprocessing  at  an  appropriate  (large  enough)  scale  to  justify 
sorting  into  more  distinct  material  fractions  and/or applying additional cleaning 
steps; and 

 

In cases where the plant is contracted by a PRO or is supplying material to a PRO , 
the introduction by the PRO of either new specified output fractions t o be sort ed 
and/or revised material specifications (standards). 

Findings for policy and system design 

Findings in relation to levers for market demand 

Policy interventions appear to be important levers in raising the level of  demand f or 
higher quality grades throughout the recycling chains. These could include legislat ion 
regarding  recycled  content,  support  for  cross-industry  commitments,  and  more 
transparency and certification on use of recycled content in products. 

However, the design of policy interventions needs to adequately take into account t he 
achievability, both technically and economically, of the respective intervention, w hich 
will be specific to each packaging type and polymer type. 

Findings in relation to product materials and design 

The study reinforces the need to understand the impact of specific aspects of produc t 
materials  and  product  design  on  t he  quality  of  recycling output s. It highlights the 
problems  posed  by  new  materials  such  as  biodegradable  film,  which  may  not  be 
compatible with existing sorting and reprocessing plant s.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Findings in relation to the types of collection systems 

The study supports the view that, from a quality perspective, c ollection of  plast ics 
mixed  with papers should be discouraged, as this mix causes increased losses of each 
of the respective materials to disposal and increases the pot ential f or low er qualit y 
secondary  raw  materials.  Whether  the  additional  costs  of  separate  collection  are 
currently reflected in additional revenues from higher quality material output  has not  
been  assessed  as  part  of this study. There are some examples of recycling chains 
within  this  study  where plastic and metals packaging are collected mixed together 
without impacting on secondary material quality, where they are kept  separate f rom 
the other material types (papers and glass).  

Findings in relation to PRO contracts with sorting plants 

PROs can play a role in incentivising plant operators to improve the quality of out put s 
above that which the market alone would determine, especially where t he economic  
case for improving output qualities is marginal. 

  Where PROs do not currently specify certain output grades, they could improve the 
likely quality outcomes for some materials by doing so (for instance, natural/white 
coloured HDPE, some specific sorted fractions of PP, opaque PET and PET trays).  

  An alternative approach – setting overall recycling rates for plants – may similarly 
increase  quality  outcomes  by  either  increasing  capture  into  target  grades  or 
incentivising plants to output additional fractions for recycling (but allowing plant s 
to do this in the most cost-efficient way). However, in both cases PROs would also 
need  to  ensure minimum standards are set and enforced appropriately to avoid 
negative impact on purities of grades.  

  Where  PROs  currently  buy  material  and  set  purity  specifications  on  sorted 
fractions, paying some additional amount for material of higher purity to offset the 
increased  disposal  costs  for the impurities removed at the sorting plants would 
counteract some of the current disincentive to exceed purity standards. 

  Where PROs set specifications and buy material, they can target specific increases 
in qualities through raising quality standards, though corresponding payment s w ill 
be needed to account for the costs of sorters in achieving the new specifications. 

  The  contracting  phase  is  important  in  identifying  what  opportunitie s  exist  to 
improve output qualities (since in some cases a specific material quality is def ined 
and targeted for the duration of the contract). 

Findings in relation to technological innovation 

For most materials, where there are opportunities to improve the quality of recycling, 
the technology is available to do so. An exception to this is the limit at ion of  c urrent  
paper sorting processes to sort smaller papers. 

This  study  raised  the  potential  of  packaging  ‘embedded  information’  systems  to 
improve sorting abilities and efficiencies of specific fractions of plastics, with relatively 
minor  additional investment. In this case, the technology is available , but  a c ommon 
system needs to be agreed upon by producers and sorting plant operators. 

From  a  quality  perspective,  a  focus  should  be  maintained  on  the  research  and 
development  of  improved  or  new  technologies  to  tackle  cleaning  and  quality 
challenges.  However,  for  challenging  materials  where  degradation  is  greater  and 
producers are less willing to pay a premium  for quality SRMs, the focus should be on 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
developing cost-effective technologies to improve or replac e exist ing proc esses, as 
cost is a critical constraint to the uptake of newer technologies. 

11 

 
 
Synthèse 

Contexte du rapport 

Ce  rapport a été produit pour le projet du Centre Commun de Recherche (CCR) sur 
l’Analyse  des  données  recueillies  auprès  des  centres  de  traitement   sur  le  tri  et  le 
recyclage des déchets d’emballage ménagers. L'objectif du projet  est  de sout enir le 
travail du CCR en matière de développement des connaissances sur les f ac teurs et  
paramètres, internes et externes aux centres de tri et de recyclage, qui influenc ent la 
qualité, la quantité et la destination du recyclage des emballages ménagers.  

Le projet avait pour but de : 

  Développer  une  définition  de  la  «  qualité  du  recyclage  »  pour  les  usines 
d’emballages ménagers dans l’UE qui traitent des déchets mixtes ou de plast ique, 
papier et verre. 

  Comprendre  quels  facteurs  ont  un  impact  sur  la  qualité  et  la  quantité  des 

matériaux en sortie, en prenant particulièrement en compte :  

o  La composition et la qualité des matériaux entrants (y compris les systèmes 

de collecte et les dispositifs de consigne) ;  

o  Les taux de perte et de contamination croisée à chaque étape du processus 

et les facteurs ayant un impact ;  

o  Les équipements, processus et technologies ;  

o  La gestion des installations ;  

o  Les normes relatives au produit ou au secteur ; et 

o  Les considérations commerciales et réglementaires (impacts sur le marc hé 

et dispositions des éco-organismes). 

Les  résultats  permettront  de mieux comprendre quelles mesures opérationnelles et 
commercialement viables pourraient être mises en œuvre pour augmenter la quant it é 
et la qualité du recyclage parmi les divers centres de tri, processus, t echnologies et  
contextes commerciaux/réglementaires inclus dans l’étude. 

Le projet a réalisé des visites d’étude dans 25 usines de recyclage parmi 11 pays de 
l’UE.  12  de  ces  usines  se  concentrent  sur  le  tri  et/ou  le  retraitement  de  types 
spécifiques de plastiques et 9 trient ou retraitent un éventail de matériaux d’emballage 
légers, certaines de ces usines acceptant également des matériaux   à rec ycler hors 
emballages,  y  compris  des  papiers.  En  outre,  des  visites ont aussi été entreprises 
auprès de 2 usines de tri de papier et 2 usines de tri de verre. 

Les  données  de  ces  usines  ont  été  recueillies  et  analysées,  de  même  que  les 
perspectives  issues  d’entretiens  avec  les  personnes  impliquées  dans  la  gestion (y 
compris la gestion de la qualité) au sein des usines. 

Système relatif à la qualité 

Ici  la  «  qualité  »  fait  référence  à  la  mesure  dans  laquelle,  à  travers  la  chaîne  de 
recyclage,  les  caractéristiques  spécifiques  des  matériaux  sont  préservées  ou 
récupérées, afin de maximiser  leur potentiel de réutilisation dans l’économie circulaire. 
Ces caractéristiques incluent l’aptitude au contact aliment aire, les c aractérist iques 
structurelles (c.-à-d. l'uniformité et la viscosité), la forme, la transparence, la couleur, 
et l'odeur. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Conclusions  sur  les  facteurs  clés  pour  les  différents  types  d'usine  dans  différents 
contextes 

Conclusions relatives aux usines de tri de plastique 

Les plastiques nécessitent un enchaînement de processus depuis le point  de c ollec te 
jusqu’au point où ils deviennent des matières premières secondaires. En général, c et  
enchaînement  est  assez  complexe  et  diffère  selon  le  pays,  le  programme 
(Responsabilité  Élargie  des  Producteurs  –  éco-organisme)  et  les  décisions 
commerciales individuelles (p. ex. le choix par les propriétaires d'usine de tri d'intégrer 
certaines étapes de retraitement). Dans tous les cas examinés pour l’étude, il y a plus 
d'une  usine  de  tri  impliquée  dans la chaîne de recyclage. Le mélange des types de 
matériaux  desquels  les  plastiques  sont  séparés  (par exemple le papier et le métal) 
varie également entre usines examinées, en fonction du système de collecte en place.  

Un facteur-clé dans la mise en œuvre des améliorations de fonctionnement de l’usine 
associées à la qualité des matériaux est en place lorsque l’exploitant  de l’usine peut  
concrétiser  les  avantages  sous  la  forme  d'un  revenu  supplémentaires,  soit  en 
améliorant  la  qualité  d'une  classe  de  matériau,  soit  en  séparant  les  matériaux  en 
catégories  supplémentaires  et  lorsque  ce  revenu  surpasse  les  coûts  investis  pour 
réaliser  ces  changements.  En  out re,  l’échelle  des  opérations  de  tri  est  un facteur 
variable clé entre les usines de tri, les usines  plus important e s ét ant souvent dans  
une situation économique plus avantageuse pour trier des fractions plus spécif iques 
(p.  ex.  PEHD  blanc/opaque).  Toutefois,  dans  un  certain  nombre  de cas examinés, 
l’exploitant  d'usine  ne  perçoit  pas  ces  bénéfic es  d'un  revenu  supplémentaire,  en 
améliorant la qualité d'une fraction de matériau trié ou en séparant les mat ériaux en 
fractions triées supplémentaires. Le facteur le plus important dans la plupart  de c es 
cas  est  le  besoin  de  répondre  à  des  spécifications  de  production  définies  sur  les 
qualités de matériaux. Dans ces cas, c’est en général l’éco-organisme qui c onclue un 
contrat avec l’exploitant et définit les spécifications. Par conséquent, l’éco-organisme  
pourrait  entraîner  d'autres  améliorations  de  la  qualité  en  modifiant  le  cahier  des 
charges, bien qu'il n'y ait pas eu d’exemples spécifiques de ceci récemment  dans les 
usines faisant l’objet de l’étude. 

Au  niveau  de  l’exploitant de l’usine, alors que la rentabilité d’une amélioration de la 
qualité  et  des  quantités  de  matériaux  devient  économiquement plus marginale, ou 
dans les cas où ce facteur économique ne joue pas, il semblerait  alors probable que 
les  éco-organismes  puissent  jouer  un  rôle  important  dans  la  spécification  ou  la 
création de facteurs économiques pour : 

o  Un tri plus poussé donnant plus de fractions triées ; 

o  Un  cahier  des  charges  plus  strict  sur  la  qualité  des  fractions  triées 

existantes ;  et  

o  Des tolérances moindres pour les quantités de matériaux cibles dest inés à 

l’élimination plutôt qu’au recyclage. 

Conclusions relatives aux usines de retraitement de plastiques 

Les  forces  du  marché  sont  les  facteurs  principaux  déterminant  les  qualités  des 
matériaux en sortie des usines de retraitement de plastique. La qualit é de mat ériau 
produite,  et les contraintes liées à l'amélioration des qualités de matériaux, varient 
entre les usines de retraitement de différents polymères. Ceci est dû aux dif f érenc es 
en  termes  de  demande  (volume  de  demande  et  prix  payés)  pour  les  matières 
premières  secondaires,  ainsi  qu’à  la  nature  du  matériau  trié  (perméabilité  du 
polymère, variabilité du produit et utilisation). 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Pour le PET recyclé (PETr) produit à partir de bouteilles, la demande du marché est 
élevée,  en  particulier  venant  des  producteurs  de  bouteilles.  Le  PET r  est 
relativement uniforme, imperméable et non dégradé pendant la collecte. 

  Le défi majeur du recyclage de PET est lié au recyclage des barquettes en PET . Le 
PETr  dérivé  des  barquettes  est  peu  productif  s'il  est  traité  sur  des  lignes  de 
bouteilles et le PETr produit a une viscosité intrinsèque plus f aible que c elui issu 
des bouteilles. Il ne convient pas en grandes quantité à la production de bouteilles. 

 

Il existe une capacité émergente de lignes de traitement des barquettes en PET en 
Europe, mais le marché pour le recyclage des barquettes triées n’en est  qu’à ses 
balbutiements et les coûts de retraitement par tonne de produc tion ainsi que  les 
pertes sont plus élevés que pour les bouteilles en PET.     

  À  l’heure  actuelle,  dans  les chaînes de recyclage existantes au sein des usines 
étudiées, on trouve le plus souvent les polymères PEHD et PP dans les emballages 
à usage unique. Dans toutes les usines étudiées, la majorité des PEHD et PP ét ait  
retraitée  en  matières  premières  secondaires  pour  des  utilisations  autres  que 
l’emballage  à  usage  unique.  Ces  matières  premières  secondaires  sont  utilisées 
pour la fabrication d’articles tels que des meubles de jardin, t uyaux, enveloppe s 
d’équipements ; et des articles de ménage tels que des seaux. L’except ion à c eci 
pourrait  être  certaines  quantités  de  PEHDr  qui  sont  recyclées  en  bouteilles en 
PEHD  n’entrant  pas  en  contact  avec  les  aliments.  Le  PEHD  et  le  PP  sont  des 
polymères qui sont « absorbants » pour certains produits chimiques et composés. 
Dans  les  usines  étudiées  qui  retraitent  ces  polymères, il a été reconnu que les 
matières premières secondaires présentaient encore certains de ces contaminant s 
présents  dans  les  polymères.  Les  usines  varient  dans  leur approche quant aux 
mesures  supplémentaires  pour  améliorer  la  pureté  et  réduire  l'odeur  des 
productions de PEHDr et de PPr, entraînant des prix légèrement plus élevés  pour 
ces  produits.  Aucune  n’envisageait  une  réduction  de l'odeur plus poussée pour 
leurs produits, car les coûts de décontamination supplémentaire de ces polymères 
ne  seraient  pas  compensés  par  une  augmentation  du  chiffre  d'affaires  pour  le 
matériau résultant. 

  Les films  PE triés dans les usines étudiées sont généralement recyclés en PE- LDr 
qui est utilisé dans la fabrication de sacs poubelles et de films pour la construction. 
Les  processus  actuels des usines permettent de satisfaire les spécifications de 
qualité pour ces productions. Toutefois, il est estimé que les coûts pour améliorer 
considérablement les matières premières secondaires et les amener aux niveaux 
d'applications « plus haut de gamme » (p. ex. les applications d’emballage à f ilm 
transparent)  sont  trop  élevés  pour  être  récupérés  par  des  recettes 
supplémentaires.  Des  exemples  d'investissement  qui  avaient  été  faits  pour 
améliorer la qualité étaient axés sur la résolution de la détérioration de la qualit é 
des matériaux obtenus en sortie des usines de tri, avant leur transfert vers l'usine 
de retraitement. 

Conclusions liées aux trieurs de papier 

Les facteurs pour améliorer la qualité de la production de matériaux diffèrent entre les 
usines  de  tri  de  papier  étudiées,  en  fonction  du  bénéfice  qu’ils  tirent des revenus 
complémentaires issus des matériaux. Toutefois, les catégories de qualité bien établies 
et  la  priorité  mise  sur  la  maximisation  des  matériaux  de  catégories  plus  élevées 
(catégories désencrées) pour répondre aux cahiers des charges des papeteries permet 
de  maintenir  une  qualité  du  recyclage relativement élevée. Les usines considèrent 
qu’elles  sont  à  la  limite  de  ce  qu’elles  peuvent  accomplir  avec  la  technologie 
disponible. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
Conclusions liées aux trieurs/retraiteurs de verre 

Les facteurs pour améliorer la qualité de la production de matériaux diffèrent entre les 
usines  de  tri  de  verre  étudiées,  en  fonction  du  bénéfice  qu’ils  tirent  des  revenus 
complémentaires issus des matériaux. Toutefois, ceci n’a pas d'impact  import ant  sur 
les qualités réellement produites ou sur les choix d'investissement à plus long t e rme 
(avec de grands investissements de capital fournis par les propriétaires des usines). 
La forte demande des fabricants de verre d’emballage, les exigences de qualit é de la 
refonte  du  verre  d’emballage  et  le  fait  que  le  verre  ne  se  dégrade  pas  lors  de 
l’utilisation,  signifie  que  la  chaîne de recyclage peut fournir des produits de qualité 
élevée (à condition qu’une subvention suffisante soit fournie par les produc t eurs). Le 
plus  gros  impact  sur  les  résultats de qualité (en particulier, les pertes de matériau 
cible) provient des facteurs associés à la conception et à la manipulat ion du produit , 
qui peuvent créer des niveaux plus élevés de rejets et de pénalités.  

 Conclusions  relatives  aux  facteurs  clés  parmi  la  chaîne  de  recyclage  dans  son 
ensemble 

Parmi les chaînes de recyclage, les facteurs suivants sont essentiels pour dét erminer 
les qualités à l’heure actuelle : 

  Demande  du  marché  pour  des  matières  premières  secondaires  de  qualités 

différentes (et prix des matériaux vierges) ; 

  Vulnérabilité  du  matériau  à  la  dégradation  (et  dégradation  par  le  biais  de 

l’utilisation du produit ou des systèmes de collecte) ; et  

  Uniformité  du  produit  et  présence  dans  les  flux  de  déchets collectés  dans une 

proportion suffisante pour justifier le tri. 

Les chaînes de recyclage de haute qualité présentent : 

  Une forte demande de marché pour des matières premières secondaires de haut e 

qualité ; 

  Des prix payés pour la matière première secondaire permettant de compenser les  
coûts de la chaîne de recyclage nécessaires pour atteindre la qualité requise ; 

  Des matériaux qui ne sont pas vulnérables à la dégradation due à l'utilisat ion et  à 

la collecte ; et  

  Des  quantités  suffisantes  de  matériaux  disponibles  avec  des  caractéristiques 

relativement uniformes par rapport à l’échelle de la (des) usine(s). 

Parmi toutes les chaînes de recyclage étudiées, il y a des exemples d’améliorations de 
la  qualité  qui  se  situent  en  marge  de  la  viabilité  économique  selon  les  conditions 
actuelles du marché. En voici certains exemples : 

  Les trieurs qui trient du PET vert et opaque ;  

  Les trieurs d’emballage léger qui trient des barquettes de PET des bouteilles PET ; 

  Le tri de bouteilles PE-HD de couleur naturelle ou blanche séparées de bout eilles 

PEHD d'autres couleurs et 

  La réduction de l’odeur et l’améliorat ion de la structure des polymères PEHD et  PP 

en matériaux de sortie. 

Dans  ces  cas  où  les  améliorations  de  la  qualité  se  situent  dans  les  marges 
économiques  d'une  usine,  les  facteurs  essentiels  pour  augmenter  les  qualités  du 
recyclage dans les usines étudiées sont : 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  La croissance de la demande du marché pour de meilleures qualités de matériau ; 

  Trier  et/ou  retraiter à une échelle appropriée (assez grande) pour justifier le tri 
dans  des  fractions  de  matériaux  plus  spécifiques  et/ou  l'application  d’étapes 
supplémentaires de nettoyage ; et  

  Dans les cas où l'usine est sous contrat avec un éco-organisme ou lui  f ournit  des 
matériaux, la spécification par l’éco-organisme de nouvelles fractions à trier et /ou 
un cahier des charges de matériaux révisé (normes). 

