Introduction

Global plastic production has grown from 1.5 million tonnes (Footnote 1) in 1950 to 367 Mt in 2020 [1]. In 2020, the largest producer was China, which produced 32% of all plastics, followed by the North American Trade Agreement with 19% and the rest of Asia with 17%. Europe had the fourth largest plastic production and took up 15% [1]. Plastic packaging accounts for the largest market while it has the shortest lifespan; most of these plastics are disposed of in the same year of production [2]. The most common polymer types for plastic packaging are (linear) low- and high-density polyethene (LLDPE, LDPE, HDPE), polypropylene (PP), polyethene terephthalate (PET), polyvinylchloride (PVC) and (expanded) polystyrene (PS, PS-E) [1]. These commodity plastics have different levels of collection and recycling. Besides, some plastics are easy to recycle (i.e., PET and HDPE) while other types of plastic are more challenging to recycle (i.e., PVC and PS) [3]. Table 1 compares the European converter demand [1] to the recycling capacity [4] while taking recyclability [3] into account. There is a visible disharmony between the types of plastics used and the infrastructure to recycle the end-of-life products.

Table 1 Demand, infrastructure and level of recyclability of the seven commodity plastics in EU-27 + 31 in 2020
Full size table

In today’s society, plastic is ubiquitous and countless products are wrapped in plastic packaging. By 2015, an estimated 6300 Mt of plastic waste had been generated, of which approximately 4900 Mt had accumulated in landfills or the natural environment [2]. Today's linear plastics economy forms a human and planetary threat; it directly impacts climate change, exhausts natural resources, negatively affects human health, and generates incalculable amounts of waste [5]. Unless the system changes, the plastic industry will continue to pollute ecosystems, resulting in further ecological, social and economic harm [6]. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation [7] states, “The global momentum for a fundamental plastics rethink is greater than ever”.

Nearly three decades ago, the European Commission implemented the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD) 94/62/EC [8]. This directive aimed to prevent and reduce the environmental impact of packaging and packaging waste and to harmonise national measures regarding packaging and packaging waste management. In 2018, the PPWD Directive 94/62/EC was amended to Directive EU/2018/852, which aims to prevent waste generation and promote reuse, recycling and other forms of recovering packaging waste [8]. In the same year, the EU (European Union) implemented a strategy for plastic in a circular economy and stated that by 2030 all plastic packaging that is put on the European market should be reusable or—economically—recyclable [9]. The PPWD has set the target that at least 50% of all plastic packaging waste must be recycled by 2025 and at least 55% by 2030. Furthermore, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes should be established for all packaging in the EU (EU-27) by the end of 2024.

EPR is a broad policy instrument that requires producers to take financial—and sometimes organizational—responsibility for collecting, sorting, and treating their products at the end of life [10]. EPR schemes are usually a combination of government policy and producer initiative that is highly contextualized. The first EPR schemes were implemented in the late 1980s and have been widely adopted over the past decade. Globally, over 65 EPR schemes—of which 45 are mandatory and fee-based—for packaging are in operation [11, 12]. The policy is now gaining momentum, mostly in developed economies [11].

There is a growing consensus among researchers that EPR can provide a solution to the global plastic pollution problem. Organisations such as the World Wildlife Fund and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation have stated their support for the policy. Since mismanaged municipal solid waste accounts for half of the macroplastics found in the environment, waste management and its financial feasibility urgently need to be improved [13]. However, the recycling rate and the fate of plastic waste in Europe are ambiguous. The present study aims to assess the contribution of EPR schemes to the recycling targets of the PPWD for 2025, focusing on the five most populous countries in the EU, which generate more than 70% of all plastic packaging waste. First, the plastic packaging waste generation and treatment are studied, followed by the Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs) accountable for organising the EPR schemes in the individual scope countries. This work could support plastic packaging recycling by providing insights into  waste management and the effectiveness of EPR schemes.

