Waste Management 72 (2018) 55–64

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Circular economy of plastic packaging: Current practice and perspectives

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Plastics, especially from packaging, have gained increasing attention in waste management, driving many
Received 27 June 2017 policy initiatives to improve the circularity of these materials in the economy to increase resource effi-
Revised 16 October 2017 ciency. In this context, the EU has proposed increasing targets to encourage the recycling of (plastic)
Accepted 23 November 2017
packaging. To accurately calculate the recycling rates, detailed information on the flows of plastic pack-
Available online 28 November 2017
aging is needed. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to quantitatively and qualitatively investigate the
waste management system for plastic packaging in Austria in 2013 using material flow analysis, taking
Keywords:
into account the used product types and the polymer composition. The results show that 300,000 ± 3% t/a
Resource management
Waste management
(35 kg/cap
a) of waste plastic packaging were produced, mainly composed of large and small films and
Recycling rate small hollow bodies, including PET bottles. Correspondingly, the polymer composition of the waste
Recycling target stream was dominated by LDPE (46% ± 6%), PET (19% ± 4%) and PP (14% ± 6%). 58% ± 3% was collected
MFA separately, and regarding the final treatment, 26% ± 7% of the total waste stream was recovered as re-
granulates, whereas the rest was thermally recovered in waste-to-energy plants (40% ± 3%) and the
cement industry (33% ± 6%). The targets set by the EU and Austria were reached comfortably, although
to reach the proposed future target major technological steps regarding collection and sorting will be
needed. However, the current calculation point of the targets, i.e. on the input side of the recycling plant,
is not deemed to be fully in line with the overall objective of the circular economy, namely to keep mate-
rials in the economy and prevent losses. It is therefore recommended that the targets be calculated with
respect to the actual output of the recycling process, provided that the quality of the output products is
maintained, to accurately assess the performance of the waste management system.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction management side (Sakai et al., 2011). In case of the latter, the Euro-
pean Union (EU) has imposed a recycling target which currently
Plastics are widely recognized to have an ever increasing impor- requires 22.5% of waste plastic packaging to be recycled (EPC,
tance in waste management. They have become one of the most 2004). This target is proposed to increase by 2025 towards 55%
used materials worldwide, are often used in products with short (EC, 2015a), further underlining the ambition to increase recycling
lifespans, and pose substantial environmental problems due to and reduce landfilling of packaging wastes. This is part of the
the accumulation in ecosystems when disposed of improperly broader initiative to increase resource efficiency and reduce
(Barnes et al., 2009; Gregory, 2009; Jambeck et al., 2015; Teuten resource dependency (EC, 2011), and plastics are one of the five
et al., 2009). Ever increasing attention for these negative aspects priority areas in the EU action plan for the circular economy (EC,
have stimulated policy initiatives to tackle these problems, espe- 2015b).
cially for plastic packaging, as this is the main application of plas- This circular economy concept, which foresees a production and
tics and makes up the largest share in the post-consumer plastic consumption system where materials are circulated as wastes are
waste stream (PlasticsEurope, 2015; Van Eygen et al., 2017; World re-used, recycled and recovered, has been increasingly promoted
Economic Forum et al., 2016). These initiatives focus on the by many governments and international organizations (EEA,
consumption side, e.g. reductions or bans on lightweight plastic 2014; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013; Geissdoerfer et al.,
carrier bags (EPC, 2015; Ritch et al., 2009), as well as on the waste 2016; Ghisellini et al., 2016; Haas et al., 2015; Lieder and Rashid,
2016; Winans et al., 2017). To measure the progress towards a cir-
cular economy, many indicators can be calculated to quantify this
⇑ Corresponding author.
performance (BIO Intelligence Service et al., 2012; Hashimoto and
E-mail address: emile.van.eygen@tuwien.ac.at (E. Van Eygen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.040
0956-053X/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
56 E. Van Eygen et al. / Waste Management 72 (2018) 55–64