 Conclusions relatives à la conception de politique et de système 

Conclusions relatives aux leviers sur la demande de marché 

Les interventions politiques semblent être des leviers importants pour élever le niveau 
de  la  demande  pour  des  catégories  de  qualité  plus  élevées  dans  l’ensemble  des 
chaînes  de  recyclage.  Celles-ci  pourraient  inclure  la  législation  sur  le  contenu  en 
matières  recyclées,  le  soutien  des  engagements  à  travers  l'industrie  et  plus  de 
transparence et de certification sur l'utilisation du contenu recyclé dans les produits. 

Toutefois, la conception d'interventions politiques doit prendre en compte de manière 
adéquate  le  caractère  réalisable,  techniquement  et  économiquement,  de   chaque 
intervention,  qui  sera spécifique à chaque type d’emballage et , le cas échéant, de 
polymère. 

Conclusions relatives aux matériaux et au design des produits 

L’étude souligne le besoin de comprendre l'impact , d’une part, des caractéristiques des 
matériaux utilisés dans les produits et , d’autre part, de la c onc eption des produit s 
(design)  sur  la  qualité  des  matières  recyclées.  Elle  met  en  lumière  les  problèmes 
posés par de nouveaux matériaux, tels que les films biodégradables, qui pourraient ne 
pas être compatible avec les usines de tri et de retraitement actuelles.  

Conclusions relatives aux types de systèmes de collecte 

L’étude soutient l'idée que, du point de vue de la qualité, la c ollec te de plast iques, 
mélangée à celles des papiers, devrait être découragée, car ce mélange ent raîne des 
pertes  pour  chacun  des matériaux respectifs et augmente le potentiel de matières 
premières secondaires de plus basse qualité. En revanche, il n'a pas été évalué dans le 
cadre  de  cette  étude  si  les  coûts  supplémentaires  d’une  collecte  séparée  sont 
actuellement reflétés par des revenus supplémentaires générés par la produc t ion de 
matériaux de plus haute qualité. Il existe des exemples de chaînes de recyclage dans 
cette étude où les emballages en plastique et en métal sont collectés ensemble sans 
avoir  d'impact  sur  la  qualité  des  matériaux  secondaires,  lorsqu’ils  sont  maintenus 
séparés des autres types de matériaux (papier et verre).  

Conclusions relatives aux contrats des éco-organismes avec les usines de tri 

Les éco-organismes (organismes répondant aux obligations de responsabilit é éla rgie 
des producteurs) peuvent jouer un rôle pour inciter les exploitants d’usine à améliorer 
la qualité des matières recyclées au-dessus de la seule demande du marc hé, surt out  
lorsque  la  rentabilité  potentielle  d’une  amélioration  de  la  qualité  des  matériaux  en 
sortie est marginale. 

  Lorsque  les  éco-organismes  ne  spécifient  pas  à  l’heure  actuelle  de  catégories 
spécifiques  pour  les  matériaux  en  sortie,  ils  pourraient  améliorer  la  qualité 
potentielle  pour certains matériaux en le faisant (par exemple, PEHD de couleur 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
naturelle/blanche, certaines fractions triées spécifiques de PP, de PET opaque et de 
barquettes en PET). 

  Une approche alternative - définir des taux de recyclage globaux pour les usines -  
pourrait  augmenter  de  manière  similaire  les  résultats  de  qualité,  soit  en 
augmentant le captage de matériaux permettant d’atteindre les qualités cibles, soit 
en incitant les usines à produire des fractions recyclées supplémentaires (mais en 
laissant  les  usines  déterminer  elles-mêmes  comment  faire cela de la manière la 
plus  économique).  Toutefois,  dans  les  deux  cas,  les  éco-organismes devraient 
aussi veiller à ce que des normes minimums  soient mises en plac e et  appliquées  
de  manière  appropriée,  afin  d’éviter  tout  impact  négatif  sur  la  pureté  des 
catégories.  

  Lorsque les éco-organismes achètent actuellement des matériaux et définissent les 
spécifications de pureté sur les fractions triées, payer plus pour les mat ériaux de 
plus  grande  pureté  pour  compenser  les  coûts  d’élimination  plus  élevés  des 
impuretés éliminées aux usines de tri, compenserait certains des effets dissuasif s 
d’aller au-delà des normes de pureté.  

  Lorsque les éco-organismes définissent les cahiers des c harges  et ac hètent des 
matériaux,  elles  peuvent  cibler  des  augmentations  spécifiques  de  qualités  en 
élevant  les  normes  de  qualité,  mais  des  paiements  correspondants  devront 
prendre en compte les coûts des trieurs pour atteindre les nouvelles exigences. 

  La phase contractuelle est importante pour identifier les opportunités qui exist ent  
pour améliorer les qualités des matériaux en sortie (étant donné que dans certains 
cas, une qualité de matériau spécifique est définie et ciblée pendant toute la durée 
du contrat). 

Conclusions en rapport à l’innovation technologique 

Pour  la  plupart  des  matériaux,  pour  lesquels  il  existe  des  possibilités d'améliorer la 
qualité  du  recyclage,  la  technologie  pour  atteindre  ces  meilleurs  niveaux  est  déjà 
disponible. Une exception à cela est la limitation des processus actuels de tri du papier 
pour trier les papiers plus petits. 

Cette  étude  soulève  également  le  potentiel  d’inclure des systèmes « d'information 
incorporée  »,  afin  d'améliorer  les  capacités  et  les  efficacités  de  tri  de  fractions 
spécifiques  de  plastique,  avec  des  investissements  supplémentaires  relativement 
mineurs.  Dans  ce  cas,  la  technologie  est  disponible,  mais  un  système  doit  être 
convenu entre les producteurs et les exploitants d'usines de tri. 

Du point de vue de la qualité, il convient de maintenir la priorité mise sur la recherche 
et le développement des technologies nouvelles ou améliorées, afin de faire f ac e aux 
défis  du  nettoyage  et  de  la  qualité.  Toutefois,  pour  les  matériaux  difficiles  où  la 
dégradation est plus élevée et les producteurs sont moins disposés à payer plus c her 
pour des matières premières secondaires de qualité, il convient de se concentrer sur le 
développement  de  technologies  économiques  pour  améliorer  ou  remplacer  les 
processus  existants,  car  les  coûts  sont  une  contrainte  critique  à  l'adoption  de 
technologies plus récentes. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
Table of Contents 

3. 

2. 

Table of Contents ................................................................................. 18 
Glossary ............................................................................................. 19 
Report background, aims and structure .................................................. 21 
Introduction ............................................................................... 24 
1. 
1.1.  Recycling chain ........................................................................... 24 
1.2.  Quality framework ....................................................................... 31 
1.3.  Economic model of sorters and re-processors...................................... 33 
Analysis of drivers at individual plants ........................................... 37 
2.1.  Plastics sorting plants ................................................................... 40 
2.2.  Plastics reprocessing plants ............................................................ 45 
2.3.  Paper sorting plants ..................................................................... 47 
2.4.  Glass sorting and reprocessing plants ............................................... 49 
Analysis of drivers across the recycling chain .................................. 50 
3.1.  Achieving high qualities: findings from high quality recycling chains 
(PET bottles, glass packaging) ............................................................ 50 
3.1.1.  Factors enabling high quality recycling .................................. 50 
3.1.2.  Factors limiting amounts captured into higher qualities ........... 53 
3.1.3.  Opportunities for marginal improvements in quality of outputs . 55 
3.2.  Findings from economically marginal cases .................................. 55 
3.3.  Findings from emerging higher quality recycling chains (PET trays)  59 
3.4.  Limitations in market demand: findings from recycling chains tending 
to produce lower quality recycling (PP and PE film) ............................... 60 
3.5.  Summary ................................................................................. 62 
Impact of policy and system design on quality of recycling ............... 64 
4.1.  Levers for market demand ......................................................... 64 
4.2.  Product materials and design ..................................................... 65 
4.3.  Choice of collection systems ....................................................... 67 
4.4.  Choice of sorted fractions in sorting plant design and contracting ... 69 
4.5.  Quality specifications for sorted fractions .................................... 71 
4.6.  Other contract design factors ..................................................... 72 
4.7.  Technological innovation ........................................................... 73 
A.1  Appendix 1 ................................................................................. 76 
Quality framework levels for different materials ................................ 76 

A1.1 

4. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 
A glossary of key terms and acronyms is provided below. 

Aseptic cartons 

CITEO 
Collected stream 

Contaminants 

DRS 
DSD 

Ecoembes 
EfW 

EPR 
HDPE 
Impurity 

Intermediate 
Sorted Fraction 
JRC 
LDPE 
Light Packaging 
Fraction (LPF) 

Material Types 
MRF 
Non-target 
material 

PET 
PO 
PP 
PRO 
Losses 

PS 
PTT 
Purity 

Cartons for liquids, fabricated from laminates of liquid  packaging 
board,  foil  and  polyethylene; also called ‘beverage cartons’ or 
‘tetrapak’ (a trade name) 
French Producer Responsibility Organisation 
Materials collected for recycling either presented separately, or 
mixed  with other material types in the same container. 
In  collection  systems:  non-recyclable  material  presented  in 
recycling collections  
Deposit return scheme 
German  PRO  organising  the  c ollection  scheme  for recycling of 
packaging,  managed  by  Der  Grüne  Punkt  –  Duales  System 
Deutschland  AG.  In  summary,  glass  and  paper/cardboard  are 
each  separately  collected,  and  mixed  light  packaging  (plastic 
bottles, pots, tubs & trays; metal containers; aseptic c artons) 
are collected from yellow bags or bins. 
Spanish Producer Responsibility Organisation 
Energy from waste: incineration that includes energy generation 
from the combustion of the waste 
Extended producer responsibility 
High density polyethylene 
The presence of materials and substances other than the t arget 
material in a sorted fraction or output secondary raw material. 
A grade of material that has been sorted post collection but  has 
not been sufficiently prepared to be a secondary raw material. 
Joint Research Centre of the European Commission 
Low density polyethylene 
A  term used for the collected stream of plastic packaging and 
metal  packaging  common  in  Europe.  In  some  areas  this  also 
includes  papers,  in  some  areas  this  includes  some  non-
packaging items of similar  materials also. 
Major material groups i.e. Plastic, Papers, Metals, Glass 
Materials Recycling Facility 
In  sorted  fraction:  non-target  material  included in the output 
material. 
In  collection  systems:  materials  that  are  not targeted by the 
scheme,  specifically  referring  to  any  materials  that  residents 
present for collection which are not specifically requested as part 
of  that  collection.  This  can include readily recyclable material 
that  is  not  targeted  as  well  as  non-recyclable  materials 
(contaminants). 
Polyethylene terephthalate 
Polyolefins (group of polymers including HPDE, LDPE and PP) 
Polypropylene 
Producer Responsibility Organisation 
Losses  of  target  material  at  any  stage  prior  to  production  of 
secondary raw materials 
Polystyrene 
Pots, tubs and trays (plastic) 
The lack of impurities in a sorted fraction 

19 

 
 
 
PVC 
Re-melt 

Reprocessor 

Residues 

rHPDE 
rPET 
rPP 
rPE 
Secondary raw 
material (SRMs) 

Sorted material 
fraction, or ‘sorted 
fraction’ 
Sorter 

Initial Sorter 
Secondary Sorter 
Target materials 

Polyvinyl chloride 
The process of melting down glass cullets for manufacturing int o 
new glass products 
A  plant  that  carries  out  operations  to  produc e  at  least  one 
secondary raw material. 
Material received by the plant but sorted to a f rac tion t hat w ill 
not be sent for recycling. 
Secondary raw material made from recycled HDPE 
Secondary raw material made from recycled PET  
Secondary raw material made from recycled PP 
Secondary raw material made from recycled PE film 
Material that has been sorted and prepared so that it is suit able 
for  use  directly  in  new  product  manufacture,  without  further 
sorting  or  preparation,  (such  as  a  clean,  dry  polymer  flakes, 
pellets, or compound) 
Separate  fraction  of  material sorted from an input stream; (in 
some cases, non-packaging products are included notably in t he 
case of paper). 
A plant that carries out operations to sort a collected stream (or 
pre-sorted fraction) into two or more sorted fractions. 
A sorter which has a collected stream as its input material 
A sorter which has a sorted fraction as its input material  
The  main  materials  specifically  targeted  at  any  stage  in  the 
recycling chain: by a collection scheme, a sort ing operation, a 
sorted fraction specification, or a reprocessor 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
Report background, aims and structure 
This report has been produced for the Joint Research Centre (JRC) projec t  on Plant  
level data collection analysis on sorting and recycling of household packaging w aste. 
The aim of the project is to support the work of DG JRC and the Circular Economy and 
Industrial  Leadership  Unit  in  developing  knowledge  of  the  drivers  and  parameters, 
those both internal and external to sorting and recycling plant s, t hat inf luence  t he 
quality, quantity and fate of household packaging recycling.  

The project carried out study visits to 25 recycling plants across 11 EU count ries  and 
involved the following number and type of plants: 

  11 plants sorting collected streams of light packaging fractions (various mixt ures 
including plastics only inputs) and sorting out at least one grade of plast ic. S ome 
of these plants also conducted some reprocessing operations;  

  2 plants conducting a second sort of specific plastic fractions output f rom sort ing 

plants (mixed PET and mixed  HDPE/PP); 

  8  plants  primarily  reprocessing  sorted  plastic  fractions  into  secondary  raw 

materials, whilst also conducting some sorting operations; 

  2 paper sorting plants; and  

  2 glass sorting plants. 

This  report  provides  analysis  of  the  collected  data  in  relation  to investigating the 
project’s key research questions (set out below). It is accompanied by another report  
‘Quality of Recycling: Towards an Operational Definition and Framework’ , w hic h set s 
out  a  proposed  operational  definition  of  quality  of  recycling,  and  a  framework  for 
practically assessing the quality of recycling at the level of an individual plant or at the 
level of the recycling chain. 

Background 

The parameters that govern the quality, quantity and fate of household packaging that 
is  sent  for  recycling  are  undergoing  a  period  of  reform,  largely  driven  by  policy 
changes at the European level. In July 2018, the European Union (EU) dec ided upon 
significant  revisions  to existing waste legislation,  which it incorporated into the EU 
Action Plan for the Circular Economy (EU Action Plan). The EU Action Plan included six 
amendments  to  directives  pertaining  to  waste  management,  including  the  Waste 
Framework  Directive,  Directive  on  Packaging Waste and the Landfill Directive. The 
amendments contain ambitious targets for EU Member states including: 

  A  recycling  target  of  65%  for municipal waste by 2035 (with interim targets of 

55% by 2025 and 60% by 2030);  

  A recycling target of 70% for all packaging by 2030 (with an interim target of 65% 

by 2025 and specific targets for different packaging materials); and 

  A binding landfill reduction target of 10% by 2030. 

In the EU Action Plan, the directives also introduced: 

  Reforms related to Producer Responsibility to ensure producers pay the full costs of 

end-of-life management of products; and 

  A new measurement method for recycling performance, to create greater accuracy 

in the reporting of recycled material. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
With this context in mind, it is the aim  of this study to improve holistic understanding 
of  the  drivers  and  parameters  that  influence  the  quality,  quantity  and  fate  of 
household  packaging  recycling,  and  to  define  what  is  meant  by  “High  Quality 
Recycling”. This project has involved collecting and analysing dat a f rom s ort ing and 
recycling  plants  across  Europe  to  form  an  evidence  base  when  responding to key 
research questions, set out below. The analysis in this report contains information that 
will assist in the design of mechanisms to encourage a shift to higher qualit y recycling. 

Research aims of the project 

The key research aims the project has investigated are summarised as follows: 

  To develop a definition of “quality of recycling” for household packaging plant s in 

the EU in relation to dry recycling, plastics, paper and glass plants.  

  To provide clear qualitative and quantitative descriptions of the relevant processes 

at a representative set of plants. 

  To  understand  which  factors  impact  quality and quantity of recycling outputs, 
including  particular  consideration  of:  material  input  composition  and  quality 
(including collection system and deposit return scheme arrangements); loss rat es 
and cross-contamination at each process stage and impacting factors; equipment , 
process and technology; management of plants; product and industry st andards; 
and  commercial  and  regulatory  considerations  (market  impacts  and  PRO 
arrangements). 

  To develop an understanding of which operationally and commercially prac t icable 
measures  could  be  implemented  across  the  various  sorting  plants,  processes, 
technologies  and  commercial/regulatory contexts  in order to increase recycling 
quantity and quality. 

Aims of this report 

This report provides an analysis of the drivers that impact on the quality of  rec ycling 
achieved at both sorting and reprocessing plants. Explanations are provided of the key 
factors found to be driving the current quality of recycling being achieved, both across 
the whole recycling chain and at the sorting and reprocessing plants that were studied 
during the project. The focus is on exploring factors that enable, or place c onstraints 
on, the production of higher quality (as compared to lower quality) outputs. 

Thereafter, the potential for plants to implement refinements or changes to operations 
to improve the quality of recycling outputs is considered, alongside the key barriers t o 
plants making decisions to produce higher outputs, and the potential levers to enable 
such decisions to be enacted. 

Factors explored include those related to collection system types, Extended Produc er 
Responsibility (EPR) scheme quality specifications and contractual arrangement s w it h 
sorting  plants,  as  well  as  broader  market  and  economic  factors  (product  design, 
market demand, technology). The report points to potential areas w here c hanges in 
these external factors are likely to result in increases in the quality of recycling.  

Structure of this report 

This report is structured as follows: 

  Section 1 provides an introduction to the recycling chain, the role of various t ypes 
of EPR schemes and an outline of economic models that sorters and reproc essors 
work within; 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Section 2 outlines the key factors that determine the qualities of outputs currently 
produced by the plants visited during the study. Drivers that enable high quality or 
limit  the production of higher quality outputs are discussed. Key opportunities are 
identified for increasing the quality of outputs at the plants visited and the nat ure 
of  the  barriers  that  currently  prevent  plants  from  making  the  changes  or 
refinements to their operations that would enable producing higher quality outputs. 
The main groups of materials processed by the study plants are considered in turn: 

o  Plastics sorting operations; 

o  Plastics reprocessing operations; 

o  Glass sorting; and 

o  Paper sorting. 

  Section 3 analyses how economic factors across the whole recycling chain drive or 
constrain the production of higher quality outputs. Case st udies are provided t o 
illustrate  those  factors which enable recycling chains to produc e higher quality 
outputs. 

  Section 4 examines evidence of the influence of policy and system design on t he 

quality of recycling in respect of: 

o 

Impacts of collection systems; 

o  How PROs affect sorting plant output specifications through tolerances f or 

impurities and different fractions within sorted bales; and 

o  How PRO payment structures impact the quality of recycling, in part ic ular 
the  role  of  PROs  in  guaranteeing  prices  for  and  buying  materials  from 
sorting  plants,  compared  to  plants  selling  these  materials  on  the  open 
market. 

Therefore, following the general introduction to the concepts discussed in the report in 
section  1,  the  reader  is  directed  to the following sections in respect of drivers for 
quality of recycling outputs: 

  Themes applicable at an individual plant type level: Section 2; 

  Overall system drivers analysis: Section 3; 

 

Impacts of policy and system design on different material streams: Section 4. 