Materials and methods

Scope

In 2018, the demand for plastic packaging accounted for 39.9% of the European plastics converter demand in the EU-27 + 3, which is 20.4 Mt [14]. In the same year, 17.8 Mt of plastic packaging was collected for waste treatment. Since the PPWD focuses on preventing plastic waste generation, the relationship between population growth and GDP to plastic packaging waste generation is analysed. Another aim is to promote reuse, recycling and other types of waste recovery. Therefore, plastic packaging waste management and treatment are studied. In Article 3 of the PPWD, plastic packaging is defined as “all products that are used for containment, protection, handling, delivery and presentation of goods, from raw materials to processed goods, from the producer to the user or the consumer” [8].

The three focus points for plastic policy are reducing waste at the source, increasing recycling rates and Extended Producer Responsibility [15]. Therefore, the material flow of plastic waste in the EU is evaluated, specifically in the five most populous countries: Germany, Spain, France, Italy, and Poland. Data from Eurostat for plastic packaging waste generation and recycling rates are examined to understand the individual countries’ process toward achieving the PPWD targets. Furthermore, the history and development of the EPR schemes of the scope countries are studied. Established EPR schemes are tested on the guidance in plastic waste generation, collection and treatment, and their role in achieving EU targets.

Data collection and processing

This study builds on previous publications from the European Commission, Plastics Europe, renowned researchers and independent organisations such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. The data for population, GDP, waste generation and recycling rates have been extracted from the Eurostat database. Other data on plastic packaging waste collection and treatment have  been found in reports from Plastics Europe and Plastic Recyclers Europe.

The correlations among plastic packaging waste generation, population growth and GDP were  analysed by performing two separate Pearson tests with a P-value of 0.05. Furthermore, a Sankey diagram shows the way waste was treated in the scope countries. Line and bar charts are drawn to visualise waste generation and recycling rates over a period of time. All data were processed using Origin Pro software (2021b SR1, Northampton, MA, USA).

Status quo on plastics in the EU (EU-27)

Plastic packaging waste generation

The Member States of the EU have generated a total of 15.4 Mt of plastic packaging waste and an average of 34.3 kg per capita in 2019. Germany generated the most plastic packaging waste (3.2 Mt/39 kg per capita), followed by France (2.4 Mt/36 kg per capita), Italy (2.3 Mt/39 kg per capita), Spain (1.7 Mt/36 kg per capita), and Poland (1.3 Mt/34 kg per capita) (Fig. 1) [16]. Approximately 71% of the plastic packaging waste is produced by these five countries. The earliest available data from Eurostat date back to 1997, the year before the PPWD. Between 1997 and 2019, plastic packaging waste generation increased in the EU and individual countries. Germany experienced the largest rise in plastic packaging waste by 117% and Italy the smallest with a 30% growth [16].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Plastic packaging waste generation in focus countries between 1997 and 2019 (Eurostat)

Full size image

According to the World Bank Group [17], the factors influencing waste generation are urbanisation and prosperity. Therefore, the relation between the population of the scope countries and the plastic packaging waste generation is analysed. A Pearson test with a P value of 0.05 was  performed on the data of the plastic packaging waste generation and population from the scope countries and cumulative EU-27 for the years between 1997 and 2019 (Fig. 2a). The outcomes indicate a high positive correlation between the plastic packaging waste generation and the population of France, a negative correlation in Poland and no significant relationship between the two factors in Germany, Spain and Italy. In Germany, the population remained similar over the past three decades, while the plastic packaging waste generation more than doubled, and waste generation per capita doubled. The population in Poland even decreased slightly (<1%), while plastic packaging waste generation nearly doubled. In France, on the other hand, plastic waste generation follows a similar trendline in the population.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Pearson test with P value 0.05 for the five focus countries and cumulative EU-27 correlation plot between plastic packaging waste generation (wasgen) and GDP (a) between 1997 and 2019 (c) after Waste Framework Directive in 2008, and correlation plot between plastic packaging waste generation (wasgen) and population (pop) (b) between 1997 and 2019 (d) after Waste Framework Directive in 2008. GDP Gross Domestic Product

Full size image

The second factor, prosperity, is measured through the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The trendlines of GDP and plastic packaging waste generation per capita show similar fluctuations. Between the end of 2007 and early 2009, there was  a global financial crisis (GFC). In these years, the GDP and plastic packaging waste generation have declined, except in  Poland. Between 2008 and 2009, the plastic packaging waste generation per capita in Poland declined only by 0.1 kg per capita, and the GDP per capita increased from 8910 EUR to 9070 EUR. The other countries experienced a minimal loss of 1000 EUR per capita in GDP. A Pearson test with a P value of 0.05 has shown that there is a strong positive correlation between the plastic packaging waste generation of each scope country and its GDP (Fig. 2b).

