This article appeared in the Spring 2025 issue of Plastics Recycling Update. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

In the past decade, we’ve seen a wave of textile recyclers emerge, such as Reju, Syre, Eastman, Evrnu, Ambercycle, Ravel, Protein Evolution, Teraform, SixOne, and others. These companies seek to fill a gap in textile recycling to meet rising demand for recycled fibers, which among other sustainable materials, is projected to soar five-fold to 163 million tons by 2030, according to the Textile Exchange. This demand is driven by a combination of corporate sustainability goals and impending policy.

Despite strong forecasted demand, recycled content in textiles is still very low, with the majority coming from recycled PET bottles. And because recycled bottle volumes are inelastic (since consumers are not very good at recycling), RPET is in limited supply and faces heavy competition from the packaging industry, which is striving to comply with recycled content mandates.

The shortage of RPET has sparked interest in finding alternative sources. Polyester textiles could offer a solution. After all, textile waste is growing quickly, and polyester is the dominant fiber in the market. To capture these polymers and recycle them in new fibers for textile production, chemical recycling techniques have shown promise at lab and pilot scale. While mechanical recycling is still preferable from a cost and energy perspective, its applications in textile-to-textile recycling are limited.

How much textile waste is available?

RRS and Fashion for Good conducted a fiber composition analysis of U.S. postconsumer textiles and found that over half are suitable for fiber-to-fiber recycling, meaning they are single-layer items with at least 80% purity of a given target fiber (cotton, polyester, nylon, or polycotton).

With Americans generating 80-100 lbs per capita per year and growing, that makes 6 million to 10 million tons per year of textiles suitable for chemical recycling. That said, we want to make sure textiles go to the best destination: Anything reusable is sent to reuse first, anything repairable is sent to repair, anything suitable for the reclaimed wiping cloth industry is sent for wiper conversion, and anything suitable for mechanical textile-to-textile recycling is mechanically recycled. These applications all fall higher on the waste hierarchy. The percentage that all of the above represents is unknown, so ultimately, the volumes available for chemical textile recycling are unknown.

Nevertheless, without a recycling end market for textiles, we cannot achieve circularity.

Scaling textile-to-textile recycling

This emerging market is rife with challenges. First, scaling these technologies requires significant investment. In 2024, Syre closed a Series A funding round of $100 million. Circ raised over $55 million in the past couple of years, and Ambercycle has received over $55 million in funding since its start in 2015. The technology R&D, industry buy-in and construction of pilot plants and commercial scale facilities are expensive. The high capex and yet-to-be-achieved economies of scale mean that pricing cannot compete against virgin raw materials.

Second, recycling facilities are most cost-effective at scale, which means they rely upon highly functional feedstock supply channels that can provide on-spec feedstock. In a landscape where textiles are primarily exported for sorting and grading, the requisite sorting and pre-processing infrastructure in the U.S. is lacking and therefore must either be developed, or the business case for an international textile-to-textile recycling market must be made. If sited domestically, textile recycling facilities ideally would draw textiles from local suppliers, which translates to the need to build automated fiber-sorting facilities. If sited abroad, textiles collected here must be shipped, and the shipment of so-called waste is being increasingly regulated, posing a potential risk to the ability to export it.

Third, as a first-of-a-kind solution, chemical recycling relies on the carefully timed curation of a new ecosystem. Chemical recyclers must prove their business models, demonstrate ability to move from lab scale to production scale, show that they can produce quality outputs capable of being integrated into existing textile manufacturing supply chains, and convince the public, regulators and nongovernmental organizations that their processes yield net positive environmental impact.

Finally, product sales in particular remain a puzzle. Integration of new fibers into the supply chain is difficult because it requires testing and iteration to ensure compatibility with existing manufacturing practices, and yarn spinners are often unable to accommodate the interruption of operations to test unproven sources of supply. Getting the brand involved can help ease this process, as brands may have the ability to influence the choice of Tier 4 suppliers down through the supply chain.

Policy as a market driver

The textile-to-textile recycling industry is in its infancy, and we need to be cognizant of the very real challenges it faces while also pushing for adoption. It can be compared to the plastics recycling industry three decades ago. In fact, chemical recycling technologies are not new. They’ve been around for years and in some cases decades. Until now, they have not had a viable business case in the plastics or textile recycling industries — and whether that changes with the onslaught of new circular economy policies, legislation and corporate mandates remains to be seen.

California’s Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024 (S.B. 707) is expected to shift market dynamics of used clothing and textiles in the U.S. by increasing collection rates, funding the development of sorting and processing infrastructure and incentivizing sustainable attributes like recycled content through eco-modulated fees. New York and Washington are both considering similar bills. Extended producer responsibility laws are also spreading across Europe. While EPR is a long game — the soonest we’ll see commercial impacts of EPR on the availability of textile-based recycled content is circa 2030 — it has significant potential to change incentives and unlock new business models.

Also relevant in the policy realm is how chemical recycling is being regulated. About half of the states in the U.S. regulate chemical recycling facilities as manufacturing facilities, which can ease the permitting process and hold the facilities accountable to the same environmental standards as other industrial facilities. In other states, there is contentious debate over the legal definition of recycling, whether it includes chemical recycling and, if so, which forms of chemical recycling it includes. This definition may affect whether textiles recycled this way count toward the state’s diversion rates, and whether the fibers produced by those recyclers can be counted as recycled content.

The road ahead

Despite the many challenges, timing seems to be right for textile-to-textile recycling. We’re just now thinking in a coordinated way about textile collection systems, just now starting to build the infrastructure and just now bringing all the right people to the table. Success requires coordinated efforts. Brands that prioritize design for end of life and uptake of recycled content will likely emerge as market leaders. Policymakers that work alongside the industry in developing smart and effective policy can create an enabling environment through legislation and funding. And supply chains that open their doors to recycled content can mitigate the risks of volatile raw commodity markets.

The topic is even attracting federal attention. In 2024, Congresswoman Chellie Pingree of Maine alongside Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez from Washington and Sydney Kamlager-Dove of California launched the Slow Fashion Caucus, the first congressional group dedicated to implementing climate-smart policies to reduce, repair, reuse and recycle textiles. At the end of last year, the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a landmark report on textile waste in the country. It recommended the establishment of an interagency mechanism to drive textile circularity and called on Congress to allocate resources and authority to tackle this growing issue effectively.

There are also efforts led by the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop standards to support textile circularity, demonstrated by their recently debuted NIR-SORT database, a tool that uses near-infrared spectroscopy to identify the molecular fingerprints of various fabrics, including blends.

Textile-to-textile recycling presents us with a unique opportunity to redefine the lifecycle of textiles and reduce the environmental impact of the fashion industry. We have a lot to look forward to as this new sector develops and evolves.

Marisa Adler is a senior consultant at Resource Recycling Systems and a leader in textile circularity consulting, advising public and private sector clients on sustainable textile management, policy and circular economy strategies.

This article appeared in the Spring 2025 issue of Plastics Recycling Update. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

A few generations ago, the fate of end-of-life clothing would have been an unlikely subject in a plastics recycling trade journal.

In 1960, natural fibers dominated global production, with cotton making up half of all textile fibers produced that year, according to data from textile analysis firm The Fiber Year, with other natural or cellulose-based fibers like linen, rayon and wool rounding out the mix. Synthetic fibers made up just 3% of global textile fiber produced that year.

The percentages have flipped dramatically since then. In 2023, synthetic materials including polyester, which is made from PET, and polyamide — nylon — made up a whopping 68% of global textile fiber production, while cotton had fallen to 21%.

Besides the material shift, the sheer growth of clothing production is staggering: Global textile manufacturing increased nearly sevenfold from an estimated 20 million metric tons annually in 1960 to 130 million metric tons in 2023.

With the increases come a host of new considerations. End-of-life textile management is far from a new concept, spanning a long history of secondhand clothing use, repurposing and mechanical recycling. And even in the synthetic space, recycled polyester clothing has been produced — typically using mechanically recycled PET bottles — for decades. Its share of overall polyester fabric grew from 4% in 2010 to 14% in 2020, according to the nonprofit Textile Exchange, which publishes annual textile data.

But the growth in new polyester production is eclipsing the increase in mechanically recycled polyester use: After recycled polyester production’s share of overall polyester use peaked at close to 15% in 2021, it fell back to 12.5% in 2023.

Amid these challenges and others, chemical recycling, the group of technologies that process a plastic down to its basic components, has emerged as what industry stakeholders say is a promising tool to cut down on one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the world. Chemically processing textiles is a recycling sector in its infancy, but many in the field are optimistic it can complement mechanical recycling and reuse models.

“Given the complications associated with mechanical recycling of textiles, alternative recycling technologies, such as chemical recycling, are promising thanks to their capacity to recycle blended textile waste,” the Textile Exchange wrote in a 2024 report. “They are designed to handle colorants, additives, and finishing materials, and are also able to produce recycled textile fibers with performance capabilities substantially equivalent to virgin polyester fibers.”

