Wednesday, January 31, 2024

The $25 Trillion Dollar Opportunity: An Analysis on Recycling Success in the European Union and Maximizing Opportunities in the Circular Economy


European Union recycling regulations - Binsignia®

Calls for decarbonization and reducing waste production by climate activists have put huge pressure on nations to find newer ways to accelerate circularity efforts in their economy. Therefore, despite the difficulties of revamping supply chain lines and climate change efforts conflicting with performance measures, economies must start thinking about circularity not just from an environmental risk mitigation perspective but also as a driver for economic growth. Given that developed nations accumulate the bulk of the world’s waste generation and have the majority of the capital to make the investments, they are in the most advantageous position to capitalize on the $25 trillion dollar global investment opportunity by 2050, according to Accenture. The European Union has been a leader in climate change regulations and has some of the highest recycling rates in the world; therefore, it can be a model of inspiration for how to conduct waste management around the world. While aware that each nation has different economic and political motivations that may constrain their abilities to create a resilient circular economy, I believe that there are still some opportunities to help, at least, start the process. With a focus on plastics, I want to explain what the EU has done in terms of recycling innovation and how strong regulatory frameworks are key to promoting a circular economy. In addition, there will be some terminology that may be confusing to some and I am going to keep the information as straightforward as possible. 

Short-term Headwinds, Long-term Tailwinds 


Creating a circular economy is not an easy feat to do on a global scale and the rates at which we are recycling showcase a pessimistic outlook. The global plastic recycling rate is only 9% across all materials, an extremely poor figure that shows the severity of the problem and the United States is one of the biggest laggards amongst developed nations. With this being said, the European Union has a municipal waste recycling rate of almost 50%, with countries such as Germany and those in the Benelux Region being the leaders. To understand how this occurred, it is necessary to dive into the developments in the European Union involving increasing, and hampering at times, circularity efforts.   


What is important to understand is that a circular economy model is all about capturing more value than what is being lost in a traditional linear model of consumption. Therefore, necessary infrastructure and technological advancements are a necessary part of achieving this. However, companies sometimes do not want to put up the upfront costs of buying the necessary technology or that the technology has yet to be proven effective on a large scale. For example, chemical recycling has been championed by some waste management companies as an alternative to mechanical recycling in that the main benefit is that it helps create ‘virgin’ plastic inputs. Unlike mechanical recycling where plastic experiences downcycling or a reduction in quality when used in a product, chemical recycling can recycle plastic in its original form and does not have to be separated with other mixed waste. However, as of now, only about 1-14% of all plastic during the process is recycled. While better sortation helps streamline the recycling process and potentially allows for more waste to be reused, chemical recycling has not become mainstream yet. In addition, established socio-cultural norms are another barrier that may explain poor recycling rates in certain areas in the European Union; after all, it is not a homogenous region. Sometimes, informing consumers of good recycling habits may not be enough as they may be reluctant to adopt certain measures and change their behaviors. As an example, in Southern European countries like Spain, they did not want to adopt Deposit and Return Schemes (DRS) due to certain economic costs and believe that it should be the role of companies, not government, to promote recycling of their products. 


Despite these two challenges, the supportive regulatory environment has been the biggest driver for creating a circular economy within the European Union. Since I will talk about the actual policies later in this article, I will focus just on the policy instruments here. To encourage higher recycling rates on the consumer end, the DRS that I mentioned before have been extremely popular and a model for how to incentivize consumers to recycle. Below is an illustration of what it is. 


Designing a Deposit Return Scheme - A deposit return scheme for Scotland:  consultation - gov.scot

                                                                                                         North Edinburgh News 

    

How it works is that when a consumer buys a drink, they must pay a certain deposit that they only get back if the bottle is returned. It has been massively successful in places like Norway and Germany, with the program in Germany having a 98.4% recycling rate. More importantly is that this does not just focus on materials like plastic, but can also apply to other recycled goods with aluminum or glass. It is a win-win situation for companies and consumers because as consumers save by getting their deposit back, companies reduce the CO2 needed to produce more packaging and keep up with EU product quality standards by using recycled plastic. As stated before, the upfront operating costs and infrastructure needed is a lot as places like England have debated the issue; nevertheless, it has shown to be widely successful in most places in the European Union and other countries have plans to adopt it. I will say that the some states like California in the U.S. do have something similar through something called a bottle bill, but it was Europe - or Denmark specifically - who first created the DRS.