Moriguchi, 2004; Haupt et al., 2016; Moriguchi, 2007). One of these aspects of subjectivity in the data uncertainty characterization.
indicators is the recycling rate, which is frequently used in policy First, the indicator scores are assigned on more or less stringent
documents (e.g. from the EU, see above) to quantify the amount criteria, and second, the quantitative uncertainty values for the
of waste materials that is fed back into the economy. However, various scores are estimated. Regarding the first aspect, although
at which point in the waste management chain these rates are to most evaluation criteria do not leave much room for interpretation,
be measured is part of ongoing discussions (EUWID, 2014). The others are not that unambiguous, relying on the experience and
general consensus for the EU targets seems to be to calculate the tacit knowledge of the modeler. Concerning the second aspect,
recycling rate at the gate of the recycling plant, i.e. the input to although the underlying mathematical functions allow the trans-
the recycling process, although this has not been clearly defined parent and consistent characterization of the coefficients of varia-
yet. This causes confusion, especially with regard to comparing tions within the method, the actual definition of these functions
the performance of different regions or countries, as it is not remains up to the modeler’s choice (in the present study an
always clear how reported indicator values were calculated exponential-type function is used, see Laner et al., 2016). As empir-
(Haupt et al., 2016). ical data are usually not available as a basis for this choice, the esti-
For the calculation of these recycling rates and to draw the right mates may differ from one MFA study to another. Therefore,
conclusions on the overall environmental performance and poten- although the approach builds on reproducible and internally con-
tially improve the system, detailed mapping of how materials sistent uncertainty estimates, comparisons of these estimates gen-
move within the economy is needed (Hashimoto and Moriguchi, erated in different MFA studies should be done cautiously
2004; Preston, 2012). In the case of plastic packaging, it is of pri- (Klinglmair et al., 2016; Laner et al., 2016). The estimated input
mary importance to gather information on the different polymers uncertainties are subsequently propagated through the model
that constitute the waste stream, as these need to be separated using Gaussian error propagation (assuming normally distributed
in order to be recycled effectively. Furthermore, the environmental variables), whereas data reconciliation is used to resolve conflicts
benefit achieved by recycling is different for each polymer: poly- between input values. The material flow results are given as mean
ethylene terephthalate (PET) for example causes relatively high values and relative standard deviations of a normal distribution.
environmental impacts at primary production (Tabone et al., The system boundaries of the MFA are presented in Fig. 1, and
2010) and has about half the heating value (Phyllis2, 2016) com- are drawn to include all plastic packaging products from becoming
pared to the other major packaging polymers, making it all the waste in Austria until they are processed to provide secondary raw
more pertinent to increase high-quality mechanical recycling and materials or energy, or are deposited on a landfill. The waste
avoid incineration for energy recovery. Furthermore, it is relevant stream was subdivided into seven product categories, including
to have information on the product types in the waste stream, as PET bottles, small (<5 L) and large (5 L) hollow bodies, small
many collection systems and sorting processes are specific to (<1.5 m2) and large (1.5 m2) films, large EPS (0.1 kg), and other
certain product types. products. Only products fully composed of plastics are taken into
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to quantitatively and qualita- account, so products made from material composites, such as food
tively investigate the waste management system for plastic pack- or drink cartons, are not considered. The quantification of the
aging in Austria with respect to polymer content and product waste flows through the waste management system was per-
types and 2013 as the reference year. Based on the results indica- formed separately for each of these seven product categories. On
tors on the performance of the system are calculated and com- the polymer level, eight polymers were taken into account: low-
pared with current and future policy targets. Furthermore, the density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low-density polyethylene
potential for improvements throughout the system are identified, (LLDPE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (PP),
and the implications thereof for reaching future targets are polystyrene (PS), expanded polystyrene (EPS), polyethylene
analyzed. terephthalate (PET), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). These polymers
account for 99% of all plastics used in packaging in Europe, accord-
ing to PlasticsEurope (2015).
2. Materials and methods
2.2. Description of the plastic packaging waste flows
2.1. Material flow analysis
Fig. 1 shows the MFA model that quantifies the flows of plastic
MFA is used to comprehensively assess the flows and stocks of packaging waste in Austria, and in the further description, the flow
materials through a certain system defined in space and time, thus numbers from this model are indicated. The plastic packaging prod-
connecting and quantifying sources, pathways and sinks of the ucts are used in the seven aforementioned categories (F1.01 - F1.07).
material in question (Brunner and Rechberger, 2004). The software After becoming waste, the products are either collected separately
STAN 2.5 was used to perform the MFA calculations using a stan- (SCW; F2.01), or are disposed of in the municipal solid waste
dardized method (Cencic and Rechberger, 2008). The material (MSW; F2.02) or in bulky and commercial wastes (BCW; F2.03).
flows are calculated on different levels: total waste plastic packag- The separately collected stream is sorted into 18 sorting frac-
