Waste Management 174 (2024) 605–617

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

A model to assess the environmental and economic impacts of municipal

waste management in Europe
P.F. Albizzati a, *, G. Foster b, P. Gaudillat b, S. Manfredi c, D. Tonini b
a
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate S: Scientific Development Programmes Unit, Edificio Expo, Calle Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Seville, Spain
b
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate B: Circular Economy and Sustainable Industry Unit, Edificio Expo, Calle Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Seville,
Spain
c
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate D: Land Resources and Supply Chain Assessments Unit, Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The Monitoring Framework proposed in the EU27 New Circular Economy Action Plan comprises two mass-based
Impact assessment indicators, namely overall recycling rate and recycling rate for specific waste streams. Yet, to monitor and assess
Recycling the impacts of circular economy, indicators cannot be limited to mass-based indicators; we argue assessments
Waste collection
should also include environmental and economic effects. Towards this end, these impacts can be quantified by an
Waste LCA
LCC
advanced model based on life cycle thinking, entailing the use of life cycle assessment and costing (LCA/LCC).
Waste generation Calculating these effects for municipal waste management is challenging due to gaps in available data for
estimating generated waste. We propose a methodology to estimate more finely the amounts of waste generated
in the Member States, complemented with LCA/LCC. The results highlight that important inconsistencies in
municipal waste data reporting exist and that recycling rates calculated from these are lower than hitherto
estimated. The impacts quantification shows great performance variation across EU27, with C-footprint ranging
from − 490 to 539 kg CO2-eq. t− 1. Potentials for improvement are substantial and can bring up to 103 Mt CO2-eq.
additional annual saving, reducing costs (calculated as Full Environmental LCC) of waste management by 8.4
billion EUR and bringing 206,100 new jobs in the sector. The approach presented highlights the rationale for
improved data management on waste statistics and the potential for harmonised models. It also paves the way for
more sophisticated impact analyses relevant for policymaking, by bringing a richer perspective to the environ­
mental and economic impacts of waste management on top of tracking generated, collected and recycled waste
flows.

1. Introduction generation), Waste management, Secondary raw materials, Competi­

tiveness and innovation, and Global sustainability and resilience
Circular Economy (CE) is at the heart of the European Green Deal. To (Eurostat, 2023a). Regarding Waste management, the Monitoring
accelerate the circular transition, a New Circular Economy Action Plan Framework comprises two sets of indicators, namely: overall recycling
(CEAP) has been launched containing thirty-five actions (European rate (i.e. total municipal waste recycled per MS and at EU27 level), and
Commission, 2020). These cover new policy actions tackling products recycling rate for specific waste streams (i.e. recycling rate of packaging
and services throughout their life cycle from production to end-of-life, waste, plastic packaging and waste of electrical and electronic equip­
and improved monitoring. Monitoring is essential for two reasons: i) ment - per MS and at EU27 level) (Eurostat, 2023b). The calculation of
to assess progress towards the targets and warn Member States (MS) at these indicators requires robust statistics and harmonisation across MSs
risk of not achieving them, and ii) to assess the economic, environmental to report on the amounts of municipal waste generated, collected,
and social impacts of enforced policies or new policy proposals (ex-post recycled, recovered and disposed.
or ex-ante impact assessment; European Commission, 2021). The Monitoring and assessing the impacts of CE, however, cannot be
Monitoring Framework for CE is based on European statistics and pro­ reduced to the list of indicators in the existing CE Monitoring Frame­
vides indicators on: Production and consumption (including waste work, notably recycling rates for waste. While these inform on amounts

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: paola.ALBIZZATI@ec.europa.eu (P.F. Albizzati).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2023.12.029
Received 11 August 2023; Received in revised form 11 December 2023; Accepted 12 December 2023
Available online 25 December 2023
0956-053X/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
P.F. Albizzati et al. Waste Management 174 (2024) 605–617

of material recycled/recovered, broader environmental, economic and collected and generated amounts while ensuring the mass balance; ii)
social effects are not captured, from greenhouse gas (GHG) emission quantifying substance, material, and energy flows as well as related
reduction to investment needed or made, jobs, etc. To capture these impacts for a wide set of environmental, economic and social indicators
wider and complex effects, advanced models are required based on life under current and future conditions in the EU; and iii) a flexible
cycle thinking (Christensen et al., 2020; Sala et al., 2016). Currently, modelling environment to incorporate at any time additional technology
attempts are being made to develop models of this kind at EU level. An models (e.g. chemical recycling, new sorting or collection technologies)
example is the Consumption Footprint calculator developed by the and novel data on waste material streams.
JRC to assess the impacts of consumption (including end-of-life) at in­ To close these gaps, and build upon the EU-RMW by the EEA (Eionet,
dividual, regional or national level (European Commission, 2023a, 2018), we herein develop a model to assess municipal waste manage­
2023b). This tool, because of its naturally broader life cycle perspective, ment impacts in the EU and apply it to illustrate the environmental and
provides a picture of consumption-induced impacts but does not zoom in economic impacts of current management (as of year 2020); yet, the
on waste material streams, their physico-chemical properties, technol­ model can be used for both ex-ante and ex-post analyses to support the
ogies, and consequences incurred by specific management pathways. A assessment of changes in the policy mix. To this end we: i) propose a
more targeted model specifically developed to assess the impacts of methodology to build on the municipal waste data reported by MSs to
waste management is the ‘EU reference model on municipal waste’ Eurostat so as to derive sound collected and generated waste amounts;
(from now onwards abbreviated as EU-RMW for simplicity), developed ii) develop material flow analyses (MFA) of municipal waste manage­
by consultants on behalf of the European Commission throughout ment across EU; iii) model waste collection and technologies based on
2013–2015 and subsequently updated on behalf of the EEA throughout state-of-the-art knowledge available from scientific literature and
2015–2018 (Eionet, 2018). The model is built on a spreadsheet-based ongoing work at the JRC; and iv) assess a wider set of impact indicators
calculator allowing calculations of greenhouse gas emissions, financial (16 for environment, three for economics, employment, recycling rates
costs, external costs and employment. The model uses the EU statistics for individual materials and for total municipal waste) with the option to
on waste from Eurostat as a basis (Eionet, 2018), projects waste gener­ flexibly incorporate more.
ation quantities based on MS’ projections or on econometric forecasting The results obtained from the model may be used to answer, for
models. The EU waste statistics reported in Eurostat represent an example, the following questions. How much municipal packaging waste is
important source of data to measure progress in the CE context. Eurostat generated, collected, and recycled every year in Austria? What type of in­
data are the backbone of the EU-RMW, and have also been the basis for vestment is needed to divert a share of the waste that is currently incinerated
different analyses on the status of circular economy in Europe, such as in to recycling? How will this affect GHG emissions, employment, and costs of
Colasante et al. (2022) and Chioatto and Sospiro (2023). To model waste the EU waste management industry, and who will be affected? We use the
treatments, a set of fixed technologies (collection and transportation, software EASETECH to facilitate the modelling, as it provides a flexible
landfill, incinerator, mechanical–biological treatment, sorting, generic modelling software for these purposes. However, the underlying maths
recycling) is available to the user with a set of pre-defined efficiencies. and data are fully available to the interested reader to replicate the
The EU-RMW was used to assist the amendment of the EU Waste modelling in any other suitable software. The model has been used to
Framework Directive in 2018 to quantify the estimated impacts of new assist the Commission on the assessment of the impacts of enforcing
recycling targets. In the intention of the developers, this tool transcribed harmonised waste bin labels and commingling schemes across EU27
into a simplified excel-spreadsheet the main features available in more (Albizzati et al., 2023a, 2023b). Further, the proposed methodology and
complex waste software such as WRATE (Wrate, 2017) or EASETECH the results of the analysis are used to provide guidance to MSs’ envi­
(Clavreul et al., 2014), which, essentially, both provide a flexible ronment agencies to improve municipal waste data reporting.
modelling environment for waste management systems and quantifica­
tion of associated impacts. 2. Materials and methods
EASETECH was used by Andreasi Bassi et al. (2017) to assess the
environmental impacts according to 11 indicators based on the char­ 2.1. Handling municipal waste data from Eurostat (generated versus
acterisation factors ILCD v 1.0.6 (Climate Change, Eutrophication collected)
freshwater, terrestrial, and marine, Acidification, Human Toxicity
carcinogenic and non–, Ecotoxicity, Particulate Matter, Depletion of The model herein presented focuses on the management of munic­
abiotic fossil resources and of abiotic mineral resources) of the munic­ ipal waste (MW), as defined in Directive 2008/98/EC. The underlying
ipal waste management in Germany, United Kingdom, France, Denmark, data for the material flow analysis is based on the data provided by MSs
Italy, Poland, and Greece. The software has also been used to assess the following the reporting obligations under the Waste Framework Direc­
environmental impacts and costs of specific waste streams in selected tive (Article 37). In accordance with the legal requirements laid down in
regions, e.g. food waste in Amsterdam (Tonini et al., 2020) and in a Commission Implementing Decisions 2019/1004/EU, 2019/1885/EU,
region of Denmark (Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2015). Another study of and 2011/753/EU, MSs need to report data on MW following the
interest for the EU is that by Bijleveld et al. (2022) where the authors Eurostat and OECD Joint Questionnaire (Eurostat, 2021). As part of the
quantify the potential GHG emission reduction offered by the EU waste questionnaire, MSs are required to report the amounts of both generated
management system. However, the study only addresses GHG emission and collected waste for: metals, glass, plastic, paper and cardboard, bio-
and (partially) costs and the underlying model is not made publically waste, bio-waste separated and recycled at source (i.e., non-centralised
available. Beyond the EU, the optimisation-focused model of Levis et al. composting), wood, textiles, electrical and electronic equipment, bat­
(2013) aims at finding optimal management solutions for selected waste teries, bulky waste, mixed waste, and other. It is important that MSs
streams using multi-objective mathematical optimization. This model correctly report generated and collected amounts to be able to monitor
was mainly applied in US case studies but also in Martinez-Sanchez et al. countries in the achievement of set targets, but also to identify where
(2017) to assess the marginal cost and impacts of increasing recycling technological or policy improvements and better consumer awareness
while diverting waste away from incineration. We have no records of are needed.
this model being applied to assess impacts on large (national) scales. Due to legal requirements, MSs generally know collected amounts of
Based on the literature review, we conclude that among existing MW, while generated amounts might be unknown. In addition, MSs may
tools, the best suited to model the impacts of EU waste management report collected waste as generated when no available data to estimate
systems is the EU-RMW. However, this lacks many important features the latter are available, pursuant to Commission Implementing Decision
that are required for state-of-the-art assessments, notably: i) a rigorous 2019/1004/EU. To identify whether the data reported by a MS reflects
methodology to use the EU data on municipal waste to calculate collected or generated waste, we set a threshold value for the ratio of