In 2008, the European Commission (EC) implemented the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) 2008/98/EC [18]. A waste hierarchy was established (from desirable to least desirable): prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery from other purposes—such as energy—and disposal [18]. As visualized in Fig. 1, in the first year of implementation, the plastic packaging waste generation declined, while it continued the earlier set trendline after 2010. However, the cause can be attributed  to the global financial crisis. Therefore, it is challenging to determine the exact impact of the WFD. However, the Pearson tests have been repeated using data from 2008. The results are similar to the previous Pearson test, except for Germany. Between 2008 and 2019, there was a high positive correlation between plastic packaging waste generation and population in Germany (Fig. 2c). For the correlation to GDP, the Pearson test shows a high positive correlation between plastic packaging waste generation and GDP per capita of all scope countries (Fig. 2d). Furthermore, the amendment of the PPWD in 2018 aims to prevent waste generation. The latest available Eurostat data are from 2019, only one year after the amendment. Compared to the previous year, the EU-27 and scope countries generated more plastic packaging waste in 2019. However, novel data are  necessary to determine the full effects.

Collection and treatment

Across Europe, plastic waste is collected and sorted into Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) [19]. There are differences in how materials are collected, where and whether the end-of-life products have been pre-sorted by the consumer. In Germany and Spain, plastic packaging municipal waste is collected in yellow bins [20, 21]. For instance, in Germany, pre-sorted plastic waste is collected and sorted in MRFs. Recyclable plastic waste is sent for recycling while  non-recyclable (contaminated or mixed) plastics are sent for incineration with energy recovery. In France, Italy, and Poland, household—and thus plastic—waste is collected separately or mixed depending on the municipality. However, plans for expanding separate waste collection are in progress. In Italy, for example, the separate waste collection rates differ per region. Collected waste is brought to material consortia that further separate waste, and all sortable and recyclable waste is sent for recycling. Plastic waste that is unsortable and unrecyclable is sent for incineration with energy recovery, and in the least desirable (and least applied) scenario, plastic packaging waste is put in landfills. Plastic waste can only be treated effectively if the plastics have been properly collected [22]. While it is crucial to adapt to local conditions, fragmentation affects cost-effectiveness and efficiency. When plastic is collected separately, the recycling rates are ten times higher than in mixed collection schemes [23]. In collection schemes of mixed waste, plastic packaging is often highly contaminated, disrupting the quality of the sorting process and decreasing its efficiency [24]. Between 2006 and 2018, the amount of post-consumer plastic packaging from household, industrial and commercial packaging that was collected through official schemes in the scope countries increased [25].

A range of waste treatment technologies are used in Europe. Waste that is recovered can be either recycled (mechanical, chemical or dissolution) or energy can be recovered (alternative fuel—Refuse Derived Fuel/Solid Derived Fuel or incineration with energy recovery) [23]. These technologies can produce new resources such as recycled plastics, monomers, energy and other base chemicals. In some cases, waste is not recovered and ends up in landfills [23]. In 2020, an estimated 29.5 Mt of plastic waste has been collected in the EU, of which about 12.4 Mt was used for (incineration with) energy recovery (42%), 10.2 Mt was recycled (34.6%), and 6.9 Mt ended up on landfill (23.4%) [1]. However, this waste treatment does not necessarily happen in the local country, or the EU. In Europe, the installed capacity for plastic waste recycling in 2020 was 8.5 Mt, with the largest capacity for PET, LDPE and HDPE/PP accounting for nearly 80% of the total capacity [4]. According to the study by Filho et al. [3], these types of commodity plastics are the easiest to recycle. In 2018, the recycling capacity in Europe covered about 37%1 of the total 17.8 Mt of plastic packaging waste was collected in 2018. It should be noted that recycling facilities additionally treat other types of (post-consumer) plastic waste, resulting in a lower cumulative recycling capacity (23%2) [4]. Between the 2018 and 2020 the recycling capcity grew from 6.6 Mt to 9.6 Mt, which is a 45% rise.