23 

 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 

This section aims to define key concepts used in the report and introduces the roles of  
different actors in the supply chain. 

1.1. 

Recycling chain 

The  production  of  recycling outputs involves different stages, collectively called a 
recycling chain (Figure 1-1). The different stages comprise: 

  Collection  (either  separately,  or  mixed  with  other material types collected for 
recycling). For the purposes of this report, material at this stage of  t he rec ycling 
chain is defined as being a ‘collected stream’. 

  Various intermediate stages of preparation involving combinations of sort ing 
into  distinct material fractions (e.g. by specific material, sometimes by colour), 
washing,  shredding,  crushing  or  flaking.  Material  during  these  stages  (having 
undergone some sorting, but prior to the production of a secondary raw mat erial) 
is referred to in this report as ‘sorted fractions’, up to the point of: 

  The production of a ‘secondary raw material’ suitable f or use in new  produc t  

manufacture, such as a clean, dry flake, pellet or compound; or glass cullet.  

Figure 1-1: Stages of the recycling chain  

For each secondary raw material there is a different recycling c hain. T he c ollection 
method and characteristics of different materials mean that the organisation of typical 
recycling chains differs both between materials and across regions and countries. T he 
chain  is particularly complex for plastics. There is a wide variety of processes that 
differ between materials and choice of processing strategy. There can also be a w ide 
range of different amounts of business integration across the recycling chain, f rom as 
few as two or three entities (or business groups) across the chain to examples w here 
the chain involves many more than that. 

Outline descriptions of recycling chains for the main material types being c onsidered 
are provided below.  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recycling chains: outline descriptions by material group 

Typical  recycling  chains  for  plastics are provided in  Figure 1-2 (focus on PET) and 
Figure 1-3 (focus on HPDE/PP). In Europe, plastics are predominant ly c ollected in a 
‘light packaging fraction’ (LPF) alongside metal packaging. In some EU count ries DRS 
collections  separate  out  a  significant  proportion  of  the  plastic  packaging  that  is 
generated as waste (primarily PET beverage bottles), which alters the composit ion of  
plastics collected in the LPF stream. Collected PET within the LPF in regions wit h DRS s 
therefore  have  a  higher  concentration  of  PET  trays  and  dairy/non-beverage  PET, 
though the extent of this impact depends on the scope and performance of the DRS. 

Variations  exist  between  countries,  and  in  some  cases  between  regions 
within a country, as to which material types are collected for rec y c ling, how 
the material types are collected and which material types are collected mixed 
with other targeted material types. Some countries have a separate plastics 
collection excluding metals, some include non-packaging plastics and some 
include papers. This variation is illustrated in Table 1-1. 

Table 1-1: Dry recycling collection schemes 
Germany 
(DSD) 

France 

Greece 

Sweden 

DRS 

Door to Door 
Collections  

Beverage 
bottles and 
cans (plastic, 
metal and 
glass) 
2 streams: 
Plastics, 
Metals,  

Papers 

Beverage 
bottles and 
cans (plastic, 
metal and 
glass) 
3 streams: 

Plastics 

Metals 

Papers 

1 stream: 
Plastics, 
Metals,  
Tetrapak,  
Papers 

1 stream: 

Plastics,  
Metals, Papers, 
Glass, 
Tetrapaks 

Bring Systems 
(on street 
containment) 

Glass 

Glass 

In some regions of Europe, fractions of plastics are sorted from mixed “residual” waste 
prior to disposal/energy recovery of the remaining fraction (i.e. general waste that has 
no separation for recycling during the presentation or collection of t hat w aste). T his 
study, however, focuses on plants sorting material from separate recycling collections.  

The degree to which the first sorting plant (which receives the collected LPF  st ream) 
separates  out  distinct  polymer  and  colour  fractions,  versus  polymer  and  colour 
fractions  being  separated  by  a ‘secondary sorting’ plant varies between the study 
plants. In general, it is more likely that PET is sorted by polymer/c olour at  t he f irst  
sorting plant, whereas it is more likely for HDPE, PP and PS to be sorted int o spec if ic 
polymers at a secondary sorting plant. Some of the study plants produce mixt ures of  
HDPE  and  PP  that  are  sent  to  reprocessors  in  this  form.  Some  plants  produce  an 
output of a ‘remainder’ mixed  plastics fraction also containing small plastic packaging , 
mostly  of PP or PE. The variations in the degree of polymer/colour separation exist 
partly due to the scale of different sorting operations, and partly due to variat ions in 
sorting  packaging  fraction  grades  specified  by  different   producer  responsibility 
organisations (PROs). 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Outputs  from  sorting  plants  c an  be  sold  on  to  different  types  of  offtakers.  Some 
sorting  plants  supply  outputs  to  other  facilities  owned  by  the  same  company  for 
further sorting and/or reprocessing. Whereas other sorting plants supply  out puts t o 
PROs, or sell directly to other sorters or reprocessors. 

Figure 1-2: Recycling chain for plastics, focus on PET 

Figure 1-3: Recycling chain for plastics, focus on HDPE/PP 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The typical recycling chain for papers (and cardboard) is illustrated in  

Figure 1-4. In most countries included in the study, papers are c ollected separately  
from  other  materials, as a paper and cardboard mix. In some countries, papers are 
collected mixed with plastics and/or light packaging fractions. 

At  sorting  plants  (either  dedicated  paper sorting plants or light packaging fraction 
sorters) where the mix includes papers, the material tends to be sort ed t o  separate 
out at least one grade that is suitable for acceptance by paper reprocessors (i.e. paper 
mills)  and  other  offtakers.  Paper  reprocessors  pulp  the  paper  input,  screen  the 
material to remove non-target fibres, and carry out de-inking (t o remove oil- based 
inks). 

Paper  reprocessors  usually  do  not  carry  out  additional  sorting  of  de-inked  or 
corrugated card board grades prior to processing, though it is underst ood t hat some 
reprocessors  may  carry  out  some  further  sorting  of  mixed  papers  grades  prior  to 
pulping  (including to extract certain grades of paper in order to sell the material or 
feed into another facility owned by the same company). The sorted mixed paper and 
board  output  from  one  study  plant  was  sold  to  a  known  reprocessor  for  the 
manufacture of board products without further sorting; for other plants, the ext ent of  
further sorting of mixed  paper outputs was not known.  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1-4: Recycling chain for papers 

The typical recycling chain for glass is illustrated in  

Figure 1-5. Most glass is collected through DRSs or separate glass collections. Colour 
separation at source is rare in household recycling collections of glass, and is 
becoming increasingly rare in bring site collection systems. In some countries, glass is 
collected mixed with light packaging and/or plastics. Most glass sorting facilities 
receive material from DRSs and/or separate collections. The study plants carry out 
sorting processes to remove unwanted impurities (such as ceramics) and to sort 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
material into colours. From the study plants, the output colour-sorted cullet is supplied 
to re-melt applications for production of glass packaging or fibreglass insulation. Glass 
sorting processes produce a finer fraction of material with higher amounts of non-
target material rejected earlier in the sorting process, that can (depending on 
additional investment and/or available markets) be further processed and sorted to 
feed back into re-melt applications. 

Figure 1-5: Recycling chain for glass 

The role of EPR schemes and PROs in the recycling chain 

Extended  Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes for packaging waste are set up in 
most European countries to ensure the provision of collection arrangement s f or, and 
subsequent management of, packaging waste. The roles played by EPR schemes vary  
across  different  countries,  but  include combinations of some or all of the following 
features: 

  Mechanism(s)  for  funding  the  collection  of  relevant  materials, often via one or 

more PROs; 

  The carrying out of collection of packaging waste streams (in some count ries t his 

function is carried out by municipalities); 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Contracting of sorting plants to sort material (in some count ries t his f unction is 

carried out by municipalities); 

  Setting  recycling  targets for sorting plants (the amount of material output into 
saleable grades as a proportion of input material, sometimes customised t o input  
composition information); 

  Owning sorted packaging fraction outputs from sorting plants or buying these from 
sorting  plants  at  agreed  prices,  and  arranging  for  their  onward  sale/further 
processing; 

  Setting quality standards for different sorted packaging fractions (either sinc e t he 
PRO(s) own the material, or to provide set standards to support the reprocessing 
sector). 

To illustrate the degree of variation in how PROs operate across the countries where 
study plants were located, schemes in five example countries are summarised in Table 
1-2. 

Table 1-2: Examples of variation in PRO arrangements with sorting plants 
Country 
EPR Scheme/PRO  CITEO 

Germany  Austria 
DSD 

Italy 
COREPLA 

Sweden 
FTI 

France 

ARA 

Owns sorting 
plants 
Provides material 
to sorting plants 
Specifies choice 
of output 
fractions 
Sets sorted 
fraction purity  
specifications 
Owns/buys 
material 
Sets overall 
recovery targets 
Sets fraction-
specific targets in 
contract 
Variations 

X 

X 

Y 

Y 

X 

Y 

X  

X 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y  (sells  on 
in auction) 
X 

X 

X 

Y 

X 

Y 

X 

Y 

X 

X 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

X 

Y 

Y 

Y 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Plants have to 
bid 
for 
m ate rial f rom  
m unicipalitie s  
not PR O 

Highly 
pre scriptive  
and  rigorous 
quality checks.  
Plants can se l l 
som e  
m ate rials/ 
be ne fit 
highe r 
re ve nues 

from  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.2. 

Quality framework 

Policy and legislation in the EU and Member States, in particular the revised Packaging 
and Packaging Waste Directive, has focussed on the quantity of recycling of each main 
material  type,  using  recycling  rates  as  a  metric   (material  is either recycled or not 
recycled). There has been less focus on the quality of recycling, despite this being an 
important issue to consider. The main source of environmental benefit from rec ycling 
is in its ability to displace virgin material of the same kind. However, where the quality 
of recycling is insufficient, that direct replacement is not ec onomic ally viable . Even 
when secondary raw materials do replace virgin material, it is often not economic ally 
viable for them to be recycled into the same products in a circular way. Recycling of  a 
‘higher quality’ may be needed in some areas to move towards a circular economy and 
enable higher overall recycling rates.  

Higher  quality  recycling  is  not  always  economically  (or  even  environmentally) 
preferable to lower quality applications in each specific instance. However, if  t here is 
too much supply and not enough demand in lower quality applications, and if market s 
for the lower quality outputs become saturated1, there is likely to be an inc ent ive t o 
produce higher quality outputs in order to be able to sell the material.   

This study seeks to provide a description of ‘high quality recycling’ in t he ‘Qualit y of  
Recycling:  Towards  an  Operational  Definition  and  Framework’  report.  The  quality 
framework set out in that report seeks to move beyond simply a binary classification, 
(for example whether the material displaces demand for a virgin material or not). T he 
framework attempts to describe the extent to which properties of the mat erial being 
recycled are preserved, properties which are costly or unfeasible to recover onc e lost  
(i.e. transparency, colour form). 

The framework is intended as a starting point for a practical, operational assessment 
of  the  quality  of  recycling  at  the  level  of  individual  sorting  plants/reprocessors or 
whole recycling chains. Outputs from a plant (or from a recycling chain) can be graded 
against  the  quality  levels  defined  in  the  framework to provide a description of the 
current quality of outputs, and to assess the impact on output qualit y of  c hanges in 
the  operation  of  one  or  more  plants  in  the  recycling  chain.  For  example, a sorted 
fraction output which is of a lower quality (according to the framew ork) c an be sent  
back through the process in order to be further sort ed/treated in order to produc e an 
output of higher quality. 

The framework’s descriptions of quality of recycling for PET can be found in Table 1- 3 
and for other materials (HDPE and PP, papers and glass) in Appendix A.1, along with a 
concise summary of the rationale for some the descriptions. For further detail, readers 
are  referred  to  the  ‘Quality  of  Recycling:  Towards  an  Operational  Definition  and 
Framework’ report. 

1 This is suggested by the disparity between pledges regarding inc reased c ollection 
and  pledges  regarding  increased  uptake  of  polyolefin  recycled  content  evidenced 
within  the  Assessment  report  of  the  voluntary  pledges  under  Annex  III  of  the 
European  Strategy 
in  a  Circular  Economy,  available  at 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7121-2019-ADD-1/en/pdf 

for  Plastics 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                     
Table 1-3: Framework quality levels for plastic - PET 

Category  Quality/Value 

Rationale 

A 

B 

C 

Dimensions 

Maintain/preserve 
IV,  product  type, 
transparency, 
colour;  and 
contact suitability 

food 

Maintain/preserve 
IV,  product  type, 
transparency,  and 
colour 
Maintain/preserve 
IV, product type 

D 

Other 

Preserves colour separation and suitable for use in 
the production of the same food-contact items 

Preserves colour separation and suitable for use in 
colour-specific non-food-contact uses requiring 
high purity flake 

Mixed colour bottle flake can be used for non-
colour-sensitive applications that nonetheless 
require high enough IV (e.g. fibres and strapping). 

Separated trays can be separately reprocessed 
with lower losses compared to processing mixed 
with bottles 

Mixed, un-colour-separated bottle and tray flake 
that may need further sorting 

*IV  (intrinsic  viscosity),  measured  in  deciliters  per  gram  (dl/g),  is  an  important 
marker  of quality. Bottle manufacture requires PET with high IV (0.75 dl/g and up t o 
0.84 dlg/g for carbonated soft drinks). Trays can made with PET of a low er IV   (0.70) 
and textiles lower still (0.4-0.7).2 

2  Delta  Engineering, PET, available from https://delta-engineering.be/pet?lang=hu; 
Equipolymers, available from https://www.equipolymers.com/pet-market. 

32 

 
 
 
                                     
1.3. 

Economic model of sorters and re-processors 

The  quality  of  recycling  achieved  by  sorting  plants  and  reprocessors  is  strongly 
influenced by the economic context within which they operate. T his c ontext  varies 
depending of the role of the plants in the recycling chain. 

Plant operators either buy input material or are paid to process it. Operat ional c osts 
are incurred in sorting and/or reprocessing the material, including paying of f  c apit al 
investments.  Plant  operators  may  sell  outputs  to  offtakers  under  various 
arrangements (under contract to a PRO, on the open market, etc .), or the ow nership 
of  the  material  may  reside  with  another  actor  in  the  recycling  chain  (i.e.  PRO  or 
municipality). Disposal costs will also arise for the reject fraction, which of ten f all t o 
the plant operator.  

The  amounts  of  impurities  (non-target  material  and  contamination)  in  the  input 
received by plants also impact costs, with higher amounts leading to greater amount s 
of  reject material (with associated disposal costs) and lower quantities of saleable 
output, and/or increases in the cost of processing in order t o ac hieve t he required 
quality.  

The economic features discussed above are illustrated in Figure 1-6. 

Figure 1-6: Economic framework for sorting plants and reprocessors 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
From the point of view of sorting plants and reprocessors, if higher qualit y rec ycling 
outputs are to be achieved, it must be economically practicable to do so.  T he c ost of  
improving  the  purity  of  sorted  material  fractions  (and  of  increasing the amount of 
suitable material captured into these fractions) tends to follow  a c ost curve w here, 
beyond a certain point, the removal of all or some of the remaining impurities can only 
be undertaken at considerable cost. Likewise, the costs associated w it h capturing a 
target material for a particular output also increase as you move towards rec overing 
the last fraction of material (through the need to introduce additional sorting steps on 
reject streams). This dynamic is illustrated in Figure 1-7 below. 

Figure 1-7: Illustrative Economic Viability of Producing Higher Quality Sorte d 
Output 

In order to make the additional sorting and/or processing steps economic ally viable, 
there  needs  to  be  sufficient  change  in  the  economic  balance  to  enable  this.  The 
demand and value received from higher quality material needs to be sufficient to meet 
increased  sorting  and/or  processing costs and to cover other potential changes in 
costs, as follows: 

  Changes in disposal costs result ing from higher removal of impurities  t o enable a 
higher quality output, leading to higher tonnages going to disposal (c onversely, 
increasing the capture of the targeted material reduces the amounts disposed).  

  Changing revenues from other sorted fractions, due to how the increased qualit y 
affects the composition or level of impurities in other target sorted f ractions. F or 
example, separating transparent PET from a mixed  colour PET  f rac tion w ill make 
the mixed PET fraction darker, which has a lower sales value than lighter coloured 
mixed  PET (with a higher transparent PET content). 

Such increased material value would also need to be sufficiently reliable for a plant  t o 
consider that there is a business case for producing a higher quality output.  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
If  quality  is  required  to increase, by changes in legislation or by PROs, then plants 
would  only  be  able  to  continue  operating  if  increased  costs  are  balanced  out  by 
additional revenues (or a change in payments).  

Figure 1-8 illustrates the key components of the economic model for increasing the 
quality of outputs at sorting plants. 

Figure 1-8: Economics of increasing quality 

The  price  of  secondary  raw  materials  is  typically  bounded  by  the  price  of  the 
respective  virgin  materials,  except  in  some  specific  circumstances  where  the 
secondary raw material is valued higher that virgin. In all cases, for the production of  
higher quality secondary raw material to be viable, the anticipated selling price for the 
improved material needs to be sufficient to cover the additional c o sts of  production 
and  meet  the  profit  margin  required  by  the  plant operator. Conversely, where the 
additional costs and required margin to produce an improved secondary raw  mat erial 
exceed  the prices of the relevant virgin materials, there is unlikely to be a suitable 
demand generated for the higher quality output (producers will choose virgin mat erial 
instead).  A  further  factor  is  that  prices  of  virgin  materials  tend  to  fluctuate,  and 
therefore the prices of secondary raw materials fluctuate. The associated unc ert ainty 
affects plant operator’s confidence in demand for their outputs at pric e s required t o 
make  production  viable  and  so  investment  decisions  may  be  deemed  “risky”.  This 
dynamic is illustrated in Figure 1-9 below. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  1-9:  Economic  Viability  of  Producing  Higher Quality Secondary Raw 
Materials 

The bounding of secondary raw material prices by virgin prices has some  import ant  
exceptions. For example, demand for secondary raw materials as opposed t o virgin 
materials  can  be  driven  by  legislation  and  public  sustainability  commitments  from 
brands. In cases where demand is sufficient compared to the supply of that secondary 
raw  material and substituting virgin material is unacceptable, then the price of the 
secondary raw material may exceed the market price for the virgin alternative. In t he 
current market (at time of writing), this is understood to be the case f or f ood -grade 
rPET for bottle production.  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Analysis of drivers at individual plants 

The findings in this section are based upon visits and interviews wit h 25 sort ing  and 
reprocessing plants. Findings are derived from plants from a wide range of loc at ions, 
scales of operation, company types and roles in the recycling chain, although there are 
only a small number of examples of any particular type of plant. The f indings ref lect 
general  drivers  in  relation  to achieving high quality recycling for sorting plants and 
reprocessors in the EU, with particular relevance to the countries where the surveyed 
plants  are  located.  However,  conclusions  drawn  from  specific  plant  visits  and 
performance data referenced from individual plants may not be directly applic able t o 
other plants beyond those studied. 