606
P.F. Albizzati et al. Waste Management 174 (2024) 605–617

mixed waste (composed of non-recyclable fractions that are not sepa­ WMW,other = WMW,R − WMW (4)
rately collected, e.g., cigarette butts, diapers, sanitary products, etc.) on
the total waste generated, equal to 25 %. When the reported mixed The model herein proposed is applied in impact assessments, which,
waste exceeds this threshold, we assume that the MS is reporting the either retrospectively or prospectively, assess policy scenarios. When
collected waste (instead of the generated) and vice versa. Indeed, performing a prospective impact assessment, the amount of waste
compositional analyses typically show that the mixed waste does not generated and collected needs to be forecasted. In such situations, we
exceed 10–20 % (in the worst case) of the generated municipal waste propose to use a linear econometric model, as explained in section S2 of
(section S1.6 of the Supporting Information - SI). For the cases when the the SI (but please keep in mind that we are not performing forecasting in
collected waste is reported, we propose a methodology (illustrated in this specific study).
Fig. 1) that allows estimating generated amounts from collected ones.
The methodology follows a stepwise approach that is herein summar­ 2.2. Modelling waste related processes
ised, while its thorough description can be found in section S1 (SI).
As first step, the amount of generated waste of a specific waste flow With the methodology presented in section 2.1, the user can define
(W(i)G) is calculated as the ratio of the reported amount of collected collection systems for each MS specifying the coverage of mono-stream
waste (W(i)CIMP), which is inclusive of its impurities, and the corre­ collection (i.e., separate collection of recyclables by nature and type
sponding collection rate (CRW(i)) (1). strictly in line with Directive 2008/98/EC), commingled collection (i.e.,
CRW(i) = W(i)CIMP /W(i)G the collection of two or more recyclable waste flows together; Albizzati
(1) et al., 2023b), and of DRS on specific waste flows, namely glass, plastic,
→W(i)G = W(i)CIMP /CRW(i)
and metals (section S4.7, SI). Depending on the collection system, the
The second step entails defining the average collection scheme in place share of target waste and impurities is defined based on literature data
in a specific MS per waste flow. In this study, the average collection (see section S1, SI). With respect to the inventory used, this originates
schemes were based on the information reported in the EEA’s Early from recent studies conducted by the same or other authors, as reported
Warning Assessment reports (EEA, 2022), which results are displayed in in Table 1 and section S4 of the SI.
section S1.1.2 of the SI based on the outcomes of Albizzati et al. (2023a). Collected recyclables (i.e., plastic, metal, glass, paper and cardboard,
The third step is to estimate the material fractional composition of wood, and bio-waste) are then transported to sorting facilities, where
the collected waste flow as targeted waste W(i)C (e.g., when collecting material-specific recovery rates, fuel and energy consumption data are
paper and cardboard, this would be the share of paper and cardboard based on literature (Table 1 and section S4, SI). Notice that the recovery
found in the collected waste) and impurities (e.g., materials other than rates include both sorting and recycling losses, except for plastic recy­
paper and cardboard found in the collected paper and cardboard waste). cling for which the two are maintained separate. Paper and cardboard,
The proportion of targeted waste and impurities (purity level) depends glass, metals, plastic, and wood that have been correctly segregated
on the collection scheme in place, which also affects the fractional undergo recycling, while properly segregated bio-waste undergoes bio­
composition of the mixed waste, where great amounts of bio-waste and logical treatment, which is modelled as composting (assumed as a
dry recyclables can be found due to mis-throws. The assumptions made windrow composting plant), anaerobic digestion (assumed as a ther­
on the share of targeted waste and impurities are based on Albizzati mophilic digester) and a combination of the two according to the figures
et al. (2023b) and reported in section S1.1.3 of the SI. in ECN (2021).
The fourth step entails estimating the fractional composition of the Finally, treatment of mixed waste and residues involves operations
target waste (e.g. share of magazines, other paper, etc. found in paper such as mechanical biological treatment,1 incineration, or landfilling.
and cardboard collected) and of the impurities (e.g. share of flexible
plastic, glass, etc. found in paper and cardboard collected) based on the 2.3. Modelling background system
country’s compositional analysis. As for most of the MSs this informa­
tion was lacking, we assumed that the composition reported in Edjabou Processes to describe the background system (i.e., resource and
et al. (2021) was valid for all EU countries. Hence, by combining steps 2- materials used by the foreground system) are taken from external
to-4, one can derive how much of target waste and impurities are found datasets, mainly ecoinvent (Wernet et al., 2016). However, the model is
in, for example, paper and cardboard separately collected and paper and prepared to work with alternative datasets, e.g., from the Environmental
cardboard mis-sorted in plastic separately collected. Yet, the quantifi­ Footprint database (European Commission, 2023b). Drawing upon the
cation of the amount of, for example, paper and cardboard found in literature on waste-LCA, energy mixes are known to be particularly
mixed waste still needs to be quantified. To achieve this, the next step is important to the results. The energy mixes for electricity and heat,
required. calculated as either average mixes or marginal mixes (details on how to
The fifth step estimates the composition of mixed waste. This can be calculate marginal mixes are provided in Weidema, 2003; Weidema
quantified by applying Eq. (2), where W(i)C is the amount of target et al., 2009), could be calculated on the basis of GECO2 (Keramidas
waste (i) collected, W(i)MS is the amount of waste (i) mis-sorted, W(i)G is et al., 2022), which provides a global picture of the forecasted trans­
the amount of waste (i) generated, and W(i)MW is the amount of waste (i) formation of energy markets under the concurrent interactions of
found in mixed waste. technological innovation, climate policies and economic development.
We here apply the average electricity and space heat mix for EU27
W(i)G = W(i)C + W(i)MS + W(i)MW
(2) calculated for the year 2020 from the GECO.
→W(i)MW = W(i)G − W(i)C − W(i)MS

By applying Eq. (2) to all waste flows (i = [1…n]), it is possible to es­ 2.4. Assessment of environmental and economic impacts
timate the amount of waste (that should have been separately collected)
in the mixed waste (Eq. (3)). This information can be combined with the The life cycle assessment (LCA) is performed in accordance with the
reported amount of mixed waste (WMW,R) to quantify the amount of the guidelines of the ISO 14040/14044 standards (ISO 2006a, 2006b). The
remaining material flows (WMW,other; e.g. animal excrements, sanitary
products, etc.) (Eq. (4)). 1
In few MSs (namely Austria, Germany, Italy and Spain), mixed waste is first
∑ transported to a centralised sorting facility for mixed waste (at times called
n
WMW = W(i)MW (3)
mechanical biological treatment; MBT) prior to incineration or landfilling.
i=1 2
Global Energy and Climate Outlook.