A long textile management history

Long before the current push for advanced processing methods, consumers have frequently followed the materials management hierarchy, which prioritizes reuse and repurposing above recycling, when faced with textile waste management.

“First they would wear, wear, wear, until it literally couldn’t be worn anymore,” said Marisa Adler, a senior consultant at Resource Recycling Systems and founder of the firm’s Textile Circularity Practice. “Then they would rip it up and just use it as cleaning rags in their home. And then they would finally throw it away.”

Collecting rags from households for reuse, repurposing or recycling has been an occupation for centuries, with the Textile Recycling Association, a U.K.-based industry group, tracing the history of rag collectors at least back to the Roman Empire.

It was an early profession in the U.S. as well, Adler explained, and has long helped to offset the need for virgin materials and paper to go into rag production.

“They were raggers: They’d go around and they would collect everyone’s old rags, and they would cut it up and sell it as a wiping material,” she said. “And that industry has evolved over time, and it’s still a very active and important industry.”

Mechanical recycling, which RRS defines as the physical form of recycling textiles in which fiber is cut, shredded, garnetted (pulled apart), melted or extruded for new manufacturing, also has a long global history.

The Italian city of Prato is renowned for generations of wool recycling expertise. The process involves pulling apart used wool clothing and re-spinning the wool back into a usable yarn. It uses textiles as feedstock and produces yarn for new textiles at the end. There are similar processes for cotton as well.

Another global textile recycling hub is Panipat, India, which is known for what’s called “shoddy” recycling, a mechanical process by which textiles are shredded, pulped and remanufactured into blankets, insulation and other types of stuffing and padding. That’s distinct from thread-to-thread processes in part because of the technical constraints of re-spinning yarn.

“There is just a maximum number of cycles you can go through, because the natural cellulosic fibers become shorter and shorter and they’re harder to spin, so it’s lower quality,” Adler said. “So you need a really good, pure, high, high-quality input in order to do a mechanical yarn-to-yarn recycling process, which is why it is not more common now.”

With cotton, for example, the recycled yarn often produces a lower quality output, and so it usually has to be spun with virgin cotton to make a usable yarn out the back end, Adler said.
“It has that high-quality input requirement,” she added. “Not a lot of textiles meet that, especially today.”

Mechanical polyester recycling challenges

Mechanical recycling is more complicated for synthetic and blended fabrics. As the Textile Exchange noted in a report last year, “mechanical recycling requires clean textile inputs free from contaminants, and it is difficult to process textiles containing more than one material type.” Pulling apart and separating fabrics by their component material is costly and labor-intensive, the group added.

That’s partially why nearly all of the mechanically recycled polyester used in new textiles comes from PET bottles rather than textiles, and it’s also contributing to industry interest in chemical recycling.

“In recent years, the demand for recycled bottle feedstock from the packaging industry in the U.S. has surpassed that of the textile industry,” RRS and the organization Fashion for Good wrote in a 2024 report titled “Sorting for Circularity USA.” They added that the shift “can largely be attributed to legislation mandating minimum recycled content rates for packaging.”

Put simply, recycled PET bottles are a hot commodity for the packaging industry, and companies looking to source PET bottles for textiles have “faced challenges due to higher prices and increased competition for limited supply.”

Fast fashion’s role

Another ingredient in the mix is the rise of fast fashion, which business analysis firm McKinsey defined as a portion of the clothing sector focused on “ultralow prices and condensed production cycles,” aiming to deliver “new styles to customers at a record pace.”

A recent briefing from the U.S. Government Accountability Office to lawmakers last year was blunt: “First introduced around 2000, the fast fashion business model produces textiles at lower cost and quality, and decreased durability. Under this model, trends change frequently, consumers buy textiles many times per year, and they dispose of textiles after using them for a short period of time.”

In the fast fashion industry and its recent ultra-fast fashion successor, the percentage of plastic feedstock is often higher than global textile averages. For instance, Singapore-headquartered fast fashion giant Shein in 2023 reported using polyester for over 75% of the company’s fiber feedstock, with the remainder consisting of cotton, viscose, spandex, polyamide and other materials. The company is frequently cited as the largest operating in the fast fashion space.

The Textile Exchange, in a comprehensive report on synthetic textile recycling issued last year, cautioned that short of a dramatic reduction in production and consumer buying trends, moving away from polyester would be virtually impossible.

“We must also be aware of the potential unintended consequences associated with solely relying on natural fibers for apparel and textiles,” the group wrote. “At current production rates, simply shifting from one material category to another would likely lead to the accelerated depletion of natural ecosystems.”

Additionally, during a talk at Goodwill’s first-ever Sustainability Summit last year, the CEO of emerging textile recycling firm Reju noted the material’s water resistance, light weight, machine washability and durability mean abandoning it is impossible.

“We can’t live without it, unfortunately, for the foreseeable future,” Patrik Frisk said at the event. “It’s an amazing product that we need to understand how to live with in a much smarter way.”

Increasingly, the road to that “smarter way” is paved with chemical recycling.

Chemical recycling takes several routes

In general, chemical recycling refers to a “depolymerization” process that uses one of several technologies to chemically disassemble polymer plastics into their monomer components. Those monomers can then be used to produce new resin.

Chemical recycling encompasses many technical processes. Glycolysis, for example, is the most commonly used for polyester, according to the Textile Exchange, and involves combining the polyester material with the chemical reactant glycol at high temperatures, to produce BHET, which stands for bis (hydroxyethylene) terephthalate.

Glycolysis and other depolymerization technologies can be used to produce what proponents describe as virgin-like output resins. They do have some limitations, the Sorting for Circularity USA report noted last year, including high energy use and requirements for 90% or greater purity from the given input fiber.

One highly-watched entrant to the textile chemical recycling space is Reju, an emerging German-headquartered company that says it is “unlocking the infinite possibilities of textile waste.” The company has described its process as using a textile-to-textile “regeneration” technology.

Reju was not available for an interview by press time, but the company was recently
featured by Sourcing Journal, which confirmed it is using a glycolysis process to produce BHET. The journal reported that, “heated up to temperatures of up to 250 degrees Celsius (482 degrees Fahrenheit), ethylene glycol and an unnamed volatile catalyst ‘decompose’ the polyester into its constituent monomers, creating a BHET slurry that can be filtered and purified of dyestuffs and other contaminants before it’s cooled, crystallized and dried back into solid form.”

The company opened a demonstration plant in Germany last fall and this year formed a supply partnership with a French consortium of textile companies to source post-consumer materials. Reju is also collaborating with Goodwill and WM in the U.S., announcing last fall that the group is planning “to develop a collaborative model for regional textile collection, sortation, reuse and recycling that is intended to divert more nonwearable textile materials from the waste stream.”

Collection infrastructure lacking

In 2018, the U.S. generated an estimated 17 million tons of end-of-life textiles, close to 6% of the entire municipal solid waste stream. Of that amount, 2.5 million tons were recycled, a 14.7% recycling rate. That puts textiles significantly behind common streams like paper and paperboard (68%), PET and HDPE bottles and jars (29% each) and glass (31%).

Of course, the latter materials have the substantial benefit of common curbside collection and, depending on the U.S. state, deposit return systems.

Pilot projects like the planned collaboration from Goodwill, Reju and WM could help establish a similar collection system for textiles. Reju hinted at ambitious U.S. plans in announcing it, saying the company anticipates developing a textile chemical recycling plant that would be fed by materials collected by Goodwill and WM.

Emerging regulations could also help improve collection infrastructure. California lawmakers in 2024 passed the nation’s first extended producer responsibility law covering textiles. The Responsible Textile Recovery Act took effect Jan. 1, kicking off a rulemaking process that will see textile manufacturers begin funding and facilitating recycling of their products in California within the next five years.

Although it’s the first U.S. effort, it comes after well-established EPR policies elsewhere in the world, including in France, where the regulation launched in 2007. Collection options grew substantially in France afterward, according to a 2018 overview published by the International Solid Waste Association, with hundreds of organizations providing on-street container, door-to-door services and textile banks at private businesses.

Public consciousness aroused

It’s difficult to identify an inflection point in the moment, when an emerging industry like the modern textile recycling sector explodes into a thriving and sustaining business. The introduction of chemical recycling will certainly bring skepticism, as it has drawn elsewhere in the plastics recycling space, and chemical recycling has yet to scale up fully in the plastics recycling industry, despite significant momentum in recent years.

But emerging legislation, the smattering of startup companies entering the space, the backing of some major producers and the frequent mainstream media coverage of clothing’s environmental impacts suggest end-of-life textile management is an issue that’s in the public consciousness in a new way.

“I think the other reason it’s become a prominent topic of conversation is just because it’s a product that touches everybody’s lives,” said Adler, who has been focused in the textile recycling space for over eight years. “It has such deep, emotional ties — you know, we express ourselves through fashion.”