This section is structured around material types (plastics, papers, and glass)  sort ed 
and/or reprocessed by the plants studied, in order to explore distinc t  t hemes ac ross 
those  plants,  specific  to  their  role  in  the  recycling  chain.  An  examination  of  how 
factors acting at the individual plant level play out across the whole recycling c hain is 
presented  in  Section  3.  A  summary  of  the  plants  visited  is  provided  in 

37 

 
 
 
 
Table 2-1. Much of the information provided by the plants is commercially sensit ive ; 
plant  identities  are  therefore  anonymised  by  using  a  plant ID in place of the plant 
name, and a significant amount of detail on individual plants c annot be disc losed in 
this report. Case studies detailing specific plant information are included in Section 3.  

38 

 
 
 
Table 2-1: Plants included in the study, by type and location 

Sorter (S) or 
Sorter and 
Reprocessor 
(S+R) 
S 

Plant type, by materials accepted for sorting / 
reprocessing 

Location 

Plastic bottles, PTT, film, paper and board, metal 
containers, aseptic containers 

S 

S 

Plastic bottles, PTT, film, paper and board, metal 
containers, aseptic containers, glass containers 
Plastic bottles, PTT, metal containers, aseptic 
containers 

S (+R)* 

Plastics, Mixed (direct from collections and 
sorted fractions) 

S+R 

Plastics, Mixed (direct from collections) 

France 

France 

Greece 

Denmark 
Hungary  
Spain 
Germany  
Austria 

Germany 

Italy 

Sweden  

Plant ID 

D1 

D2 

D3 

D4 
D5 
D6 
D7 
D8 

D9 

P1 

P2 

Plastics, PET 

S 
S+R 
S+R 

Plastics, HDPE/PP 

Plastics, PET (bottles and trays) 

P3 
P4 
P5 
P6 
P7 
P8 
P9 
P10 
P11 
P12 
F1 
F2 
G1 
G2 
*Companies also ran and provided insight into follow-on reprocessing operations 

Austria 
Germany 
Croatia 
Netherlands 
Germany  
Germany  
Germany 
Spain  
Austria  
Netherlands 
Germany  
Germany  
Germany  
France 

Plastics, HDPE/PP/PS 
Plastics, LDPE Films 

S (+R)* 
S+R 

Paper 

Glass 

S+R 

S 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1. 

Plastics  sorting plants 

The group of plastics sorting plants analysed in this section are those that: 
  Receive a collected material stream; or 

  Are secondary sorters, receiving a mixed polymer bale and outputting bales of 

sorted packaging material. 

Plants  that  fall  under  either  of  those  two  groupings  are  analysed  together  in  this 
section due to the similarities in the economic model between them. The sorting plants 
in this section are typically contracted to sort material by eit her munic ipalit ies or a 
PRO(s), and they typically sell sorted outputs to PROs or reprocessors. Reprocessors  
(that  also  have  sorting  steps)  are  covered  separately  in  Section  2.2.  Plants  that 
primarily  sort material but carry out some reprocessing either within the same facility,  
or at another facility owned by the same company are included in bot h t his sec t ion 
and Section 2.2.  

The nature of plastics sorting plants is, to a large extent, determined by the prevalent  
collection systems in place for plastic packaging in the country w here each plant  is 
located. Most plastics sorting plants included in the study sort  input material from  LPF  
collections, which is usually a combination of plastic packaging, metal packaging, and 
often  with  aseptic  containers.  Input  material  from  some  collection  schemes  also 
includes  other  non-packaging  plastics,  and  in  some  countries  the  collection  mix 
includes  papers.  Where  plastic  packaging  is  collected  separately  from  all  other 
materials, this stream feeds directly into plastic sorting plants in t hese loc ations. In 
most cases, plastics sorting plant  operators then sell on sorted fractions to secondary 
sorters  and/or  reprocessors.  Some  plants  carry  out  further  reprocessing  steps on 
some outputs within the facility, or at another facility owned by the company. 

Plastics sorting plants differ in scale, with smaller plants tending t o out put a smaller 
range of sorted fractions. There are two key dimensions to the quality of outputs f rom 
the sorting operations at plastics sorting plants: 
  The  number  and  range  of  the  separate  sorted  packaging  fractions  the  plant 
produces,  which  is  largely  influenced  by  the  overall  process  design  of the plant 
(established  when  the  plant  is  built,  subject  to  any  subsequent  significant 
reconfigurations or additions to the process).  

  The purity levels of the sorted outputs, which is largely influenced by variat ions in 
the effectiveness of different sorting methods and proc ess designs (f or example, 
manual  positive  pick  producing  higher  quality  outputs)  and  from  ongoing quality 
management and quality control stages. 

The main variation in quality drivers for sorting plants depends on the nature of  t heir 
contract  with  PROs  or  municipalities,  in  particular  the  extent  to  which  they  are 
exposed to material revenues and/or have yield targets for specific fractions set within 
the contract. The set of defined output fractions with associated purity specif ications 
(i.e. standards for sorted plastic packaging) are a very important determinant  of  t he 
choice  and  purity  of  sorted  fractions from sorting plants and the quality of output 
bales, particularly where PROs also buy or own the resultant sorted fractions output. 

The  resulting  different  quality  drivers  acting  on  sorting  plants  in  the  study  are 
summarised at a high level in Table 2-2. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2-2: Quality drivers on plastics sorting plants (including LPF sorters but 
excluding plastics reprocessors with minimal sorting) 

Plant 
ID 

Plant type, 
by materials 
accepted for 
sorting / 
reprocessing 

D1 
D2 

D3 

D4 
D5 
D6 
D7 
D8 
D9 
P1 
P2 
P5 

P10 

LPF + papers 

LPF +  papers 
and glass 

LPF 

Plastics, 
Mixed 
Plastics, PET 
Plastics, 
HDPE/PP/PS 

Location  Main Drivers 

Sales 
revenue 
from 
improved 
quality 
outputs  
Minor 
France 
Minor 
France 
Greece  Major 

Meeting 
contract 
specification 
yields of 
specific 
fractions 
Major 
Major 

Denmark 
Hungary   Major 
Spain 
Germany  
Austria 
Germany  Minor 
Minor 
Italy 
Sweden   Major 
Croatia  Major 
Major 

Spain  

Major 

Major 

Overall 
Recycling 
Target 

Only really 
meeting 
offtakers 
specification 

Major 

Major 

Minor 

Major 

Major 

Minor 

Sales revenue from higher quality outputs 

The choices by plant operators on the output fractions produced at the plant  and t he 
quality  of  these  fractions  are  heavily  influenced  by  the  extent  to  which  there  is 
sufficient additional material revenue received from achieving higher quality outputs.  

Most  improvements  in  output  quality  noted  during  the  survey  were  driven  by 
additional net revenues for the operator realised by improving quality or int roduc ing 
additional  grades.  Where  plants  are  exposed  to  market  revenues  for  their  sorted 
fraction outputs (through their contracts with municipalit ies or PROs) , t his is a key 
driver in determining what sorted fractions the processes are designed to out put and 
in  making  improvements  to  increase  quality.  Plants  that  would  receive  higher 
additional material revenue from higher quality outputs have an ongoing c ommerc ial 
driver  to  improve  quality  (either  by  changing  output  grades  or  improving  purities) 
where  this  would  result  in  sufficient  additional  revenue  to  cover  the  increasing 
processing and other costs. 

41 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Benefiting  directly  from  higher  revenues  incentivises  plants  to  make  adaptations 
where  there  is  increased  revenue  from  different  outputs,  but  also  leads  to plants 
opting not to sort some fractions due to insufficient revenues. 

Whether  there  are  higher  revenues  from  sorted  fractions  with  lower  levels  of 
impurities  depends  on  the  plant  and  material.  Some  plants  selling  outputs  to  the 
market outside of PRO arrangements were exposed to pressure to meet  and exc eed 
common international quality standards for some materials (notably PET outputs ,  but  
also  others)  in  order  to  ensure  a  range of buyers for the material. However, some 
plants  indicated  that  offtakers were content to receive material at lower than the 
purities specified by the PRO. Levels of impurities (within bounds) may be a relat ively 
minor  influencer on market prices. 

Meeting contract specifications on grade yields 

Where a PRO prescribes a wider range of sorted fractions, this w ill lead t o f rac tions 
being  separated  to  a  greater  degree  than may otherwise have been the case (for 
instance, PET trays, opaque PET, colour sorted film grades, specific PP fractions). 

Where PROs specify a yield requirement for a particular fraction at a particular quality, 
there is often little drive to improve quality beyond that specified in the c ont ract  and 
often  a  financial  incentive  to  not  exceed  the  purity  standards  specified.  This  is 
particularly  true  in  cases  where  the  operator  has  minimal  exposure  to  material 
revenues.  To  improve  the quality beyond that specified would likely entail costs in 
upgrading the process, or running the current process at a slower speed. The removal 
of more impurities from the sorted packaging fractions (beyond t he specif ied purit y 
standard) would result in lower sorted material fraction weights, w hich in t urn may  
reduce revenues to the plant operator. In addition, the removed impurities would end 
up in the residue stream, meaning disposal costs would increase. Therefore, for plants 
that produce material based on grades and qualities specified in a contract and sold t o 
PROs, the focus on quality needs to be at the point of revision of purity specif ications 
and at contract renewal. In the absence of the PRO making subsequent amendment s 
to  the  specifications  for  the  quality  of  sorted  packaging  fractions,  further 
improvements to quality are unlikely to be made by the plant. 

Recycling targets 

Recycling targets (a target to ensure a certain fraction of input material is  rec ycled) 
set within sorting plant contracts can act as a strong driver to increase the qualit y of  
recycling  output  where  the  economic driver is not sufficiently strong. Targets can 
encourage additional capture of target material into sorted fractions, and c an make 
the difference between materials sent to disposal or to recycling where the economic s 
are more marginal.  

However, targets can also lead to pressure to lower the purity of outputs (w ithin t he 
bounds of what reprocessors will accept) if the recycling t arget is measured on t he 
basis  of  output  contained  in  saleable  grades,  as  there  is then an  incentive not to 
remove impurities beyond what is minimally  acceptable. 

Meeting offtaker specifications 

Some plants included in the study had very little incentive to improve qualit y, having 
neither  pressure  from  recycling  rate  targets  nor  specific grade or yield targets. In 
these cases, plant operators considered the quality of out puts suf f icient so long as 
they met offtakers’ required specifications (whether PROs or reprocessors). So long as 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
these qualities were economically achieved, there tended to be little incentive f or t he 
plant operator to consider improvements in grades or outputs during the t ime period 
of the arrangement with offtakers (e.g. contract length with PRO). 

Other factors 

Some plants had more specific factors constraining the qualit y of  out puts t hat t hey 
produced; for instance, there were limitations of physical space or the construction of  
the plant made it difficult or impossible to expand existing equipment (for example  t o 
widen process belts) or install new sorting or processing units. 

Summary 

Though  there  is  considerable  variation  in  the  drivers  for  quality  experienced  by 
different sorting plants, in many cases the main secondary raw material output s f rom 
the recycling chains ended up at a similar  quality. In some cases, the overall qualit y 
outcome would not be improved by increasing purities of sorted fractions from sort ing 
plants  beyond  minimum  standards set by PROs or reprocessors, because  sufficient 
further sorting steps to control for quality are typically conducted at  a lat er st age of  
the recycling chain. 

Most plants had already made process changes to improve quality or quant it y w here 
there was a relatively clear economic case. Most remaining opportunit ies f or f urt her 
improving quality and quantity were higher risk and/or with a weaker economic  c ase, 
where the material income driver was less influential in the decision. 

Where  the  economic  case  for  improving  qualities  was more marginal,  other drivers 
became stronger determinant s in the outcomes for both sorted f ractions and purit y 
levels of sorted fractions: 

  In response to PROs specifying output grades, plants were set up to output a wider 

range of fractions; 

  In response to PROs setting recycling targets, grades were being sent for recycling 
that might otherwise have gone to disposal. Conversely, in the absence of recycling 
targets, further sorting of the reject fraction that could have been done was not 
being done; 

  Where plants were not exposed to the benefit from material revenues and operated 

to set yield targets, there was no incentive to make further changes; 

  Plants did meet the purity specifications demanded by PROs and in some cases 

these were higher than what is acceptable to reprocessors. However, w here PROs 
bought the material, there was no incentive to increase the purity of sorted fraction 
grades beyond minimum  standards. 

Additionally, a key determinant of whether additional fractions w ere sort ed w as t he 
scale of plant operation. Larger scale plants gained from economies of scale, thus  t he 
additional costs of further sorting steps were lower per tonne of material sorted. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key findings 

 

In some cases, the overall quality outcome was not improved by improving purities 
of sorted fractions from sorting plants beyond minimum  standards set by PROs or 
reprocessors, because further quality control sorting steps are typically conducted 
at a later stage of the recycling chain.  

  A  key  driver  in  the  implementation of plant operation improvements associated 
with  material  quality  is  where  the  plant  operator  can  realise  the  benefits  of 
additional  income  from  either  improving  the  quality  of  a  grade  of  material  or 
separating  materials  into  additional  grades,  and  that  income  outweighs  the 
investment cost of making those changes. The majority of  improvement s not ed 
during  the  survey  were  driven  by  additional  net  revenues  for  the  operator  by 
improving  quality  or  introducing  additional  grades.  However,  these  more 
straightforward, relatively easy, quality and quantity decisions have most ly  now  
been made; remaining opportunities for further improving quality and quantity are 
higher risk and/or with a weaker economic case, and therefore the material income 
driver becomes weaker.  

  The scale of sorting operation is a key varying factor between sorting plant s, w it h 
plants at a larger scale having a better economic case f or sort ing more spec if ic 
fractions (e.g. white/opaque HDPE). 

 

In a number of surveyed cases the plant operator does not realise the benef its of  
additional income from either improving the quality of a sorted fraction of material 
or separating materials into additional sorted fractions. The more significant driver 
in most of these cases is the need to meet the output specif ications set on t he 
grades of materials. In these cases it is typically the PRO that  is c ont racting t he 
operator and setting the specifications. The PRO could, t heref ore, drive f ur t her 
quality improvements by altering the specifications, though there were no specif ic 
instances of this having occurred recently from the plants that were surveyed.  

  At the plant operator level, as the cases for improving qualit y and  quant it ies of  
material become more economically marginal, or in the cases where t hey do not  
experience this economic driver, then it would seem likely that PROs could play an 
important role in specifying or creating the economic drivers for: 

o  Further sorting into new sorted fractions; 

o 

Improvements to the quality specifications of existing sorted fractions; and  

o  Tolerances for the amounts of target materials that can be sent for disposal 

rather than recycling. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
2.2. 

Plastics  reprocessing plants 

The plastics reprocessors studied sold directly to users of  secondary raw  mat erials 
rather than to PROs. They tended to be set up to produce material of a certain qualit y 
or range of qualities to meet the specifications of different manufacturers utilising t he 
secondary raw materials (“Convertors”). It is the requirement s of  t hese c onvertors  
that determined the material qualities that plastics reprocessors needed to produce. 

Producing a higher quality grade output from a pre-sorted fraction might entail: 

  Further  sorting  of  materials  whilst  st ill  in  packaging  form  using  manual  and 

mechanical methods; 

  Conducting additional cleaning steps such as hotwashing;  

 

In the stages post washing, separation of flakes of different colour grades, removal 
of contaminants and improvements to the output flake to improve t he pot ential 
clarity of products manufactured from the flake; and/or 

  Further decontamination and polymer improvements during extrusion processes.  

The major factors influencing the quality of material produced by plastics reprocessors 
include  the  additional  revenue  available  from  higher  quality  fractions ,  and  the 
consistency  and  reliability  of  demand  for  higher  quality  outputs.  The  different 
polymers (PET, HDPE, PP and PE) also have different challenges regarding quality  due 
to: 
  The comparative level of variability in the sorted fractions (colours, product types, 

additives); 

  Differing amounts of problematic product features (adhesives, multi-polymer layers, 

less compatible resins); and 

  The permeability of the material (absorbing odours, chemicals and compounds 

which are hard to remove). 

The factors that led reprocessors to increase the quality of material produced were: 

  Changes or anticipated changes in demand for higher quality material; and 

  A concern to position themselves as a producer of quality material. 

Conversely, where opportunities to improve quality were not taken, the main reasons 
cited were the volatility of secondary raw material markets and a lack of confidence in 
seeing sufficient return on investments.  

The main drivers or barriers experienced by different plants in the study are shown in, 
and notably vary by polymer. Each polymer is discussed in turn below. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2-3: Quality drivers on plastics reprocessing plants 
Plant 
ID 

Material 
Reprocessed 

Location 

Main Drivers or Barriers  for Increasing Quality of 
Outputs 
Material 
degradation 
particular 
challenge 

No 
increases 
considere
d possible 

Consistency 
of demand 
at higher 
price 

Costs 
required 
would be 
too high in 
relation to 
demand 
Minor 

Y 
Y 
Y 
n/a 

PET/HDPE/PP 
HDPE/PP 
PET 
PET 
PET trays 
HDPE/PP 
HDPE/PP 
HDPE/PP 
HDPE/PP 
PE Films 
PE Films 

P1* 
P2 
P3 
P4 
P6 
P7 
P8 
P9 
P10* 
P11 
P12 
*Sorting plants studied whose operators ran and provided insight into subsequent 
reprocessing operations elsewhere 

Italy 
Sweden 
Austria 
Germany 
Netherlands 
Germany  
Germany  
Germany 
Spain 
Austria  
Y 
Netherlands  Y 

Minor 
Major 
Major 

Major 

Major 
Major 
Major 
Major 

PET 

Demand  from  bottle  producers  for  recycled  PET   (rPET)  is  high;  the  material  is 
relatively uniform, impermeable and is not degraded through use or in the c ollec tion 
systems. The relative costs of cleaning the flake to a suitable standard can, in general, 
be recouped in the value received for good quality transparent a nd light  blue bot t le 
flake.  Mixed  colour  flake  also  has  output markets, with higher tolerances for some 
impurities. The yield of rPET from PET trays is low when trays are processed on bot tle 
reprocessing  lines.  However,  with  prices  and  demand  high  for  rPET ,  and  a  large 
amount  of  available  input  material,  further  development  of  PET  tray  reprocessing 
capacity is expected in the near future. 

HDPE/PP 

For  HDPE  and  PP,  market  demand  for  higher  quality  material  is  weaker.  Quality 
challenges are also higher due t o the chemical variation in the polymer group, great er 
use of colour and greater absorbency of the material, and the collected mat erial has 
higher levels of organic and chemical contamination than PET due to the product uses. 
The  major  markets  for  HDPE/PP  secondary  raw  materials  currently  only  require  a 
limited degree of colour separation and typically have a higher t olerance f or odour. 
There  are  some  applications  for  recycled  HDPE  and  PP  that  require  higher  quality 
material  (e.g.  packaging),  but  the  variability  of  virgin  material  prices,  and  the 
corresponding risks to stability of demand, mean that there is not currently a reliable 
demand pull for higher quality recycled HDPE and PP. This market unc ert ainty limit s 
investment in projects to improve HDPE/PP output quality. However, a premium  does 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
for  more  delicate  product  applications 

exist  for  high  quality,  natural  or  white  HDPE  outputs  for  use  in  packaging,  and  a 
smaller premium  for other outputs with reduced odour and more structural uniformit y 
thinner  walled 
suitable 
products/packaging). Some plants are geared towards producing these slightly higher 
quality outputs, and either have already made or are planning relevant investments.  
From the group of plants studied, the operators that have invested to raise the quality 
tended to be operating large scale plants. This may well indic at e t hat reprocessors 
need to be operating at the larger scale for there to be a reasonable economic case t o 
improve the quality of recycled HDPE and PP. Higher quality material would also hav e 
a  wider  choice  of  offtakers,  providing  more  security  in  finding  buyers.  However, 
company  positioning  can  also  play  a  role  where  economics  are  marginal, with one 
reprocessor positioning itself in the market as a producer of higher quality material. 