Figure 3a shows the plastic packaging waste treatment of each scope country in  2018. The amount of waste that was landfilled has decreased in all scope countries over the past years. At the same time, the recycling and energy recovery rates increased. In 2018, the scope countries were still pursuing the PPWD target to recycle 50% of all plastic packaging waste by 2025, except for Spain. Particularly, France and Poland have a long way to go, with the current recycling rates of 27% and 36%, respectively (Fig. 3b).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Plastic packaging waste treatment and recycling rates in focus countries for 2018. (a) Sankey figure with plastic packaging waste treatment in kilotons of each focus country, (b) recycling rates of plastic packaging waste (Eurostat)

Full size image

Recycling methods

In 2018, 29.1 Mt of plastic waste was collected, and 9.4 Mt was sent to recycling [25]. The majority of the plastic packaging was made from commodity plastics that are feasible to recycle and for which extensive recycling facilities are available in Europe. According to Eurostat data, 1.9 Mt was sent outside of the EU for recycling [26]. However, plastic waste that is sent abroad for recycling also contributes to the overall recycling rates. According to UN Comtrade data in 2018, Germany and France exported the most plastic waste. Italy and Spain also have a positive net export; though these amounts are significantly lower [27]. Poland imported slightly more waste than it exported. Nevertheless, the exact movement of waste among countries is untraceable due to inconsistencies or gaps in data regarding the types of commodity plastics traded [27].

The rest of the plastic waste has been recycled in European recycling facilities. Of the remaining 7.5 Mt, about 2.6 Mt ended up as residues—such as organics, paper and metal—which are material losses that arise in the recycling process [23]. The other 4.9 Mt were formed into new recyclates; most of the plastic was mechanically recycled and approximately 0.1 Mt was chemically recycled [23]. Consequently, 4 Mt of plastic recyclates ended up on the European market—the other 0.9 Mt outside of the EU—to be made into new products, and approximately 1 Mt was made into new plastic packaging. The plastic converter demand in the EU-27 + 3 in the following year was 50.7 Mt, of which 18.7 Mt was plastic packaging [25]. About 8% of the total converter demand for 2019 was recycled in a closed-loop, and a slightly over 5% was recycled for plastic packaging.

Waste is exported to other countries due to insufficient recycling capacity, demand for imports and economic profits [28]. A large proportion of plastic waste is traded, both among EU Member States and among countries outside the EU. In 2018, China implemented a ban on plastic waste imports [29]. In addition to the ban, other types of plastic were added to the Basel Convention, causing major changes in the global plastic waste trade [28]. The plastic waste exports from the EU declined from 2.7 Mt to 2.0 Mt between 2015 and 2020, which is likely to decline even more due to the implemented regulations. Now, most of the waste that was sent to China before the import ban is sent to Turkey and Malaysia. These countries experienced waste import growth of 2047% and 297%, respectively, from 2015 to 2020 [26].

According to the WFD, waste has to be treated under the same conditions as within the European jurisdiction [30]. However, this is often not the case, and plastic waste might potentially be dumped or burned in unregulated manners [28]. Europe is responsible for safely managing the waste it generates, however, there is a lack of knowledge and transparency on how plastic waste exported from the EU is managed [31]. From 2021, the EU banned the export of plastic waste to non-OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries with the exception of clean plastic waste sent for recycling [32]. The new policy regarding international waste trade has created more urgency to develop a European market for recycled plastics [9].