Infobox: Textile chemical recycling developments

A variety of clothing companies and other organizations are getting in on chemical recycling.

• Patagonia: Long a user of mechanically recycled polyester, clothing giant Patagonia has been experimenting with chemical recycling technologies of late, including with Japanese firm Jeplan, which commercialized a glycolysis process to handle PET and post-consumer polyester textiles. For the fall 2024 line of Patagonia’s “Better Sweater” collection, the company reported using 48,000 pounds of Jeplan’s post-industrial chemically recycled polyester.
• H&M: Fast-fashion giant H&M in 2024 announced the launch of its joint-venture Syre, which “aims to rapidly scale textile-to-textile recycling of polyester and contribute to a more sustainable textile industry.” In October 2024, Syre announced it is establishing a textile chemical recycling plant in collaboration with polyester producer Selenis, in Cedar Creek, North Carolina, with plans to be operational in mid-2025 and produce 10,000 metric tons per year of chemically recycled polyester.
• University of Delaware: The university’s Center for Plastics Innovation studied a method of modified glycolysis that is faster and better suited for mixed textiles than traditional chemical recycling processes. In a July 2024 report published in Scientific Advances, the team described a “microwave-assisted” glycolysis that produced rapid delpolymerization of polyester and spandex into their monomers in just 15 minutes while also leaving intact any cotton and nylon that was in the textiles.
• Shein: The global direct-to-consumer clothing giant in January announced it has developed a chemical recycling technology to process polyester that can use both post-consumer and post-industrial polyester and both end-of-life textiles and other sources like PET bottles. The company plans to start up a facility in June to produce 6.6 million pounds of chemically recycled polyester per year, with assistance from a group of selected fiber manufacturers. The site hasn’t been announced.
• Eastman: Chemical recycling projects outside the textile space are also targeting PET packaging that is less frequently mechanically recycled, and the resulting resin could go into new textiles, RRS noted in the Collecting for Circularity USA report. Chemical giant Eastman is one example; the company in 2024 began sourcing PET thermoforms from curbside recycling programs and processing them at a methanolysis plant in Tennessee. Eastman has also processed post-consumer textiles on a pilot basis there.

This article appeared in the Spring 2025 issue of Plastics Recycling Update. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

Chemical recycling, the umbrella term for a wide array of processes that break down the molecular chains of plastic polymers, has been a contentious topic for years, drawing debate over its role, how to regulate it and where it fits into the larger picture of resource circularity.

But even stakeholders on opposite sides of the debate found common ground in recent interviews, sharing concerns that the technology has been overpromised on one hand as well as ideas for how it can complement, rather than replace, conventional mechanical recycling on the other.

“We now have routinely seen facilities operating at reduced capacity, delays getting online, things like that,” said Anja Brandon, director of plastics policy at the Ocean Conservancy, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that doesn’t support chemical recycling. Brandon cited the April 2024 closure of Agylix’s joint PS recycling venture, Regenyx, in Oregon, among other facility closures and disruptions, as evidence that the technologies aren’t the “get-out-of-jail-free card they were promised to be.”

“I think the false promises that were made of ‘we can accept all of your plastics, and it’s really cost-efficient, and you’ll get plastics back immediately’ — folks are starting to see through those lies, and because of that, some of the smart chemical recycling companies are now changing their language,” Brandon said. Now she’s hearing chemical recycling advertised as “just a part of the puzzle.”

Brian Bauer, CEO of California-based chemical recycling company Resynergi, agreed that early claims that pyrolysis could handle anything weren’t helpful. The company uses microwave energy to break down HDPE, LDPE, PP and PS and announced in February that it had raised $18 million toward commissioning its first commercial-scale chemical recycling plant.

“Some players said, ‘We can take everything,’ and it’s like — come on, guys,” Bauer said, adding that the industry needs to show people that chemical recycling works.

“Otherwise they’re feeling lied to,” he said. “We’re not making the claim we’re going to do all plastic for everyone. We’re doing our part.”

Brandon and others also agreed that chemical recycling could play a beneficial role in managing end-of-life plastics, though Brandon said that role is limited and even shrinking, while industry players took a much more ambitious view.

“A robust chemical recycling industry is essential to achieve significantly greater recycling rate targets, such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s 50% by 2030 National Recycling Goal,” Ross Eisenberg, president of American Chemistry Council’s plastics division, wrote in an email. “While mechanical recycling should be prioritized for the plastics it is suited to recycle, chemical recycling is needed for the many types of plastics that can’t enter the mechanical recycling stream.”

Ins and outs of chemical recycling

Chemical recycling includes processes that use heat, pressure and solvents to break polymers into liquids or gasses that can then be processed into fuels, oils, waxes, new plastics or other chemical products. It’s also commonly referred to as advanced recycling, non-mechanical recycling and molecular recycling.

Whatever the term, it’s typically used to describe three main technologies: purification, depolymerization and conversion.

Purification covers technologies that use solvents to dissolve plastic and separate it out from additives. The plastic can be recovered without changing the basic molecular structure, but the process requires highly pure feed stocks and can only be used for certain types of plastic. It’s a newer technology that isn’t yet available at scale.

Depolymerization is a broad category that uses solvents, heat, catalysts or a combination thereof. It also requires pure feed stocks and is also limited to very specific types of plastics called condensation polymers, such as nylon and PET. Methanolysis, which utilizes methanol, is one of the most common types, but the technology is also newer. Enzymatic depolymerization, which uses bacteria, fungi or other microorganisms, has also been studied but is not at scale.

Conversion technology in general has been around for decades for turning plastic into fuel. Two types of technologies are widespread today: pyrolysis and gasification. Pyrolysis uses high heat and pressure to break apart chemical bonds in plastic to create what’s called pyrolysis oil, which can be used as fuel, to create new plastic and in other applications. Gasification uses heat and pressure to break chemical bonds to produce mainly synthetic natural gas.

A 2023 Closed Loop Partners study evaluated several technological processes in terms of environmental impacts and financial viability of several types of chemical recycling technologies. In terms of total packaging volumes accepted across the United States and Canada, the study found that conversion techniques could accept 82% of all plastic packaging produced — more than mechanical, purification or depolymerization technologies could alone.

However, the researchers noted that when looking at the amount of PCR each category can yield, conversion technologies “have the longest route back to becoming plastic.” They estimated that purification would yield the highest volume of PCR, while conversion yielded the lowest amount, about half as much.

Typical yields of usable, specifically plastic material from conversion technologies range from 0.1-5.7% for pyrolysis to 2-14% for gasification, according to the Ocean Conservancy, because many of the end products have non-plastic uses. Typical yields of mechanical recycling, meanwhile, range from 73-84%.

Through an environmental lens, purification and depolymerization technologies had smaller environmental footprints on average, the report found, taking into account energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and water impacts.

A lifecycle analysis from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory and supported by the American Chemistry Council suggested that chemically recycling plastics entails lower greenhouse gas emissions than virgin production but didn’t compare it to mechanical recycling.

Another study conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory did make that comparison and found mechanical recycling and glycolysis, a type of depolymerization, outperformed all other technologies in a variety of metrics.

A growing industry

Many chemical recycling companies have started up over the past five years, with some taking hold and others folding. Companies like Cyclyx, Brightmark and PureCycle have built or are in the process of building more than 1 billion pounds of processing capacity in the U.S. and other countries. There are also some oil heavyweights in the ring, such as ExxonMobil, and chemical companies such as Eastman.

Eastman, for example, started a chemical recycling facility in Kingsport, Tennessee, in late 2023 and is now close to running at 100% capacity. The plant uses methanolysis to process scrap PET into resin, branded as Tritan Renew. It includes food-grade PET resin with up to 75% recycled dimethyl terephthalate, or DMT, one of the chemicals produced by the methanolysis process.

The feedstock is largely opaque and colored packaging, which comes from sources including a supply agreement with Midwest recycling operator Rumpke. In 2024, the company announced plans to build a second facility in Longview, Texas, and the U.S. Department of Energy granted the project up to $375 million. It also has plans for a facility in France. Eastman uses two different technologies: carbon renewal technology, which employs a form of gasification, and polyester renewal with methanolysis.

ExxonMobil has been building a large chemical recycling footprint based on its pyrolysis technology as well. In November, it announced 350 million additional pounds of capacity in Texas, slated to come online in 2026. That’s in addition to a 150-million-pound unit that started up in December 2022 and a second unit announced in May at the large Baytown site in Texas, expected to start up in 2025.

That puts the company’s total U.S. plastic processing capacity at 500 million pounds per year by 2026, spread over a total of six units. The Baytown site is currently the only operational chemical recycling plant, and it has processed more than 70 million pounds of plastic scrap.

ExxonMobil is also developing chemical recycling projects elsewhere in North America, and in Europe and Asia, with a goal of 1 billion pounds of annual recycling capacity globally by 2027.