607
P.F. Albizzati et al. Waste Management 174 (2024) 605–617

Fig. 1. Representation of the methodology for calculating “waste generated” amounts from “waste collected” amounts as reported by Member States to Eurostat. The
following acronyms are used: “CRW(i)” Collection rate of waste(i); “W(i)C” Waste(i) collected; “W(i)CIMP” Waste(i) collected with impurities; “W(i)G” Waste(i)
generated; “W(i)MS” Waste(i) collected as mis-sorting in other waste streams; “W(i)MW” Waste(i) collected with mixed waste. .
Adapted from Pierri et al. (2023)

on the underlying life cycle impact assessment methods of the consid­

Table 1
ered impact categories can be found in Andreasi Bassi et al. (2023).
Overview of the literature used to model the processes included in the analysis.
The life cycle costing (LCC) is carried out in accordance with ap­
Note that “SI” stands for Supporting Information.
proaches for waste management economics as described in Hunkeler
Process References Details
et al. (2008) and Martinez-Sanchez et al. (2015). The LCC shares the
Collection ADEME (2021), Andreasi Bassi et al. Details provided same goal, scope, functional unit and system boundaries as the LCA.
(2022), ACR+ (2021), Bain and in section S4.1, SI Herein, we perform an Environmental LCC,3 where internal (financial)
Utilitalia (2018), COLLECTORS (2020),
FEVE (2012), Gredmaier et al. (2013),
costs4 and externalities5 that are internalised (e.g. environmental taxes)
ISPRA (2021), Jaunich et al. (2016), are included (Hoogmartens et al., 2014). The analysis is further
Larsen et al. (2009), NVRD (2021) expanded to what is known as a Full Environmental LCC,6 where in­
Transport Albizzati et al., (2023a), Andreasi Bassi Details provided ternal costs and monetised environmental externalities are included
et al. (2022), Reid (2020) in section S4.2, SI
(Hoogmartens et al., 2014). Monetised environmental externalities are
Sorting Andreasi Bassi et al. (2022), Details provided
Antonopoulos et al. (2021), Bisinella in section S4.3, SI reflected by shadow prices, which are herein based on Bijleveld et al.
et al. (2018), Eunomia (2019), Pressley (2018) that include prices for air/water/soil emissions but not, for
et al. (2015), European Commission example, time spent segregating waste, accidents, and other social costs.
(2022) Note that any externality priced in as a tax, for example, becomes a
Recycling Andreasi Bassi et al. (2022), Details provided
transfer. Yet, attention needs to be placed on whether the tax covers the
Antonopoulos et al. (2021), Rigamonti in section S4.3, SI
et al. (2009), Eunomia (2019), ISPRA entire shadow price or not, to avoid double-counting when internalising
(2021), Kägi (2017a), Kägi (2017b), environmental externalities. Finally, to be consistent with the LCA, costs
Rigamonti (2007), Skjern Papirfabrik or externalities occurring in the future are neither discounted nor cor­
(2005)
rected for inflation.
Home composting Tonini et al. (2018) Details provided
in section S4.4, SI
Centralised Boldrin et al. (2009), Tonini et al. Details provided 2.5. Model’s advancements and limitations
composting (2020), Yoshida et al. (2016) in section S4.4, SI
Anaerobic Tonini et al. (2018), Tonini et al. Details provided
digestion (2020), Yoshida et al. (2016) in section S4.4, SI
The model herein presented builds upon the EU-RMW by the EEA
Mechanical Eionet (2018), Montejo et al. (2013), Details provided (Eionet, 2018) and aims to support the assessment of changes in the
biological Tonini et al. (2020) in section S4.5, SI policy mix, while striving to overcome some of the EU-RMW limitations.
treatment Specifically, relative to the EU-RMW, this model enables the user to be
Incineration Albizzati et al. (2021), Andreasi Bassi Details provided
more flexible in: i) achieving sound quantification of collected and
et al. (2022), EEA (2022) in section S4.6, SI
Landfilling Andreasi Bassi et al. (2022), EEA Details provided generated amounts of municipal waste, disaggregated by composition
(2022), Olesen and Damgaard (2014) in section S4.6, SI

3
Notice that in other publications from the same authors, this has been
life cycle impact assessment method herein applied is the Environmental referred to as conventional life cycle costing (CLCC).
Footprint Life Cycle Impact Assessment method (EF, v3.0) (EC-JRC, 4
Internal costs are costs incurred by the current economic system and they
2012). It includes 16 impact categories, namely: Climate Change; Ozone include budget costs and transfers (i.e. redistribution of money among different
Depletion; Human Toxicity (cancer and non-cancer); Particulate Matter; stakeholders, e.g. taxes, subsidies, value added tax, and fees).
Ionising Radiation; Photochemical Ozone Formation; Acidification; 5
Externalities are costs that are currently not accounted for in the economic
Eutrophication (terrestrial, freshwater, and marine); Ecotoxicity; Land system, and they represent the cost caused by emissions to society.
6
Use; Water Use; Resource Use (fossil, and minerals and metals). Details Notice that in other publication from the same authors, this has been
referred to as societal life cycle costing (SLCC).

608
P.F. Albizzati et al. Waste Management 174 (2024) 605–617

and per country; ii) performing detailed modelling of waste collection for France and the material composition of the German generated
and treatment processes, including any new technology; iii) assessing a municipal waste. The second iteration entails changing the collection
wider set of impact indicators (16 for environment, three for economics, rates reported in EEA (2022) to the ones that can be calculated starting
employment, recycling rates for individual materials and for total from the recycling rates reported in Eurostat adjusted by sorting and
municipal waste) with the option to flexibly incorporate more; iv) recycling losses (i.e. 15 % for bio-waste, and 22 % for plastic, as reported
changing at any time background LCI data; v) changing at any time cost in EXPRA, 2014) uniformly across MSs. The third iteration only focuses
data; and v) easily performing global sensitivity analyses (stochastic, on adjustments for France and Germany, as these MSs contribute with
analytical, discernibility). A summary of advancements of our model 38 % to the total municipal waste generated in EU27. This was done
with respect to the EU-RMW is provided in Table S19 (SI). since - as reported in EEA (2022) - France reports the amounts of
With respect to the limitations of our proposed model, in its current collected paper and cardboard, metal, and plastic only as mono-streams,
version it is not prepared to assess broader CE scenarios that may lead to although the majority is commingled. Further, Germany severely under-
waste reduction or other changes in waste flows, such as sharing econ­ reports the amount of plastic waste generated and collected. Indeed,
omy or product life extension, or to distinguish different collection considering the amounts reported in the questionnaire, Germany would
modes (e.g., kerbside) and urban structures. Further, macroeconomic only produce 15 kg of plastic waste per capita per year, which is in
and related rebound effects are also not quantified in the current version conflict with the one estimated from Umwelt Bundesamt (2021)
of the model. Finally, as for the EU-RMW, the model herein presented is (approx. 64 kg of plastic waste per capita per year), and is far from the
also based on linear cost functions, which does not allow to account for calculated average EU27 (i.e. 46 kg of plastic waste per capita per year).
the effect of decreasing gains in the selective collection schemes and the The total amount of municipal waste was preserved, while the compo­
potential worsening in quality of collected materials when increasing sition of the generated waste was changed according to the figures in
collection rates. Zhang et al. (2021). Hence, these adjustments were carried out to
challenge the recycling rates reported in Eurostat.
3. Case study
4. Results and discussion
The case study focuses on the calculation of recycling rates and the
quantification of environmental and economic impacts of municipal 4.1. Municipal waste composition as generated and collected, and
waste management in the 27 MSs and for EU27. The functional unit of recycling rates
the LCA and LCC is the management of 1 tonne (wet) of municipal waste in
a specific Member State in 2020. The methodology described in section The methodology explained in section 2.1 allows for estimating the
2.1 allows estimating the amount and composition of both generated amounts and composition of municipal waste generated and collected
and collected municipal waste at MS level and for EU27 (the latter is both at MS level and as (weighted) average EU27. To implement Eq. (1),
calculated by knowing the composition and quantity of each MS). Notice collection rates for the different fractions are needed and are herein
that the material flow handled in the system corresponds to 84 % of the based on the EEA’s Early Warning Assessment reports (EEA, 2022) that
total MW generated in EU27 (i.e., 197 Mt y-1 out of 235 Mt y-1). Indeed, list collected amounts and collection rates. Yet, we noticed that the in­
the collection and recycling of batteries, waste from electrical and formation reported in the EEA reports is in conflict with the collection
electronic equipment (WEEE), bulky waste, textile waste, and other rates that can be calculated for countries reporting both generated and
waste are excluded from the analysis due to lack of data. Further, the collected amounts to Eurostat. This further strengthens the need to
methodology presented in section S2 (SI) allows for forecasting into the harmonise practices and improve the quality of data on waste collected
future. Yet, the case study is focused on a specific year (i.e., 2020) to across MSs and reported to the different EU agencies and organisations,
better illustrate the difficulties encountered in waste related statistics. as highlighted in Pierri et al. (2023); this involves better collection,
The system boundaries include all the operations involved in the life reporting and publication of waste data as well as monitoring.7
cycle of the municipal waste once this is generated, namely collection, Inconsistencies found in data reporting and proposed solutions at a
transport, sorting, recycling, mechanical biological treatment, inciner­ general level and per MS are summarised in Table S5 and are thoroughly
ation and landfilling (Fig. 2). For the purpose of this analysis, the discussed in sections S1.2–1.4 of the SI.
generated waste is assumed to be “burden free”, i.e., it does not carry
prior environmental burdens, as we strictly focus on waste management 4.1.1. How to fix the data gap
scenarios and do not consider any prevention/waste reduction strate­ By combining the method presented in section 2.1 and the changes
gies, which would require opening the boundary upstream (Laurent reported in Table S5 (SI), it was possible to estimate for each MS and
et al., 2014a; 2014b). Further, the treatment of waste generates useful EU27, the amount and composition of generated and collected MW
products, such as energy and recyclates. The multi-functionality of the (Table S18, SI). The composition of generated and collected MW of the
waste management system is addressed by means of system expansion, i. (weighted) average EU27 is displayed in Fig. 3. The waste flows
e. the products generated from managing waste (e.g. energy) are contributing the most to waste generation are bio-waste (38 %), fol­
credited to the waste management system by assuming the displacement lowed by paper and cardboard (16 %), plastic (10 %), glass, bulky waste
of the corresponding virgin-based market products or conventional en­ and mixed waste (6 %), and metals (4 %).
ergy sources (e.g. electricity recovered via incineration would displace Collected amounts (and, hence, shares) now show a different trend.
the grid electricity produced from non-waste sources in EU27). Both the Based on our estimates, the highest amount of waste is collected as
environmental and economic assessments were performed with the tool mixed waste (42 %), followed by bio-waste (19 %), paper and cardboard
EASETECH (Clavreul et al., 2014). Finally, on top of the impact cate­
gories considered in the LCA and LCC, generation of employment in the
waste management sector has also been accounted for as a feature that 7
Measures recommended in Pierri et al. (2023) cover: recording waste data
needs to be quantified in impact assessments (European Commission,
and waste management practices in a national electronic registry for waste;
2023b, 2023c). Job creation has been calculated as described in Tael­
carrying out composition analyses for municipal waste, food waste and pack­
man et al. (2020), while cost of labour has instead been accounted for as aging waste with a given frequency; complementing the reporting obligations
an operational expenditure in the LCC. currently in force with two additional datasets on input and output of sorting;
Finally, as part of the case study, we perform two additional itera­ reporting waste management practices (especially on commingling rules) and
tions of the results, specifically i) we adjust collection rates for bio-waste collection schemes; and implementing a monitoring system at EU-level with a
and plastic, and ii) we adjust the collection rate of paper and cardboard set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