ing (i.e. goods) and the various constituting polymers (i.e. tions, based on polymer, product type and color, which are then
substances). sent for single-polymer mechanical recycling (F3.02). Part of the
To assess the quality of the input data in describing the desired PET waste stream is used for the production of higher value
quantitative information, the uncertainties of these input data food-grade re-granulate (F3.01), and is therefore included as a sep-
were quantified using the approach described by Laner et al. arate flow in the model. Furthermore, a mixed-plastics stream is
(2016). In this method, the data quality of each input data point sent for mechanical recycling into mixed-polymer re-granulate
is characterized qualitatively using five data quality indicators, (F3.03), used for the production of items such as recycled plastic
which are presented in Table S-1 in the Supplementary data. The lumber (RPL), which is then used to substitute wood in e.g. outdoor
quantitative uncertainty value is subsequently derived based on furniture. Consequently, three types of mechanical recycling
coefficients of variation for each of the data quality indicator scores processes are taken into account in the model: single-polymer
(as shown in Table S-2 in the Supplementary data), which are recycling to produce food-grade re-granulate (F4.01) as well as
described by continuous characterizing functions (see Laner non-food-grade re-granulate (F4.02), and mixed-polymer recycling
et al., 2016 for more details). This approach introduces two major (F4.03).
 E. Van Eygen et al. / Waste Management 72 (2018) 55–64 57

Fig. 1. Scope and model overview of the management of waste plastic packaging in Austria.

Additional mixed-plastics streams can be used for chemical in more depth in the Supplementary data (Section 2). More
recycling as an alternative reducing agent in the steel industry detailed information was provided for the separately collected
(F3.04). Furthermore, mixed-plastics streams with a medium waste by ARA (Altstoff Recycling Austria AG), which was the only
calorific value are utilized for the production of energy in grate producer responsibility compliance scheme for household packag-
and fluidized bed Waste-to-Energy (WtE) plants (F3.05). Finally, ing in Austria in 2013. In this capacity, ARA collects information on
other sorting residue streams can be sent for further mechanical the separately collected waste it handles. They were thus able to
treatment (F3.06) or are used as a high calorific alternative fuel supply data on the mass, polymer composition, product type and
in the cement industry (F3.07). waste treatment destination for each of the sorting fractions com-
In Austria, direct landfilling of waste with an organic carbon ing from the sorting and preparation process, as well as on the
content higher than 5% is banned (BMLFUW, 2004). MSW as well mass, polymer composition, product type and destination of the
as BCW are therefore treated either in a grate WtE plant for energy mixed-plastics residues from sorting (ARA, 2016). For PET, further
production (F3.08 and F3.09) or through mechanical pretreatment data was taken from WKO (2014).
in a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) or splitting plant Some additional literature data and calculations were necessary
(F3.10 and F3.11). The latter process is used to separate materials to harmonize the received data into the MFA model. As the product
which can be recycled (F3.12 to F3.14), produce medium calorific types used in Hauer et al. (2015) and ARA (2016) were specified
fractions (F3.15) for fluidized bed WtE plants and high calorific differently, a combination of these types was needed to define
fractions (F3.16) for the cement industry, as well as a stabilized the seven product categories used in this study. In general, for each
residual waste stream which can be landfilled (F3.17). part of the waste stream information both on the polymer compo-
The residues of mechanical recycling are treated thermally in sition and on the product categories was needed. However, this
the cement industry (F4.04). Furthermore, the remains of chemical was only available for the separately collected waste. Moreover,
recycling and incineration, which is the ash content of the plastics, the compositions of a few of these sorting fractions were specified
is present in the slag for chemical recycling (F4.06), is landfilled in to contain two polymers, so the market shares of the respective
the case of WtE plants (F4.08), or is present in the product in the polymers were used to differentiate between the two (Borealis,
cement industry (F4.10). 2016; Eurostat, 2016; PlasticsEurope, 2015). For the MSW and
Finally, it should be noted that this is a comprehensive over- BCW, no data on the polymer composition were available, so the
view of the possible flows of waste plastic packaging, and that polymer distribution in each of the product categories in these
not all waste flows and treatment options were in fact present in waste streams was derived from the data for the SCW.
2013, as can be seen in the results (see Section 3). The share of MSW which was incinerated directly, as opposed to
treated in an MBT plant, was available from ARA (2016). For the
2.3. Data sources and calculations BCW, this distribution was estimated from the capacities of the
MBT (BMLFUW, 2015; Neubauer and Öhlinger, 2008) and inciner-
Market research on packaging consumption and packaging ation plants (BMLFUW, 2015), subtracting the amounts of MSW
waste for 2013 was carried out by Hauer et al. (2015), providing treated there (BMLFUW, 2011). The transfer coefficients of plastics
information on the generation of plastic packaging waste sent to to the different process outputs of the MBT plant itself were deter-
the different disposal routes, subdivided with regard to various mined by Laner and Brunner (2008). The recycling efficiencies in
product types. The methods used for this analysis are discussed the mechanical recycling processes were provided by primary data
58 E. Van Eygen et al. / Waste Management 72 (2018) 55–64

