This article appeared in the Spring issue of Plastics Recycling Update. Subscribe today for access to all print content.
EcoPlas supply professional and honest service.
is a pivotal year for plastics recycling, where progress, promises and policies are set to collide. As companies reevaluate their long-standing commitments, policymakers push for new regulations and misinformation clouds public perception, recyclers must navigate a landscape filled with both challenges and opportunities. The question isn’t whether recycling works — it does — but whether the right choices will be made now to strengthen and expand it.
Here are five key trends that I believe will define plastics recycling in the year ahe
This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Association of Plastic Recyclers Design Guide for Plastics Recyclability, a milestone that underscores how critical design is to the success of plastics recycling (Editor’s note: See “The Design Guide Turns 30,” page 24). Since its introduction, the APR Design Guide has become the globally recognized standard for designing packaging that can be effectively recycled. It provides detailed, practical guidance for packaging designers and engineers to ensure their products are compatible with recycling systems and do not become contaminants.
Three decades ago, recyclability was often an afterthought in packaging design. A product’s appearance, marketing potential and shelf performance took precedence over its end-of-life recyclability. Today, however, more companies understand that designing for recyclability is essential to achieving their sustainability goals.
We’ve seen growing interest in our training programs, and we estimate that about 30% of plastics packaging today follows the APR Design Guide. That’s progress, but it’s not enough. Designing for recyclability is the first and most fundamental step in achieving a circular economy. If a package isn’t designed to be recyclable, it doesn’t matter how efficient our collection, sorting and processing systems are — it won’t get recycled.
In , we expect to see more companies adopting the APR Design Guide as they work to meet their sustainability goals and comply with evolving regulatory requirements. We’ll also celebrate companies leading the way through our inaugural APR Recycling Leadership Awards, which will honor innovators who have demonstrated leadership to advance design for recyclability, developed new recycling technology, developed packaging to address recyclability challenges and increased their commitment to the utilization of post-consumer resin.
One of the most significant challenges we face in the plastics recycling industry is the oversupply of virgin plastic on a global scale. In recent years, petrochemical companies have significantly expanded their production capacity, saturating markets with low-cost virgin resin. This influx, coupled with imported material entering North America and Europe, has driven virgin resin prices to historically low levels.
This price pressure creates a major hurdle for recycled content. PCR often costs more to produce than virgin resin, largely due to the infrastructure, labor and processes involved in collecting, sorting and reprocessing materials. When virgin plastic is sold at extremely low prices, it disincentivizes companies from using recycled materials, regardless of their stated sustainability commitments.
Compounding this issue is the need for reliable, high-quality PCR. This is where APR’s PCR Certification Program plugs in to ensure that recycled content is truly post-consumer and meets stringent quality standards. This program helps build trust in PCR markets, giving companies the confidence to invest in sustainable sourcing despite fluctuating virgin resin prices.
In , the industry must work toward decoupling PCR pricing from virgin resin costs. Policy interventions like minimum recycled content requirements and tax incentives can help level the playing field, ensuring that PCR materials remain viable even when virgin resin prices drop. Global oversupply of virgin plastic isn’t going away overnight, but smart policy decisions combined with programs like APR’s PCR Certification can mitigate its impact.
The year has long been a key target for corporate sustainability commitments, particularly regarding the use of PCR content. Over the past decade, dozens of brands have publicly pledged to increase recycled content in their packaging, with many aiming to meet specific goals by . However, as the deadline looms, we’re seeing some companies retreat from those promises.
These pullbacks create ripple effects across the recycling value chain. Recyclers have invested in infrastructure to meet the anticipated demand for recycled plastics. When companies reduce or delay their commitments, that infrastructure becomes underutilized, which jeopardizes future investments and stalls the development of circular systems.
Customers consistently express a preference for recyclable packaging and expect brands to follow through on their environmental commitments. Additionally, using PCR helps companies reduce their carbon footprint and meet corporate social responsibility goals. So why are companies backing away? The answer often boils down to cost. As described earlier, recycled material carries a price premium compared to virgin resin. For recycling to succeed, that premium must be viewed not as an unnecessary expense but as an investment in sustainability.