609
P.F. Albizzati et al. Waste Management 174 (2024) 605–617

Fig. 2. Generic representation of the system boundaries for municipal waste management in EU27. Black continuous boxes indicate induced processes, while grey
dashed boxes indicate avoided processes. The figure highlights for each process where the reader can find details about the modelling and underlying inventory
(blue text).

Fig. 3. Contribution of the different waste flows to the total generated (a) and collected (b) municipal waste of the (weighted) average EU27 in 2020. The shares are
based on the results of the third iteration.

(12 %), bulky waste (6 %), glass and plastic (5 %) and metals (2 %). Our considering both packaging and non-packaging because the recycling
results clearly show that a great amount of recyclables is currently being rate of MW considers both. Yet, since most dry recyclables are mainly
collected together with mixed waste, thus representing a lost (material (>90% in weight) composed of packaging, except for paper and card­
recovery and recycling) opportunity. Performing separate collection board (see S1.1.3 of SI), one can argue that the recycling rate at material
correctly is hence crucial to reach higher recycling rates and, most level (packaging plus non-packaging) is a good proxy of the recycling
importantly, the goals set in legislation, in particular the overarching rate at packaging level. On this basis, we herein take the liberty to
Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) and the Packaging and compare the calculated recycling rate at material level for dry re­
Packaging Waste Directive (94/62/EC). cyclables with the legislative goals for packaging waste, which are hence
Recycling rates are influenced (among other factors that are not used as benchmarks.
accounted for in this study) by the performance of recycling processes The recycling rate of bio-waste spans from 0.5 % (Malta) to 90 %
and by collection rates. In this study, the performance of recycling (Slovenia), while the (weighted) average for EU27 is 49 % (Fig. 4a). The
processes is kept constant across MSs, so as to focus on the effect of the recycling rate of dry recyclables waste (calculated as the weighted
collection rates assumed for the different MSs, which also influence the average of paper and cardboard, glass, metals, plastic, and wood) ranges
composition and amounts of waste generated and collected. from 8 % (Romania) to 80 % (Austria), while the (weighted) average for
Based on our first iteration, the recycling rates of municipal waste EU27 is 54 %. Specifically, the recycling rates of paper and cardboard
calculated at MS level and as (weighted) average EU27 were far from the span from 6 % (Romania) to 89 % (Slovenia), while the (weighted)
ones reported in the Eurostat statistics (Table 2). Discrepancies were average for EU27 is 65 % (Fig. 4b). The recycling rate of glass ranges
mainly observed for bio-waste and plastic recycling rates at MS level. from 7 % (Greece) to 93 % (Denmark), while the (weighted) average
Therefore, a second iteration was performed applying the changes EU27 recycling rate of glass is 66 % (Fig. 4c). The recycling rate of
explained in section 3. The second iteration revealed that problems ferrous metals spans from 4 % (Portugal) to 93 % (Austria), while the
subsisted, especially for France and Germany. Hence, the adjustments (weighted) average EU27 is 64 % (Fig. 4d); the one for non-ferrous
reported in section 3 were implemented for the third iteration. By metals spans from 3 % (Latvia) to 89 % (Austria) with a (weighted)
applying all these changes, we obtained a third set of results for both average EU27 of 60 % (Fig. 4e). The recycling rate of plastic ranges from
recycling rates of municipal waste (Table 2 and Fig. 4a) and recycling 4 % (Malta) to 24 % (Spain), while the (weighted) average EU27 is 19 %
rates at material level for dry recyclables and bio-waste (Fig. 4). Note (Fig. 4f). Finally, the recycling rate of wood spans from 0 % (Poland) to
that for dry recyclables, we calculate the recycling rate at material level 100 % (both Slovenia and Sweden), while the (weighted) average EU27

610
P.F. Albizzati et al. Waste Management 174 (2024) 605–617

Table 2 sorting, instead of actual recycling rates. Furthermore, it is important to