(e.g. 

PE Film 

PE  film  from  household  packaging  is  mainly  used in dark coloured applications with 
tolerance for odour, such as refuse bags. T he relatively low yields combined w it h t he 
high challenges of film processing mean that there is currently no economic  c ase f or 
investing  in  additional  sorting  and cleaning steps to create  a higher quality output 
(e.g. clear de-odourised film for packaging applications). 

2.3. 

Paper sorting plants 

Two  paper  sorting  plants  were  visited  as  part  of the study. Both were situated in 
Germany  and  provided  the  majority  of  their  de-ink  output  to  German  mills.  The 
findings presented below may have been different had the study sample been larger 
and/or had it included paper-sorting plants without close relat ionships w it h specific 
mills. 

Both plants sorted material direct from household collections, with limited control over 
quality  of  inputs  they  received.  Both  plant  operators  also  experienced  increased 
challenges to quality with the change in composition of the input mix  (a dec re ase in 
newsprint  and  growth of board grades, with an increase in smaller sized board and 
difficult to remove inks). The plants existing contracts differed in economic structure:  

  One plant operator was paid a processing cost per tonne and had no ownership of  
material, but was working in the context of a long-term agreement (made by t he 
plants’ owner) to provide a reliable supply of de-inked paper into a specific mill.  

  The  other  plant  operator  bid  for material directly and sold its outputs onto the 
market,  but  the  plant’s  owner  bought  most of its output to be used within the 
same company to supply their own mill. 

Accordingly,  though  the quality of output in both cases was driven directly by the 
requirements of offtakers, paper mills and traders, there were dif f erences in drivers 
reflecting the particular circumstances: 

  The first plant operator placed a greater emphasis on stability and c onf idence of  
long-term demand (the prospect of increased revenues was secondary as they saw 
no benefit themselves). 

  The other plant operator was more directly focused on optimising sales revenues in 

relation to costs. 

The main drivers are shown in  

Table 2-4. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2-4: Quality drivers on paper sorting plants 
Plant ID  Location 

Main Drivers for Quality 
Material revenues from 
higher quality 

Yield targets set by contracts 

F1 
F2 

Germany 
Germany 

Major 

Major 

The  two  paper  sorting  plants  sought to maximise yields captured into a ‘de-inking’ 
grade material (EN643 grade 1.11), and also produced a corrugated cardboard grade 
(EN643 grade 1.04) with either one or two lower quality accompanying mixed paper 
grades.  Most  of  the  material  in  the mixed grade was grey/white board and smaller 
sized  papers,  the  material  collected  but  neither sorted into either a de-inking or a 
corrugated cardboard grade. Mixed paper grades are therefore largely defined by t he 
collection and sorting processes rather than the requirements of reprocessors. At both 
of the paper sorting plants visited as part of this study, it was observed that no ef f ort 
was made to remove non-paper materials from this grade, resulting in high  levels of  
impurities.  

The markets for the higher quality EN643 grades 1.11 and 1.04 are well est ablished: 
the material is used as a key input by mills  producing newsprint, corrugated cardboard 
and testliner. Though attracting lower prices, the remaining mixed paper grades also 
have offtakers – one mill  uses these to produce the back of whit e-f ronted t estliner. 
Tissue  paper  manufacturers  also  provide  an  outlet for lower quality and fine-sized 
mixed  paper grades. 

In both cases, the plant operators saw little need to change or improve the qualit y of  
the  outputs  they  produced,  since  their  current  output  meets  key  offt aker 
requirements. Small differences in the quality of de-inked grades can be tolerated by 
mills  without being detrimental to the process because mills can subsequently increase 
the quality of the input to the required whiteness by mixing it wit h a dif f ere nt  input  
grade from commercial or post -industrial sources.  

The  value  associated  with  the  de-inking grades is high enough to incentivise both 
plant operators to continually review and look to implement: 

  Additional recovery cycles to increase its capture; and  

  Cost-effective technologies to improve sorting efficiencies and yields into de-inked 

grades as they become available. 

Plant  operators  from  both  plants  were  able  to  identify  potential  marginal 
improvements in yields that were not yet economically viable, for example addit ional 
NIR  or air-separation steps to recover additional de-inking grades. 

Both  plant  operators  reported  that  t here  is  a  desire  from  mills  to  further  address 
specific quality issues in the de-inked paper supply that cause problems in pulping, f or 
instance  excessive  levels  of  cardboard  remaining  in  de-inked  grades,  but  an 
acknowledgement that this requires larger investment in sorting plants t hat may not  
be commercially viable. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4. 

Glass sorting and reprocessing plants 

Two  glass  sorters/reprocessors  were  visited  for  this  study. One primarily received 
streams  of  glass  that  were  colour-separated  at source, and one received a mixed 
colour  glass  input.  Both  were  a  similar  scale  of  operation,  processing  200-250 
thousand tonnes of material per annum. 

They both primarily produced cullet for re-melt for glass packaging manufacture. One 
study plant operator reported that the demand for colour-separated cullet for re - melt  
was high and growing (though, due to competition for input material, the amount t hey 
paid  for  input  material  was  also  rising).  The  other  plant  was  owned  by  a  glass 
manufacturer and the operator was paid a processing cost plus a margin. 

Transport costs for glass are an important factor in glass recycling given the relatively 
low  value  of  material  per  tonne.  Therefore,  the  presence  of  major  glass-using 
industries (either glass packaging manufacturers or fibreglass producers) in the region 
can act as a strong demand pull with regards to the quality of recycling. 

The  purity of material required for re-melt is very high (with limits in the grams per 
tonne)  and  is  complex  to  achieve  given  the variation in input material. Due to the 
technology  costs and the comparatively low value of the material per tonne, glass 
sorting plants need to be established at a very large scale to be viable. Investments in 
upgrading quality are thus also considerable (typically over €2M). Therefore, access to 
capital was noted as an important factor in enabling investment in quality. 

The plant operator included in the study that was paid a processing c ost plus margin  
was insulated from drivers to improve output quality over and above t hat c urrently 
specified. Since yield and quality targets were being met, there was little incentive t o 
make  further  ongoing  improvements  in,  for  instance,  a  greater  degree  of  colour 
separation or a reduction in losses of target material to the reject/fines fraction. 

A summary of the main drivers for improving quality is shown in Table 2-5. 

Table 2-5: Quality drivers on glass sorting plants 
Plant ID  Location 

Main Drivers for Quality 
Material revenues from 
higher quality 

Yield targets set by contracts 

G1 
G2 

France 
Germany 

Major 

Major 

Both  plant  operators  sold  the  large  majority  of  their  output  to  glass  packaging 
manufacturers  and  therefore  already  work  to  tight  and  established  quality 
requirements. Thus, the study plant operators considered the reject/fines f raction as 
the main focus for further quality improvements. To recover additional glass from t his 
reject/fines fraction into re-melt outputs, substantial additional investment is needed 
in an extra processing stage involving washing, drying, and sorting. The reject/fines 
fraction  has  considerably  higher  levels  of  impurities  (it  contains  all  the  material 
rejected  earlier  in  the  sorting  process)  and  even  after  processing  the  remaining 
impurities  can  mean  it  has  to  be  mixed  in  with  other  cullet  at  relatively  low 
proportions (in one plant, at a ratio of 5:95) to keep overall impurities acceptable f or 
glass packaging re-melt. At one of the plants studied, the f ines/reject f raction w as 
sometimes sent to insulation foam production. In both cases, investment in f urt her 
processing of the reject/fines fraction was planned in the near future. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Analysis of drivers across the recycling chain 

This  section  presents  key  findings  from the analysis of the relative contribution of 
different  parts  of  the  economic  model  (demand  for  outputs,  cost  of  making 
improvements  to  plants  and  processes, access to capital investment) in driving or 
constraining  the  quality  produced.  An  assessment  is  provided  of  the  conditions 
required across the recycling chain in order to enable improvements in t he qualit y of  
recycling outputs. 

The term ‘higher quality’ in this context is defined as the balance of outputs higher up 
in the levels of quality outlined in Section 1.2, i.e. a greater degree of  separation by 
product characteristics, or a relevant other marker of quality differentiating betw een 
possible output uses.  

3.1. 

Achieving  high  qualities:  findings  from  high  quality 

recycling chains (PET bottles, glass packaging) 

The production of higher quality recycling outputs is widespread in the PET and glass 
packaging sorting and reprocessing industries. Both PET beverage bottles and glass 
packaging are recycled such that the same, or similar,  products are subsequently 
produced, i.e. circular production. In these cases, a combination of factors work 
together to make the production of higher quality outputs viable, summarised below 
and discussed further in Section 3.1.1: 

  high level of market demand for outputs;  

  the intrinsic nature of the material is largely impervious to absorption of 

contaminants; 

  the materials are generally collected in a manner to enable sorting facilities to 

readily separate the relevant sorted packaging fraction; and 

  the level of degradation in the material with each pass through the recycling chain is 

relatively low (compared to other sorted packaging fractions with typically lower 
quality fates). 

However, even for PET and glass, in some cases the above factors are not in place, or 
other  factors  limit  the  amounts  captured  into  higher  quality,  circular  uses;  this  is 
discussed  further  in  Section  3.1.2.  Opportunities  for  marginal  improvements  in 
material  that  is  captured  into  these  higher  quality  streams are outlined in  Section 
3.1.3. 

3.1.1.  Factors enabling high quality recycling 

A  number  of  the  plants  studied sort PET into a quality that would be sufficient for 
reprocessors  to  produce  rPET  for  bottle  to  bottle  manufacture.  Both  of  the  glass 
sorting  plants  studied  produce glass suitable for re-melt back into glass packaging 
Multiple drivers work together to enable this type of high quality recycling, as follows: 

Demand from producers for the secondary raw material 

There is high demand for high quality materials from beverage bottle manuf acturers 
(both PET and glass). Sustainability commitments by consumer- facing brands have 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
kept prices high for food-grade rPET polymer, whilst the price of  virgin polymer  has 
fallen lower, since producers are committed to purchasing secondary raw  mat erials. 
Similarly,  demand for glass cullet of high qualit y is high and sustained. 

Intrinsic impermeability of the material 

Compared with other plastics polymers, PET is relatively impermeable t o odours and 
chemicals. It is therefore comparatively easier to clean PET to produce a sec ondary 
raw  material  with  low  levels  of  odour  and  contaminants  than  for  other  plastics 
polymers.  Glass  is  not  degraded  in  the recycling process, so long as impurities are 
kept to an acceptable level for re-melt processes. 

The product uses are also relevant, since beverage/food packaging (the major use of  
PET  bottles  and  glass  packaging)  results  in  relatively  low  levels  of  chemicals  and 
organic contamination remaining in products in collected streams and sorted fractions. 

Collection systems that avoid degradation of the material 

DRS schemes provide material which already meets a key criteria for the production of 
food-grade secondary raw materials in that it is guaranteed to be >95% food contact.3 
In the case of PET bottles DRS schemes also provide material which is also f ree  f rom 
non-bottle PET, thereby reducing processing costs. The higher costs associated w it h 
this  type  of  collection  are  covered  by  the  packaging  producers.  Glass  is  usually 
separately collected (again sometimes via a DRS), and in some areas is  c ollected in 
colour-separated streams at bring sites. 

Sufficient quantities of homogenous material to enable plants to operate on a  
large enough scale 

Collected PET bottles and glass packaging have sufficient proportions of clear material 
for there to be an economic case across the recycling chain to sort the material into at  
least  these  two  colour  separations.  PET  bottles  and  glass  are  also  relatively 
homogenous materials with low levels of variation and complexity in  produc t design 
(use of adhesives etc). 

Summary 

The following factors contribute to maintaining economic conditions suit able f or high 
quality recycling. In the case of PET: 

 

the majority of plastics sorting plants can separate PET beverage bottle streams by 
colour (either initially at the sorting facility or somet imes at anot her f ac ilit y t hat 
carries out secondary sorting); and  

 

reprocessors can produce colour separated secondary raw material outputs; and  

3  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  282/2008 controls the use of recycled plastic for 
food contact applications. Article 4 sets out the conditions f or t he aut horisation of  
recycling processes. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) publishes sc ientif ic 
opinion  papers  evaluating  the  safety  of  specific recycling processes, and has also 
published a paper on the criteria they use for the safety evaluation of  a mec hanic al 
recycling 
from 
produce 
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2184. Regarding input material t o t he 
recycling process, this paper concludes ‘The Panel considered appropriat e  t hat  t he 
proportion  of  PET  from  non-food  consumer  applications  should  be  no  more  than 
5%  in  the input to be recycled.’  

available 

process 

rPET , 

to 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                     
  economically viable cleaning and decontamination processes allow t he secondary 
raw material to be safely used in the manufacture of food contact packaging.  

For glass, similar  factors also maintain a flow of collected glass back into colour-sorted 
bottle-to-bottle re-melt. 

For  these  materials,  the  role  of  PROs  in  improving  quality  may  be  fairly  limited 
(beyond  for  instance  harmonising  or  pushing  up  purity  standards  for  these sorted 
fractions), since the economic drivers for setting up plants to produc e t hese qualit y 
outputs are relatively strong. 

The following case studies illustrate examples from surveyed plants that have shif t ed 
production towards higher quality PET outputs. 

Case study 1: PET reprocessor shifting to food grade production 

In response to increased demand from producers, the operator developed the plant t o 
produce food-contact suitable pellet. The plant shifted from produc ing low er- grade 
flake for the strapping sector to producing colour-separated grades of  f ood -contact 
pellet. 

Illustrative change in output qualit y in the PET quality framework: 

Grade  A  –  Food-grade 
colour-sorted bottle pellet 
Grade B – Non-food grade 
colour-sorted bottle pellet 
Grade C – Mixed colour t o 
strapping  

Before 
- 

- 

100% 

After 
80% 

20% 

- 

To  produce the non-food-grade, the plant incorporated 20% material from German 
LPF collections (which is high in non-beverage materials). 

Change in components of economic model: 

Input material: predominantly from a collection system without a DRS. 
Processing costs: significant capital investment and additional cleaning steps. 
Outputs:  higher value obtained from food-grade output pellet, and secondary output 
of (still high value) PET pellet for non-food grade uses. 
Disposal: 5% additional loss of target material yield from the additional flake sort ing 
step. 

The plant operator was investigating opportunities for furt her sort ing on t he rejec t  
flake. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case study 2: PET to secondary detailed colour sort 

Mixed PET output was sent to a secondary sort operation in southern Europe. The  t he 
sale value of rPET to non-food-grade markets (film or textiles)  is suf f ic ient t o make 
this detailed colour sort into four colour fractions viable, even though there is f ar less 
transparent and blue beverage bottle input material.  

Illustrative change in output qualities in the PET quality framework: 

Grade  A  –  Food-grade 
colour-sorted bottle flake 
Grade B – Non-food grade 
colour-sorted bottle flake 
Grade  C  –  Mixed  colour 
and product type 

Input 
- 

- 

10% 

Change in components of economic model: 

Output 
- 

50% 

- 

Input material: mixed PET sorted from household collections in a country with a DRS 
system. Household collection is low in beverage bottles and high in tray content. 
Processing costs: lower labour costs, high quality manual sort . 
Outputs: sorted fractions of clear, blue, green and opaque PET  bot tles (PET  t rays 
currently to disposal). 

3.1.2.  Factors limiting amounts captured into higher qualities 

In those plastics sorting plants that produced a more limited amount of higher qualit y 
PET outputs, the factors limiting quality were identified as follows: 

  Comparatively lower presence of beverage bottle PET within the PET sorted fraction, 
due to higher value PET having already been extracted earlier in the recycling chain 
(which makes production of food-grade output less viable); 

  Insufficient differential in revenues between outputs of different qualities;  

  Lack of processing options for a sub-fraction of the material (PET trays); 

  Degradation of the material during collection. 

Extraction of beverage bottle PET earlier in the recycling chain  

In  order  for  rPET  to  be  suitable  for  use  in  beverage  bottle manufacture, the rPET 
output  from  a  plant  needs  to  be  produced  from  a  PET  stream  that  is  over  95% 
material  from  food  contact  origins.  Within  the  study  group  of  plants, in situations 
where a PET stream had a low content of PET bottles and a higher c ont ent of  no n-
bottle PET, it was often seen as not cost effective to sort out and produc e a suit able  
food-grade  output  for  bottle-to-bottle  manufacture.  Additionally,  plant  operators 
processing PET streams with a low content of clear bottles and a high content of  non -
bottle PET are producing material that will result in rPET that has to complete against 
rPET  derived  from  a  high  bottle  content.  The  lower  yield  and  lower  price  of  rPET 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
derived  from low bottle content material results in this particular PET stream being 
uneconomically attractive in the current market conditions. 

Not enough of a differential in revenues between different levels of quality  

Even where beverage containers were not being extracted from t he  light  pac kaging 
stream prior to its input to the plant, some plant operators considered the additional 
sorting  and  cleaning  stages  required  in  order  to  produce  food-grade PET as cost-
prohibitive. For three of the five PET reprocessors that received sorted fractions of PET 
from  areas  without  a  DRS,  it  was  not  commercially viable to carry out monitoring, 
sorting and cleaning to remove non-food grade material from collected PET in order t o 
make  rPET  suitable  for  food  contact  applications.  However,  as  noted  above,  this 
should be set against the context that the plant operators are able to obtain relatively 
high prices for good quality rPET produced into other manufacturing outcomes.  

Two of the five PET reprocessors in the study produced a food grade rPET output f rom 
PET sourced primarily from household collections, rather than through a DRS. 

The  following  case  study  illustrates  the  economic  model  against shifting towards 
higher quality PET output. 

Case study: Plastics reprocessor not sorting to food grade 

For this reprocessor, the value obtainable for non-food-grade rPET was high enough that  
the additional cleaning cost to produce a food-grade suitable output w as not rec ouped 
through additional revenues obtained. Change in components of economic model: 

Input material: mixed plastics from an area without a DRS 
Additional processing costs required:  Estimated  at  300  euros  /tonne  to  clean to 
food-grade 
Changed output: None – food-grade rPET not cost-effective to produce 

Lack of reprocessing markets for a lower quality sub-fraction of the material 

PET trays are more expensive to reprocess than bottles and produc e a low er value 
rPET output at lower yields. rPET derived from PET trays can be tolerated at low levels 
within bottle reprocessing, but at higher levels this material causes qualit y issues in 
manufacturing new bottles. However, a lack of reprocessing options for PET trays has 
led to their inclusion in bottle grade outputs in some countries, so t hat t hey c an be 
recycled to some extent. The presence of a proportion of PET  t rays in a PET  sort ed 
fraction reduces its quality and market value, and can make it harder to find offtakers. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.1.3.  Opportunities for marginal improvements in quality of outputs 

For  the  higher  quality  streams being considered, several opportunities for marginal 
improvements in the quality of outputs were identified: 

  Stricter standards relating to the exclusion of specific contaminants; 

  Development of additional markets for lower value fractions; and 

  Improvements in plant process design. 