from recycling facilities for food-grade PET, LDPE and EPS, whereas product categories separately are shown in Figs. S-3 to S-9 in the
for the other polymers these efficiencies were taken from Intini Supplementary data, where tables with the raw results behind
and Kühtz (2011) for PET to fiber, Franklin Associates (2011) for the figures are presented in detail as well (see Section S-3). The
HDPE, EASETECH (2012) for PP and PS, and Huysman et al. mass flows in the figures and text are represented by the mean
(2015) for mixed-plastics recycling. Finally, the amount of residues (with two significant digits) and relative standard deviation.
after incineration (i.e. the ash content) for PVC was taken from The total mass of waste plastic packaging in Austria amounted
Eggels et al. (2001), whereas for each of the seven other considered to 300,000 ± 3% t/a (tonnes per year, 103 kg) in 2013. The largest
polymers this was calculated from the elemental compositions of product categories were large and small films (both 24%), followed
these polymers, combined with the elemental transfer coefficients by small hollow bodies (17%), PET bottles (15%), others (13%), large
in incineration plants, as provided by Koehler et al. (2011). hollow bodies (6%), and large EPS (1%). Regarding the polymer
A detailed description of all input data values, their uncertainty composition of the product categories, PET bottles and EPS large
characterization and data source is provided in the Supplementary were by definition only composed of PET and EPS respectively.
data (Tables S-3 and S-4). The HDPE bottle caps of the PET bottles were counted towards
the others category, to be able to compare the results with other
3. Results sources which report on a pure PET basis (e.g. Kuczenski and
Geyer, 2010; WKO, 2014). The small hollow bodies consisted of
The results of the MFA are presented in Fig. 2 both on a per pro- mainly PP, followed by HDPE, PS, and minor amounts of PVC,
duct category and per polymer basis. The results for each of the whereas the composition of the large hollow bodies was

Fig. 2. Results of the material flow analysis for the total waste stream subdivided by (a) product category and (b) polymer. The values are given by the mean (2 significant
digits) and the relative standard deviation.
 E. Van Eygen et al. / Waste Management 72 (2018) 55–64 59

distributed about evenly between HDPE and PP. The large and and others (12%) to the same extent (see Fig. 4). The Sorting Rate
small films contained mostly LDPE with smaller amounts for of the total waste stream thus amounted to 34% ± 3%.
LLDPE, as well as minor amounts of PVC in the small films. Finally, MSW was largely treated directly in a grate WtE plant (84%),
the others category contained the whole range of polymers, with whereas for BCW this was distributed more evenly (51% to grate
mainly PET, LDPE and HDPE. All in all, this amounted to a WtE). The part passing through mechanical pretreatment first
total waste stream composition of mainly LDPE (46% ± 6%), was predominantly treated thermally in fluidized bed WtE plants
followed by PET (19% ± 4%), PP (14% ± 6%), HDPE (11% ± 6%), LLDPE (67%) or the cement industry (28%), whereas the final 5% was
(5% ± 5%), PS (3% ± 5%), EPS (2% ± 4%), and PVC (<1% ± 6%) (see also landfilled.
Fig. 6 further on). Fig. 5 displays the breakdown of the waste stream in terms of
Three indicators are subsequently used for describing the the final treatment processes. The overall Recycling Rate was cal-
extent to which materials are recirculated within the economy: culated to be 26% ± 7%, whereas 40% ± 3% was treated in WtE
the Collection Rate (the amount collected divided by the total plants and the remaining 33% ± 6% in the cement industry. Minor
waste amount), the Sorting Rate (the amount sorted and sent to amounts coming from residues from mechanical pre-treatment
the mechanical recycling processes divided by the total waste (as plastics) and WtE (as ashes) were landfilled (1% ± 6%). Although
amount, as defined by the EU for the targets, see Section 4.3 further plastics are used for chemical recycling in the steel industry in
on), and the Recycling Rate (the amount of re-granulate produced Austria, in 2013 no waste plastic packaging generated in Austria
at the mechanical recycling plant divided by the total waste was used. The Recycling Rates for the individual product categories
amount). These three rates are presented in Fig. 3 for each of the ranged from 68% for EPS large to 3% for others. The produced re-
product categories. It has to be noted that this definition of the granulate was used for 12% in food-grade applications (from PET
‘‘recycling rate” differs from the way this term is customarily bottles only), 87% in other single-polymer products, and 1% for
defined, as it is generally used to refer to the amount in the input products with mixed-polymer re-granulate. For PET bottles specif-
of the recycling plant (i.e. the Sorting Rate in this study) rather ically, 46% of the re-granulate was used for food-grade and 54% for
than in the output as defined here. However, we feel that the latter non-food-grade applications, which represents 21% and 24% of the
approach is more accurate in describing what these three rates PET bottles waste stream, respectively. However, this amount of
actually represent. PET bottles going to food-grade applications is to be seen as a
Of the total waste stream, 58% ± 3% was collected separately, lower limit value, as this distribution depends heavily on the mar-
whereas 30% ± 4% was discarded into the MSW and 12% ± 4% into ket situation. At the food-grade recycling plant not the whole
BCW. Especially films, EPS large and PET bottles were largely col- waste stream is prepared for food-grade applications, as a part is
lected separately (64–77%). In the sorting process, two groups of sold directly for the production of PET fibers, depending on the
product categories can be distinguished regarding the sorting effi- current demand.
ciencies (output of the storing plant sent for mechanical recycling The share incinerated in a WtE plant, compared to the cement
divided by the input into the sorting plant). On the one hand, PET industry, is related to the amount that is separately collected. Cat-
bottles and the categories of large products were sorted efficiently egories such as films small had a large Collection Rate but were
(73–88%). On the other hand, the sorting processes in place were rejected to a large extent at the sorting plant and thus ended up
not able to sort out small hollow bodies (47%), small films (34%) more in the cement industry, compared to the hollow bodies small