The recycling rates for municipal waste obtained with our model are compared note that we assumed the same sorting and recycling losses for all MSs
with the ones reported in Eurostat. See S0.1 of SI for standard EU country codes. which, evidently, affects the result.
Recycling rate - Municipal waste: official statistics vs. modelled The recycling rate of municipal waste ranges from 7 % (Romania) to
results 65 % (Austria) (Fig. 4a and Table 2), while the (weighted) average for
Country Recycling rate Our estimate Our estimate − Our estimate − EU27 is 40 %, which is lower than the one reported in Eurostat (i.e. 49
(Eurostat) [%] − 1st Iteration 2nd Iteration 3rd Iteration %, Table 2). Further, the calculated recycling rates of municipal waste
[%] [%] [%] differ from the ones hitherto reported by Eurostat for a number of MSs
AT 62 62 65 65 (Table 2). There are several explanations for these differences; first,
BE 51 53 53 53 recycling rates so far reported by MS are likely overestimated and ex­
BG 35 11 13 13 pected to decrease by ca. 5 percentage points when MS will correctly
HR 30 25 23 23
CY 17 15 14 14
report recycled amounts (EEA, 2022). Moreover, as previously
CZ 41 27 30 30 mentioned, in our assessment we are disregarding some flows that
DK 45 48 44 44 actually contribute to the total recycling rate of municipal waste, namely
EE 29 26 19 19 textile, WEEE, bulky waste, and batteries (our final recycling rate could
FI 42 42 41 41
be a few percent higher when including those flows). Furthermore, the
FR 42 29 34 37
DE 70 48 47 53 data used to estimate generated and collected amounts rely on two
EL 21 8 10 10 different sets of statistics, namely the ones of Eurostat and the ones of the
HU 32 20 20 20 EEA. Although this should be comparable, the analysis shows that
IE 41 23 30 30 collection rates reported by MSs to the EEA are, most likely, under­
IT 51 48 49 49
LV 40 28 17 17
estimating the amount of waste collected (our final recycling rate would
LT 45 41 44 44 be higher if collection rates reported to EEA in the Early Warning
LU 53 54 48 48 Assessment reports were higher).
MT 11 19 10 10 One of the main results of the EEA’s Early Warning Assessment re­
NL 57 44 46 46
ports related to the 2025 targets for packaging waste and municipal
PL 39 18 18 18
PT 27 12 28 28 waste is the identification of countries at risk of not meeting one or both
RO 12 5 7 7 targets. Our results confirm the placement of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
SK 45 38 38 38 Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy,
SI 59 50 52 52 Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, and
ES 41 19 36 36
SE 38 45 37 37
Sweden. In contrast to the EEA’s findings, our results show that Czechia,
EU27 49 36 39 40 Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Portugal and Spain are at risk of not meeting
both targets, while Denmark, Poland, and Slovakia are at risk of not
meeting the target on packaging while meeting the one on MW. Ac­
is 72 % (Fig. 4g). cording to the EEA’s assessment, Czechia and Denmark are not at risk for
Fig. 4 displays the 2025 goals for municipal waste recycling and both targets, while Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Portugal and Spain are at
packaging waste recycling, where the latter are used as benchmark for risk for the target on MW but not for the one on plastic. Finally, Poland
recycling rates calculated for dry recyclables. With respect to the goal on and Slovakia are countries at risk for both targets.
packaging waste (i.e., 65 % by 2025) our results show that as of 2020 Differences are mainly related to the recycling rates used in the risk
only Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and Slovenia currently meet or assessment. Indeed, the EEA did not re-calculate any recycling rate and
even exceed the target. Countries currently performing between 50 % has instead used information provided by the MS’ Environment
and 65 % (Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Agencies or Eurostat statistics, while adjusting the rates of sorting and
Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia, and Sweden) would recycling losses whenever MSs were not reporting at the correct calcu­
require an increase in their recycling rate between 1 % and 23 % over lation point. Finally, it should be noticed that in our assessment we did
the period 2021–2025 to meet the target, while countries currently not implement the entire risk assessment methodology as described in
performing below 50 % would require even larger efforts. Reichel et al. (2021a, 2021b).
Focusing on paper and cardboard (including both packaging and
non-packaging waste), the 2025 target (i.e. 75 %) is met or exceeded in 4.2. Environmental and economic assessment
2020 by Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Slovenia
(Fig. 4b), while the one on glass (70 %) is met or exceeded by a greater The complete list of results obtained from the environmental
amount of countries, namely Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, assessment are reported in section S5 of the SI, while in section 4.2.1,
Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Slovenia and only the results obtained for Climate Change (Fig. 5a) will be discussed.
Sweden (Fig. 4c). The target on ferrous metals recycling (i.e. 70 % by Notice that results are reported per functional unit (i.e. 1 tonne of
2025) is currently met or exceeded by Austria, Czechia, Germany, Italy, municipal waste as generated in a specific Member State in 2020) and
Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden (Fig. 4d), while the one the results are reported at MS level (see S0.1 of SI for standard EU
on non-ferrous metals (i.e. 50 % by 2025) by Austria, Belgium, Czechia, country codes). In the results, positive net results represent a burden on
Estonia, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Swe­ the environment or on the economy, while negative results reflect sav­
den (Fig. 4e). The target on recycling rate of plastic (i.e., 50 % by 2025) ings. The net results are compared with the (weighted) average result
is not met by any of the MSs under the assumptions taken (Fig. 4f), while obtained for EU27 (Fig. 5).
the one on wood (i.e., 25 % by 2025) is met or exceeded by the majority
of MSs, except for Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Romania and Spain 4.2.1. Climate Change
(Fig. 4g). Overall, the results point out that greater efforts at MS level The net Climate Change impacts are the lowest for Austria (− 490 kg
need to be made if the EU targets on packaging are going to be met by CO2-eq t− 1) and the highest for Greece (539 kg CO2-eq t− 1) (Fig. 5a),
2025. Finally, with respect to the plastic recycling rate, a comparison on which are also the Member States recycling, respectively, the most and
the plastic packaging waste recycling rates reported in Eurostat and the among the least municipal waste. The (weighted) average net result for
plastic collection rates used in the assessment revealed that it is likely EU27 is estimated at − 49 kg CO2-eq t− 1 (Fig. 5a) thus representing a net
that hitherto MSs have been reporting collection rates or rates after benefit on Climate Change, i.e. the GHG emissions related to waste

611
P.F. Albizzati et al. Waste Management 174 (2024) 605–617

Fig. 4. Calculated recycling rates (expressed as percentages on the y-axis) of municipal waste (MW), bio-waste, and dry recyclables (panel a), paper and cardboard
(panel b), glass (panel c), ferrous metals (panel d), non-ferrous metals (panel e), plastic (panel f), and wood (panel g) for 2020 at Member State level and as
(weighted) average EU27. The goals for municipal waste, packaging, and the specific packaging materials for 2025 are also displayed. See S0.1 of SI for standard EU
country codes. Notice that recycling rates of dry recyclables consider both packaging and non-packaging waste and the legislative goals on packaging waste are used
as benchmarks (red line). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

management are more than compensated by the avoided GHG emissions by 2–17 %,8 depending on the MS in focus), and incineration and landfill
of valorising waste via recycling and energy recovery. (contributing by 12–74 %, depending on the MS in focus). The savings
The burdens are mainly driven by recycling operations (contributing are mainly driven by material and nutrient recovery (contributing by

8
Contributions have been calculated considering absolute values.

612
P.F. Albizzati et al. Waste Management 174 (2024) 605–617

Fig. 5. The results obtained for Climate Change (5a), Environmental Life Cycle Costs (5b), Full Environmental Life Cycle Costs (5c), and Employment (5d) are
reported per functional unit (i.e. 1 tonne of municipal waste as generated in a specific Member State in 2020) and Member State. Positive net results (black diamonds)
represent burdens on the environment or the economy, while negative reflect savings. The (weighted) average result for EU27 is also displayed with a blue, dotted
line. See S0.1 of SI for standard EU country codes. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

15–64 %, depending on the MS in focus) and energy recovery (additional) GHG reduction at EU27 level is estimated at 103 Million t
(contributing by 0–22 %, depending on the MS in focus). The results CO2-eq. annually (from current savings of − 12 to − 115 Mt CO2-eq.,
clearly show that recycling (both of dry recyclables and of bio-waste) are calculated considering year 2020 generation, i.e. 235 Mt municipal
key practices to ensure that waste management contributes positively in waste).
reaching emissions targets.
The results on Climate Change are mostly in line with the findings 4.2.2. Environmental Life Cycle Costs
presented in Andreasi Bassi et al. (2017). The only difference was The net Environmental LCC spans from 126 EUR t− 1 (France) to 220
observed for France where our results indicate net saving (-65 kg CO2-eq EUR t− 1 (Greece), while the average net Environmental LCC is estimated
t− 1), while in Andreasi Bassi et al. (2017) France shows a net burden (28 at 162 EUR t− 1 (Fig. 5b). The burdens are mainly driven by collection
kg CO2-eq t− 1). The reason for this is the very different waste compo­ and transport (contributing by 33–53 %, depending on the MS in focus)
sition assumed as Andreasi Bassi et al. (2017) did not have access to the and incineration and landfill (contributing by 11–38 %, depending on
municipal waste data reported to Eurostat and the different collection the MS in focus). On the other hand, the savings are mainly driven by
rates assumed. Indeed, Andreasi Bassi et al. (2017) assumed lower energy recovery (contributing by 0–25 %, depending on the MS in
collection rates than in our assessment, therefore influencing the impact focus), and material and nutrient recovery (contributing by 0.7–12 %,
of incineration (i.e., higher emissions) and recovery of materials (i.e., depending on the MS in focus).
lower savings from recycling of dry recyclables and bio-waste). Taking The net Environmental LCC obtained do not mirror the recycling
the best performing country (Austria) as benchmark, the potential for rates of municipal waste. Indeed, the lowest net total costs are observed