Another interesting policy instrument that has also been used around the world is the Pay-as-you-throw scheme. Essentially, a consumer incurs more fees the more waste it decides to send to a waste management company. There are about 20 EU countries that have this model and I find this to be very effective on the consumer end. It encourages consumers to be more mindful of their purchasing habits and whether a product can be extended for longer. When looking at waste management companies and large producers of consumer goods, the End-of-waste criteria and Mass Balance Approach (MBA) have been noteworthy developments. End-of-waste criteria helps indicate whether waste can be deemed recyclable and used as a by-product meaning secondary raw material, for another good. The graph below shows what the waste hierarchy looks like for how certain waste is looked at along the value chain. 

Superfy | What is the EU Waste Framework Directive?

                                                                                           Superfy


End-of-waste criteria tackles the recovery stage near the bottom and allows for companies to have a more shared understanding of what is deemed as a recyclable quality. So as mundane as this may be to some, this is important because it helps waste management companies to distinguish whether the waste can now be recycled into an object without causing any human health or environmental effects that come with reusing the waste. When I talk about some of the policies that have been implemented in the EU regarding product material composition, it will make more sense for why the criteria is deemed essential. Finally, the MBA helps companies understand how much recycled content is in a certain product or packaging. Similar to End-of-waste criteria, it is useful for adhering to EU legislation and making sure that there is a minimum recycled content within a certain material. It follows how certain materials flow through the supply chain and tracks whether companies are using enough sustainable materials within their products. These are only some of the many policy instruments that the EU uses, but found them to be considerably interesting for the rest of the article and just to know the nuances that come with learning about the waste management industry. 


Assessment of Recent Policy and the Recycling Value Chain


To now dive into what policies have been recently implemented, it all starts with the Circular Economy Action plan. To start broadly, the Circular Economy Action Plan adopted in March 2020 helps outline a framework for not only how to reach the EU’s climate neutrality goals by 2050, but achieve sustainable growth through circularity. It tackles anything from enforcing more sustainable materials in products to empowering consumers with better informed purchasing decisions to tackling a wide array of sectors to ensure sustainable product and product value chains. Beneath this broad plan are several crucial regulations and I am still going to focus on the main area of discussion, which is plastic. The plastic packaging tax is one of them and was implemented on January 1st, 2021. It states that for every kilogram of plastic packaging waste produced that does not contain at least 30% recycled plastic must pay .80 Euros. While the implementation of it varies by each EU member state, it shows the effort to reduce plastic consumption and stop the free flow of goods that do meet environmental standards of the EU. Furthermore, it shows why End-of-waste criteria and MBA are important policy instruments for tracking the amount of recycled plastic in each product as well as deeming if certain waste is sufficient for reuse. Another regulation was the Single-use plastic directive, which banned certain items such as straws, cutlery and other plastic items from EU markets. While it does not exempt other friendly-alternatives such as bioplastics from the mix, it is another sign of banning plastic waste. Finally, there is the ban on sending off waste to non-OECD countries, so that countries have to start dealing with their own waste problem within their borders. I find this one quite interesting since it brings up a lot of free trade questions and the possibility of what if a country’s waste management system can not handle the amount of waste it produces. So, while more specific can be given regarding just these policies, I wanted to highlight the relevance that waste production has within the EU and what ways it uses strong policies to tackle the issue.


So looking at certain legislation, it is very encouraging to see the commitment and effort policymakers in the EU have made towards creating more material circularity in the economy. However, I believe that there are still some needed improvements needed to be made in certain phases of the value chain. To see where inefficiencies lie, you need to look at how everything flows starting with the raw material. Below is a simple illustration of what the value chain may look like. 