Fig. 3. Comparison of the Collection, Sorting and Recycling Rates, per product category in relation to the respective mass in the input. The respective rates for the total waste
stream are shown by the horizontal lines.
60 E. Van Eygen et al. / Waste Management 72 (2018) 55–64

Fig. 4. Efficiencies of the collection, sorting and mechanical recycling processes for each of the product groups. The respective results for the total waste stream are shown by
the horizontal lines.

Fig. 5. Final treatment of the product categories in relation to the respective mass in the input. The respective results for the total waste stream are shown by the horizontal
lines.

and large and others categories with a low Collection Rate and high The results for the seven polymers are closely correlated to
share in WtE plants. those for the product categories in which they are mainly used.
The results can also be presented on a per polymer basis. The EPS, LDPE, PET and LLDPE, which are primarily used in the cate-
Collection, Sorting and Recycling Rates are shown in Fig. S-10 in gories EPS large, films and PET bottles, thus had the highest Collec-
the Supplementary data, and the breakdown in terms of the final tion Rates (79–56%). Conversely, for HDPE, PP and PS, these rates
treatment processes is shown in Fig. S-11. Because of the low were progressively lower (45–33%). Within the sorting process,
amounts and therefore bad data quality of PVC in the input, the especially PET and LDPE had high sorting efficiencies of around
results of the PVC streams were not deemed to be reliable, so in 75%, followed by LDPE and HDPE (57% and 53%). PP, PS and EPS
the results PVC will not be discussed. however had lower sorting efficiencies (38–44%). All in all, looking
 E. Van Eygen et al. / Waste Management 72 (2018) 55–64 61

this study, the overall mechanical Recycling Rate for all eight pack-
aging polymers was calculated to be 26% ± 7%. This result is similar
to the value of 21% obtained in Van Eygen et al. (2017) for all plas-
tic wastes. However, the latter also contained production wastes,
which are mainly used for mechanical recycling, so the mechanical
Recycling Rate of post-consumer wastes is expected to be consid-
erably lower. It can thus be concluded that the packaging sector
has a relatively high Recycling Rate, compared to post-consumer
wastes from other consumption sectors such as building and con-
struction and electronics, which might be explained by the compo-
sition of the plastics in the latter sectors (i.e. higher use of
potentially problematic additives) and the long-standing legisla-
tion in place for the separate collection of packaging waste.
PlasticsEurope, the association of European plastics manufac-
turers, yearly reports data on plastics and the plastics industry.
For 2013, recycled amounts for waste plastic packaging in Austria
of around 29% were reported (PlasticsEurope, 2015), although it is
not clear if the Sorting Rate (34% ± 3% in this study), or the Recy-
cling Rate (26% ± 7% in this study) is meant. In a further report pre-
pared for PlasticsEurope however, the 34% ± 3% Sorting Rate found
in this study is confirmed (Consultic, 2015). Most of the EU coun-
Fig. 6. Comparison of the polymer composition for the year 2013 of plastic tries reported similar recycled amounts between 30 and 40%, and
packaging demand in Europe from PlasticsEurope (2015), and of waste plastic the main difference lies in the amount that is incinerated instead
packaging in Austria. of landfilled. In this regard, the countries with a landfill ban (i.e.
Austria, Luxembourg, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden,
Belgium, the Netherlands, and Norway) reported recycled and
at the final treatment, PET had the highest Recycling Rate (38% ± 7%),
incinerated amounts over 95% (PlasticsEurope, 2015), indicating
followed by EPS and LLDPE (30% ± 14%), LDPE (26% ± 15%), HDPE
the success of this legislation in diverting plastics away from land-
(23% ± 15%), PP (15% ± 15%), and PS (11% ± 14%). The rest was inciner-
fills. Furthermore, Eurostat (2017) reports the performance of the
ated roughly evenly in WtE plants and the cement industry for PET,
EU member states on the management of packaging waste. For
EPS, LLDPE and LDPE, whereas substantially more was treated
Austria in 2013, a somewhat lower waste plastic packaging
thermally in WtE plants for HDPE, PP and PS.
amount of 288,714 t/a is stated, compared to the 300,000 t/a in this
study. Thereof 99,258 t/a is reported to be sent for mechanical
4. Discussion recycling, amounting to a Sorting Rate of 34%, which is the same
result as calculated in this study (see Fig. 3).
4.1. Input composition Of the polymers and product types used in packaging, the flows
of PET and PET bottles have attracted the most attention in the sci-
The calculated composition of the incoming waste material in entific literature. According to Welle (2011), the amount of sold
Austria can be compared with statistics on the demand of plastic PET bottles in the EU that were collected has seen a spectacular
packaging by polymer for the EU27, Norway and Switzerland in increase over the past decades, with growth rates between 10
2013, obtained from PlasticsEurope (2015). To differentiate and 20% per year. In 2009, an average Collection Rate of 48% was
between LDPE and LLDPE, data from Eurostat (2016) and Borealis reached, with the highest Collection Rate achieved in Germany
(2016) were used (see also Section 2.3). This comparison, as dis- (94%, only for drinking bottles) because of the deposit system (cf.
played in Fig. 6, shows that in the waste in Austria, the share of 65% in Austria for all kinds of PET bottles from this study).
LDPE was substantially higher than in the demand across Europe, Although the USA started with much higher Collection Rates for
offset mainly by a lower share for HDPE and PP. PET bottles in the late nineties compared to those in the EU, these
The values in Fig. 6 can be expressed per capita as well, taking have only about doubled since then, resulting in a Collection Rate
into account the total amount of waste plastic packaging and of 28% in 2009 (Welle, 2011). This is confirmed by Kuczenski and
demand of plastic packaging respectively, which results in similar Geyer (2010), who conducted an MFA for PET in the USA for the
amounts of 35 kg/cap for Austria and 36 kg/cap for Europe. There- 1996–2007 time period, and concluded that although the collec-
fore, the same trends as was the case for the relative distribution tion of post-consumer PET bottles has indeed about doubled over
can be seen regarding the input composition. It is therefore clear this period, the amount going to domestic recyclers has not fol-
that in Austria, soft plastics used in films are overrepresented in lowed this trend, with an ever increasing amount being exported.
contrast to hard plastics, compared to Europe. Domestic Recycling Rates even declined from about 19% to about
11% because of the increase in waste PET exports. Finally, for Brazil
4.2. Comparison with related results and Japan, Collection Rates of 56 and 78% respectively were
reached in 2009 (Welle, 2011), whereas this was 85% in Switzer-
Van Eygen et al. (2017) discussed the flows of all plastics from land, with 26% of the PET bottles waste stream reprocessed into
all consumption sectors in 2010. Here, the amount of waste plastic new bottles (Haupt et al., 2016), compared to 21% in Austria.
packaging was determined to be 281,000 t/a including drink car-
tons, which were not taken into account in this study. Without 4.3. Circular economy and EU targets
these drink cartons, the waste plastic packaging amount for 2010
was 274,000 t/a, which corresponds to a growth rate of 8% over As mentioned in Section 1, member states of the EU need to
three years compared with the 300,000 ± 3% t/a calculated in this meet targets for waste packaging, with minimum recycling and
study. This is in the same range as the growth rate over this period recovery rates set for the overall waste stream as well as for five
of other streams in the plastic budget (Van Eygen et al., 2017). In individual materials. For plastics, since the end of 2008 the
62 E. Van Eygen et al. / Waste Management 72 (2018) 55–64