Historical overview and features of EPR schemes in scope countries

EPR schemes and instruments

There are varying approaches to EPR schemes for plastic packaging waste. They can be based on collective producer responsibility (CPR) or individual producer responsibility (IPR) and can have competing or only one scheme [33]. Furthermore, producer responsibility organizations (PROs) can either have (simple) financial responsibility or partial/full operational responsibility. EPR schemes can cover a certain type of plastic, such as household/equivalent packaging, commercial and/or industrial packaging, or both [33]. However, the similarity all schemes have is that they have some basic or specific fee modulation base [11]. These fees are based on weight and the type of material, or even the type of plastics. Besides, these fees can either be voluntary or mandatory based [11]. Voluntary EPR schemes can be part of corporate social responsibility programs and can provide a pathway for national EPR legalisation by demonstrating the performance of the schemes [11]. Table 2 shows the implementation of EPR schemes on plastic packaging waste in the five scope countries.

Table 2 Implementation of EPR schemes in five EU focus countries
Full size table

The most common EPR instruments are take-back requirements, where producers are responsible for collecting and treating their goods at the end of life [10]. The environmental fee that has been charged by producers upon distribution is used to fund the collection, and sorting of plastic packaging waste in MRFs, and pay for energy recovery or landfill. Another instrument is Advanced Disposal Fee (ADF) or eco-modulation, where environmental fees are based on weight, type of plastic and the level of recyclability. Figure 4 visualises a general EPR scheme with a PRO, indicating the money flows in the value chain. Furthermore, there are deposit return scheme (DRS), where consumers pay a deposit during purchase that will be reimbursed when returned. The implementation of these systems in European countries for single-use bottles has been shown to be successful as the recycling rates of these collected plastics are over 95% [34].

Fig. 4
figure 4

Flow chart of the role of a PRO in the plastics value chain with take-back requirements and advanced disposal fees. PRO Producer responsibility organisation

Full size image

EPR in scope countries

According to the PPWD amendment EU/2018/852, all Member States should have established EPR schemes for all packaging by 31 December 2024 [8]. The requirements should align with Article 8 of the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC. This article describes that Member States may take legislative or non-legislative measures to promote reusable, durable and/or recyclable product design to minimise the environmental footprint of packaging and focus on using resources efficiently [18]. EPR schemes may also include waste management and financial responsibility and can apply to product manufacturers, sellers and importers. Regardless of the specific EPR scheme, economic viability, technical feasibility, human and planetary health and social impacts should be taken into account [18].

The first EPR scheme was established in Germany in 1990 (Fig. 5). Der Grüne Punkt—Duales System Deutschland (DSD) started out as a non-profit until competing firms entered the market in 2003 [21]. The costs for the dual system were halved between 2000 and 2015 due to technical innovations and competition among system operators [21]. The organization provides a collection of post-consumer packaging nationwide. The raw materials obtained from these waste streams are used for the circular economy. In 2003, the PRO expanded its scope from only household packaging waste and now includes commercial, industrial and transport packaging waste. Furthermore, in the same year, Germany implemented a DRS for plastic bottles reaching return rates of approximately 98% [34].

Fig. 5
figure 5

Timeline with the foundation of producer responsibility organisations in the focus countries and European plastic policy

Full size image

Der Grüne Punkt (in English: The Green Dot) is the founding member of the umbrella organization PRO Europe, founded in 1995, for European packaging and packaging waste recovery and recycling schemes [35]. The organisation was established as a response to the PPWD and packaging that is covered by these schemes is registered under the trademark ‘the Green Dot’ [35]. According to Pro Europe, the EU Member States need to work together to achieve the prevention and recycling of packaging. The Green Dot has served as a model to implement EPR in 31 countries in Europe. Except Italy, all scope countries are members of the Green Dot.

Ecoembes, the non-profit PRO of Spain, was established in 1998 [20]. Throughout Spain, there are 388,174 yellow containers on public roads, where plastic containers, cans and carton boxes are collected. Between 2015 and 2020, as a result of more available yellow containers, the separate collection grew 41% per capita. Ecoembes finances the cost of separately collecting and managing household packaging waste, which is outsourced to third parties [36]. They managed to reach the 2025 target of 50% recycling rates for plastic packaging 5 years ahead of time. The fees that need to be paid to the PRO depend on the type of commodity plastic used, which encourages producers to use the same type of polymers for product packaging to reduce impurity and sorting cost. Besides, the commodity plastics HDPE and PET—which are easy to recycle—have lower fees than other types of plastics. Furthermore, PRO also invests in consumer awareness and research, development and innovation [36].