Stricter standards relating to the exclusion of specific contaminants 

Implementation by PROs of stricter specifications relating to the exclusion of  specif ic 
contaminants in sorted fractions could, in some cases, drive the production of  higher 
quality outputs. Specifically, this could entail the exclusion of  t ray s f rom PET  bot t le 
fractions and opaque PET from coloured PET fractions. However, this could also result  
in a reduction in reported recycling rates if, for example, PET trays are subsequently 
included in plant residues. 

Development of additional markets for lower value fractions 

Further development of additional markets for lower value f rac t ions w ould ac t as a 
driver for higher quality outputs. For example, better markets for opaque PET  w ould 
further incentivise the removal of opaque PET from mixed colour bottle PET. Similarly, 
if  the  reprocessing  market  for  PET  trays  was  sufficiently  incentivised,  this  would 
increase the quality of recycling for both trays and bottle grades. 

Improvements in plant process design 

The process design of the plant is another important driver. For instance, proc essing 
different grades of PET separately at the same plant (either in batches or on dif f erent  
lines) allows for greater capture of rejects from the processing of one sort ed f raction 
into  the  correct  fraction.  This  approach  was  found  to  be  a  common  feature  of 
reprocessing  operations  that  produce  high  quality  outputs  whilst  achieving  high 
capture  rates,  allowing  for  material  of  the  incorrect  grade  or  fraction  to  be 
reincorporated  in  the  correct  process  line,  rather than being sent into the residue 
stream. 

3.2. 

Findings from economically  marginal cases  

There are some materials for which the study plants demonstrated distinct variations 
in terms of output produced, particularly in relation to higher quality sorted f rac tions 
and reprocessing routes. The quality improvements that were ident if ied as marginal 
cases include:  

  The separation of green PET from other colours of PET; 

  The separation and subsequent cleaning/decontamination of natural/whit e HDPE; 

and 

 

Improving structural consistency and reducing odour in HDPE and PP outputs. 

Several factors were identified as being important in enabling some plants to produc e 
higher quality outputs of these materials: 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  The size of the plants in relation to the scale at which these materials arise in plant 

inputs; 

  The degree to which plants position themselves in the market as producers of 

quality outputs; and 

  PRO specifications that set recycling targets, and/or define more specific sorted 

packaging fractions and higher purity rates. 

Scale of material arisings and sorting / reprocessing plants 

The amount of each material stream being input to a plant and the size of  t he  plant  
are important factors in improving output quality in economically marginal cases. F or 
example, demand for natural/white HDPE in the packaging sector is understood t o be 
growing.  Two  of  the  larger  plants  surveyed  (located  in  different  countries)  had 
responded  to  increased  demand  by  generating  a  sorted  fraction  of  natural/white 
HDPE, with one plant sorting it from the collected stream of mixed  plastic packaging, 
and the other from a sorted fraction of HDPE/PP. Conversely, in smaller sorting plants, 
natural/white HDPE tended not to be separated out from mixed colours of HDPE. 

At  the  reprocessing  stage  the  quality  of  HDPE  and  PP  recycling  outputs  can  be 
increased through more advanced filtration/extrusion processes and/or hot w ashing 
the flake. Scale was also a identified as a critical factor in the level of additional quality 
improvement steps for plants reprocessing HDPE and PP. The large scale of one plants’ 
reprocessing  operation  enabled  investment  in  fine  mesh  filtration  (improving  the 
structural consistency) and hotwashing steps (reducing organic/fibre impurit ies and 
odour).  Conversely,  the  lack  of  sufficient  scale  was  also  the  key  reason why one 
reprocessing plant was not investing to reduce odour in the sec ondary raw  mat erial 
HDPE output. The interaction between scale and price differentials was also evident: 
the smaller scale plant considered that investing in improving  the quality of HDPE and 
PP outputs would only become viable for them once producers were willing to pay t he 
higher prices needed; this was anticipated to occur in the next 3 to 5 years. 

The case studies that follow illustrate how scale (in terms of arisings of  t he mat erial 
and the size of the plant) drives decisions around producing higher qualit y rec ycling 
outputs of natural/white HDPE. 

56 

 
 
 
 
Case study: Additional sort on HDPE 

This company currently runs a sorting plant producing sorted fractions from mixed 
plastics for their own reprocessing operations. It has recently sourced third-party 
sorting on the mixed HDPE output to produce a white/opaque grade in addition to a 
darker output. 

This has resulted in a portion of material output at a higher (colour-sorted) quality, 
without any detriment to the quality of the remaining sorted fraction. 

Illustrative change in output qualities in the HDPE quality framework: 

Grade B –Colour-sorted  
Grade  E  –  Mixed  colour,  odour 
tolerant 

Before  Change 
(%  of  HDPE 
output) 
- 
100% 

After  Change  (% 
of HDPE output) 

10% 
90% 

Change in components of economic model: 

Input material: Sorted mixed plastic fractions from earlier sorting plants.  
Processing costs: Increased capital and operating costs from adding an addit ional 
sorting step and quality control step to separate out a white opaque sorted fraction; 
lower labour costs, high quality manual sort . 
Outputs: Higher revenues per tonne available for the separated out white opaque 
fraction from growing demand in the packaging sector. No change in revenue per 
tonne for remaining darker colour HDPE output. No change in disposal costs. 

Market positioning in terms of quality of outputs 

One  plant  that  produces  higher  quality  HDPE  and PP outputs (but with higher loss 
rates than would oc cur if it were producing lower quality outputs) considered that t he 
material  revenues  for  the  higher  quality  output  were  too  unpredictable  to  base  a 
business case upon. However, the company had a broader strategy of positioning itself 
as  a  producer  of  quality  secondary  raw  materials, which was a powerful driver for 
decision  making.  The  plant  was  planning  further  investment  in  an  additional 
hotwashing  process  in  order to further improve the quality of the outputs.  Further 
details  on  this  case  study  are  provided  below.  In  the  context  of  the current high 
supply of low-grade HDPE and PP outputs, focusing more on higher quality output may 
help plants ensure that they will be able to reliably sell their outputs.  

In a further example, one plant had invested in a robotic sorting unit  t o improve t he 
quality of the small packaging papers output, largely driven by the need for t he plant  
to demonstrate innovation and quality in the tendering proc ess f or c ontracts let  by 
PROs to sorting plants.   

Case study: Quality improvements in HDPE 

This plant has an extrusion process designed to produce higher (more structurally 
consistent) grades of HDPE and PP that can be used in some packaging applications 
(e.g. bottles and paint pots), though losses of target material in the process are higher 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
as material is put through a finer mesh filtration. 

The plant is planning a third processing line containing a hotwashing step to further 
reduce odour. 

These steps improve the quality level in turn: 

a)  Recovering structural integrity of the material (shifting output from quality 
level F to D and E – see Appendix A.1) with some additional target material 
losses. 

b)  Reducing odour (shifting output towards quality level C, though without fully 

deodourising the output). 

These changes are not made on the basis of a firm  financial case. Revenues are ‘not 
sufficiently reliable as a basis for an investment decision’. They may help ensure 
reliability of demand for outputs. 

PRO specifications that drive higher quality recycling 

The choice of sorted fractions at sorting plants located in Austria and Italy is taken by 
the  PROs  rather  than  the  plant  operators.  This  can  mean,  in  marginal  cases  in 
particular, that PROs who set these fractions can intervene to ensure particular sort ed 
fractions  are  produced  where  the  economic  case  is  more  marginal,  but  for  which 
reprocessing markets exist (such as white/opaque HDPE and opaque PET). 

For some of the surveyed plants, it was found that recycling targets are an import ant  
incentive to maximise capture in target fractions or produce extra sorted fractions f or 
recycling where the economic case for doing so is marginal.  It  w as also f ound t hat  
some plants carry out additional sorting of the reject fraction to recover more t arget  
materials partly to meet recycling targets. Where a recycling target was not in plac e, 
the  plant  did not have the same incentive to sort additional HDPE and PP from the 
residue fraction.  

For materials for which there are marginal economic cases for increasing the amount s 
and/or quality of recycling, EPR schemes (through PROs) can provide drivers for doing 
so through: 
  Identifying and specifying the economically sensible range of sorted fractions for 

output to reprocessing markets. 

  Arranging for the aggregation of sufficient quantities of input material into plants of 
sufficient capacity, such that the factor of scale can make production of the higher 
quality recycling outputs operationally and commercially viable; this could also be 
achieved by arranging for sorted packaging fractions from various initial sorting 
facilities (that would not necessarily have to be large in scale) to send material to a 
secondary sorting/reprocessing plant that can achieve a larger scale in terms of the 
quantity of material and capacity of the plant. 

  Setting appropriate recycling targets to incentivise the production of marginal 

economic higher quality output fractions. 

  Designing tendering processes for the sorting/processing of material that include 
quality as part of the evaluation criteria (either by specifying production of higher 
quality grades, or by evaluating bids also on the basis of the qualities of fractions).  

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3. 

Findings  from  emerging  higher  quality  recycling  chains 

(PET trays) 

There  are  some  materials  for  which  markets  for  higher  quality  outputs  have  only 
recently developed or are currently in the process of development, f or example PET  
trays.  PET  trays  have  been  present  in  growing  proportions  in collected packaging 
recycling streams in Europe for a number of years. Their presence in bottle streams is 
slightly detrimental to the quality of flake produced, and there are high losses of  t he 
tray material when processed on bottle lines (as trays are more brit t le t han bot t les 
and  can break up into smaller particles and end up in the reject stream). For some 
plant operators, it is a challenge finding buyers for sorted PET  f ractions high in PET  
tray content, and where trays are separated out from bottles they are of t en sent t o 
disposal. 

Factors which may help the development of recycling chains for higher quality output s 
from materials such as PET trays are:  
  Availability of material for reprocessing; 

  Increases in market demand and sufficient prices for higher quality secondary raw 

materials; and 

  PRO specifications that drive higher recycling performance. 

Availability of material for reprocessing 

PET trays have been present in growing proportions in collected packaging rec ycling 
streams in Europe for a number of years. Where sorted from PET bot tles t o improve 
the quality of PET bottle fractions, PET trays exist in separated quantities suit able f or 
reprocessing. Changes in the composition of packaging materials that make producing 
higher  quality outputs more technical feasible (such as reducing the use of carbon 
black PET trays) could also be a significant driver. 

Increases in market demand for higher quality secondary raw materials 

A small number of separate processing lines have been set up that  are designed f or 
PET tray processing. The relevant plant operators expect that t he c apacity of  t hose 
PET tray lines will be increased over the next few years. The reason for the grow t h at  
the moment is likely to be confidence from investors in both growing demand and in 
continued  high  prices  for  rPET,  as  more  rPET  derived  from  bottles  is diverte d into 
meeting growing demand in the bottle to bottle recycling sector (this factor is pushing 
up prices for both food-grade and non-food-grade rPET). 

For example, one plant studied in southern Europe was being reconf igured t o  sort  a 
bottle/tray mix from German MRFs into a separated tray fraction in addition t o bot t le 
grades, in the expectation that markets for the separated PET  t rays w ould become 
available  in  the  near  future.  Another  plant had started to separate out trays from 
bottles  on  a  trial  basis  and  were  sending  them  as  a  separate  output to the same 
reprocessor  to  which  they  were  originally  sending  a  mixed  grade  (see  case  study 
below). 

PRO specifications that drive higher recycling performance 

The  role  of PRO-specified recycling rates in driving higher quality has already been 
discussed  in  Section  3.2.  Recycling targets in PRO specifications can help to drive 
higher  quality  outputs  for  materials where the market is still emerging (such as for 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PET trays), even where gate fees charged by reprocessors may be similar  t o disposal 
costs.  

Ambitions  from  EPR  schemes  to ensure more PET tray material is recycled are  also 
likely to play a role in reprocessor confidence in being able to source sufficient suitable 
material for PET tray processing. However, the emerging PET tray reprocessing sector 
will arguably need to be driven by higher demand for the rPET derived f rom t rays if  
this sector is to become fully established. 

Case study: Separating out trays from a mixed tray and bottle grade 

This plant is trialling separating out the mixed PET into separate outputs of bottles and 
trays, by running the mixed PET fraction back through the sorting process a second 
time. Though on a trial basis, this is expected to result in a net benefit to both sorter 
and reprocessor. 

Illustrative change in output qualities in the PET quality framework: 

Grade of Output (see Appendix A.1)  Before  (%  of 

PET outputs) 
- 

After  (%  of  PET 
output) 
100% 

Grade  C  –  Mixed  colour,  product 
separated 
Grade D – Mixed colour and produc t  
type 

100% 

- 

Change in components of economic model: 

Input material: Collected stream of packaging materials including papers and glass.  
Processing costs: Additional costs of re-running PET fraction through same sort ing 
line (no additional capital costs as yet).  
Outputs: Two separate sorted fractions: PET bottles and PET trays. 

3.4. 

Limitations  in  market  demand:  findings  from  recycling 
chains  tending  to  produce  lower  quality  recycling  (PP  and  PE 
film) 

This  section  analyses  the  conditions  that  are  fundamental  in  constraining  the 
production of higher quality PP and PE film  recycling outputs. Our f indings f rom  t he 
plant  surveys  reflect  the  understanding  from  literature  of  particular  challenges  in 
processing PP and PE film. Materials that tend to be sorted/processed to lower qualit y 
outputs generally have the following properties: 

  Higher degradation of the material when in use (e.g. related to absorbency of  t he 

material); 

  Higher  variability  in  products  (compounded  polymers,  colour  pigments,  grades) 
and  sizes  (particularly  with  materials  consisting  of  or  readily  breaking  up  into 
particles of smaller dimensions, and thus lost to fines fractions); 

  Greater problems with impurities introduced by product design and use; and 

  Available markets for material at lower qualities. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Thus,  even  where  technology  is  available  to  improve  outputs,  the  additional cost 
compared to material revenue benefit tends to be prohibitive to selling an out put  of  
higher quality. 

The remainder of this section focuses on PE films  in the recycling chain. 

Recycling chains tending to produce lower quality recycling: PE films 

LDPE films  from household packaging are mostly recycled to applications that are less 
sensitive  to  colour  and  odour.  Where  plants  sort  films  as  a separate fraction, the 
material  is  often  processed  into  a  secondary  raw  material  used to produce refuse 
sacks  or  into  other  LDPE  compounds  used  in  products  such  as  irrigation pipes. Of 
three study plants that processed PE film, two of them processed film into rLDPE used 
in  the  production  of  refuse  sacks,  the  other  produced  compounds  for  a  range  of 
injection moulded product applications.  

Smaller pieces of films (less than an A4 sheet) tend not to be sorted int o a separate 
film  fraction, and are instead incorporated into a mixed plastic s st ream. Where t his 
material  is  recycled,  it  is  likely  to  be  used  in  lower  quality  injection  moulded 
applications.  

LDPE film  from household collections is more contaminated than feedstock available 
from  commercial  sources. Furthermore, PE films are low in density,  so where film is 
obtained through household collection the weight of contamination is high relat ive t o 
the film collected. 

For the two study plants that reprocessed film to produce refuse bags, the addit ional 
costs of improving the quality significantly (carrying out additional steps t o separate 
out clear film and processes to sufficiently clean for use in film  packaging applications) 
was not commercially viable. The additional costs (and losses of material) would mean 
that the price required for the resulting rLDPE would be significantly higher t han t he 
prices currently paid for virgin material. This is illustrated in the case study below. 

The  low  value  of  sorted  PE  films  outputs  (related  to  the  lower  yields  and  high 
processing costs of PE film) make the economic case for sorting household f ilm  more 
challenging for initial sorting plants. In recent years export options have reduced, with 
buyers  within  Europe  become  more demanding about quality, and prices paid have 
dropped. Though study plants were aware they could output a wider range of  sort ed 
film  products, in general, they chose not to because of a lack of confidence in c urrent  
markets and available revenues. One study plant was stockpiling a mechanical sort ed 
grade of smaller sized (including multi-layered) films in the expectation of being able 
to identify chemical recycling opportunities in the future. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case study: Constraint in LDPE film processing 

This plant reprocesses collected LDPE film grades for the production of black refuse 
bags. The operator is aware of the opportunity to colour-separate and clean for 
outputs into packaging applications, but the costs of doing so would be too high 
compared to the available revenues. 

Illustrative change in output qualities in the LDPE quality framework if this was to 
become economically feasible: 

Grade  B  –  Colour-sorted  and 
for  odour-sensitive 
suitable 
applications 
Grade E – Mixed colour 

Before  (%  of  
outputs) 

After 
outputs) 
35% 

(% 

of 

50% 

10% 

Change in components of economic model: 

Input  material:  Sorted  LDPE  films,  high  levels  of  inks,  colours  and  organic 
contamination. 
Additional processing costs required: Estimated at €300/tonne. 
Changed  output:  Production  of  higher  quality  output  and  a  similar  quality  lower 
grade output. However, revenues available not sufficient to cover additional costs.  
Disposal costs: Increased rejects (to disposal or lower grades). 

3.5. 

Summary 

This  section  summarises  the  main  findings  in  relation  to  those  enabling  and 
constraining factors for producing higher quality recycling outputs, and t he c hanges 
that  would  be  required  to  facilitate  the  production  of a greater quantity of higher 
quality recycling outputs in future. 

The  historic  and  current  development  in  market  demand  for  recycled  outputs, 
alongside the development of good collection systems and reprocessing technologies 
at a viable cost, have been fundamental in establishing recycling c hains t hat c an be 
orientated to higher quality outputs. Major developments in improving  t he qualit y of  
sorted packaging fractions have primarily been driven by emerging market demand for 
those fractions. 

The  main  constraints  towards  the  production  of  higher  quality outputs have been 
where the additional costs of sorting and reprocessing are not counterbalanced by t he  
additional  market  value  for  the  higher  grade  output.  Some  materials  are  more 
severely  constrained  than  others.  It  is  starting to become more viable to produce 
natural/white HDPE and higher quality outputs of HDPE and PP , but  t he sit uat ion is 
currently less viable for LDPE film. 

Scale, in terms of the amounts of material included in input streams and t he size of  
sorting/processing  facilities,  was  identified as a key differentiating factor between 
plants when justifying investment in technologies required to produce higher qualit y 
outputs.  The  lower  the  ratio  of  material  in  collected  streams  and  the  lower  the 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
additional revenue from the higher quality fraction, the larger the sorting plant  needs 
to be.  