Joshua Dill, a plastics recycling analyst at ICIS, said one marker of success for chemical recycling is “the fact that it’s still alive, especially now, considering interest rates are staying at relatively elevated levels.

“Chemical recycling investment is quite high, especially relative to mechanical,” he said. “That initial capex is quite substantial.”

And while more than 70% of announced plants have not yet made a final investment decision, Dill noted that projects are still being announced and garnering investment.

A mixed reception

California’s attorney general last fall filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil, alleging its claims about plastic recyclability have been misleading and deceitful. The company responded with its own lawsuit for defamation in January.

The dispute encapsulates a larger back-and-forth over the nature of chemical recycling that’s playing out across the U.S. and beyond.

The states have differed over whether chemical recycling facilities should be considered recycling or waste disposal, which brings tighter environmental regulations, or be treated as manufacturing, which enjoys looser rules. More than half have passed bills taking the more lenient route.

“Policymakers all across the country – in their communities and in their states – want to see greater amounts and more types of plastics recycled,” Craig Cookson, then senior director of plastics sustainability at the American Chemistry Council, said in 2023.

Other states, such as Maine, have passed laws clarifying that chemical recycling should be regulated as waste management, even if materials handled by the process don’t count toward state recycling goals. Oregon allows for the possibility of chemical recycling technology but places preference on mechanical recycling over both landfill and chemical recycling. The state’s packaging EPR law states that all material has to be responsibly managed by a facility that is transparent and environmentally sound.

Some organizations also make a distinction between plastic-to-plastic chemical recycling and plastic-to-fuel. The Recycled Materials Association, for example, supports processes that convert used plastic into resins and monomers but doesn’t support turning it into petrochemical products for energy.

In addition, “ReMA does not support the label of ‘advanced recycling’ for non-mech-
anical recycling, as doing so creates a totally inappropriate and untruthful distinction between mechanical and non-mechanical recycling processes,” according to the group’s position statement.

At the federal level, a bipartisan bill that would, among other things, set a minimum post-consumer content rate for plastics and explicitly include chemical recycling has drawn support from the plastics industry. Eisenberg with ACC said it could position the U.S. as “the world leader in plastic manufacturing and recycling.”

“Chemical recycling facilities require significant capital expenditure to build, often hundreds of millions of dollars,” he said. “For companies to make such a large investment, they need both regulatory and market certainty that their investments will be economically viable long term.”

On the global stage, Brandon said the world has continued to deadlock on the topic in discussions on international agreements, often simply leaving the question unresolved.
For example, during the 2023 Basel Convention meetings, she remembers working on the technical guidance of environmentally sound management of plastic. Chemical recycling ended up being included in brackets in the technical guidelines and appendix, which she called “international legal code for ‘we don’t know, and we can’t agree.'”

Brandon said she thinks more transparency would be helpful — as would using more specific terms for the very different technologies and outcomes that fall under the umbrella of chemical recycling.

“Painting things with a broad brushstroke really does a disservice to decision makers who are really trying to grapple with implementation or passing laws,” she said.

An EPR niche?

Bauer said Resynergi recently finished a two-year pilot, has shipped its first containers of oil to several customers and is building its first commercial-scale site, in California, with plans to expand to several more sites in the area later.

He’s focused on California due to the extended producer responsibility legislation there, he said.

“I really think we fit the spirit of SB 54 so, so well,” he said, because the EPR law talks about reducing carbon footprints and being “safe and friendly to local communities.”

“Any site will bring 30 jobs and a very small footprint. Our emissions are equivalent to approximately a semitruck driving down the road,” he said. “Our VOCs are like a passenger car when we are doing 20 tons per day. Other approaches are doing 200 tons per day, but we’re decentralized and co-located with smaller MRFs.”

Bauer added that SB 54 also calls out the need to avoid creating hazardous waste, and in his view, “with pyrolysis, when you do it well and right, everything is a product. There’s essentially zero waste, no hazardous waste.”

Alterra, a chemical recycling company with a plant in Akron, Ohio, that has been operating since 2013, also highlighted how chemical recycling could support EPR by bringing less commonly recycled materials, such as multi-layer packaging and contaminated plastics, into the system.

“One of the greatest strengths of chemical recycling lies in its diversity. No single technology can process all types of discarded plastics, but collectively, chemical recycling solutions can address a wide range of materials that would otherwise go to landfill or incineration,” the company said in a written statement.

“Ultimately, EPR will only be successful if robust end markets exist for recycled materials. Chemical recycling unlocks endless end-market demand by supplying high-quality recycled feedstocks to industries that require strict material performance, such as packaging, automotive, and consumer goods.”

On the other hand, Brandon with the Ocean Conservancy argued that, as comprehensive management policies such as EPR emerge, “the part of the problem they could solve for is shrinking.” She pointed to the need for high-quality bales in particular.

“At the point at which you get a grade A bale, you can send it to mechanical recycling,” she said. “It kind of poses the question: What problems are we truly solving with this kind of technology, especially in the context of packaging, where mechanical recycling is one of the most cost efficient and sustainable solutions?”

Brandon noted that it could be beneficial to shift the focus of the chemical recycling conversation — for example, even though most of the conversation in the U.S. is about packaging, which is nearly 40% of the plastics used globally and a high contributor to marine pollution, “there are other plastics out there that we’re not talking about that will be really challenging to mechanical recycling.

“If we can focus on purification technology, truly recovering those plastics in other sectors, not generating hazardous waste and not harming communities, there could be a pathway there,” she said. “These technologies are not the right technologies for packaging conversations.”
What she doesn’t want to see is a “feed-the-beast” situation where big, expensive facilities are built and then create pressure to keep producing plastics for feedstock.

Looking to the future

ICIS doesn’t offer a formal chemical recycling forecast, but it does take a cumulative look based on plant and capacity announcements, Dill said. He predicted that chemical recycling will see growth around 10 times that of the current capacity.

“How I always frame this is that you could think about that like a theoretical maximum,” he said. “So we’re likely not going to break above that, but we’re likely not going to realize all of that. It should be a percentage of that.”

That growth level “shows that some things are going right,” he said. “There’s this confidence because these players are announcing these things.”

There’s also a 60-40 split between pre-commercial pilot facilities and commercial level facilities, he said, which is normal at this stage: “In the future, those numbers will likely reverse.”

However, there are certainly hurdles, Dill said, and a big one is feedstock. There used to be “this idea that chemical recyclers could handle anything at all — whatever dirty bales come, we just put it into whatever reactor and get a product on the other end.” But as pilot plants started scaling up, operators realized some level of pre-processing is necessary, and making that kind of change to an already established model can be difficult.

A second challenge is scaling up, Dill said, as it’s a more complicated process than just making the pilot equipment larger. The current macroeconomic situation is also a barrier.

Bauer noted that Resynergi chose to stay fairly small for several of those reasons.

“We’ve proven in our pilots this particular reactor size with this particular technology, and we’re just going to repeat that over and over again,” he said. Compact size also allows Resynergi’s technology to be co-located with existing MRFs, Bauer said, “going to where the plastic is already collected for you.”

Resynergi will have several sites up and running soon, along with some big partnership announcements, Bauer added.

“It’s going to take time — it’s the chicken and the egg — for players like us to show that it really truly can be done in volume at all locations and for people to collect more and more,” he said. “They grow on each other. Maybe it’s a 20-year thing, but I sure hope it’s a five-year thing.”

This article appeared in the Spring 2025 issue of Plastics Recycling Update. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

In the three decades since its first printing, the Association of Plastic Recyclers Design Guide, an instruction manual for calibrating plastic packaging to best suit reclaimers’ needs, has evolved from a basic list of dos and don’ts, patched together by a handful of PET companies, to an internationally cited online litmus test of PET, HDPE, PE and PP recyclability.

APR, the owner of this magazine’s publisher, is marking the guide’s 30th anniversary at the 2025 Plastics Recycling Conference later this month. The inaugural APR Recycling Leadership Awards will recognize packaging designers, manufacturers, researchers and innovators who have made significant contributions to the guide’s mission.

The recognition caps off years of both tinkering and overhauling, said APR Chief Operating Officer Curt Cozart, who has led those efforts for about a decade with continuous guidance from APR’s many technical committees of industry scientists and other experts.

One of the overarching goals when Cozart began was to make the guide simple and consistent. For example, earlier guide versions used a group of seemingly synonymous descriptions, such as “to be avoided” and “detrimental,” for certain shapes, resin characteristics and other design features of a bottle or jug.

“But it didn’t relate all the words to each other — was ‘to be avoided’ worse or better than ‘detrimental’?” Cozart said. He and his staff therefore condensed and formalized the guide into a few distinct categories: “APR preferred” for best practices, “non-recyclable” for unacceptable ones and “detrimental” for in-between characteristics that wouldn’t necessarily get a package thrown out but did make it more difficult to recycle.