613
P.F. Albizzati et al. Waste Management 174 (2024) 605–617

for France, which has a recycling rate around 43 % lower than Austria. the actual environmental and economic consequences of waste man­
Indeed, Austria is the MS for which the highest recycling rate of agement using LCA/LCC modelling. Based on this, the inclusion of
municipal waste is estimated; yet, the revenues related to materials and selected life cycle thinking indicators reflecting the environmental and/
nutrients recovery do not counterbalance the costs of collection. This or economic performance of waste management (notably, C-footprint or
suggests that to offset the costs of collection (specifically, separate Full Environmental Life Cycle Cost) in the EU CE Monitoring Framework
collection that is needed to succeed in recycling) and recycling opera­ could be envisioned. As data reporting is obligatory and models are
tions, higher revenues from materials and nutrients recovered should be available (e.g. via this study), such calculations come at a marginal
guaranteed, also compared to energy recovered from incineration. additional cost and would help MS authorities to identify hotspots and
potentials for improvement in their national management systems (ex-
4.2.3. Full Environmental Life Cycle Costs post impact assessment). To this aim, close exchanges with MS author­
The net Full Environmental LCC obtained spans from 62 EUR t− 1 ities could be envisioned in a similar fashion as already done in the
(Lithuania) to 190 EUR t− 1 (Greece), while the net impact of the mechanism of the Early Warning Assessment reports (where the Com­
(weighted) average EU27 is 109 EUR t− 1 (Fig. 5c). The burdens are mission assesses the distance of MS to specific waste targets in close
mainly driven by collection and transport (contributing by 21–46 %, collaboration with the MS authorities). Last but not least, the model
depending on the MS in focus), and incineration and landfill (contrib­ herein presented is and will be used to quantitatively support ex-ante
uting by 8–30 %, depending on the MS in focus). The savings are mainly impact assessments of EU waste policy proposals as in Albizzati et al.
driven by material and nutrient recovery (contributing by 14–39 %, (2023a).
depending on the MS in focus), and energy recovery (contributing by
0–25 %, depending on the MS in focus). 4.4. Limitations and perspectives
The results show that the MSs with the lowest recycling rates of
municipal waste are also the ones incurring a higher Full Environmental As far as the results of the case study are concerned, a robust un­
LCC. Indeed, the net impacts estimated for Greece (which recycling rate certainty analysis is lacking. Indeed, we did not perform it because the
of MW is 10 %, Table 2) and Romania (183 EUR t− 1 and recycling rate of first set of data on municipal waste delivered to Eurostat in 2020 con­
MW 7 %) were among the highest. The lowest net Full Environmental tains a number of reporting inconsistencies for which we had to perform
LCC does not correspond to the country having the highest recycling rate several adjustments (see section 3). Notwithstanding the lack of a spe­
of municipal waste (i.e. Austria) as material recovery revenues are not as cific uncertainty analysis, we believe that the variation of the perfor­
high as energy recovery revenues; yet, it is observed that countries mance among MSs already provides some indication of the variability of
having high recycling rates have generally lower Full Environmental waste management impacts around the average EU27 result, even
LCC than those having low recycling rates (Fig. 5c). Taking Austria as a though this does not strictly represent a statistical deviation. Another
benchmark (despite not being the country with the lowest Full Envi­ weakness is that we applied different data sources for estimating
ronmental LCC), the potential for (additional) Full Environmental LCC generated amounts departing from collected amounts by applying the
reduction at EU27 level is estimated at 8.4 billion EUR annually (from collection rates reported in EEA (2022). By comparing the figures for the
current costs of 25.5 to 17.1 billion EUR, calculated considering year countries for which we had a complete set of data (i.e. both generated
2020 generation, i.e. 235 Mt municipal waste). and collected amounts), we noticed discrepancies between the infor­
mation provided to Eurostat and to the EEA; this, all in all, strengthens
4.2.4. Employment the need of harmonising reporting guidelines to ensure a robust moni­
The net results obtained for Employment span from 1.53E-03 FTE t− 1 toring. Another limitation of our study entails the use of the same in­
(Malta) to 3.23E-03 FTE t− 1 (Slovenia), while the (weighted) average ventory for the sorting and waste treatment technologies, especially
result for EU27 is estimated at 2.3E-03 FTE t− 1 (Fig. 5d), corresponding with respect to sorting and recycling losses, across all MSs. Yet, this was
to an annual Employment of 544,800 FTE (considering year 2020 gen­ done because information at MS level is difficult to find and thorough
eration, i.e. 235 Mt municipal waste). The main contributions to and robust statistics are needed. Finally, we encountered another limi­
Employment are collection and transport (contributing by 45–96 %, tation in the results obtained for Employment (section 4.2.4). Indeed, if
depending on the MS in focus), and recycling operations (contributing considering the total amount of waste treated in 2020 in EU27, the
by 3–23 %, depending on the MS in focus). According to the model, the Employment related to waste management would amount to 544,800
higher the separate collection of recyclables and, consequently, of FTE while, according to figures from 2015, this would amount to
recycling, the higher the amounts of jobs created within the waste 809,042 (based on EPSU, 2017). The results at country level showed that
management system. Countries having higher recycling rates of we underestimate the Employment of a number of MSs and in particular
municipal waste have, generally, higher Employment per tonne pro­ of France, Italy, and Spain, mainly because of differences in the under­
cessed, and vice versa. Taking Austria as benchmark (despite not being lying data for estimating Employment and estimation of recycling rates.
the country with the highest result for Employment), the potential for More efforts in future developments of the model will be placed in better
(additional) job creation at EU27 level is estimated at 206,100 FTE estimating this indicator. Acknowledging these limitations, we still
annually (from current 544,800 to 750,900 FTE, values are rounded; believe that after the sequential adjustments performed, the results
calculated considering year 2020 generation, i.e. 235 Mt municipal illustrated in the case study represent well the performance of waste
waste). management systems across EU27.
Notice that Employment estimates do not capture information on the While the case study focuses on the lower levels of the waste hier­
quality of jobs in terms of access, workers’ safety, fair wages, etc. Only archy, i.e. recovery, recycling, incineration, and landfilling, the model is
the number of jobs created is estimated. also prepared to include prevention and re-use strategies and to include
social indicators, such as the ones proposed in Taelman et al. (2020).
4.3. Implications for policy-making Going forward, the scope of the proposed model may be expanded
beyond municipal waste, to assess the impact of other waste streams and
The study proposes specific methodological approaches to estimate of broader circular economy strategies beyond recycling, across the
generated waste amounts, which could be included in EU27 ‘soft legis­ entire spectrum of the EU waste hierarchy measuring the impacts of, for
lation’ (i.e. non-binding, such as technical guidance documents by the example, circular business models based on reducing material demand
Commission Services) to improve reporting and harmonise it across through eco-design, sharing products, product-life extension or rema­
Member States. Further, this study endorses the use of municipal waste nufacturing (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013; Lüdeke-Freund et al.,
generation/collection data, as currently reported to Eurostat, to assess 2019). Similar work has recently been undertaken for plastic circularity