PROs play a key role in the organisation and structure of the recycling c hain t hrough 
determining, to a large extent, the choice of viable output fractions available to sorting 
plants. A PRO can play a potentially important role in respect of: 

  Supporting the recycling of higher quality outputs where the financial case (for t he 

plant) in doing so would otherwise be marginal; 

  Supporting the development of reprocessing sectors with reliable supplies of  input  

material; and  

  Working to ensure that material sorted to a lower degre e goes on t o sec ondary 
sorting routes of sufficient scale in order that the investment in improving  qualit y 
becomes commercially viable. 

Technologies, ownership structures and other factors play more minor  roles that  vary 
between individual specific plant s.  

63 

 
 
 
 
4. Impact  of  policy  and  system  design  on  quality  of 

recycling 

4.1. 

Levers for market demand 

A  good  level  of  market  demand  for  secondary  raw  materials  is  necessary  for 
development  of  high  quality  recycling.  However,  the secondary raw materials also 
need to be available at suitable levels of quality and at competitive prices. In response 
to the European Commission’s call for voluntary pledges to increase recycled c ontent 
as part of the EU plastics strategy 4, many pledges made by plast ic s c onvert ers and 
brand owners were on the condition that ‘the recycled plastics are available on t he EU 
market in sufficient quantity and suitable quality, at competitive prices’5. 

A  driving  factor  in  the  development  of  bottle-to-bottle  PET  recycling  and  the 
establishment  of  DRSs  has been the demand for rPET  from consumer-facing bottle 
manufacturers. The Single Use Plastics Directive 2019 (SUP) applies targets across the 
whole industry for recycled content in beverage bottle s; t here has rec ently been a 
wave of new commitments made by individual brands to incorporate recycled content 
into PET bottles. 6   

Increased  demand  from  packaging  brands to incorporate more recycled content in 
their  applications  has  also  led  to  higher  market  demand  (and  higher  than  virgin 
material  prices  paid) for de-odourised natural and white opaque fractions of HDPE, 
which can be used in colour- and odour-sensitive packaging bottles. However, for less 
consumer-facing,  business-to-business  secondary  packaging  and  non-packaging 
applications,  such  as  users  of  film or darker HDPE, there are few drivers of market 
demand. Prices of secondary raw material are much less likely to exceed virgin prices, 
limiting  the  degree  to  which  costs  for  additional cleaning and reprocessing can be 
recouped in additional sales revenue. 

For those materials where a business case does not currently exist to develop higher 
quality recycling routes, initiatives to raise the level of demand w ould appear t o be 
key in driving further high quality recycling.  

From a policy perspective, it is possible to identify a number of market failures w hic h 
affect the demand for post-consumer secondary raw materials: 
  Lack  of  full  internalisation  of  externalities:  failure  to  fully  internalise 
externalities  associated  with  the  extraction,  processing  and  manufacture  of  all 
materials,  both  primary  and  secondary. Full internalisation should lead to a price 
differential  between  secondary  and  primary  materials,  with  seconda  having  a 
reduced price compared to primary material; 

4https://circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/en/news-and-events/all-news/european-
strategy-plastics-deadline-pledging-campaign-boost-recycled-content-extended-30-
september-2018  
5 Council of the European Union, Assessment report of the volunt ary pledges under 
Annex III of the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Ec onomy , March 2019, 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7121-2019-ADD-1/en/pdf  
6  Directive  (EU)  2019/904  of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 
2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on t he environment , 
available from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/oj 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                     
  Relatively  high  search  or  transaction  costs:  a  lack  of  cross  supply  chain 
cooperation and transparency leads to high transaction costs. This is due to costs of  
engaging  secondary  raw  material  suppliers  and  the  need  for  quality  checks  to 
ensure the supply meets demand. This is a particular issue in t he early st ages of  
market development; 

  Imperfect information: a  lack  of  accurate  and  clear  information regarding the 

quality of secondary raw materials, and the potential for their use; and 

  Inappropriate  standards:  the  lack  of  accurate  information  highlighted  above, 
particularly  regarding  quality,  can  result  in  limits  being  placed  on  the  use  of 
secondary raw materials which may be unnecessarily strict. 

In  a  recent  study,  Eunomia  considered  a  number  of  promising  policy  options  to 
incentivise uptake of secondary raw materials, including:7 

1.  Material taxation; 
2.  Tradable credits for using secondary raw materials; and 
3.  A fee-rebate scheme. 

Of these, a fee-rebate scheme was identified as the leading opt ion . T he f ee-rebate 
system would involve the introduc tion of a levy on the use of in-scope materials, and 
offer  a  full  or  partial  refund  of  the  levy  based  on  the  amount  of  post -consumer 
recycled materials being used. 

EPR scheme fee modulation can also incentivise uptake of recycled content. In France, 
CITEO already applies a 50% bonus to contributions by weight for PE where there is at 
least 50% recycled material, and it is proposed that the incentives are st rengthened 
and  broadened  to  PP  and  PS  packaging. 8  Discussions  with  the  French  Ministry 
indicated  that  incentivising  recycled  content  through  EPR  was  politically  more 
palatable than using the tax system to do so.9 Fee modulation on its own, however, is 
not the best approach to explicitly incentivising recycled content. Ot her inst rument s 
are more appropriate, as discussed below. 

4.2. 

Product materials  and design 

The choice of packaging materials and the design-for-recyclability of packaging can be 
influenced both by policy and EPR fee modulation as described in Section 4.1. 

In  respect  of  packaging  materials  and  design,  there  are  three  distinct  kinds  of 
challenges  to  achieving  higher  quality  recycling  outputs,  as  evidenced  within  this 
study: 

  Packaging made from materials which are detrimental to the qualit y of  rec ycling 

when collected within the predominant recycling collection;  

& 

UK, 

WWF 

7  Eunomia  Research  &  Consulting  Ltd  (2018)  Demand  Recycled:  Policy  Options for 
Increasing the Demand for Post -Consumer Recycled Materials , Report  f or Resourc e 
at 
Association 
https://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/demand-recycled-policy-options-for-
increasing-the-demand-for-post-consumer-recycled-materials/  
8  Citeo  &  Adelphe  (2019)  Proposition  de  Citeo  et  Adelphe  pour  l’ecomodulation du 
tariff 2020, 29 May 2019 
9 Personal communication with Léonard Brudieu, Chef du bureau de la prévention des 
déchets  et des filières de recyclage (REP), Ministère de la Transition écologique et 
solidaire, 18/06/2019 

Available 

October 

2018. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                     
  Features or components of packaging of a certain material which are det riment al 
to  the  quality  of  recycling  of  that  packaging  material  (e.g.  PA  layers  in  PET, 
density-adjusted PP in bottle caps; colour pigments in films and paper); and 

  Packaging use which, as the result of its design, has detriment al impac t s on t he 
quality of recycling (for instance, hard-to-empty cosmetics containing high levels 
of volatiles and odorous components that permeate the polymer).  

Products made from materials detrimental to the quality of recycling 

A key example of a material that has detrimental impacts on the quality of recycling is 
biodegradable  film.  When  collected  and  managed  appropriately,  biodegradable film 
can be composted. However, biodegradable film is often misplac ed by c onsumers in 
plastic packaging collections, alongside plastic films. This causes significant issues and 
additional costs for film reprocessing, with one plant in the study ref using t o accept 
material  from  countries  where  biodegradable  film  is  widespread.  Where  these 
biodegradable  film  products  are  present  in  the  market,  it  may  be  challenging  to 
appropriately communicate with collection system users in order to exclude them from 
plastics collections, as biodegradable and plastic films have a very similar  appearance. 
The same is true (though to a lesser extent) regarding other biodegradable polymers.  

Therefore, from a quality of recycling perspective, the impac t s of  new ly developed 
materials and products on the existing recycling chains (in terms of costs and qualit y 
of recycling outputs) ought to be taken into account when evaluating the contribut ion 
of  the new materials to the circular economy. Additionally, support to the industry 
may  be  required  where  such  mat erials  are  developed  and  start  to  penetrate  the 
existing  recycling  chains,  to  assist  in  implementing  measures  to  avoid  detrimental 
impacts on the existing recycling chain and/or efforts to protect the quality of recycled 
outputs. In the longer term this would also mean ensuring effective separation of  t he 
new  materials  or  products  from  existing  collection  streams,  which  would  include 
providing clear and effective communication to consumers regarding how to dispose of 
materials through the correct collection routes. 

Features or components detrimental to quality of recycling 

Features or components of products that are detrimental to the quality of recycling are 
well-described  in  design-for-recyclability guidelines.10 There is a further distinction 
between  those  features  or  components  which  are  key  to  the  functionality  of  the 
product  (such  as  the  use of barrier layers) and those which are just simply design 
driven  (use  of  silicon  caps).  Multiple  layers  involving  different  materials  present  a 
challenge wherever they arise, particularly in plastics and glass streams. There w as a 
perception among plant operators that the arisings in collec ted mat erial st reams of  
complex  materials  with  such  features  or  components  (particularly  for  plastics)  is 
increasing.  

10  Such  as  those  published  by  PRE,  e.g.  ‘PE-HD  coloured  containers  guidelines’ 
available from https://www.plasticsrecyclers.eu/downloads 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
                                     
Combined impact of product use, design and material 

Some problems result from the combination of the material used f or t he pac kaging, 
the product contained within the packaging, and the design of the packaging material. 
For  instance,  where  a container is designed such that it is difficult to empty of its 
product, the product contained by the packaging will remain present at  higher levels 
during  reprocessing.  As  well  as  increasing  the  amount  of  impurities,  where  the 
products are organic and chemical products, and the material is relatively absorbant 
(notably the polyolefins), the quality of the output is decreased and/or t he c leaning 
challenges are more difficult. 

In  order  to  ensure  a  move  towards  products  being  designed  so  as  not  to  be 
detrimental to the quality of recycling of materials within the existing recycling c hain, 
a  recyclability  assessment  is  required.  This  assessment  takes  into  account  the 
intended product use and how residues of product (contained within t he packaging) 
affect the quality of recycling. 

In  order  to  support  the  production  of  higher  quality  recycling  outputs,  efforts  to 
increase  (and  require)  the  recyclability  of  packaging  would  be  beneficial,  with 
recyclability  assessments  conducted at the level of individual product types. Also, 
where feasible, design should look to develop mono-material replacements f or mult i-
material  multi-layer  products  that  are currently hard or impossible to recycle (e.g. 
multi-material PET trays, film and flexible packaging), to assist in t he produc t ion of  
higher quality recycling. 

Fee  modulation  by  EPRs  can  incentivise  better  design  for  recyclability. Where DfR 
guidelines produced by or in association with reprocessors exist, the packaging wit hin 
the  relevant  fee  categories  can  be  subject  to  modulation,  such  that  it ems  which 
achieve: 

  a YES for all relevant aspects are eligible for a bonus; 
  a YES in some aspects, but a CONDITIONAL in any aspect are provided a 

standard fee; and 

  a NO in any individual aspect are subject to a penalty. 

Modulating  by  recyclability  through  reference  to  DfR  guidelines should bring about 
rapid changes in packaging design over a relatively short time period. 

4.3. 

Choice of collection systems 

Where there is a high degree of material separation at source, t his c an reduc e t he 
costs of subsequent sorting and keep materials apart that would have a det riment al 
impact  on  quality,  thereby  benefitting  the  recycling  chain  and encouraging higher 
quality of recycling.  

For example, for PET in particular, a high degree of separation at source via DRSs has 
positively contributed to high quality recycling outcomes. DRSs for PET  bot t les allow  
for cost-effective production of PET flake/pellets suitable for food-grade products; PET  
streams  collected  via  DRSs  already  meet  the  requirement  to  guarantee  95% food 
contact origin (so require no further sorting to remove non-food-contact material) and 
are  lower  in  PVC  and chemical contamination due to the lack of non-food-contact 
bottles,  trays and other non-target material impurities in the sorted fractions. The 
anticipated expansion of the DRS in EU countries over the next dec ade w ill inc rease 
the  supply  of  high  quality  PET  in a cost effective manner, which will contribute to 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
meeting  the  extra  demand  for  rPET created as a result of brand commitments and 
legislative targets. 

The cost of reprocessing of PET bottles to food-grade standard is lower when t he PET  
comes  through  a  DRS  than  through  a  household  collection.  This  may  reduce  the 
chances of PET beverage bottles that are collected in streams other than DRS s being 
processed into food-grade recycling outputs, although they will still often be separated 
by colour and be recycled into high quality non-food-grade rPET.  

Collection  schemes  should  be  designed  by  PROs  (or  by  the  municipalities  and/or 
contractors who undertake such activities on their behalf) so as to be c ost -ef fective. 
Indeed, Article 8a(4) of the amended Directive 2008/98/EC requires Member States to 
design extended producer responsibility schemes so as to ensure t hat t he f inancial 
contributions paid by a produc er are sufficient to comply with its obligations while not  
exceeding the “necessary costs” of doing so. Each further degree of source separation 
can entail further collection costs, and these increases may not  result  in suf f ic ient 
additional material revenue (and/or make enough of a quality difference) for this to be 
commercially  feasible.  EPR  schemes  may  prioritise  quantity   over  quality  by,  for 
example, aiming  for maximum  captures into recycling collections, driven by quant it y -
based targets. Therefore, systems designed to maximise participation and capture by 
collecting co-mingled materials may take precedence over more c omplex c ollec tion 
schemes  that  are  able  to  produce  purer  input  streams  for  sorting  plants  and 
reprocessors. However, incentives for generating high quality secondary raw materials 
could be implemented through the approach to fee modulation, as described in Section 
4.1. 

Specific  collection scheme differences were explored with the sorting plants in the 
study.  Separate  collection  of  papers  from  plastic  packaging  and  cans  is  already 
widespread and is considered to have had a positive impact on rec ycling outcomes, 
with similar  capture rates for plastics and papers in both co-collected and separately 
collected  streams.  Co-collection  of  papers  with  plastic  film  leads  to  increased 
losses/rejects  and  impacts  on  the  quality  of  both  the  plastic  and  paper  output 
materials, and plant operators clearly expressed that they would prefer t he separate 
collection of paper and plastics for this reason.  

Therefore,  the  study  supports  the  view  that ,  from  the  perspective  of  quality  of 
recycling, co-collection of plastics and papers should be discouraged. Whether 
the additional costs of separate collection are reflected back in addit iona l revenues 
from higher quality material has not been assessed as part of  t his st udy . How ever, 
there are plenty of regions that have decided that separate collection is economic ally 
practicable. 

Key findings from the plants surveyed in relation to the co-collection of non-packaging 
material in packaging collections were as follows: 

  For  paper,  it  is  generally  sensible  to  collect  alongside  packaging  papers 

(cardboard). 

  For non-packaging plastics that are co-collected with plastic packaging: 

o  Some  plants  reported  that  as  much  as  50%  of  the  input  consists  of 
materials for which there are no output markets. In some countries, t his is 
partly due to the scope of collections in place, which encourages residents 
to put non-packaging materials of a similar  kind (other plastic produc ts) in 
the same collection as packaging material. Plants noted that non-packaging 
materials  such  as  tapes,  balls  and  ropes  placed  in  collections  caused 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
particular problems, as they become tangled in the machinery, inc reas ing 
both operating c osts and disposal costs.  

o  However, there was no clear link demonstrated between inclusion of  t hese 
materials  in  collection  and sorting efficiencies and qualities of packaging 
material output achieved. 

o  The extent to which including non-packaging items in recycling c ollections 
may help to increase the capture of packaging materials is unknown, and it  
could be possible that limiting the scope exclusively to packaging materials 
may have a negative impact on the overall capture of plastic packaging. 

4.4. 

Choice of sorted fractions in sorting plant design and 

contracting 

The degree to which various PROs specify sorted packaging output fractions for sorting 
plants varies. For example, the Austrian PRO, ARA, sets prescriptive specifications f or 
a wide range of outputs, whereas others (such as DSD in Germany) provide a great er 
degree of flexibility in sorted packaging fraction outputs but have rec ycling t argets. 
Where PRO specifications encourage or require sorting plants to separate and proc ess 
material into a greater range of more specifically defined outputs, it helps to drive t he 
production  of  higher  quality  recycling,  as  it  preserves  distinct  characteristics 
(separation by colour and/or product type) of specific product groups.  

However, it is important to note that sorting to a more specific fraction could happen 
at different points in the recycling chain. In particular, sorting mat erials on a larger 
scale improves the business case for investing in more efficient sorting into a great er 
number  of  more  specific  output s  (and  also  avoids  plants  carrying  out  less  cost 
effective sorting at smaller scales, which would result in the plants needing to c harge 
at a higher rate to the EPR scheme). Therefore, there is a strong case f or sec ondary 
sorting  facilities  for  some  sorted  fractions. PROs could ensure that plants above a 
certain scale are required to output a wider range of grades (for w hic h reproc essing 
markets  are  available  or  are  developing)  and  that  smaller  plants  arrange  for  their 
sorted packaging fraction outputs to be aggregated. This approach would probably be 
more appropriate through the PRO and sorting plants, rather than being mandat ed at  
a policy level.   

Evidence  from  the  plants surveyed supports the notion that plants need sufficient 
throughput of a material (which is a function of both the amount of the mat erial as a 
proportion of the input to the plant and the overall amount of  input  mat erial t o t he 
plant) in order to justify the costs of investing in further sorting steps for fractions that 
are  less  abundant.  This  is  also  the  case  for  the  inclusion  of  additional  quality 
refinement stages at sorting plants and reprocessors, e.g. additional quality control or 
hot washing of particular fractions. This is reflected by t he f act t hat, amongst  t he 
surveyed  plants,  larger  scale  plants  tend  to  separate  out  more  fractions, notably 
separate colour and natural/white HDPE.  

Amending plants so that they sort existing fractions into further sub-divided fractions  
can  be  counter-productive  to  overall  recycling  outcomes.  One  of  the sub-divided 
fractions may be improved through the process, but if the ot her has an insuf f ic ient 
market it may need to be disposed of or sent to energy recovery, at least in the short  
term,  when  it  might  otherwise  have  been  kept  within  a  mixed  grade t hat went to 
lower quality recycling. Materials currently with challenging market s in t his respec t 
include PET trays. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Moreover, for the recycling chain to work, there needs to be input materials available 
at the right price, sufficient reprocessing capacity and sufficient market  demand f or 
the  outputs  at  a  price that makes their production commercially viable. The study 
found  examples  of  plant  which  have  been  developing  reprocessing  capacity  in 
response  to  expanding  demand  for  outputs and based on sufficient available input 
material. 

Through  specifying  a  greater  number  of  output  fractions,  PROs  can  play  a  role  in 
driving  market  demand  for more specific sorted packaging fractions. However, this 
would  need  to  be  in  parallel  with  the  development  of  reprocessing  routes  for 
remaining outputs that have higher sorting/processing costs (for instance PET trays).  

Another  issue  to  consider in relation to aggregating of sorted outputs from smaller 
plants at a larger facility is that it may be more advantageous to have a single PRO  in 
each country, rather that multiple PROs competing in the same sector. Mult iple PROs 
could reduce the security of supply at scale for the larger facility. 

Opportunities  to  specify  sorted  fractions  broadly  within  the  current  economic 
environment include: 

  Ensuring PET trays are separated from PET bottle fractions. 