minimum target is defined to be 22.5% by weight, counting exclu- allowing a certain maximum amount of impurities in the sorted
sively material recycled back into plastics (EPC, 2004). In 2015, a waste stream, which are not subject to a final recycling process,
proposal was made which sees the target for waste plastic packag- to be counted towards the Sorting Rate. This has been suggested
ing rise to a minimum of 55% by the end of 2025. Furthermore, the in the new proposal of the EU directive, where an impurity content
calculation point for reporting the amount recycled will then be of up to 10% would be allowed (EC, 2015a). Including this maxi-
explicitly defined as the amount of waste entering the final recy- mum amount of impurities would lower the target to a minimum
cling process (i.e. the Sorting Rate as defined in this article), which of 49.5% (55%–10% ⁄ 55%) with respect to the actual amount of
is more or less equal to the interpretation which is currently used plastics in the input of the recycling process. This proposed limit
by most member states (EC, 2015a). The future clear definition of on the impurity content should also prevent cases, as reported
the targets is important, as up until now, the implementation of by EUWID (2014), where some sorting plants are listed as a recy-
the EU directive into national law was not carried out in a harmo- cling process, and therefore the total input of the sorting plant is
nized way. Moreover, member states have shown reluctance in counted as ‘‘recycled”, although often around 50% of this input goes
reporting the methods used to obtain the data on the recovery to incineration as sorting residues. The question remains though
and recycling targets, which makes comparisons between member how to accurately (and routinely) measure the impurity content
states even more challenging (Tsiarta et al., 2015). for reporting purposes.
Since 2006, the Austrian implementation of the EU directive has The calculation point of the targets remains of major impor-
adopted the same recycling target of 22.5% and uses the Sorting tance, as the closer this is placed towards the end of the recycling
Rate as calculation method (BMLFUW, 2006, 2014). As shown in chain (i.e. after the recycling plant), the more the actual amount of
Section 3 and in Fig. 3, a Sorting Rate of 34% ± 3% was reached in produced re-granulate is accounted for. As currently the calcula-
2013, thereby achieving the EU and Austrian targets. With respect tion point is placed before the recycling plant, increasing targets
to the proposed EU target of 55% by 2025, three product categories could lead to a decreasing purity of the material in the input, as
(EPS large, films large, PET bottles) currently have a Sorting Rate the system is incentivized to include more material in the outputs
around or above the required value, nevertheless major additional of the sorting plants. Therefore fewer impurities (non-plastics as
efforts will be needed to increase the collection and sorting effi- well as unwanted polymers) would be sorted out, causing higher
ciencies to reach this target for the overall waste stream. The cur- losses at the recycling plant as well as jeopardize the quality of
rent efficiencies for the collection, sorting and recycling processes the final re-granulate. Conversely, moving the calculation point
are shown in Fig. 4. towards the output of the recycling plant could nonetheless have
To illustrate the required process efficiencies to achieve the pro- adverse effects on the quality of the re-granulate as well, by
posed future target, a theoretical scenario was built by changing encouraging the shift of high-quality recycling with relatively high
the collection and sorting efficiencies for the seven product cate- losses to processes with lower-grade applications which can han-
gories up to a point where the required 55% of waste packaging dle higher amounts of impurities. In general, it is thus crucial to
enters a mechanical recycling process. The results of this effort consider the quality of the recycling products, besides the merely
are shown in Table 1. It was assumed that for PET bottles, collec- mass-based perspective of the recycling rates where including
tion (e.g. through a deposit system) and sorting (e.g. through impurities into the product is encouraged.
chemical markers) efficiencies towards food-grade recycling of This tendency of including impurities manifests itself at the
up to 90% could be reached. For the large and small hollow bodies, sorting process, where mixed-plastics streams can be generated
films large and EPS large, the same collection efficiency of 80% was at the sorting plant by design, which are subsequently recycled
set. The sorting efficiency of the large hollow bodies and films was into mixed-polymer re-granulate (used e.g. as a substitute for
set to 90%, whereas this was set to 70% for hollow bodies small and wood). However, the environmental benefits of these re-
50% for films small. The collection efficiency for films small and the granulates have been called into question (see e.g. Astrup et al.,
sorting efficiency of EPS large (already quite high), as well as both 2009; Corsten et al., 2010). The latter trend can be seen in the
values for the others category (most difficult category to collect Netherlands for example, where much higher targets are set than
and sort due to diversity), were not changed. The amount going in Austria (45% in 2015, rising each year to 51% in 2021, see
to mixed-plastics recycling was not changed as well, but this plays MIM, 2014) and therefore higher Sorting Rates of up to 50% in
a minor role (1% of the mass going to mechanical recycling). All in 2014 are reported (Eurostat, 2017). This has led the share of
all, a Sorting Rate of 55.8% is reached using these assumed efficien- mixed-polymer re-granulate to reach more than half of the pro-
cies and the waste stream characteristics of the status quo. duced re-granulate from household packaging waste (Nusselder
This effort shows that quite high values are needed to reach the and Odegard, 2016), compared to about 1% of all packaging waste
proposed target of 55%, and thus major improvements in both the in Austria.
collection system and sorting technologies will be necessary. This As a final note, moving the calculation point towards the output
is especially the case since the reported Sorting Rates in Austria of the recycling plant could increase the administrative burden for
have been stagnating over the past decade: 31% was already reporting, as it would require collecting data from the many indi-
reached in 2003 (Eurostat, 2017), compared to 34% ± 3% in 2013. vidual recycling companies, which can be located internationally.
The required efforts could be somewhat moderated however by