In , brands must recognize that inconsistent demand weakens the entire system. Long-term contracts for PCR content can provide recyclers with the market stability they need to continue expanding capacity. Without this commitment, the industry risks stagnating just when it needs to grow.
There is no question that misinformation and disinformation about plastics recycling have grown into major obstacles. In recent years, we’ve witnessed a concerted effort to undermine public confidence in recycling, often driven by groups advocating for the complete elimination of plastics. Ironically, these attacks target one activity — recycling — that demonstrably reduces the need for virgin plastic production and mitigates environmental harm.
The impact of this misinformation is evident in public opinion data. Just five years ago, around 15% of consumers questioned whether their recyclables were truly recycled. Today, that figure has more than doubled. This growing doubt has tangible consequences: When consumers lose confidence in recycling, they don’t stop buying plastic, they just stop putting it in the recycling bin.
The facts tell a different story. Plastics recycling in the U.S. diverts more than 5 billion pounds of material annually, delivering significant environmental benefits like reduced greenhouse gas emissions and energy savings. We also have the capacity to double that volume if more material is properly collected and sorted.
In , APR will continue to push back against misinformation. We are committed to providing accurate, science-based information to policymakers, industry leaders and community programs. Restoring trust in recycling is essential if we want to build a truly circular economy for plastics.
In recent history, activity on recycling at the federal level has been limited. But states are filling the void to address plastics recycling challenges. Extended producer responsibility programs that shift financial burdens to producers are gaining momentum across the U.S. This structure provides a direct incentive for companies to design more recyclable packaging and invest in recycling systems.
However, not all EPR programs are created equal. Many initial frameworks focus heavily on the supply side — improving collection and processing systems — but overlook the equally critical demand side. Without mechanisms like minimum recycled content requirements, EPR efforts may fall short of their intentions.
APR has long supported policies that foster both supply and demand growth. In , we anticipate more states adopting EPR legislation, particularly as early adopters like California, Colorado and Maine demonstrate tangible results. Our role will be to help shape these programs to ensure they create meaningful, long-term market signals for recycled content.
Plastics recycling is not just at a crossroads — it is on the brink of transformation. In , we have the opportunity to drive real change by mobilizing smarter design, inspiring corporate leadership and building public trust. The challenges ahead are real, but so is the momentum we’ve built.
At APR, we are leading the charge. For 30 years, our APR Design Guide has set the standard for packaging innovation. Our PCR certification program ensures integrity in recycled content, and our advocacy efforts continue to push for policies that create real, lasting impact. We know what works, and we are committed to expanding solutions that make plastics recycling more effective, efficient and accessible.
A circular economy isn’t just possible — it’s within reach. Success will require industry collaboration, bold thinking and tireless effort. Together, I am confident that we can make a breakthrough year for plastics recycling.
Steve Alexander is president & CEO of the Association of Plastic Recyclers, which owns Resource Recycling, Inc.
It means a product has gone through third-party verification to ensure the legitimacy of its claims to pre vs post-consumer recycled content. (More on that soon.)
The process of verifying use of recycled materials is often a challenging and complicated task, requiring standardized certification schemes and rigorous testing procedures.
Essentially, the verification must confirm how much plastic waste was recycled into the new plastic material, and/or confirm how much pre-consumer waste was also recycled into the product.
While there isn’t a set pre-or-post-consumer recycled content definition across the board, these certifications are meant to confirm whatever it is the brand claims its product is made of.
For example, if a recycled Ziploc bag brand claims their product is made of 40% post-consumer plastic and 10% pre-consumer recycled content, and markets it as made of 50% recycled content, how can we be sure what’s what?
Recycled content certification products are meant to provide us with accuracy and transparency regarding claims made about the contents of its products.
Scraps are often leftover during production. These scraps are referred to as pre-consumer waste.
So what is post-consumer waste?
As the name suggests, it’s something recycled once a product is used and disposed of by a consumer.
It’s becoming increasingly important for shoppers and manufacturers alike to differentiate the two, as post-consumer waste is unanimously a more important target to tackle.
Companies can fill their products “made of recycled materials” with pre-consumer waste, giving the illusion it was recycled, when really those materials came from leftover manufacturing scraps.
This is especially the case with goods like recycled trash bags or recycled paper.