“We tried to move it to where people wouldn’t feel comfortable sitting in that category,” Cozart said, and indeed, several packaging manufacturers seeking the recyclability green light have complained to him about a detrimental rating. “It’s doing exactly what it’s intended to do.”
The APR team also worked to expand the guide’s scope to account for the capabilities of materials recovery facilities, covering every step of the recycling process from sorting to remanufacture.

The guide’s latest online version, unveiled last fall, allows users to search among several varieties of PET, HDPE, PE and PP and hone in on aspects of a package that range from the mundane, such as color and labeling, to the technical, including resin melt flows and densities. It then provides acceptable baselines for each as well as testing protocols and referrals to testing laboratories.

Taken together, the guide gives a packaging maker the tools to either tweak an existing product or craft an ideal one from the ground up.

“We’ve really come a long way from this kind of paper encyclopedia thing,” Cozart said.
Take Kraft Heinz, which sits on APR’s PET technical committee. With APR’s guidance, the company stopped making the valves in the center of its ketchup bottle lids out of silicone, which was labeled detrimental because of its density, said Chris Max, the company’s sustainable innovation packaging lead.

“We transitioned with our partner to a TPE (thermoplastic elastomer) alternative — it still functions the same, but it now floats and it is compatible with the olefin recycling stream,” Max said.

One of the design guide’s biggest benefits is time-specific documentation of recyclability, he added, which is a major concern in the world of consumer packaged goods in an era of lawsuits over companies’ recycling claims.

“It’s definitely moving in the right direction; it’s easier to find things,” Max said of the guide’s latest interface, though he’d also like to see a smartphone app version someday.

The design guide’s also helpful for nudging customers in a more recycling-friendly direction, said Tim Bohlke, director of sustainability at Resource Label Group, a maker of package labels and wraps. The biggest brands are largely familiar with recyclability requirements, he said, but “there’s thousands of other customers out there that we need to educate.

“Here’s really the gold standard of products that you want to choose from,” he said of the design guide. And his customers have responded positively, moving closer to APR guidelines for items like Paul Mitchell’s line of hair products. “They care because they know their customers care, they know their retailers care.”

Along the same lines, the guide has taken on a life of its own as a third-party tool for assessment and compliance, Cozart said. California’s SB 343, which put limits on the usage of the chasing-arrows and other labeling for recyclability, explicitly references the guide, for instance. RecyClass, a European nonprofit advancing recyclability across the continent, has also worked to align its own guidelines with APR’s.

And that increased reach comes with a little more pressure — “both a good thing and a bad thing,” Cozart quipped. So the tinkering and improving continue. Improvements in the works include translating the guide into more languages and providing users with more detail when testing results in a failure.

“There is no ‘done.’ It is a living document,” said Cozart. “Who knows where it’s going to go?”

This article appeared in the Spring 2025 issue of Plastics Recycling Update. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

2025 is a pivotal year for plastics recycling, where progress, promises and policies are set to collide. As companies reevaluate their long-standing commitments, policymakers push for new regulations and misinformation clouds public perception, recyclers must navigate a landscape filled with both challenges and opportunities. The question isn’t whether recycling works — it does — but whether the right choices will be made now to strengthen and expand it.

Here are five key trends that I believe will define plastics recycling in the year ahe

1. 30 Years of Smarter Design

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Association of Plastic Recyclers Design Guide for Plastics Recyclability, a milestone that underscores how critical design is to the success of plastics recycling (Editor’s note: See “The Design Guide Turns 30,” page 24). Since its introduction, the APR Design Guide has become the globally recognized standard for designing packaging that can be effectively recycled. It provides detailed, practical guidance for packaging designers and engineers to ensure their products are compatible with recycling systems and do not become contaminants.

Three decades ago, recyclability was often an afterthought in packaging design. A product’s appearance, marketing potential and shelf performance took precedence over its end-of-life recyclability. Today, however, more companies understand that designing for recyclability is essential to achieving their sustainability goals.

We’ve seen growing interest in our training programs, and we estimate that about 30% of plastics packaging today follows the APR Design Guide. That’s progress, but it’s not enough. Designing for recyclability is the first and most fundamental step in achieving a circular economy. If a package isn’t designed to be recyclable, it doesn’t matter how efficient our collection, sorting and processing systems are — it won’t get recycled.

In 2025, we expect to see more companies adopting the APR Design Guide as they work to meet their sustainability goals and comply with evolving regulatory requirements. We’ll also celebrate companies leading the way through our inaugural APR Recycling Leadership Awards, which will honor innovators who have demonstrated leadership to advance design for recyclability, developed new recycling technology, developed packaging to address recyclability challenges and increased their commitment to the utilization of post-consumer resin.

2. Too Much, Too Cheap

One of the most significant challenges we face in the plastics recycling industry is the oversupply of virgin plastic on a global scale. In recent years, petrochemical companies have significantly expanded their production capacity, saturating markets with low-cost virgin resin. This influx, coupled with imported material entering North America and Europe, has driven virgin resin prices to historically low levels.

This price pressure creates a major hurdle for recycled content. PCR often costs more to produce than virgin resin, largely due to the infrastructure, labor and processes involved in collecting, sorting and reprocessing materials. When virgin plastic is sold at extremely low prices, it disincentivizes companies from using recycled materials, regardless of their stated sustainability commitments.

Compounding this issue is the need for reliable, high-quality PCR. This is where APR’s PCR Certification Program plugs in to ensure that recycled content is truly post-consumer and meets stringent quality standards. This program helps build trust in PCR markets, giving companies the confidence to invest in sustainable sourcing despite fluctuating virgin resin prices.

In 2025, the industry must work toward decoupling PCR pricing from virgin resin costs. Policy interventions like minimum recycled content requirements and tax incentives can help level the playing field, ensuring that PCR materials remain viable even when virgin resin prices drop. Global oversupply of virgin plastic isn’t going away overnight, but smart policy decisions combined with programs like APR’s PCR Certification can mitigate its impact.

3. Fallout for Walking Back Commitments

The year 2025 has long been a key target for corporate sustainability commitments, particularly regarding the use of PCR content. Over the past decade, dozens of brands have publicly pledged to increase recycled content in their packaging, with many aiming to meet specific goals by 2025. However, as the deadline looms, we’re seeing some companies retreat from those promises.

These pullbacks create ripple effects across the recycling value chain. Recyclers have invested in infrastructure to meet the anticipated demand for recycled plastics. When companies reduce or delay their commitments, that infrastructure becomes underutilized, which jeopardizes future investments and stalls the development of circular systems.

Customers consistently express a preference for recyclable packaging and expect brands to follow through on their environmental commitments. Additionally, using PCR helps companies reduce their carbon footprint and meet corporate social responsibility goals. So why are companies backing away? The answer often boils down to cost. As described earlier, recycled material carries a price premium compared to virgin resin. For recycling to succeed, that premium must be viewed not as an unnecessary expense but as an investment in sustainability.

In 2025, brands must recognize that inconsistent demand weakens the entire system. Long-term contracts for PCR content can provide recyclers with the market stability they need to continue expanding capacity. Without this commitment, the industry risks stagnating just when it needs to grow.

4. The Misinformation Battle

There is no question that misinformation and disinformation about plastics recycling have grown into major obstacles. In recent years, we’ve witnessed a concerted effort to undermine public confidence in recycling, often driven by groups advocating for the complete elimination of plastics. Ironically, these attacks target one activity — recycling — that demonstrably reduces the need for virgin plastic production and mitigates environmental harm.

The impact of this misinformation is evident in public opinion data. Just five years ago, around 15% of consumers questioned whether their recyclables were truly recycled. Today, that figure has more than doubled. This growing doubt has tangible consequences: When consumers lose confidence in recycling, they don’t stop buying plastic, they just stop putting it in the recycling bin.

The facts tell a different story. Plastics recycling in the U.S. diverts more than 5 billion pounds of material annually, delivering significant environmental benefits like reduced greenhouse gas emissions and energy savings. We also have the capacity to double that volume if more material is properly collected and sorted.

In 2025, APR will continue to push back against misinformation. We are committed to providing accurate, science-based information to policymakers, industry leaders and community programs. Restoring trust in recycling is essential if we want to build a truly circular economy for plastics.

5. States Take the Lead

In recent history, activity on recycling at the federal level has been limited. But states are filling the void to address plastics recycling challenges. Extended producer responsibility programs that shift financial burdens to producers are gaining momentum across the U.S. This structure provides a direct incentive for companies to design more recyclable packaging and invest in recycling systems.

However, not all EPR programs are created equal. Many initial frameworks focus heavily on the supply side — improving collection and processing systems — but overlook the equally critical demand side. Without mechanisms like minimum recycled content requirements, EPR efforts may fall short of their intentions.

APR has long supported policies that foster both supply and demand growth. In 2025, we anticipate more states adopting EPR legislation, particularly as early adopters like California, Colorado and Maine demonstrate tangible results. Our role will be to help shape these programs to ensure they create meaningful, long-term market signals for recycled content.