The non-profit PRO in France is Citeo, formerly Eco-emballages, which was established in 1992. Over the past 25 years, Citeo has supported companies’ efforts to reduce the weight of packaging, focusing on eco-design [37]. Examples are a 40% reduction on water bottles, 13% on detergent bottles, and 22% on butter pots. The recycling rate for plastic bottles and flasks exceeded the recycling target of 50%. However, not all plastic packaging is recyclable in France; about 20% is non-recyclable and recycling is to be developed for another 15%. The PRO uses eco-modulation fees consisting of bonuses and penalties to promote the use of plastic that is covered by recycling channels [38]. Nevertheless, the overall plastic recycling rate is far below the target.

Another country has implemented advanced recycling fees in Italy. Plastic packaging waste has been  managed by CONAI, a non-profit consortium, since 1997. CONAI has set out a framework programme agreement with the Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI). They aim to guarantee shared management responsibility among producers, consumers, and authorities [39]. The ANCI-CONAI framework agreement covers 97% of the population, and 4% more plastic packaging was brought to sector consortia in 2020. The agreement is voluntary, and municipalities who choose to participate are asked to separately collect 6 types of packaging waste: steel, aluminium, paper, wood, plastic, and glass. Half of all waste that is collected nationally is managed by the CONAI system [40]. For plastic waste specifically, the CONAI consortium management was responsible for 61% of the total recycling rate, whereas the market has a share of 23% and autonomous systems of 16% [39].

Rekopol, the PRO in Poland, was founded in 2002 by companies that put packaged goods on the Polish market. It cooperates with companies that collect and recycle household waste and with companies that collect waste from commercial, industrial, and other sources [41]. The PRO also works with entities that offer waste management services and packaging recycling. In 2016, there was  a surge in the recycling level to 46.9%, but it dropped to 31.5% in 2019 (Fig. 6). The recycling rates for plastic packaging have been fluctuating often since they were  recorded in 2004. At the same time, the volumes of plastics that were landfilled declined, and the share of energy recovery from plastic packaging exceeded the growth of plastic packaging recycling [25].

Fig. 6
figure 6

Plastic packaging recycling rates from 1997 to 2019 for the focus countries. (a) Germany, (b) Spain, (c) France, (d) Italy, (e) Poland

Full size image

The transition toward a circular plastics economy

EPR can reduce the burden on public budgets since the financial responsibility is brought to the producers and not the local municipalities and public authorities [33]. The implementation of EPR schemes has shown remarkable increases in the collection and recycling rates of end-of-life plastics. In all scope countries, more waste was collected between 2006 and 2018 [25]. As a result of the rise in sorted, high-quality waste, it has become more feasible to recycle this waste into raw materials, which benefits market development [33]. Moreover, the recycling rates have risen in all scope countries and even more than doubled in Spain and Poland.

EPR schemes can also minimize the need for primary plastic feedstock and reduce the cost of secondary raw materials [42]. The policy schemes have increased recycling rates by financing efficient (sorted) waste collection and management, focusing on consumer awareness, and in some cases, by setting eco-criteria. However, while recycling rates have risen, a large amount of—fossil fuel-based—resources have been lost in energy recovery and landfills. In Germany, a landfill ban was implemented in 1993 for untreated waste [43]. Plastic packaging waste that has not been recycled—which accounts for half—was used for energy recovery. In the five scope countries, energy recovery takes up a larger share than landfills. However, in Spain, while the amount of plastic packaging put in landfills declined by 45.7% between 2006 and 2018, it still accounts for a total of 33.8% of all plastic packaging waste. In 2018, 50.7% was recycled, leaving 15.5% for energy recovery. While the recycling rates are high, one-third of the potential resources from plastic packaging are lost in landfills. In Poland, by contrast, the share of energy recovery from plastic packaging waste raised  from 5 kilotons to 352 kilotons between 2006 and 2018, which is a 6940% increase. The recycling rates in this Member State increased by 27.4%, and the landfill declined by 37.5%. In 2018, of all plastic packaging waste, 37.7% was recycled in Poland, 32.8% was used for energy recovery, and 29.5% was put in landfills. All treatment is performed by Rekopol’s waste management partners.

