Sustainability Meets Competitiveness: Key Takeaways from K-2025

The plastics industry is undergoing a profound transformation. With increasing pressure to decarbonize, reduce waste, and remain globally competitive, stakeholders across Europe and the U.S. are rethinking how plastics are produced, used, and recycled.

At the Plastics Europe – K‑Show Transformation Panel, titled “Balancing Competitiveness and Sustainability,” industry leaders shared their views on how to navigate this complex landscape, Plastics Engineering was present and here is the fresh take aways.

You can also read: Key Insights for Investing in Modern Recycling Sorting Technologies

Market Snapshot: Production and Recycling

Europe produced approximately 54 million tonnes (Mt) of plastics in 2023. Of this, 7.2 Mt came from recycling, while 0.3 Mt was bio-based. Moreover, mechanical recycling capacity reached 13.2 Mt; however, its growth slowed due to high energy costs and weak market demands. In contrast, chemical recycling remains in its early stages, with only 0.15 Mt of installed capacity. Notably, the EU managed to recycle 41% of plastic packaging waste in 2022.

Meanwhile, the United States generated 35.7 Mt of plastics in municipal solid waste in 2018, with a recycling rate of approximately 8.7%. However, more recent estimates suggest this figure dropped to around 5–6% by 2021. In 2022, 2.28 Mt of post-consumer plastics were recovered, and PET bottle recycling stood at 27.8%.

Panelist insights:

• Stephanie Kalil (Dow): Emphasized the need to scale existing technologies, noting that “we have the tools—we must act now.”
• Craig Arnold (Borealis): Stressed that ecosystem collaboration is essential to close the loop: “You can’t close the circle without the market and the ecosystem.”
• Manfred Hackl (EREMA): Highlighted that circularity must be industrialized, and that the industry should learn from other sectors.
• Walmir Sóller (Braskem): Advocated for step-by-step progress, rather than waiting for perfect solutions.
• Lauren Kjeldsen (Evonik): Pointed out that high catalyst costs and fragmented markets hinder progress.
• Ulrich Reifenhäuser (Reifenhäuser): Reinforced the need for a unified vision and cross-sector alignment to drive transformation.

Competitiveness Pressures: Energy and Carbon Costs

Europe’s carbon pricing under the EU ETS averaged €66/t in 2024, down from €85/t in 2023. While emissions dropped to 20-year lows, industrial sectors showed limited further decline, highlighting the difficulty of decarbonizing energy-intensive processes. High electricity prices and policy uncertainty continue to challenge competitiveness.

U.S. industry faces no national carbon price and relies on state-led Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs, which vary widely in scope and timing. This results in lower compliance costs but slower systemic change.

Panelist insights:

• Kalil (Dow): Emphasized the need to scale existing technologies, noting that “we have the tools—we must act now.”
• Arnold (Borealis): Stressed that ecosystem collaboration is essential to close the loop: “You can’t close the circle without the market and the ecosystem.”
• Hackl (EREMA): Highlighted that circularity must be industrialized, and that the industry should learn from other sectors.
• Sóller (Braskem): Advocated for step-by-step progress, rather than waiting for perfect solutions.
• Kjeldsen (Evonik): Pointed out that high catalyst costs and fragmented markets hinder progress.
• Reifenhäuser (Reifenhäuser): Reinforced the need for a unified vision and cross-sector alignment to drive transformation.

Circularity Technologies: Mechanical, Chemical, and Bio-Based

Currently, mechanical recycling remains the dominant pathway in Europe’s circularity efforts. Nevertheless, economic headwinds—such as high energy prices and market volatility—have significantly slowed its expansion. Meanwhile, chemical recycling, particularly pyrolysis, is attracting growing interest due to its potential to handle mixed and contaminated plastics. However, it still faces major hurdles, including high costs and energy intensity, which limit its scalability. At the same time, bio-based plastics are gradually gaining traction as a sustainable alternative. Yet, they continue to represent only a small fraction of the overall plastics market.

Panelist insights:

• Kalil: Advocated for a multi-pronged approach combining mechanical, chemical, and bio-based solutions.
• Hackl: Emphasized the need to industrialize recycling and integrate it into broader manufacturing systems.
• Kjeldsen: Flagged catalyst costs and the lack of a unified market as barriers to scaling chemical recycling.
• Arnold: Noted that technology alone isn’t enough—culture and market structures must evolve.
• Sóller: Stressed that incremental improvements are more realistic than waiting for ideal solutions.
• Reifenhäuser: Highlighted the importance of cross-industry collaboration to accelerate innovation.