614
P.F. Albizzati et al. Waste Management 174 (2024) 605–617

(Systemiq, 2021), and might be in the future repeated for other mate­ Declaration of competing interest
rials, providing additional methodological transparency to enable
replicability. While developing future circular scenarios is an essential The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
step to turn EU policy discussion into actions as discussed in D’Adamo interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
et al. (2022), this type of scenarios analyses requires changing the the work reported in this paper.
functional unit of the model herein proposed. In particular, the service
assessed should likely switch from waste to services, which would Data availability
require in turn combining waste-specific LCA models with other tools
such as input–output tables or broader LCA models encompassing the Data will be made available on request.
entire consumption or economy. One way forward could be linking this
model with the consumption footprint developed by European Com­ Acknowledgements
mission (2023a). In this effort, it would also be important to consider
macro-economic consequences, and their associated environmental We acknowledge Oscar Gomez Prieto (ESTAT) and Almut Reichel
rebound effects, resulting from the simultaneous application of different (EEA) for the inputs provided via data sharing and meetings. The
circular economy strategies (Castro et al., 2022). research was supported by the European Commission Joint Research
Centre as part of the BounCE4ward project of the Centre for Advanced
5. Conclusion Studies of Unit S.4 (Scientific Development Programmes), hosted by
Unit B.5 (Circular Economy and Sustainable Industry).
Circular economy policies at EU level include a number of ambitious
actions to reduce the environmental and economic impacts of waste. For Disclaimer
instance, ambitious targets are set for recycling certain materials or
waste derived from products, such as packaging. However, monitoring The views expressed in the article are the sole responsibility of the
the achievement of these objectives is based on a set of data that suffers authors and in no way represent the view of the European Commission
from variable quality and uneven reporting, hindering the understand­ and its services.
ing of the real-world impacts of waste management.
In the work described above, we aim to address these issues by Appendix A. Supplementary data
proposing a methodology to, ultimately, better assess the environmental
and economic impacts of waste management. We develop calculation Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
rules for determining whether reported waste data correspond to org/10.1016/j.wasman.2023.12.029.
generated waste or collected waste and, in the latter case, to estimate
generated amounts and where they end up. This is carried out through a References
five-step approach, which yields more precise estimates of waste flows
handled by the waste management sector, such as assessing recycling ACR+, 2021. Opportunities for municipalities in glass packaging collection. Available at
https://www.acrplus.org/fr/nos-activites/publications/rapports-techniques/3420-
rates that are closer to reality. opportunities-for-municipalities-in-glass-packaging-collection.
Using municipal waste data reported by Member States for the year ADEME, 2021. Référentiel des coûts du service public de gestion des déchets en France
2020, our calculations reveal that recycling rates hitherto calculated métropolitaine.
Albizzati, P.F., Tonini, D., Astrup, T.F., 2021. A quantitative sustainability assessment of
with other sets of data may be overestimated, and actual recycling rates food waste management in the European Union. Environ. Sci. Technol. https://doi.
less than hitherto reported. However, this needs to be checked with org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03940.
future iterations of this exercise using updated sets of municipal waste Albizzati, P.F., Cristóbal, J., Antonopoulos, I., Egle, L., Foster, G., Gaudillat, P.,
Marschinski, R., Pierri, E., Tonini, D., 2023a. Harmonised Labelling of Waste
data. In turn, these waste amounts can then be used to calculate envi­ Receptacles Matching Product Labels. https://doi.org/10.2760/09021.
ronmental impacts (through LCA) and/or economic costs (through LCC), Albizzati, P.F., Gaudillat, P., Tonini, D., 2023b. Impacts of collection and treatment of
including Employment. Our analysis shows that impacts vary greatly dry recyclables. Commingling practices and their environmental and economic
impacts. In press.
between countries. Taking Climate Change as an illustration of impacts
Andreasi Bassi, S., Christensen, T.H., Damgaard, A., 2017. Environmental performance of
obtained, contributions of waste management can range from a net household waste management in Europe – An example of 7 countries. Waste Manag.
burden of about half a tonne of CO2-eq t− 1 of waste handled (net 69, 545–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.042.
greenhouse gas emission), to about half a tonne of CO2-eq t− 1 net saving Andreasi Bassi, S., Tonini, S., Saveyn, H., Astrup, T.F., 2022. Environmental and
socioeconomic impacts of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) packaging
(net greenhouse gas reduction). For costs and Employment, the range of management strategies in the EU. Environ. Sci. Tech. 56 (1), 501–511. https://doi.
results is also broad. Environmental Life Cycle Costs and Employment org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00761.
impacts can vary two-fold and Full Environmental Life Cycle Costs Andreasi Bassi, S., Biganzoli, F., Ferrara, N., Amadei, A., Valente, A., Sala, S., Ardente, F.,
2023. Updated characterisation and normalisation factors for the Environmental
threefold, among Member States of the EU27. Our results highlight Footprint 3.1 method. https://dx.doi.org/10.2760/798894.
complex factors at play where higher recycling generally tends to extract Antonopoulos, I., Faraca, G., Tonini, D., 2021. Recycling of post-consumer plastic
more value from waste and create more jobs. packaging waste in the EU: Recovery rates, material flows, and barriers. Waste
Manage. 126, 694–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.04.002.
The model we developed in the course of this work is primed for Bain and Utilitalia, 2018. Analisi dei costi della raccolta differenziate in Italia. http://
further refinement and expansion, e.g., taking into account uncertainty www.assobioplastiche.org/assets/documenti/ricerche/analisi costi raccolta
analysis, integrating more country-specific data on waste processing differenziata in italia.pdf.
Bijleveld, M., Birnstengel, B., Simpson, R., Kölmel, R., 2022. CO2 reduction potential in
technologies, expanding the scope beyond municipal waste fractions, European waste management. Available at. https://cedelft.eu/publications/co2-
and modelling broader circular economy solutions beyond waste. reduction-potential-in-european-waste-management/.
Nevertheless, the model we propose already offers the potential for so­ Bijleveld, M., de Bruyn, S., de Graaff, L., Schep, E., Schroten, A., Vergeer, R., 2018.
Environmental Prices Handbook 2017.
phisticated impact assessment of waste policy, building on the previous
Bisinella, V., Albizzati, P.F., Astrup, T.F., Damgaard, A., 2018. Life cycle assessment of
standard set by the ‘EU reference model on municipal waste’. It aims to management options for beverage packaging waste. Danish Ministry of Environment
help policymakers answer essential questions bearing in mind costs, and Food.
benefits, and trade-offs, enabling informed choices towards the defini­ Boldrin, A., Andersen, J.K., Møller, J., Christensen, T.H., Favoino, E., 2009. Composting
and compost utilization: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming
tion of future targets and scenarios for the circular economy in the EU27. contributions. Waste Manag. Res. 27 (8), 800–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2018.03.032.