Table 1
5. Conclusion and outlook
Change of the collection and sorting efficiencies per product group from the status
quo to the future EU target scenario. The status quo of these values can be seen in
Fig. 4 as well. In this study, the management of waste plastic packaging
generated in Austria in 2013 was investigated using MFA on a
Product categories Collection efficiency (%) Sorting efficiency (%)
polymer and product category basis. The results show that around
PET bottles 65 ? 90 83 ? 90 300,000 ± 3% tonnes of waste plastic packaging were produced in
Hollow bodies small 45 ? 80 47 ? 70
Hollow bodies large 43 ? 80 73 ? 90
Austria in 2013, which corresponded to about 35 kg per capita
Films small 75 34 ? 50 and year. These were mainly composed of large and small films,
Films large 64 ? 80 86 ? 90 and small hollow bodies, including PET bottles. Correspondingly,
EPS large 77 ? 80 88 the polymer composition of the waste stream was dominated by
Others 33 12
LDPE (46% ± 6%), PET (19% ± 4%) and PP (14% ± 6%). Overall,
 E. Van Eygen et al. / Waste Management 72 (2018) 55–64 63

58% ± 3% of the waste stream was collected separately, whereas the BMLFUW, 2006. Verordnung des Bundesministers für Land- und Forstwirtschaft,
Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, mit der die VerpackVO 1996 geändert wird
rest was present in MSW and BCW. After sorting, 26% ± 7% of the
(VerpackVO-Novelle 2006) [Ordinance of the Federal Minister for Agriculture,
total waste plastic packaging stream was transformed into sec- Forestry, Environment and Water Management Amending the Packaging
ondary raw materials as re-granulates, whereas the rest was trea- Ordinance 1996]. Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik Österreich BGBl. II Nr.
ted in WtE plants (40% ± 3%) and the cement industry (32% ± 6%). 364/2006.
BMLFUW, 2011. Bundes-Abfallwirtschaftsplan [Federal Waste Management Plan].
The current target from the EU, as well as the Austrian imple- Vienna, Austria, Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und
mentation, were reached comfortably. However, to achieve the Wasserwirtschaft.
proposed increased target, major steps will be needed with respect BMLFUW, 2014. Verordnung des Bundesministers für Land- und Forstwirtschaft,
Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft über die Vermeidung und Verwertung von
to both collection and sorting of waste plastic packaging. More- Verpackungsabfällen und bestimmten Warenresten (Verpackungsverordnung
over, these targets, calculated with respect to the amount of waste 2014) [Ordinance of the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment
in the input of the mechanical recycling process, are not com- and Water Management on the Prevention and Recovery of Packaging Wastes
and Certain Waste Goods]. Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik Österreich BGBl.
pletely in line with the overall objective of the circular economy, II Nr. 184/2014.
namely to keep materials in the economy and prevent losses. To BMLFUW, 2015. Die Bestandsaufnahme der Abfallwirtschaft in Österreich
accurately assess the performance of the waste management sys- Statusbericht 2015 [Inventory of the Waste Management System in Austria
Status Report 2015]. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt
tem, it is thus recommended that the targets be calculated with und Wasserwirtschaft, Vienna, Austria.
respect to the actual output of the recycling process, provided that Borealis, 2016. Personal Communication with P. Kravanja: Borealis AG.
the quality of the output products is maintained, and separately for Brunner, P.H., Rechberger, H., 2004. Practical handbook of material flow analysis.
CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida.
mixed-polymer re-granulates. This ensures that the reported rates
Cencic, O., Rechberger, H., 2008. Material flow analysis with software STAN. J.
are not elevated by including more mixed-plastics streams or Environ. Eng. Manage. 18 (1), 3–7.
impurities after sorting, causing increased production of mixed- Consultic, 2015. Post-Consumer Plastic Waste Management in European Countries
polymer re-granulate, or increased losses in the recycling process, 2014 - EU 28 + 2 Countries. Consultic Marketing & Industrieberatung GmbH.
Report prepared for PlasticsEurope.
which would be counterproductive to the goals of the circular Corsten, M., Worrell, E., van Duin, A., Rouw, M., 2010. Saving Materials. Een
economy. Moving the calculation point would then in turn neces- verkenning van de potentiële bijdrage van duurzaam afval en recyclingbeleid
sitate reevaluating the proposed future recycling targets as well. aan broeikasgasemissiereductie in Nederland [An exploration of the potential
contribution of sustainable waste and recycling policy to the reduction of
Finally, moving beyond mass-based indicators is needed by greenhouse gases in the Netherlands]. Copernicus Instituut voor
assessing the waste management system with respect to environ- Milieuwetenschappen & Innovatie Studies. Utrecht, the Netherlands.
mental performance as well. After all, a major objective of the cir- EASETECH, 2012. Plastic (PP) to granulate, DK, 2000. EASETECH Database,
Department of Environmental Engineering, DTU.
cular economy is to reduce the environmental impacts of the EC, 2011. Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. COM(2011) 571. European
production and consumption system. Therefore, it is necessary to Commission. Brussels, Belgium.
assess the environmental performance of current waste plastic EC, 2015. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste. COM(2015)
packaging management as well as with respect to increasing tar- 596. European Commission. Brussels, Belgium.
gets. These considerations are subject to further research. EC, 2015. Closing the Loop - An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. COM
(2015) 614. European Commission. Brussels, Belgium.
EEA, 2014. Well-being and the Environment. Building a resource-efficient and
Acknowledgements
circular economy in Europe. European Environment Agency, Luxembourg.
Eggels, P., Ansems, A., van der Ven, B., 2001. Eco-efficiency of recovery scenarios of
The presented work is part of a large-scale research initiative on plastic packaging. R 2000/119. TNO Environment, Energy and Process
Innovation. Apeldoorn, The Netherlands.
anthropogenic resources (Christian Doppler Laboratory for Anthro-
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013. Towards the circular economy Vol. 1: Economic
pogenic Resources). The financial support of this research initiative and busineses rationale for an accelerated transition. http://www.
by the Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth and the ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications.
National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development EPC, 2004. Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging
is gratefully acknowledged. Industry partners co-financing the waste. Official J. Eur. Union L47, 26–31.
research center on anthropogenic resources are Altstoff Recycling EPC, 2015. Directive (EU) 2015/720 of the european parliament and of the council of
Austria AG (ARA), Borealis group, voestalpine AG, Wien Energie 29 April 2015 amending directive 94/62/EC as regards reducing the
consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags. Official J. Eur. Union L115, 11–15.
GmbH, Wiener Kommunal-Umweltschutzprojektgesellschaft Eurostat, 2016. Sold production, exports and imports by PRODCOM list (NACE rev.
GmbH, and Wiener Linien GmbH & Co KG. 2) - annual data. Accessed 27.07.16.
Eurostat, 2017. Packaging waste Accessed 14.06. 2017 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
web/waste/key-waste-streams/packaging.
Appendix A. Supplementary material EUWID, 2014. EU-Kommission will neue Methode zur Berechnung der
Recyclingquote etablieren [EU-Commission aims to establish a new method
for the calculation of recycling rates]. EUWID Recycling und Entsorgung 20, 3.
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
Franklin Associates, 2011. Life cycle inventory of 100% postconsumer HDPE and PET
the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11. recycled resin from postconsumer containers and packaging. Franklin
040. Associates, a Division of ERG. Priaire Village, Kansas.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M., Hultink, E.J., 2016. The circular
economy–a new sustainability paradigm? J. Cleaner Prod. https://doi.org/
References 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A review on circular economy: the
ARA, 2016. Personal communication with D. Schuch: Altstoff Recycling Austria AG. expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic
Astrup, T., Fruergaard, T., Christensen, T.H., 2009. Recycling of plastic: accounting of systems. J. Cleaner Prod. 114, 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Manage. Res. 27 2015.09.007.
(8), 763–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X09345868. Gregory, M.R., 2009. Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine
Barnes, D.K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M., 2009. Accumulation and settings—entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and
fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B alien invasions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 364 (1526), 2013–2025. https://doi.org/
364 (1526), 1985–1998. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0205. 10.1098/rstb.2008.0265.
BIO Intelligence Service, Institute for Social Ecology, and Sustainable Europe Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Heinz, M., 2015. How circular is the
Research Institute, 2012. Assessment of resource efficiency indicators and global economy? An assessment of material flows, waste production, and
targets. Final report prepared for the European Commission, DG Environment. recycling in the European union and the world in 2005. J. Ind. Ecol. 19 (5), 765–
BMLFUW, 2004. Verordnung des Bundesministers für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, 777. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12244.
Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, mit der die Deponieverordnung geändert wird Hashimoto, S., Moriguchi, Y., 2004. Proposal of six indicators of material cycles for
[Ordinance of the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and describing society’s metabolism: from the viewpoint of material flow analysis.
Water Management Amending the Landfill Ordinance]. Bundesgesetzblatt für Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 40 (3), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449
die Republik Österreich BGBl. II Nr. 49/2004. (03)00070-3.
64 E. Van Eygen et al. / Waste Management 72 (2018) 55–64

