IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i12p6772-d575402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors Shaping the Recycling Systems for Plastic Packaging Waste—A Comparison between Austria, Germany and The Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Caterina Picuno

    (Departement Sustainable Resource and Waste Management, Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics, Hamburg University of Technology, D-21079 Hamburg, Germany)

  • Emile Van Eygen

    (Christian Doppler Laboratory for Anthropogenic Resources, Institute for Water Quality and Resource Management, TU Wien, 1040 Vienna, Austria)

  • Marieke T. Brouwer

    (Wageningen Food & Biobased Research, Wageningen University & Research, 6709 WG Wageningen, The Netherlands)

  • Kerstin Kuchta

    (Departement Sustainable Resource and Waste Management, Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics, Hamburg University of Technology, D-21079 Hamburg, Germany)

  • Eggo U. Thoden van Velzen

    (Wageningen Food & Biobased Research, Wageningen University & Research, 6709 WG Wageningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Setting up strategies for a sound management of plastic packaging waste (PPW) is becoming increasingly crucial at many levels of the value chain in Europe. After the very first implementation of an extended producer responsibility scheme in Germany in 1991, many EU Countries followed. This resulted in a complex network of schemes that differ from one member state to another. This paper brings together the three latest studies describing the current flows of PPW across the waste value chain from Austria (reference year 2013), Germany and the Netherlands (reference year 2017). With this aim, the models of the three single studies have been adapted to fit into a common model, allowing to perform a comparative analysis. Although with a relatively comparable product market, the three countries have different management systems (e.g., separate collection systems, target sorting products and treatment of residual waste), reflecting different national strategies to achieve the circular economy targets. Recycling rates (in terms of washed milled goods at the output of the recycling process) for the three countries resulted in 23%, 43% and 30% of the total mass of PPW generated in, respectively, Austria, Germany and the Netherlands. The fraction of mixed recycled plastics, relevant for Germany and the Netherlands only, was determined to be one of the major determinants of the differences in recycling rates. Furthermore, the discussion revolves around new political targets that have the potential to contribute to addressing the issue of tradeoff between quantity and quality of recycled plastics placed on the market, with measures such as design-for-recycling and eco-modulation of EPR fees playing a critical role, while also pointing out the aspects that inevitably hinder closed-loop recycling.

Suggested Citation

  • Caterina Picuno & Emile Van Eygen & Marieke T. Brouwer & Kerstin Kuchta & Eggo U. Thoden van Velzen, 2021. "Factors Shaping the Recycling Systems for Plastic Packaging Waste—A Comparison between Austria, Germany and The Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6772-:d:575402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6772/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6772/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mariia Kravchenko & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Tim C. McAloone, 2020. "A Trade-Off Navigation Framework as a Decision Support for Conflicting Sustainability Indicators within Circular Economy Implementation in the Manufacturing Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-26, December.
    2. Marieke T. Brouwer & Eggo U. Thoden van Velzen & Kim Ragaert & Roland ten Klooster, 2020. "Technical Limits in Circularity for Plastic Packages," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-29, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ayah Alassali & Caterina Picuno & Zhi Kai Chong & Jinyang Guo & Roman Maletz & Kerstin Kuchta, 2021. "Towards Higher Quality of Recycled Plastics: Limitations from the Material’s Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-22, November.
    2. Žaneta Stasiškienė & Jelena Barbir & Lina Draudvilienė & Zhi Kai Chong & Kerstin Kuchta & Viktoria Voronova & Walter Leal Filho, 2022. "Challenges and Strategies for Bio-Based and Biodegradable Plastic Waste Management in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Konstantin Schinkel & Bastian Küppers & Sven Reichenbach & Teresa Rohrmeier & Kajetan Müller & Tanja Fell & Sven Sängerlaub, 2023. "Amount of Fill Product Residues in Plastic Packagings for Recycling," Waste, MDPI, vol. 1(4), pages 1-18, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ayah Alassali & Caterina Picuno & Zhi Kai Chong & Jinyang Guo & Roman Maletz & Kerstin Kuchta, 2021. "Towards Higher Quality of Recycled Plastics: Limitations from the Material’s Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-22, November.
    2. Salih Çevikarslan & Carsten Gelhard & Jörg Henseler, 2022. "Improving the Material and Financial Circularity of the Plastic Packaging Value Chain in The Netherlands: Challenges, Opportunities, and Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-23, June.
    3. Parolin, Giácomo & McAloone, Tim C. & Pigosso, Daniela C.A., 2024. "How can technology assessment tools support sustainable innovation? A systematic literature review and synthesis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    4. Macarena Beltran & Benny Tjahjono & Anna Bogush & Jorge Julião & Evandro L. S. Teixeira, 2021. "Food Plastic Packaging Transition towards Circular Bioeconomy: A Systematic Review of Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-24, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6772-:d:575402. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.