Looking Ahead: A Year of Opportunity

Plastics recycling is not just at a crossroads — it is on the brink of transformation. In 2025, we have the opportunity to drive real change by mobilizing smarter design, inspiring corporate leadership and building public trust. The challenges ahead are real, but so is the momentum we’ve built.

At APR, we are leading the charge. For 30 years, our APR Design Guide has set the standard for packaging innovation. Our PCR certification program ensures integrity in recycled content, and our advocacy efforts continue to push for policies that create real, lasting impact. We know what works, and we are committed to expanding solutions that make plastics recycling more effective, efficient and accessible.

A circular economy isn’t just possible — it’s within reach. Success will require industry collaboration, bold thinking and tireless effort. Together, I am confident that we can make 2025 a breakthrough year for plastics recycling.

Steve Alexander is president & CEO of the Association of Plastic Recyclers, which owns Resource Recycling, Inc.

Bill O’Grady — a former board member and influential chairman of the Association of Plastic Recyclers, a current board member of Resource Recycling, a longtime executive at California recycling company Talco Plastics and, according to him, a man who wandered into the industry decades ago essentially by accident — is possibly, probably, most likely retiring this year.

“I’d like to say that. I’ve planted that seed as far back as, I’d say, maybe three years ago, and I’m still here,” O’Grady said during an interview in February. He was in the thick of regulatory reporting and other duties he felt obligated to see through to the end. But the chance to travel and spend more time with his three grandchildren beckoned.

“I’d like to be doing a lot less by the summer months,” he said, though he might make periodic appearances a few times a year after that. “It’d be hard for me to admit that I’m going to leave the plastics community entirely.”

Steve Alexander, APR president and CEO, said as chairman, O’Grady led APR’s transition from a volunteer organization to a professionally managed one, which included Alexander’s hiring in 2005. Alexander called him “an icon in plastics recycling” and mentor whose vision made APR into an internationally recognized trade association. (APR owns Resource Recycling, Inc.)

“You could argue he’s one of the very few people who are responsible for the plastic recycling industry to be where it is today,” Alexander said. “No one has done more to advance the cause of plastics recycling.”

O’Grady had a knack for building consensus even among competitors, as many APR members are, said J. Scott Saunders, general manager at KW Plastics Recycling Division in Alabama and another APR board member. He said the ability to herd cats was essential to APR’s carrying on through its split from the American Chemistry Council.

“Without Bill’s leadership, I believe the whole organization would have stumbled and fallen apart,” Saunders told Resource Recycling. “We’re going to miss him, man, and the industry is going to be very different without him.”

Nicole Janssen, president of Denton Plastics in Oregon and a member of the APR and Resource Recycling boards, said O’Grady has always been someone whom she looked up to and who shared long discussions about the industry’s values and outlooks.

“He has helped me to grow as an industry leader,” she wrote in an email. “I’m proud to call him a friend as well.”

Looking back, looking ahead

Before his rise to APR’s heights, O’Grady was studying veterinary medicine and other sciences in college, he said. Then his family bought a small recycling company in Santa Ana, California, and asked him to help run it. He agreed, settled in, and when the opportunity came along to turn back to the veterinary field, he let it pass by.

“I kind of got into recycling by default,” O’Grady said. “I felt a sense of accomplishment because I was doing something that I actually believed in.”

Years later, in 1995, he moved on to Talco, an extruder and pelletizer focused primarily on polystyrene and polyolefins, where O’Grady serves as vice president and general manager overseeing the company’s post-consumer division in Long Beach and its Corona facility. O’Grady joined the APR board shortly after.

“Certainly, the landscape has changed over my tenure,” O’Grady said of the industry. “It’s gone from a very fledgling, nondescript environment to a very succinct and structured environment—in terms of public perspective, industry perspective, brand owner perspective, consumer product perspective.”

With that maturation, however, have come challenges that must be addressed, he said:

• Chemical recycling

“The biggest challenge today of course would probably be the relationship with chemical recycling versus mechanical recycling, and how that relates to the sustainability of the industry overall,” O’Grady said.

“It needs to prove itself,” he went on, so that the benefits of chemical and mechanical approaches can be weighed and compared. The Recycling Partnership took a similar tack in its February position statement on the burgeoning industry, which has drawn skepticism from a wide range of recycling and environmental groups.

“We need more clarity, and the chemical recyclers need to be accountable,” O’Grady said.

• Dollars and sense of PCR

O’Grady also pointed to the fluctuating market dynamics of post-consumer resin, which has become more appealing to brands with high-profile sustainability targets but often comes with a higher price tag or other challenges.

“We’re facing the need to continually promote the value and use of PCR across the board,” he said, including by emphasizing that this value stretches beyond cost savings. “There’s no simple solution to that, obviously, but the end user has to come to grips with the fact that post-consumer materials do not compete very well with virgin resin.”

• Changing infrastructure

On a related point, O’Grady said that as a materials reclaimer he’s seen firsthand the gap between collection infrastructure and rising PCR demand. He pointed to moves by waste hauling companies like WM and Republic Services to extend their reach further down the post-consumer chain as a potential game-changer.

“It remains to be seen” what impact those investments will have on the plastic recycling industry overall, he said. “It could alter the landscape considerably in terms of sourcing product for post-consumer application.”

• Plastic recycling’s reputation

The very concept of plastic recycling and its motivations increasingly have come under fire, echoing the pushback that helped spark the original plastic recycling push decades ago. Critics point to the global environmental footprint of all plastic production and the enormous variety of polymers that recycling at scale has failed to capture—the “fraud of plastic recycling,” as a widely cited report from the Center for Climate Integrity recently put it.

O’Grady said misinformation and misinterpretation are painting a negative picture of his industry, which “can diminish the value of plastic recycling and the use of plastic material.”

“We need to proactively advocate the benefits of plastics and plastic recycling rather than react to the flavor of the day, so to speak,” he said. “And I think we need to dispel some of this negativity or some of this fear of using plastics.

“I don’t think in my lifetime we’re going to get rid of plastic,” O’Grady added. “It’s here to stay. It’s not going anywhere.”

This article appeared in the Spring 2024 issue of Plastics Recycling Update. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

A spate of recent laws in various states set lofty goals for both recycling materials and putting that recycled content back into new products. However, the infrastructure and industry are not at the right scale to meet those statute-mandated goals, and that could spell legal and financial trouble for producers. Those producers have a few options to consider, but action must be decided on soon, as some of the deadlines are already in play.

The recycling industry knows that recycling is not just about plastics; however, for legislators, plastics are at the forefront of recycling policy. Whether it’s California’s SB 54 pushing toward a 25% source reduction in plastic packaging, or the minimum post-consumer recycled content standards in California, New Jersey and Washington, plastics are widely seen as the issue driving policy.

The good news in this is that solving for increased recovery of plastics will bring solutions that improve the system that also delivers paper, glass and metals to recycling facilities, as they all take a ride in the bin in residential curbside recycling programs. However, as extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws for packaging are being implemented in California, Colorado, Maine and Oregon, we are years away from seeing major increases in recycling rates in those states. That leaves a significant gap between the demand for recycled material, particularly plastic, and the available supply. Combine that gap with the coming post-consumer resin (PCR) standards, and there is a major issue ahead with respect to the mismatch of supply and demand, and it has legal ramifications.

Right now, the cumulative demand for PCR from the three state laws plus the voluntary commitments to use PCR by brands far exceeds current availability of PCR. A study published in 2022 by Independent Commodity Intelligence Services (ICIS) found that the U.S. would need an additional 140 materials recovery facilities (MRFs) to close the gap and meet the demand that is already being expressed for PCR, including PET, HDPE and PP. That does not include possible new policy drivers that could further widen this gap.

New Jersey’s Recycled Content Law states in its purpose statement, “By requiring manufacturers to utilize post-consumer recycled content, markets for such materials are enhanced as demand shifts from virgin to recycled sources. Recycling relies heavily on supply and demand to keep the industry afloat. As oil prices decrease so do prices for virgin plastic which subsequently decrease the demand for recycled materials. Requiring manufacturers to meet minimum recycled content requirements helps to stabilize markets, increase the resiliency of the recycling industry when oil prices fluctuate, and shield municipal recycling programs from the volatility of the cost to recycle.”

Really? The legislature placed a heavy burden on this one law. While indeed the demands are real, can this drive the level of investment needed to expand infrastructure, encourage participation, reduce contamination in residential streams and align material with optimal end markets? I think not.

Further, no company makes packaging destined for a particular state, or for that matter, three states. So, to meet the demands of California, New Jersey and Washington, companies need to meet these standards across their national portfolios. That requires a level of supply that simply will not be realized in time for the compliance requirements.