                                  A review of the plastic value chain from a circular economy perspective 


On the consumer end during the Use & demand phase, I do feel that the regulatory environment and generally positive norms towards recycling have been really strong at encouraging consumers to recycle easily and conveniently. In addition, legislation tackling the product production phase has been strong as well as companies operating in the EU have started to become more aware of the importance of sourcing more recycled feedstock, with recycled plastic demand growing 2.5% in 2022 from a year before that. Very similar to how large technology companies have, or are trying to at least, follow EU rules regarding data privacy and competition, so have many goods manufacturers with creating circular business models and I see that they have priced that into their operations, according to what I read online. However, I believe that there is concern when trying to find the supply of recycled materials as well as sufficient technology to make the sorting and and processing of the waste easier. This is why I believe that despite the high upfront CapEx and difficulty integrating the technology into the value chain, chemical recycling is the best way to actually tackle the quality and contamination issues that plague mechanical recycling. If anything, it should complement mechanical recycling operations by working with the most contaminated types of waste. Given this increased demand for recycled materials by legislation, having the investments to build out the recycling capacity and improved sortation of these waste facilities will be essential. While some funds have made investments recently like Infinity Recycling and EIF, it should be monitored how these investments play out and whether increased investments must be made in the future.

 

In addition, Waste-to-energy has to play a larger role in the circular economy as some materials like certain types of plastics like Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and Low-density Polyethylene (LDPE) are extremely difficult to recycle due to their chemical composition. Below is a map of which countries contain the most incinerators. 

While true that Waste-to-energy does cause CO2 emissions, it may be able to replace more polluting forms of energy such as coal and fossil fuels as well as CO2 emissions from landfills. It is important to monitor that only non-hazardous waste is being incinerated to generate steam for electricity production because that is a big concern from environmentalists; nevertheless, with some countries relying heavily on Waste-to-energy in certain areas and the ban on waste exports to non-OECD countries that I talked about, I do believe that this type of energy production will be far more common and necessary. With all of this being said, I will be following a lot more of the waste management and plastics developments happening in Europe to see whether my observations are correct. 


Thanks for reading my article on the waste management industry!


Sources

“Bottle Recycling Scheme to Cost at Least £1.8bn per Year.” British Retail Consortium, 21 Aug. 2023, brc.org.uk/news/corporate-affairs/bottle-recycling-scheme-to-cost-at-least-18bn-per-year/.


“Circular Economy Action Plan.” Environment, environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en. Accessed 21 Jan. 2024.


“Deposit & Return: The Plastic Recycling Success Opposed by Southern Europe.” Investigate Europe, www.investigate-europe.eu/posts/deposit-return-the-plastic-recycling-success-opposed-by-southern-europe. Accessed 21 Jan. 2024.


Director, Janet Domenitz Executive, et al. “‘chemical Recycling’: What It Is, and What It Definitely Is Not.” PIRG, 19 Sept. 2023, pirg.org/articles/chemical-recycling-what-it-is-and-what-it-definitely-is-not/#:~:text=It%20doesn’t%20recycle%20much,burned%20for%20energy%20and%20fuel.


“Plastic Food Packaging: Simply Awful, or Is It More Complicated?” Science in School, 5 June 2023, www.scienceinschool.org/article/2022/plastic-food-packaging/.


Plastic Pollution Is Growing Relentlessly as Waste Management ... - OECDwww.oecd.org/environment/plastic-pollution-is-growing-relentlessly-as-waste-management-and-recycling-fall-short.htm. Accessed 22 Jan. 2024.


Stefan Lang, EUWID. “Plastics Europe: More Recycled Feedstock Used in Plastics Production in 2022.” EUWID (Production), 3 Nov. 2023, www.euwid-recycling.com/news/business/plastics-europe-more-recycled-plastic-used-in-manufacturing-in-2022-241023/.


“The Circular Economy Could Unlock $4.5 Trillion of Economic Growth, Finds New Book by Accenture.” Newsroom, newsroom.accenture.com/news/2015/the-circular-economy-could-unlock-4-5-trillion-of-economic-growth-finds-new-book-by-accenture. Accessed 21 Jan. 2024.


“Waste Recycling in Europe.” European Environment Agency’s Home Page, www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/waste-recycling-in-europe. Accessed 21 Jan. 2024.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Update

I have been busy with finals, but will post more cool articles like an analysis on the evolving problematic monetization schemes in video ga...