Policy and Regulation: Shaping the Framework

Europe’s regulatory landscape took a major step forward with the adoption of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) in late 2024. This legislation introduces recycled content mandates, design-for-recycling criteria, and harmonized labeling requirements. Together, these measures aim to create a unified internal market and reduce regulatory fragmentation across member states. In parallel, the updated Waste Shipments Regulation tightens controls on plastic exports and encourages recycling within the EU, reinforcing the bloc’s circular economy goals.

In contrast, U.S. policy remains fragmented. States such as California, Oregon, and Colorado have implemented Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws. However, these initiatives vary widely in scope and design, creating added complexity for national producers operating across multiple jurisdictions.

Panelist insights:

• Kjeldsen: Criticized policy fragmentation, which PPWR seeks to resolve in Europe.
• Arnold: Supported harmonized regulations and cross-border waste movement, now addressed by EU reforms.
• Kalil: Highlighted the interplay between ETS and EPR, calling for coordinated action.
• Hackl: Emphasized the need to engage policymakers with a positive narrative.
• Sóller: Noted that regulatory clarity is essential to guide investment and innovation.
• Reifenhäuser: Stressed that policy must enable—not hinder—transformation.

Markets, Trade, and Public Perception

Demand for recycled content is steadily rising, driven by both regulatory pressures and corporate sustainability commitments. However, significant challenges remain on the supply side. In particular, collection gaps and quality issues continue to limit the availability of suitable recycled materials. To address this, the EU has introduced export restrictions aimed at retaining valuable materials within the region and fostering the development of domestic recycling markets. In contrast, the U.S. continues to struggle with fragmented and inconsistent collection systems, which hinder progress.

At the same time, public perception presents an ongoing challenge. Despite the essential role plastics play in sectors such as healthcare, insulation, and lightweighting, misinformation about plastics and recycling often undermines public trust and slows momentum toward circularity.

Panelist insights:

• Arnold: Called for efforts to combat misinformation and scale recycling beyond the current 4 Mt benchmark.
• Sóller: Advocated for pragmatic communication and realistic expectations.
• Hackl: Emphasized the importance of positive messaging to build public trust.
• Kalil: Noted that consumer demand and education are key to driving circularity.
• Kjeldsen: Stressed that industry must lead the narrative to avoid being reactive.
• Reifenhäuser: Concluded that transparency and storytelling are vital to shift perception.

Panelists’ 2050 Visions—Balanced in the Future

• Unified Markets (Evonik, Borealis): PPWR and waste shipment reforms support a single market in Europe. The U.S. could benefit from interstate EPR harmonization.
• Industrialized Recycling (EREMA, Dow): Scaling requires stable demand, low-carbon energy, and investment certainty.
• Immediate Action (Dow): Focus on design-for-recycling, monomaterial flows, and feedstock access.
• Pragmatism (Braskem): Iterative pilots and flexible standards can drive progress without waiting for ideal conditions.

Recommendations for Europe and the U.S.

1. Stabilize Demand: Finalize PPWR secondary legislation in the EU; promote model EPR frameworks in the U.S.
2. Lower Costs: Use ETS revenues to de-risk recycling investments in the EU; expand grants for sorting and depolymerization in the U.S.
3. Secure Feedstock: Implement digital waste shipment tools in the EU; improve curbside access and labeling in the U.S.
4. Build Trust: Fund transparent LCAs and mass-balance methodologies.
5. Communicate Effectively: Highlight plastics’ role in net-zero and healthcare while owning the waste challenge.

How to Move Forward

Europe, on one hand, is moving toward a harmonized regulatory framework through initiatives like the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) and reforms to waste shipment rules. On the other hand, the United States is taking a more decentralized approach, experimenting with state-led Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs. Against this backdrop, the panelists’ insights converge on a clear and practical agenda: act now, scale proven solutions, simplify regulatory frameworks, and foster ecosystems where technology, policy, and markets mutually reinforce one another. Ultimately, this integrated approach is how the industry can effectively balance competitiveness with sustainability.

To read more: Journey to Sustainable Plastic Recycling