In many cases, bottlenecks arise regarding the recyclability of post-consumer plastic packaging. Eco-criteria—as part of EPR schemes—can incentivize manufacturers to develop their products in a more sustainable, reusable or easier to recycle manner, which is also known as eco-design [33]. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 30% of plastic packaging (by weight) will never be reused or recycled without fundamental redesign and innovation, while 20% provides an economically attractive opportunity for reuse [7]. The study suggests redesign of small-format plastic packaging, innovation of multi-material packaging, replacement of uncommon plastic packaging materials (PVC, PS-E, PS) and scaling up of compostable plastics for nutrient-contaminated packaging. These uncommon types of plastic align with Table 1, indicating that these specific plastics are difficult to recycle [3]. Specifically, mixed streams, contamination and additive contents form obstacles to recycling. In many cases, it is technically and economically challenging to recycle due to aspects of product design and the hazardous, toxic substances embedded in plastics [31]. Besides, plastic waste can generally only be recycled a few times before the material degrades; consequently, plastics are frequently downcycled [31]. It is critical to adhere to the waste hierarchy and focus on waste prevention and reuse before recycling and energy recovery.

Discussion

Plastic packaging waste generation has increased in all scope countries. Since the WFD was adopted by the EU in 2008, waste generation has not grown as rapidly, which aligns with its waste hierarchy. It is crucial to decouple economic growth (GDP) from waste generation and the use of resources to prevent (plastic packaging) waste generation. Nevertheless, the Pearson tests indicated that there is a high correlation between plastic packaging waste generation and the GDP of all scope countries. PROs can guide manufacturers on eco-design for reuse and recycling while using less plastic packaging material. Furthermore, take-back requirements—especially in combination with advanced recycling fees—can give producers a direct financial incentive to put less plastic packaging on the market; this results in lower fees.

EPR schemes have contributed to the rise in recycling rates by improving the financial and operational aspects of plastic packaging waste management—collection, treatment and recycling. Between 2006 and 2018, more waste was collected for treatment through EPR schemes. Germany and Spain have implemented separate plastic (packaging) collection nationwide and the other countries are expanding their sorted waste collection. The PROs use the fees they receive to expand the separate waste collection and make it economically viable. The fees that producers are required to pay depend on the type of plastic (household, commercial, or industrial) and the recyclability of the plastics. Spain has the highest modulation fees and highest recycling rates among the scope countries, which can be a positive result of the high fees. Furthermore, they invest in consumer awareness campaigns and educate citizens on how to correctly separate waste.

All scope countries have adopted take-back requirements, however, other EPR instruments are additionally put into place. Advanced disposal fees—or eco-modulation—are implemented in France and Italy; Germany established a DRS. In France, the fee for plastic packaging waste can be reduced through a bonus on reduction at the source, recyclability improvement, covered by sorting guidelines and containing recycled material. The fee can also be higher with penalties for disrupting packaging, no recycling channel and use of mineral opacifiers in PET. In Italy, there is tax relief for reusable packaging and the contribution level fees depend on the type of waste (H-C/I) and the recyclability. Moreover, Germany has established DRS on single-use PET since 2003, resulting in a collection rate of 98% [34]. While DRS schemes can reduce littering and result in higher recycling rates, their introduction comes with challenges concerning the need to establish complex infrastructure and high implementation costs [34].

The fees that producers are required to pay to PROs incentivise product design using plastics with higher recyclability, which consequently affects the highest attainable recycling rates. While EPR schemes have been established for a few decades and continue to  improve, the recyclability of plastic packaging is a major bottleneck. PROs in the scope countries also offer services for companies to implement innovative, eco-design (design for recycling and reuse) and weight reduction of the packaging material.