Many brand commitments are coming due in 2025 and the state laws have schedules that require achievement of various levels of PCR on an aggressive calendar. For example, California will require beverage containers to include 25% PCR by January 2025 and 50% PCR by 2030. New Jersey has requirements for plastics, paper and glass. It requires glass packaging to meet a 35% PCR content standard this year. To say that is impossible is a colossal understatement.

Washington’s law notes that the regulations for the bill begin in 2023 and each product category is phased in with increasing post-consumer recycled content (PCRC) requirements over the next fifteen years. Further, it adds that by 2036, all packaging for covered product categories must include at least 50% PCRC, excluding trash bags, which have a 20% requirement after 2027.

“Each year, producers must report on minimum post-consumer recycled content (PCRC) requirements from the previous year,” the law notes. “The minimum requirements began for beverage and trash bag producers in 2023. Household cleaning and personal care products will start in 2025, and dairy milk and wine sold in small 187 ml bottles will begin in 2029.”

The market is expected to evolve rapidly to make all of this new PCR available, and as you have already figured out, I am skeptical this will happen.

We can certainly talk about how these laws fail to reflect the reality of how recycling markets work, but right now that discussion is only useful in terms of informing how we should engage as new proposals are considered. These laws are already in effect now, so the challenge here is what can industry do to help ensure compliance? In my estimation, something will need to shift dramatically over the coming years, or we are going to hit a “compliance wall.”

What are the options? Multiple industry segments could align and double down on supporting EPR to increase recycling rates and then go back to regulators and say, “look, we’re doing all we can, so can we slow this down?” Would this take the form of working in some of the largest states, say New York and Texas, or would it look more like a federal solution? Do we organize an effort to push back the compliance timelines without the sincere effort to push up recycling rates first? I suspect this would be costly, poorly received and highly likely to fail. Do we run out the timelines, fail to comply and see what happens?

The answer here is elusive, but one thing is for sure: pretending the problem isn’t there will not solve it. Sectors spanning CPG, beverage, personal care, household products and retailers need to engage in dialogue and test where there may be common interest and a possible way forward that all can engage with and support.

Companies often set audacious goals and then fail to meet them. In those cases, a company can always shift the narrative, explain away the failure and earn favor by setting yet another goal. It’s different for regulations. Failure to achieve these requirements comes with financial penalties. In the case of California, the law sets penalties at a rate of $0.20 per pound based on the shortfall of recycled content used compared to the minimum content requirement.

In the past, policy has forced companies to think more about their packaging and its impacts, it has also driven innovation and a collective response around implementation. This momentum needs to be harnessed now and focused in a constructive way on a collaborative effort to offer and support solutions to the PCR compliance wall challenge.

Michael Washburn is principal and owner at Washburn Consulting: Sustainability & Public Affairs.

This article appeared in the Spring 2024 issue of Plastics Recycling Update. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

The U.S. PET bottle recovery rate made a notable jump, reaching 28.6%, according to an industry report published Dec. 14. The National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR) said the U.S. PET bottle recovery rate for 2021 was up 1.5 percentage points from 2020, with a notable rebound in bottles redeemed through deposit programs in 2021. The increase marks the end of a years-long slide in the country’s PET bottle recovery rate, which had been falling since 2017.

The report also found a continuation of shifting end markets. Historically, the largest end use for U.S. and Canadian RPET has been fiber for use in textiles. But that changed in 2020, when bottles (both food/beverage and non-food/beverage combined) surpassed polyester fiber as the largest single end market. Bottles continued to outpace fiber in 2021.

This article appeared in the Spring 2024 issue of Plastics Recycling Update. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

PET bottles are often identified as the most commonly recycled plastic in North America. However, some technical and economic barriers can limit the recycling of other PET packaging formats, such as thermoformed trays and clamshells, from being effectively recycled. This represents a significant undertaking for the industry, knowing that the use of PET thermoforms for all types of packaging (such as food, electronics, and cosmetics) has increased significantly over the past few years.

In Canada, PET thermoforms are accepted in curbside collection systems, with a successful collection rate of over 50%. Currently, the most common practice consists of mixing PET thermoforms into PET bottle bales, which are then sorted and washed to be used into different applications. However, due to their greater brittleness, processing PET thermoforms with bottles can lower the overall recycling yield and affect the quality of the recycled output, which limits its use in some end-markets.

These challenges are only going to be exacerbated in upcoming years in Canada, as the volume of thermoforms is expected to rise, both for regulatory and voluntary reasons. On the regulatory side, the expansion of deposit programs across the country will increase PET thermoform concentrations in MRFs by diverting PET bottles away from the curbside stream. In Quebec, for instance, the newly expanded program will include all beverage containers over 100 ml by March 2025. On the voluntary side, many brands and retailers are turning to PET thermoforms as alternatives to harder-to-recycle materials, such as polystyrene (PS) trays. In Canada, thermoforms are identified as a preferable alternative to PS in different eco-design resources, including in the Golden Design Rules for Plastic Packaging adapted to the Canadian market by the Canada Plastics Pact.

A challenge designed for the Circular Plastics Taskforce

Founded in January 2020, the Circular Plastics Taskforce (CPT) is a non-for-profit organization that was born out of the unprecedented collaboration between leading Canadian beverage and food companies, packaging manufacturers and industry associations. Since its inception, the group’s unique federating approach has attracted the support of government and industry partners, positioning it as a leading circularity organization in Canada and North America. The CPT’s mission is simple but ambitious: to support the building of a circular economy for all post-consumer plastics put on the market in Canada.

The work of the CPT focuses on what it calls the “orphans of the bin.” By that, the CPT means resin types or packaging formats that are usually accepted in Canadian curbside collection systems, but don’t currently have a solid path towards circularity, whether it is due to sorting issues, inadequate recycling infrastructure or lack of end markets. In this respect, PET thermoforms fit the bill perfectly.

After deciding that they wanted to work on thermoforms, the first step taken by the CPT was to discuss with PET recycling stakeholders to get an overview on the current state of affairs. The group soon realized that there appeared to be many conflicting viewpoints amongst the industry on how to handle thermoforms. While everyone seemed to agree there was a limit to the amount that could be processed through existing PET recycling lines, the percentage mentioned was not consistent and many challenged both the feasibility and viability of increasing their concentration. However, there seemed to be a lack of supporting evidence to corroborate those assumptions as no robust data or research finding could be provided.

To fill that gap, the CPT designed a research project that would test the ability of a PET reclaimer to process different thresholds of PET thermoforms and document the impact on both process efficiency and output quality. The project management was handed to Michel Gosselin, a PET recycling expert, to kick-start this research with the support of multiple Canadian PET reclaimers.

A practical approach

The study tested three different bales with varying concentrations of PET thermoforms. The control sample (approx. 41% thermoforms on total clear PET) consisted of commercially available bales that are considered representative of standard residential curbside bales commonly processed in Canada. The second sample (64%) was acquired through EFS-plastics and contains a higher level of PET thermoforms. This material came from a secondary sorting line which recovers PET from non-PET bales. The third sample (90%) was acquired from a MRF in California, where PET thermoforms are positively sorted out to produce thermoform-only bales.

One truckload of each of the three samples was then sent to a Canadian PET reclaimer with extensive experience in sorting and washing PET bales. The trial was done on a washing line that was modified over the years to improve efficiency and specifically reduce the generation of fines, here defined as flakes under 1.7mm (or 0.07 inches), specifically to produce sheet. The material was processed through the sorting line, including NIR and color automatic sorters, then through the wash line and the flake sorting equipment. Similar parameters were used for all three types of bales, with only minor adjustments done to optimize the process for each sample. While the initial target was to run the material at the line-rated capacity, the line speed when running the 90% material was lowered to 60% of normal throughput, due to contamination in the sink/float bath and clogging in the extraction screw coming out of the prewash. The reclaimer commented that this problem could be solved if there was a need to process material with very high levels of thermoformed PET on a regular basis.

Flake outputs from these trials were then sent to an independent lab to analyze, among others, their color, haze, and intrinsic viscosity (IV). As it is a main concern with thermoform recycling, the sorting and washing yields were also measured, notably the percentage of lost fines. The table below shows the main results from this analysis.

The study shows that the overall clear washed flake yield can be considered similar for the three types of sourced material. The 56.5% yield for the control material is considered to represent a low-quality bale for the reclaimer, as a high-quality bale provides a yield of around 70%. Furthermore, as expected, the lost fines content is increasing as the percentage of thermoforms increases. However, for most reclaimers supplying to the sheet industry, the lost fines fraction of 8.1% obtained for the 90% sample could probably be considered as acceptable. For those supplying exclusively the bottle industry, the control sample using 41% PET thermoform may be a more acceptable result.

“Considering what we often hear about the very high level of lost fines when converting PET thermoforms, it was surprising to find the relatively low level of lost fines, even for a modified process,” confirmed Michel Gosselin, the project manager. “While increasing, the fact that the numbers remained relatively reasonable even for a bale that is made almost entirely of thermoforms is promising.”