Hauer, T.B., Nielsen, A.C., ÖIV, 2015. Verpackungsaufkommen in Österreich 2013: Nusselder, S., Odegard, I.Y.R., 2016. Wat redt een Plastic Hero? De milieuvoordelen
Endbericht [Arising of Packaging in Austria 2013: Final Report]. Confidential van kunststof recycling vertaald voor de consument [What does a Plastic Hero
Report. Altstoff Recycling Austria. Korneuburg, Austria. save? The environmental benefits of plastics recycling translated for the
Haupt, M., Vadenbo, C., Hellweg, S., 2016. Do we have the right performance consumer]. CE Delft. Delft, the Netherlands.
indicators for the circular economy?: insight into the swiss waste management Phyllis2, 2016. Database for biomass and waste Accessed 09.09. 2016. Energy
system. J. Ind. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12506. research center of the Netherlands https://www.ecn.nl/phyllis2.
Huysman, S., Debaveye, S., Schaubroeck, T., De Meester, S., Ardente, F., Mathieux, F., PlasticsEurope, 2015. Plastics – The facts 2014/2015. An analysis of European
Dewulf, J., 2015. The recyclability benefit rate of closed-loop and open-loop plastics production, demand and waste data. Association of Plastics
systems: A case study on plastic recycling in Flanders. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Manufacturers. Brussels, Belgium.
101, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.014. Preston, F., 2012. A Global Redesign? Shaping the Circular Economy. Energy,
Intini, F., Kühtz, S., 2011. Recycling in buildings: an LCA case study of a thermal Environment and Resource Governance, Chatham House.
insulation panel made of polyester fiber, recycled from post-consumer PET Ritch, E., Brennan, C., MacLeod, C., 2009. Plastic bag politics: modifying consumer
bottles. Int. J. Life Cycle Assessment 16 (4), 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/ behaviour for sustainable development. Int. J. Consumer Stud. 33 (2), 168–174.
s11367-011-0267-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00749.x.
Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, Sakai, S.-I., Yoshida, H., Hirai, Y., Asari, M., Takigami, H., Takahashi, S., Tomoda, K.,
R., Law, K.L., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347 Peeler, M.V., Wejchert, J., Schmid-Unterseh, T., Douvan, A.R., Hathaway, R.,
(6223), 768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352. Hylander, L.D., Fischer, C., Oh, G.J., Jinhui, L., Chi, N.K., 2011. International
Klinglmair, M., Zoboli, O., Laner, D., Rechberger, H., Astrup, T.F., Scheutz, C., 2016. comparative study of 3R and waste management policy developments. J. Mater.
The effect of data structure and model choices on MFA results: A comparison of Cycles Waste Manage. 13 (2), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-011-
phosphorus balances for Denmark and Austria. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 109, 0009-x.
166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.03.009. Tabone, M.D., Cregg, J.J., Beckman, E.J., Landis, A.E., 2010. Sustainability metrics: life
Koehler, A., Peyer, F., Salzmann, C., Saner, D., 2011. Probabilistic and technology- cycle assessment and green design in polymers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (21),
specific modeling of emissions from municipal solid-waste incineration. 8264–8269. https://doi.org/10.1021/es101640n.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (8), 3487–3495. https://doi.org/10.1021/es1021763. Teuten, E.L., Saquing, J.M., Knappe, D.R., Barlaz, M.A., Jonsson, S., Björn, A., Rowland,
Kuczenski, B., Geyer, R., 2010. Material flow analysis of polyethylene terephthalate S.J., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., Yamashita, R., Ochi, D., Watanuki, Y., Moore,
in the US, 1996–2007. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (12), 1161–1169. https://doi. C., Viet, P.H., Tana, T.S., Prudente, M., Boonyatumanond, R., Zakaria, M.P.,
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.03.013. Akkhavong, K., Ogata, Y., Hirai, H., Iwasa, S., Mizukawa, K., Hagino, Y., Imamura,
Laner, D., Brunner, P.H., 2008. Kriterien zur Trennung von Siedlungsabfall aus A., Saha, M., Takada, H., 2009. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics
Industrie und Gewerbe als Voraussetzung zur Zuordnung zu to the environment and to wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 364 (1526), 2027–
Behandlungsverfahren [Criteria for the Separation of Residual Waste from 2045. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0284.
Industry and Business as a Prerequisite for the Selection of Treatment Tsiarta, C., Rodrigo, J., Puig, I., 2015. Final Implementation Report for the Directive
Processes]. Vienna, Austria, Institut für Wassergüte, Ressourcenmanagement 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste. Report prepared for DG
und Abfallwirtschaft, TU Wien. Environment, European Commission under Study Contract DG ENV.C.2/FRA/
Laner, D., Feketitsch, J., Rechberger, H., Fellner, J., 2016. A novel approach to 2013/0023. Bristol, UK.
characterize data uncertainty in material flow analysis and its application to Van Eygen, E., Feketitsch, J., Laner, D., Rechberger, H., Fellner, J., 2017.
plastics flows in Austria. J. Ind. Ecol. 20 (5), 1050–1063. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Comprehensive analysis and quantification of national plastic flows: The case
jiec.12326. of Austria. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 117, 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Lieder, M., Rashid, A., 2016. Towards circular economy implementation: a resconrec.2016.10.017.
comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. J. Cleaner Prod. Welle, F., 2011. Twenty years of PET bottle to bottle recycling—an overview. Resour.
115, 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (11), 865–875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
MIM, 2014. Besluit van 27 oktober 2014, houdende regels voor verpakking en resconrec.2011.04.009.
verpakkingsafval (Besluit beheer verpakkingen 2014) [Decree of 27 October Winans, K., Kendall, A., Deng, H., 2017. The history and current applications of the
2014, laying down regulations for packaging and packaging waste]. Ministerie circular economy concept. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 68, 825–833. https://
van Infrastructuur en Milieu, Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, p. doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.123.
409. WKO, 2014. Lösungen für die Zukunft. Nachhaltigkeitsagenda der österreichischen
Moriguchi, Y., 2007. Material flow indicators to measure progress toward a sound Getränkewirtschaft. Umsetzungsbericht. [Solutions for the future.
material-cycle society. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 9 (2), 112–120. https:// Sustainability agenda of the Austrian beverage industry. Implementation
doi.org/10.1007/s10163-007-0182-0. report.]. Wirtschaftskammer Österreich. Vienna, Austria.
Neubauer, C., Öhlinger, A., 2008. Mechanische Abfallbehandlung (MA) von World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and McKinsey & Company,
gemischten Siedlungs- und Gewerbeabfällen in Österreich: Anlagenstandorte 2016. The New Plastics Economy – Rethinking the future of plastics. http://
2007 [Mechanical Waste Treatment of Mixed Household and Commercial www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications.
Wastes in Austria: Plant Locations 2007]. Umweltbundesamt, Vienna, Austria.