Individual scope countries have shown different efforts and established unique EPR schemes to work towards PPWD targets. Germany and Spain have shown the highest recycling rates, which in addition to their efficient PROs can be linked to the sorted plastic waste recycling in the yellow bins. However, in some cases, the efforts and capacity of treating plastic packaging waste using energy recovery have exceeded recycling.

While the state of play for waste generation, collection and waste treatment is improving every year, some issues hold back the transition towards a circular economy for plastics. The European recycling infrastructure is continuously growing. However, the European recycling capacity of 2020 is still not sufficient to recycle half of the plastic waste generated in Europe locally [1]. Besides, the share of recycled material that is used for new products is minimal, and only 5% of all plastic packaging was recycled in a closed loop. The Member States still rely too heavily on recycling outside of the EU, which accounts for 20% of all plastic waste collected for recycling in the EU, and on other -, less preferred—waste treatments, such as energy recovery (39.5% in 2018) and the landfill (18.5% in 2018) [25]. Regardless of the improvements in product design and collection, without decoupling waste generation from economic growth and the needed local recycling infrastructure, the circular plastic economy cannot be completely established.

Conclusions

Data from the foundation of the PROs until 2018 (in some cases 2019) have shown impressive results regarding plastic packaging waste collection and recycling. By taking the financial burden of (plastic packaging) waste management from municipalities and shifting it to producers, waste management costs can be covered. Different EPR schemes and instruments work optimally depending on the context of the country.

In Germany, Spain, and Italy, EPR schemes have shown the best results. The three countries have varying financial and operational responsibilities that differ between profit and non-profit, product coverage and whether they are mandatory or voluntary. EPR schemes are known to be highly contextualized across the EU. And the positive outcomes of the different schemes imply that the efficiency generally depends on what works in the geographical, economic and social context. However, it should be noted that Rekopol—the PRO in Poland—has a voluntary, non-competing scheme, which brought the least desired results. Compared to the PRO in Europe, the local governments in China are responsible for  collecting and treating domestic waste, and private recycling companies purchase plastic recyclables from citizens and waste pickers. According to local waste management guidelines, recycling companies are flexible in modifying the purchasing price of plastic recyclables and increasing  the amount. Although producers are excluded from plastic waste management schemes in China, the scheme encourages citizens and informal workers to participate in recyclable collection.

Regarding EPR instruments, DRS have shown extraordinary collection rates. However, the only country that has adopted them is Der Grüne Punkt. This could relate to high financial and operational efforts and the fact that Germany has a significantly higher GDP than the other scope countries. Nevertheless, Advanced Recycling Fees in combination with take-back requirements can influence the recycling rate by incentivising producers to put less and better recyclable plastic packaging on the market.

All EPR schemes have certain elements in common: increased collection and recycling, consumer awareness programs and advice for producers concerning design. However, all scope countries have a positive correlation with  economic growth. PROs could implement more guidance and incentives regarding waste reduction. Furthermore, to achieve plastic packaging recycling targets by 2025, France and Poland need to optimise their strategy. Overall, in Europe, the focus should remain on the waste hierarchy and improve the capacity for plastic recycling. Both elements are crucial for the circular plastic economy.

By removing the financial—and sometimes operational—burden from municipalities and adopting a ‘polluter pays’ principle, plastic waste management in the scope countries has become more adequate and economical over the past decades. While collection and treatment improved, the problem with recyclability and available recycling capacity remained. However, EPR schemes have effectively guided producers to use plastics with higher recyclability and reduce the amount of packaging. It is critical to decouple waste generation from economic growth and thereby comply with the waste hierarchy that starts with waste prevention.

The recommendation for the five scope countries is to implement separate waste collection to prevent contamination from affecting recyclability and to improve plastic recycling infrastructure locally. Furthermore, design for reuse and recyclability should be promoted using clear and concise eco-modulation fees. It is essential to minimise the treatment of  plastic waste in energy recovery and would be preferable to ban landfills due to the environmental implications and major loss of virgin materials. EPR schemes have contributed to achieving  PPWD recycling targets by guiding producers to increase the recyclability of their consumer goods and reduce the amount of packaging through financial incentives. By improving the recyclability and expanding the local recycling capacity, the Member States contribute further to the European Circular Plastic Economy.