Finally, to move one step further up the recycling chain, 5,000 pounds of clean flakes from the 90% sample were sent to a Canadian manufacturer of PET sheets and thermoform containers. Sheets containing a mix of 25% of the sample and 75% of post-consumer recycled (PCR) bottle flakes were processed using extruders commonly used in the industry. Once produced, the sheets were evaluated for color, haze and IV, as seen in the table below. As a control sample, a sheet made of 100% post-consumer recycled (PCR) bottle flakes was also processed and analyzed.

This test showed that the IV for the sheet extruded using the 90% material was lower than the control sample, which was to be expected. The color values were similar for both samples, except for the b* values (i.e. color tend to be more yellow). However, a difference lower than 1.0 is usually invisible to the human eye. Finally, the main difference was seen in the haze values. While this difference is visible to the human eye, the reclaimer reported that the sheet containing thermoforms could be sold in some markets, with approval from the end customers.

Guiding the development of new infrastructure

To summarize, three main conclusions emerge from this study:

• Equipment is available to sort and process high concentrations of thermoforms when present in the PET stream.
• Modifications can be made to a wash line to better process thermoforms.
• PCR sheet can be made and formed into thermoforms of acceptable quality for specific markets using thermoform-only bales.

The CPT is aware that those conclusions have their limitations, notably due to the small sample size. Hence, in the coming month, the organization will study other components such as the cost of installing or operating the additional machinery or the effects on certain bottle grades or fiber end markets or processes designed to produce material for them.

However, the results show that there is room to grow with respect to the mechanical recycling of thermoforms, from packaging design all the way through end markets.

Through its work, the CPT’s goal is to spark some new conversations and a cross-border dialogue on the future of PET recycling, notably through an upcoming webinar in Spring 2024. In the coming year, the CPT will also continue to explore ways to deepen the knowledge on thermoform recycling by building partnerships with established industry players, such as The Recycling Partnership and the Association of Plastics Recyclers, and by leading research projects and pilots across North America. Among others, the organization plans to look into how increasing thermoforms concentrations can affect bottle and fiber production, as well as to assess the cost implications.

Charles David Mathieu-Poulin is a strategic advisor for the Circular Plastics Taskforce. For more information on the CPT and to access the full technical reports, visit gapc.ca. To contact the CPT, please send an email to [email protected].

This article appeared in the Spring 2024 issue of Plastics Recycling Update. Subscribe today for access to all print content.

Stina Inc. collects data at a critical step in the plastic recycling value chain—from recyclers. These are companies that purchase and process scrap plastic into feedstock for remanufacturing. They are the engines of the recycling economy. While not the whole story, the data collected at this point in the value chains gives us an aggregated assessment of the total volumes of material recovered for recycling and acquired by markets for processing.

Measuring plastics relative to other materials and actions, along with benchmarking data throughout the value chain, is needed to deliver the insights for businesses and people to make continuous improvement and better choices to protect resources. Measuring where we are is essential if we are to implement strategies that support the recycling economy and ultimately the emergence of a circular economy.

Materials like paper, metal, glass and plastics have vastly different methods to measure what’s generated and what’s recycled. All materials face gaps in information available to fully capture how much gets generated and is available for recycling. In addition to production of goods in the United States, there is a significant amount of material entering and exiting the country on trucks, ships and planes carrying unfinished and finished goods and not everything produced and imported is used and discarded in that given year.

Based on the 2018 Advancing Sustainable Materials: Facts and Figures Report (Facts and Figures), EPA reported generation of plastic materials in three main categories: Durable Goods (38%), Non-Durable Goods (21%), and Containers and Packaging (41%), which are important distinctions for deployment of solutions. Another important distinction, and a challenge related to available data, is a clear understanding of the amount of material generated from residential (or individual use) versus commercial use.

Consistent, Transparent Data Reporting

Stina Inc. surveys recyclers (plastic reclaimers), exporters and other key players in the value chain to gather data on the pounds recovered for recycling. Once various items are collected (e.g., through curbside programs, drop off or sourced-separated by businesses) and consolidated for market, reclaimers or exporters (who sell to reclaimers overseas) acquire scrap plastic to process mostly into post-consumer resin, flake or other forms of feedstock to sell to manufacturers or for use directly in new products.

The data Stina Inc. gathers and reports has provided the consistent source of information for the pounds of post-consumer (and post-commercial) plastic recovered for recycling in the United States (and Canada). For nearly two decades this data contributed to the EPA’s determination of the recycling figure for the plastic recycling rate in their annual Facts and Figures reports on waste, recycling and composting. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been an update to that report since the 2018 data was published. Since then, various organizations have generated their own estimates, which will vary depending on methodology used.

How Data on Plastic Recycling is Available to the Public

Stina Inc. continues to track many key data sets and thanks to study sponsors, the pounds of post-consumer plastic recovered for recycling are made publicly available. The U.S. Post-consumer Plastic Recycling Data Report (2022) can be accessed through the Plastic Recycling Data Dashboard on CircularityInAction.com. This data is used in policy development and business planning by analysts, educators, and many other stakeholders.

The data gathering for the U.S. Post-consumer Plastic Recycling Data Report takes the better part of a year. Trust developed through years of relationship-building, neutrality in the marketplace, and strict confidentiality standards enable Stina Inc. to achieve the high participation rate from companies in a voluntary survey.

Stina Inc. developed and utilizes a secure internal information management system to track the marketplace. To ensure accuracy of the data provided and to prevent double- counting, Stina Inc. conducts follow-up calls with respondents. More details on the Methodology, Gaps and Assumptions are detailed in the public report, available through the Plastic Recycling Data Dashboard on CircularityInAction.com.

Getting Granular

Beyond gathering data on the commodities recovered for recycling, it’s important to have more granular segmentation of the data by resin and product type, particularly where traded commodities are a mix of product types and resin. Stina Inc. completed a National Bale Composition Study in 2022, as an update and expansion of previous studies. The data from the audit enables us to break out the commodities acquired by resin and product type (e.g., PP bottles versus PP non-bottle rigids) and to track the changes in the material stream over time. The primary purpose of the Bale Composition Study is to apply it to the annual study, but it also serves as important insight for industry. Beyond the insight conveyed through the annual plastic recycling report, bale audit details are available through Stina’s Insight Services (StinaInc.com). A new bale audit study is slated to kick off soon.

Collaboration and Good Data Are Essential for Progress

Collaboration among industry, government and others as well as long-term planning are essential in the management of resources for future generations. Good data hinges on transparent methodologies and standard (or complementary) use of categories across studies. One example is utilizing the APR Guide for Plastic Sorting—Best Management Practices to support harmonization in waste composition studies or other data collection for plastic, which could help yield a much clearer picture on the national level.

Organizations like the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) recently published a report focused on the lost value of landfilled plastic (2022) as well as a report on losses from landfilled cardboard and paper (2023). And there are many other organizations working to fill data gaps to aid in better decision-making from upstream material choices to recycling solutions.

Shed Light on Misinformation

There has been a heavy focus on recyclability in recent years, which is essential for recycling. However, we also need to direct attention and resources to other critical parts of the recycling chain, including the use of post-consumer recycled content and increased collection of recyclable items. Greenwashing, or misleading customers about the environmental benefits of a product, is harmful, and it is also harmful to discourage the recovery of resources by casting doubt about recyclable materials. Misinformation in any form is damaging to the collective goal: managing resources sustainably so we may sustain life on Earth.

Recycling is Part of the Solution & We Need Greater Measurement

The year over year trends vary, but this much is clear: The gap between the amount of plastic produced and the amount recycled continues to grow. We can’t just recycle our way out of the current plastic waste problem. We need to reduce the amount of plastic and all materials we produce that become waste. That said, we also must recycle what we produce to create circularity. If the true cost of production and waste were accounted for, recyclers could have positive returns on investment for the new capacity needed to close the massive delta between virgin resin production and reclamation capacity. In the absence of new and critical economic policies to support this, brands and consumers alike can support more plastic recycling by supporting the companies producing post-consumer resin and using recycled content in products like those listed in the Buy Recycled Products Directory on RecyledProductsDirectory.org.

We will continue to work for better collaboration, more recycling data and more consistency in measurement points for recycled plastics and other commodities as a core underpinning of the actions needed to elevate recycling rates. With more use of recycled content and participation in recycling of recyclable items, we look forward to being able to report how recyclers are closing the delta between virgin resin and post-consumer resin production.

Nina Bellucci Butler is the CEO and Stacey Luddy is the COO of Stina Inc., which is a mission-based research and technology company providing unbiased guidance to governments, industry and NGOs in the movement toward circularity, navigating choices to preserve and recover the resources we use. The reality of plastics and plastic recycling has been a key focus of Stina’s work.

This article appeared in the Spring 2024 issue of Plastics Recycling Update. Subscribe today for access to all print content.