  Separation of opaque PET. 

  Separation of white opaque HPDE. 

The market economics of particular sorted fractions merits close attention in order t o 
identify  the  scale  at  which  a  business  case can be made for sorting the output in 
question. The economic factors will vary depending on the difference in market  value 
between the mixed and more specific sorted fractions and the proportional arising of  
the  specific  fraction in the mix (e.g. arising of white opaque HDPE in a mixed HDPE 
stream). The potential fractions may vary depending on the products on t he market . 
In Spain, yellow bleach containers are produced in sufficiently large quantities and are 
present enough in collected HDPE streams to viably be separately sorted for use in the 
production of new bleach containers.  

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.5. 

Quality specifications  for sorted fractions 

Impurities  in  grades  of  material  cause  differing  issues  in  the  reprocessing  of  the 
different materials. Whilst some impurity related issues are limited to inc reasing t he 
costs of processing and disposal, others have a detrimental impact through decreasing 
the quality of secondary raw material and/or increasing the losses of t arget mat erial 
from  the  process.  Removing  impurities  from  a  sorted  fraction  can  also  lead  to 
increasing losses to reject fractions. 

However, reject fractions can be further sorted/recirculated in order to reduc e losses 
of  materials  by  ensuring  that  they  are  captured  correctly  in  the  targeted  sorted 
fractions. 

Quality standards for sorted fractions play an important role in controlling the levels of  
impurities in the fractions. They set general and specific impurity limit s  t hat  balance 
costs  and  losses  of  material  in  sorting  with  costs  and  losses  of  material  during 
reprocessing, and ensure that a sufficient quantity of desired mat erial is inc luded in 
the  sorted  packaging  fraction.  They also provide clarity on the tolerance limits for 
specific impurities (e.g. biodegradables, colours) that are detrimental to t he quality of  
the  secondary  raw  material  output,  unless  a  further  sort  is  done  on  the material. 
Sorting has an important, but limited, role in removing impurities det riment al t o t he 
quality of secondary raw materials as, whilst there are impurities that can be removed 
in sorting, others derive from product design and use (as discussed in Section 4.2). 

The nature of the contractual agreements with PROs influences the quality of out puts 
produced at sorting plants. Plants selling material to PROs at set prices generally have 
an economic incentive to not exceed the quality standards, since exceeding the quality 
standard reduces the tonnages sold at material prices and increases the tonnage sent 
to disposal at cost. This factor was found to significantly influence the purity of sort ed 
fractions at a number of the plants surveyed. The quality specifications that PROs set  
strongly determines and may limit  the quality that reprocessors will receive during the 
timeframe of the sorting plant contract. 

The  limit  on  quality  of  outputs  created  by minimum quality specifications could be 
mitigated by allowing plants to partially gain from material sales, as was f ound t o be 
the  arrangement  between  one  plant  in  Austria  and  the  PRO,  ARA.  For  another 
surveyed plant in Italy, the PRO has an online auction system to sell material. It might  
be expected that this would thus deliver a larger amount of higher quality outputs, but 
the  lack  of  pass-through  of  the  additional  material  revenue  to  the  sorting  plants 
removed the economic incentive for the plants to exceed the quality standards.  

So  long  as  the  standards  broadly  suit  the  requirements  of  reprocessors,  small 
variations may not have a significant impact on the quality of secondary raw materials 
produced. The plastics reprocessors surveyed carried out, to varying degrees, t heir 
own quality control at various sorting stages, and the operators noted that variat ions 
in impurities due to non-target material in the input did not generally have an impac t  
on the qualities of the outputs they produce. However, higher arisings of  impurit ies 
may increase processing costs and process losses. Reprocessors in the study have had 
to adapt processes and make investments to maintain quality standards w hen f aced 
with a decrease in quality of inputs.  

The  standards  have  a  role  in  determining  whether costs (and losses) of improving 
material purities fall on sorters (prior to selling to the PRO) or on reprocessors (buying 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
from  the  PRO).  Where  PROs  determine  these  quality  st andards,  they  can  also  be 
increased  in  order  to  drive  specific  improvements  in  quality  for a particular sorted 
fraction.   

Plant  operators  that  sell  sorted  packaging  fractions  direct  to  market  tend  to  be 
competing with material from PROs, and therefore the quality specifications applied by 
the PROs in the EU also effectively set ‘benchmark’ standards for the quality of sorting 
packaging fractions on the market. Some plant operators selling outputs to the market 
outside  of  arrangements  with PROs were exposed to pressure to meet and exceed 
common international quality standards for some materials (notably PET outputs ,  but  
also  others)  in  order  to  ensure  a  range of buyers for the material. However, some 
plant operators indicated that offtakers were content to receive material at lower t han 
the  purities  specified  by  the  PRO. Market forces may be less reliable than EPR-set 
specifications in driving qualit y when the balance of other market  f orc es shif t s and 
other factors have a greater impact on prices available. 

To maximise  the capture of material into high quality recycling, PROs should foc us on 
setting  impurity  standards  for  sorted  fractions  which  attempt  to  strike  the  right 
balance between costs and losses of target material at sorters, and costs and losses of  
target material at reprocessors. 

Where  PROs  buy material, opportunities should be investigated to provide financial 
bonuses  or  higher  prices  for  material  with  lower  impurities,  either  through directly 
paying higher prices or though passing on higher material revenues where applicable. 
In order for this to be an effective driver for reducing impurit ies  and inc reasing t he 
quality of outputs, the additional revenue for the plant should be at least equivalent to 
the  extra  disposal  costs  from  extracting  higher  amounts  of  impurities.  This  would 
counteract  the  current  disincentive  to  exceed  quality  standards  that  arises  from 
existing  PRO  quality  specifications,  and  would  act  as  a driver for sorting plants to 
increase the quality of their outputs at a relatively early stage in the recycling chain. 

4.6. 

Other contract design factors 

Alongside  quality  standards  and  market  forces,  there  are  also  several  drivers  for 
quality within contracts that are particularly important in developing market s w here 
the economic drivers to improve the quality of outputs are marginal. T hese f actors 
include recycling targets set within contracts and competitive tendering involving an 
assessment based on quality. 

Recycling targets 

Where  the  economic  case  is  marginal,  recycling  targets  have  a  clear  role  in 
incentivising  sorting  plants  and  reprocessors  to  produce  higher  quality  outputs. 
Amongst the plant operators surveyed, it was found that recovery targets were a key 
driver for sorting separate fractions of PET trays and cartons. Moreover, a t some plant  
operators it was found that the absence of recycling targets was a barrier to producing 
higher quality outputs with marginal economic benefits (for example, carrying out  an 
additional sort on the residue stream to extract more target mat erial,  or c reat ing a 
mixed  PO grade).11   

11  Mixed  PO  grades  are  a  mixture  of  HDPE,  PP  and  LDPE,   which  can  be  recycled 
together. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                     
Recycling targets do not usually make a distinction between lower and higher qualit y 
outputs. However, requirements to recover certain percentages of  input  at  a higher 
quality level, based on an input composition, could tip t he balance in f avour of  t he 
plant  producing  higher quality outputs where otherwise the economic return on its 
own may not be a strong enough driver. Such recycling targets w ould need t o t ake 
into account whether viable reprocessing routes are available f or t he higher qualit y 
outputs. 

However, recycling targets can also lead to pressure to low er t he purit y of  out puts 
(within the bounds of what reprocessors will accept) since, if t he rec ycling t arget is 
measured on the basis of output contained in saleable grades, t here is an inc ent ive 
not to remove impurities beyond what is minimally  acceptable. 

Competitive tendering 

When  contracts  with  sorting  plants  are  procured  by  PROs  or  municipalities , 
competitive  tendering  could  be  an  effective  means  of  incentivising  higher  quality 
outputs  where  they  would  otherwise  be  economically  marginal.  For  example,  one 
study plant had invested in a robotic sorting unit to improve t he qualit y of  it s small 
packaging  board  output,  and  this  was  largely  driven  by  the  need  to  de monstrate 
innovation and quality in the tendering process. The inclusion of a quality c omponent 
in the evaluation criteria for tendering processes for sorting plants can thus provide an 
incentive to plants to make investments and upgrade their operation and/or process to 
improve the quality of outputs. 

4.7. 

Technological innovation 

The  plant  operators  surveyed  generally  considered  new  technology  as  having  a 
relatively minor impact on the quality of outputs that they are c urrently f ocused on 
achieving. However, it is important to note that much plastics reprocessing and some 
glass  reprocessing  to  higher  qualities  is  dependent  on  historical  technolog ical 
development. Three main themes regarding technical innovation were identified at the 
study plants: 

 

Increased  automation  of  sorting  plants,  in  particular  through  optical  sorting 
(generally displacing manual sorting and quality control); 

  Development  of  fine-grained  NIR  sorting  on  flake  and  cullet  (where  this  is 

impractical to be carried out manually); and 

  Development of cleaning, extrusion and reprocessing technologies for plastics. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sorting technology 

In  general,  sorting  technology  was  not found to significantly impact the quality of 
outputs,  although  it  has  enabled  cost  reduction  in  many  areas  in  Europe  through 
reducing reliance on manual labour. However, for those plants with access to low c ost 
labour, NIR  was either not seen as a current viable investment  (in Hungary ) or w as 
only just becoming viable (in Croatia). 

In some plants, sorting technology is used to increase the efficiency and effectiveness 
of manual labour, for example systems where operators can point at items on a screen 
which a robotic arm or NIR unit subsequently removes. Where increases in ef f ic iency 
result  in  manual  labour  costs being reduced sufficiently, this can help to make the 
business  case  for  separating  additional  distinct  fractions to achieve higher quality 
outputs. 

Developments in NIR  for film  sorting have increased the efficiency of  t he sort ing of  
film  fractions; again this has mostly been to substitute previous manual separation. 

The surveyed reprocessors who receive material from sorting plants f ound t hat  t here 
had  not  been  significant  changes  or  increases  in  the  quality  of  sort ed  packaging 
fractions arising from sorting plants through use of sorting technologies. One paper 
mill  credited a decline in the quality of sorted papers to a switch to more aut omat ed 
sorting system. 

Some of the sorters surveyed anticipate that the development of intelligent -embedded 
packaging  materials  will  enable  sorters  to  sort  more  effectively  and  efficiently, to 
replicate  and in some cases go beyond the nuanced visual judgements of a human 
operator. 

Fine-grained sorting technology  

The development fine-grained sorting technology has enabled the more precise sorting 
of smaller  flake and cullet sizes. For example, this has enabled colour sorting of plastic 
flake and of crushed glass. 

However the uptake of this technology is constrained by the value of  t he addit ional 
material  that  can  be  sorted.  For  instance,  the  colour  sort  of  flaked  PE  film  is  not 
currently  seen  as  being  viable  and  one  of  the  glass  reprocessors  surveyed  only 
extracted clear glass from crushed glass (and not other colours).  

Cleaning and decontamination 

Technology is not considered to be a limiting  factor for cleaning and decontaminat ion 
in  any  reprocessing  sector.  However,  for  cleaning  HDPE/PP  and  PE,  the  cost  of 
technology (compared to the benefit of producing higher quality fractions) is a barrier. 
Nonetheless, the historical development of cleaning and decontamination technologies 
has been important in achieving high quality recycling: 

  Technology is well established for high quality PET recycling, paper manufacturing 
and  glass  packaging  re-melt,  and  this  is  viewed  as  being  fit  for  purpose.  The 
historical development of advanced cleaning processes for PET flake, for inst ance, 
has been important in enabling the market for food-contact PET. 

  Some  areas  where  technologies  are  available  but  less  widely  applied  relate  to 
different types of extrusion and melt filtration for HDPE/PP, bec ause associated 
costs  are  not  viable  compared  to  additional  value.  Indeed,  for  HDPE/PP,  even 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
simple  technologies  like  hot -washing  are  not  applied  at  some  plants.  The 
development  of  advanced  extrusion  techniques  has,  nonetheless,  made  it 
technically  feasible  to  produce  higher  purity  and  more  structurally  consistent 
outputs from HDPE and PP flake. 

  Breakthroughs  in  technology  which  significantly  reduce  the costs of processes 
could  clearly  have  an  impact  in  making technical solutions for producing higher 
quality recycling outputs economically viable.  

  Technology  adaptation  can also be applied by manufacturers to ‘retool’ (adjust 
machinery) so that they can process specific secondary raw materials, for instance 
certain rPO compounds. At present this is typically done in a way that  is bespoke 
to particular proprietary secondary raw materials. 

Recommendations 

It  is  recommended  that  policy  makers  should  seek  to  support  the  alignment  of 
industry  with  packaging 
information’  systems  such  as  digital 
watermarking.  These  systems  could  create  step  changes  in sorting efficiencies of 
specific fractions of plastics with relatively minor additional investment. Several such 
initiatives  exist  including  digimark  and  that demonstrated in the ‘Holy grail’ pioneer 
project.12 

‘embedded 

From  a  quality  perspective,  focus  should  be  maintained  on  the  research  and 
development  of  improved  or  new  technologies  to  tackle  cleaning  and  quality 
challenges. However, for challenging materials where degradation is greater and virgin 
material prices are lower, the focus should be on developing technologies t hat have 
the  potential  to  lower  the  costs  of  existing  sorting  processes,  as  this  is a critical 
constraint to the uptake of sorting technology. 

12 
https://www.newplasticseconomy.org/assets/doc/Holy-Grail.pdf 

https://www.digimarc.com/about/technology/about -digital-watermarking; 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                     
A.1 

Appendix 1 

A1.1  Quality framework levels  for different materials 

For  further  detail  on  the  development  of  these  levels,  readers  are referred to the 
‘Quality of Recycling: Towards an Operational Definition and Framework’ report. 

Table 2-6: Framework quality levels for plastic - PET 

Category  Quality/Value 

Rationale 

A 

B 

C 

Dimensions 

Maintain/preserve 
IV,  product  type, 
transparency, 
colour;  and  food 
contact suitability 

Maintain/preserve 
IV,  product  type, 
transparency, and 
colour 
Maintain/preserve 
IV, product type 

Preserves colour separation and suitable for use in 
the production of the same food-contact items 

Preserves colour separation and suitable for use in 
colour-specific non-food-contact uses requiring high 
purity flake 

Mixed colour bottle flake can be used for non-colour-
sensitive applications that nonetheless require high 
enough IV (e.g. fibres and strapping). 

Separated trays can be separately reprocessed with 
lower losses compared to processing mixed with 
bottles 

D 

Other 

Mixed, un-colour-separated bottle and tray flake that 
may need further sorting 

*IV (intrinsic viscocity) is an important marker of quality, bottle manufacture required 
PET with high IV. Trays are made with PET of a lower IV. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2-7: Framework quality levels for plastic – HDPE, PP, PE 
Category  Quality/Value Dimensions 

Rationale 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

Specified polymer, 
structural consistency, 
colour, odour limit, product 
type origin (e.g. milk 
bottles) and food contact 
decontamination 

Specified polymer, 
structural consistency, 
colour, odour limit, product 
type origin (e.g. bleach 
bottles) 

Specified polymer, 
structural consistency, 
lightness, odour limit, may 
be modified by additives 

Specified polymer, 
structural consistency, 
lightness 

Specified polymer, 
structural consistency 

Specified polymer, lower 
structural consistency 

Polymer blend, meltflow 
index and other structural 
characteristics 

Polymer blend, variable 
meltflow index and lower 
structural consistency 

This material can be recycled into food-
contact packaging (N.B only production in 
UK currently) 

This material can be recycled into same 
colour-specific, odour-sensitive product 
type (e.g. bottle packaging for HDPE) 

This material has potentially wide 
application due to light colour, reduced 
odour-free and enhanced structural 
characteristics. (that otherwise might not 
exist due to product variation) 

This material has potentially wide 
application due to light colour, enhanced 
structural characteristics. (that otherwise 
might not exist due to product variation). 
But is more limited due to odour. 

This material is a darker output than 4 
which additionally restricts uses to 
dark/carbon uses by can be used for in 
applications demanding more structural 
consistency 

This material is a polymer blend and so has 
wider structural variation and more limited 
product applications (i.e. to injection 
moulded applications). It can still be 
extruded to have colour differentiation and 
more consistent structural characteristics 
(impact strength etc.) 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2-8: Framework quality levels for papers 
Category  Quality/Value 

Rationale 

Specifications 
(EN643) 

A 

B 

C 

Dimensions 

Maintain fibre 
characteristics, 
homogeneity of 
grade 

Mixed fibre 
characteristics, 
some variation in 
grade 

De-inking 
grade (1.11) 

Suitable for recycling to the same 
grade of product 

OCC13 grade 
(1.04) 

Suitable for corrugated cardboard 
manufacture 

Mixed papers 
(1.02) 

Suitable for manufacture of other 
grades of product (components of 
corrugated cardboard, tissue 
manufacture) 

Mixed fibre 
characteristics, 
lower grade fibres 

Not meeting a 
specified 
EN643 grade 

May yet be suitable for products 
with less structural fibre 
requirements 

Table 2-9: Framework quality levels for glass 

Category  Quality/Value 

Rationale 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

Dimensions 

Maintains colour, limits 
specific contaminants 
and other physio-
chemical glass types 

Limits on specific 
contaminants and other 
physio-chemical glass 
types 

Limits on specific 
contaminants 

Limits on overall 
contaminants  

Suitable for input into colour-specific glass 
packaging manufacture, fully circular 

May be suitable for input into darker colour 
glass packaging, or other re-melt markets, 
or use as abrasive 

Suitable for bespoke non-re-melt 
applications (i.e. water filtration) 

Suitable for some non-re-melt applications, 
such as use in ceramics or as fluxing agent in 
brick production 

Wide tolerance for 
contaminants 

Only suitable for aggregate uses, unlikely to 
displace virgin material 

Since  there  is  relatively  little  to  distinguish  on  quality  grounds  between  re -melt 
applications  in  terms  of  purities  and  decontaminants  (though  they  have  slightly 
different  tolerances  for  individual  contaminants),  the  main  distinguishing  feature 
appears to be the extent of colour preservation/separation. 

13 O ld corrugated containers/cardboard  

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                     
GETTING  IN TOUCH  WITH  THE EU 
In person 
All  ove r the  European Union there are hundreds of Europe Dire ct information ce ntres. You can find the address of the ce ntre 
ne arest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_e n 
On the phone or by email 
Europ e Dire ct is a service tha t answers your questions about the  European Union. You can contact this service : 
- by fre e p hone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (ce rtain operators may charge for the se calls), 
- at the  following standard number: +32 22999696, or 
- by e le ctronic mail via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_e n 
FINDING  INFORMATION  ABOUT  THE  EU 
Online 
Information about the  European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available  on the Europa website at: 
https://europa.eu/european -union/index_en 
EU publications 

You can download or order free and p rice d EU publications from EU Bookshop at: 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications . Multip le copies of free p ublications may be obtained by contacting 
Europ e Dire ct or your local information ce ntre  (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_e n). 

79 

 
 
 
K
J
-
0
4
-
2
0
-
6
7
2
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10 .2760/510855 
IS BN 9 78-92-76-26817-8 

80