615
P.F. Albizzati et al. Waste Management 174 (2024) 605–617

Castro, C.G., Trevisan, A.H., Pigosso, D.C., Mascarenhas, J., 2022. The rebound effect of Hunkeler, D., Lichtenvort, K., Rebitzer, G., 2008. Environmental Life Cycle Costing.
circular economy: Definitions, mechanisms and a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. ISO, 2006a. Environmental Management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and
345, 131136 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131136. Guidelines (ISO 14044:2006).
Chioatto, E., Sospiro, P., 2023. Transition from waste management to circular economy: ISO, 2006b. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and
the European Union roadmap. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 25, 249–276. https://doi.org/ Framework Secon Edit.
10.1007/s10668-021-02050-3. ISPRA, 2021. Rapporto rifiuti urbani. Available at https://www.isprambiente.gov.it/fi
Christensen, T.H., Damgaard, A., Levis, J., Zhao, Y., Björklund, A., Arena, U., Barlaz, M. les2022/pubblicazioni/rapporti/rapportorifiutiurbani_ed-2021-n-355-conappendic
A., Starostina, V., Boldrin, A., Astrup, T.F., Bisinella, V., 2020. Application of LCA e_agg18_01_2022.pdf.
modelling in integrated waste management. Waste Manag. 118, 313–322. https:// Jaunich, M.K., Levis, J.W., DeCarolis, J.F., Barlaz, M.A., Bartelt-Hunt, S.L., Jones, E.G.,
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.08.034. Hauser, L., Jaikumar, R., 2016. Characterization of municipal solid waste collection
Clavreul, J., Baumeister, H., Christensen, T.H., Damgaard, A., 2014. An environmental operations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 114, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
assessment system for environmental technologies. Environ. Model. Softw. 60, resconrec.2016.07.012.
18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.06.007. Kägi, T., 2017a. Treatment of waste polyethylene, for recycling, unsorted, sorted. Europe
Colasante, A., D’Adamo, I., Morone, P., Rosa, P., 2022. Assessing the circularity without Switzerland. Allocation, at the point of substitution, ecoinvent database
performance in a European cross-country comparison. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. version 3.8.
93, 106730 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106730. Kägi, T., 2017b. Treatment of waste polyethylene terephthalate, for recycling, unsorted,
COLLECTORS, 2020. Work package 3 – Quantification of costs and benefits. Assessment sorting. Europe without Switzerland. Allocation, at the point of substitution,
of socioeconomic and financial performance of 12 selected case studies. Available at ecoinvent database version 3.8.
https://www.collectors2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Deliverable3. Keramidas, K., Fosse, F., Diaz Rincon, A., Dowling, P., Garaffa, R., Ordonez, J., Russ, P.,
2_COLLECTORS-project-1.pdf. Schade, B., Schmitz, A., Soria Ramirez, A., Vandyck, T., and Weitzel, M., 2022.
D’Adamo, I., Mazzanti, M., Morone, P., Rosa, P., 2022. Assessing the relation between Global energy and climate outlook 2022: Energy trade in a decarbonised world, EUR
waste management policies and circular economy goals. Waste Manage. 154, 27–35. 31355 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022, ISBN 978-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.09.031. 92-76-60498-3, https://doi.org/10.2760/863694, JRC131864.
EC-JRC, 2012. Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide. European Commission Larsen, A.W., Vrgoc, M., Christensen, T.H., Lieberknecht, P., 2009. Diesel consumption in
Joint Research Centre. waste collection and transport and its environmental significance. Waste Manag.
ECN, 2021. Treatment of bio-waste in Europe. Available at https://www.compostnet Res. 27(7)m, 652–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X08097636.
work.info/policy/biowaste-in-europe/treatment-bio-waste-europe/. Laurent, A., Bakas, I., Clavreul, J., Bernstad, A., Niero, M., Gentil, E., Hauschild, M.Z.,
Edjabou, M.E., Takou, V., Boldrin, A., Petersen, C., Astrup, T.F., 2021. The influence of Christensen, T.H., 2014a. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems
recycling schemes on the composition and generation of municipal solid waste. – Part I: lessons learned and perspectives. Waste Manag. 34, 573–588. https://doi.
J. Clean. Prod. 295, 126439 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126439. org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.045.
EEA, 2022. Early warning assessments related to the 2025 targets for municipal waste Laurent, A., Clavreul, J., Bernstad, A., Bakas, I., Niero, M., Gentil, E., Christensen, T.H.,
and packaging waste, 27 country profiles, European Environment Agency, June Hauschild, M.Z., 2014b. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems –
2022. Available at https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/many-eu-member-sta Part II: methodological guidance for a better practice. Waste Manag. 34, 589–606.
tes/early-warning-assessment-related-to. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.12.004.
Eionet, 2018. The European reference model on municipal waste. Available at htt Levis, J.W., Barlaz, M.A., DeCarolis, J.F., Ranjithan, S.R., 2013. A generalized multistage
ps://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-ce/products/wastemodel#:~:text=Descript optimization modelling framework for life cycle assessment-based integrated solid
ion%3A%20the%20European%20Reference%20Model,primarily%20at%20the% waste management. Environ. Model. Softw. 50, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
20European%20level. envsoft.2013.08.007.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013. Towards the circular economy. https://doi.org/10. Lüdeke-Freund, F., Gold, S., Bocken, N.M., 2019. A review and typology of circular
1007/b116400. economy business model patterns. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (1), 36–61. https://doi.org/
EPSU, 2017. Waste Management in Europe. Good jobs in the Circular Economy?. 10.1111/jiec.12763.
Eunomia, 2019. Study to support the implementation of reporting obligations resulting Martinez-Sanchez, V., Kromann, M.A., Astrup, T.F., 2015. Life cycle costing of waste
from the new waste legislation adopted in 2018. Available at https://op.europa.eu/e management systems: Overview, calculation principles and case studies. Waste
n/publication-detail/-/publication/3d72ef00-bcac-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1. Manag. 36, 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.10.033.
European Commission, 2020. A new Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and Martinez-Sanchez, V., Levis, J.W., Damgaard, A., DeCarolis, J., Barlaz, M.A., Astrup, T.F.,
more competitive Europe. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ 2017. Evaluation of externality costs in life-cycle optimization of municipal solid
TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0098. waste management systems. Environ. Sci. Tech. 51 (6), 3119–3127. https://doi.org/
European Commission, 2021. Better Regulation Toolbox. Available at https://commissi 10.1021/acs.est.6b06125.
on.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulati Montejo, C., Tonini, D., Márquez, M., del, C., Astrup, 2013. J. Environ. Manage. 128,
on/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en. 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.063.
European Commission, 2022. Study to support the finalisation of the legal proposal and NVRD, 2021. Benchmark hushoudelik afval.
the impact assessment for the review of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Olesen, O.U., Damgaard, A., 2014. Landfilling in EASETECH. DTU, Department of
Directive. Available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ Environmental Engineering, Copenhagen. Available under request from DTU.
24bda39e-a0a1-11ed-b508-01aa75ed71a1. Pierri, E., Egle, L., Foster, G., Antonopoulos, I., Albizzati, P.F., Tonini, D., Cristóbal
European Commission, 2023a. Consumption Footprint. Assessing the environmental Garcia, J., Marschinski, R., Gaudillat, P., 2023. Quality management systems in
impacts of EU consumption. Available at https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sustainable waste collection. Best practices and recommendations. In press.
Consumption.html. Pressley, P.N., Levis, J.W., Damgaard, A., Barlaz, A., DeCarolis, J.F., 2015. Analysis of
European Commission, 2023b. European Platform on LCA|EPLCA. Available at https:// material recovery facilities for use in life-cycle assessment. Waste Manag. 35,
eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/LCDN/contactListEF.xhtml. 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.012.
European Commission, 2023c. Better Regulation Toolbox. https://commission.europa. Reichel, A., zu Castell-Rudenhausen, M., Van Der Linden, A., Duhoux, T., 2021a.
eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation/be Methodology for the EEA’s input to the ‘Early warning’ Assessment – Packaging
tter-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox/better-regulation-toolbox_en. waste recycling target. Available at https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-wmge/
Eurostat, 2021. Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal waste products/etc-wmge-reports/methodology-for-the-early-warning-assessment-related-
according to Commission Implementing Decisions 2019/1004/EC and 2019/1885/ to-certain-waste-targets.
EC and the Joint Questionnaire of Eurostat and OECD (Note: The Commission Reichel, A., Van Der Linden, A., Duhoux, T., zu Castell-Rudenhausen, M., 2021b.
Delegated Decision on average loss rates is currently being finalised, future versions Methodology for the EEA’s input to the ‘Early warning’ Assessment – Municipal
of this guidance will contain further details on the published legal act.). Available at Solid Waste Preparing for Reuse and Recycling target. Available at https://www.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/342366/351811/Guidance+on+mu eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-wmge/products/etc-wmge-reports/methodology-for-the
nicipal+waste+data+collection/. -early-warning-assessment-related-to-certain-waste-targets.
Eurostat, 2023a. Improved circular economy monitoring framework now live. Accessed Reid, D., 2020. Life cycle assessment of alternative management scenarios for the Italian
on 17/05/2023. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eur solid waste management context.
ostat-news/w/WDN-20230515-1. Rigamonti, L., 2007. Valutazione dei percorsi di recupero di materiali e di energia in
Eurostat, 2023b. Circular Economy – Database. Accessed on 17/05/2023. Available at sistemi integrati di gestione dei rifiuti urbani.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/circular-economy/database. Rigamonti, L., Grosso, M., Giugliano, M., 2009. Life cycle assessment for optimising the
EXPRA, 2014. The effects of the proposed EU packaging waste policy on waste level of separated collection in integrated MSW management systems. Waste Manag.
management practice. A feasibility study. Available at https://www.expra.eu/ 29, 934–944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.005.
downloads/expra_20141004_f_UGGge.pdf. Sala, S., Reale, F., Cristóbal Garcia, J., Marelli, L., Pant, R., 2016. Life cycle assessment
FEVE, 2012. Good practices in collection and closed-loop glass recycling in Europe. for the impact assessment of policies. EUR 28380 EN. Luxembourg (Luxembourg):
February. p. 120. Publications Office of the European Union; 2016. JRC105145. https://dx.doi.
Gredmaier, L., Heaven, S., Vaz, F., 2013. Seasonal yield and fuel consumed for org/10.2788/318544.
domestinc, organic waste collections in currently operational door-to-door and Skjern Papirfabrik A/S, 2005. Sustainability Report.
bring-type collection systems. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 4, 683–693. https://doi.org/ Systemiq, 2021. ReShaping Plastics. Pathway to a circular, climate neutral plastics
10.1007/s12649-012-9193-8. system in Europe.
Hoogmartens, R., Van Passel, S., Van Acker, K., Dubois, M., 2014. Bridging the gap Taelman, S., Sanjuan-Delmás, D., Tonini, D., Dewulf, J., 2020. An operational framework
between LCAS, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tool. Environ. Impact for sustainability assessment including local to global impacts: focus on waste
Assess. Rev. 48, 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.05.001.

616
P.F. Albizzati et al. Waste Management 174 (2024) 605–617

management systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 162, 104964 https://doi.org/ Weidema, B.P., Ekvall, T., Heijungs, R., 2009. Guidelines for application of deepened and
10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104964. broadened LCA. Deliverable D18 of work package 5.
Tonini, D., Albizzati, P.F., Astrup, T.F., 2018. Environmental impacts of food waste: Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., Weidema, B., 2016.
Learning and challenges from a case study on UK. Waste Manag. 76, 744–766. The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.03.032. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, [online] 21 (9), 1218–1230
Tonini, D., Wandl, A., Meister, K., Muñoz Unceta, P., Taelman, S.E., Sanjuan-Delmás, D., http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8.
Dewulf, J., Huygens, D., 2020. Quantitative sustainability assessment of household Wrate, 2017. WRATE homepage. Available at http://www.wrate.co.uk/.
food waste management in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area. Resour. Conserv. Yoshida, H., Nielsen, M.P., Scheutz, C., Jensen, L.S., Bruun, S., Christensen, T.H., 2016.
Recycl. 160, 104854 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104854. Long-term emission factors for land application of treated organic municipal waste.
Umwelt Bundesamt, 2021. Kunststoffabfälle. Available at https://www.umweltbun Environmental Modelling and Assessment 21 (1), 111–124. https://doi.org/
desamt.de/daten/ressourcen-abfall/verwertung-entsorgung-ausgewaehlter-abfallart 10.1007/s10666-015-9471-5.
en/kunststoffabfaelle#kunststoffe-produktion-verwendung-und-verwertung. Zhang, J., Zhang, Z., Zhang, J., Fan, G., Wu, D., 2021. A quantitative study on the benefit
Weidema, B.P., 2003. Market information in life cycle assessment, Environmental Project of various waste classifications. Advances in Civil Engineering. https://doi.org/
No. 863 2003, Miljøprojekt. 10.1155/2021/6660927.

617