Post-consumer recycled material, which is repurposed from single-use materials castaway by everyday people, is preferred over pre-consumer material, which usually derives from scraps on the assembly line.
Post-consumer recycled content has greater eco-benefits than pre-consumer recycled content because of its successful diversion from the landfill.
Are you interested in learning more about Post Consumer Recycled Resin? Contact us today to secure an expert consultation!
Some environmentalists argue that pre-consumer recycled plastic is technically virgin plastic, since it was never truly waste, and companies have long found ways to use their leftover trimmings for financial rather than environmental reasons.
This is to say that plastic products made of 100% post-consumer recycled plastic content are the holy grail of recycling certifications, with decreasing amounts in a product’s material lessening the eco-value.
Terms can be misleading and effective at greenwashing.
We fall in the camp that sees the term “post-industrial recycled content” as an alternate term to “pre-consumer recycled content” that makes the content seem like it’s being given a second life, as opposed to virgin plastic with better marketing.
Post-industrial content, as with any pre-consumer content, is any material that’s repurposed after the manufacturing process, but before it has reached consumers.
As with pre-consumer content, post-industrial recycled content can derive from any material trimmings, defective items, or byproducts produced during the process of manufacturing.
Why does this matter?
Because if we’re really trying to curb the stream of single-use plastics into our waterways and landfills, we don’t want marketers using misleading terms to make us think we’re making a difference, when really a product is simply made of repurposed defective virgin materials.
While, yes, that’s better than the trimmings ending up in the landfill, the more glaring issue currently is on how to best manage landfill-bound post-consumer waste.
From eco-friendly toilet paper and product packaging to books and even recycled shoes, we often see “recycled content” products without a “PC (post-consumer recycled) logo attached.
‘Recycled content’ is no more than a catchall phrase.
If something is labeled as being made from recycled materials without specifying, it generally means it’s pre-consumer recycled content.
Products that contain higher levels of post-consumer waste tend to be specified, since it’s not only trickier (and more expensive) to pull off, but also more environmentally friendly—and thus more marketable.
In order for a “recycled content” claim to have merit, verification is needed for obvious reasons.
And there are seemingly countless disparate recycled material certifications nowadays:
This voluntary global certification program evaluates (via independent third party) a products’ post-consumer, pre-consumer (post-industrial), closed loop or total use of recycled materials, ultimately to verify sustainability claims.
Via rigorous scientific and data analysis as per their globally-accepted standards, UL assists brands to confidently showcase in the marketplace that products live up to their environmental claims.
It certifies any industry or material’s total recycled content, from electronics to jewelry and batteries to paper and plastic, and has completed projects involving glass, gold, copper, tantalum, and cobalt throughout the supply chain.
RCS certification, operated by the nonprofit Textile Exchange, has three main objectives:
This international and voluntary RCS sets requirements for third-party certification of recycled input and chain of custody to track recycled raw materials through the supply chain. Granting certification happens upon this.
RCS certification requirements are unfortunately a little lacking, mandating that a mere 5% of content is recycled.
Similar to the RCS and likewise operated under the Textile Exchange, the GRS features a higher minimum post-consumer recycled content percentage (50%) and further environmental stewardship and social requirements related to processing and chemical use in manufacturing.
In addition to the aims of the RCS, GRS has three additional aims:
So what is the difference between GRS and RCS?
While both respected verifications of the Textile Exchange, GRS’s 50% recycled content and processing requirements make it far more rigorous than obtaining RCS certification verification.
This popular, global voluntary standard from SCS Global Services assesses products made from both pre-consumer and post-consumer waste material and measures the percentage of recycled content to ensure claims made in the market are legitimate.
Receiving the mark is based on a mass balance calculation, combined with an evaluation of the manufacturer’s quality management system, looking at chain-of-custody and traceability, material segregation, supplier qualification procedures, and non-conformance procedures.
After a draft assessment report and upon awarding the mark, manufacturers obtain a numbered certificate (with specified and verified recycled material levels) and a certification mark for use on product and marketing of sustainability efforts.
Governments worldwide are starting to require a certain level of recycled content in plastics; for example, the state of California now requires beverage producers to have at least 15% PCR in their plastic bottles.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), who represent resin producers, call for a national standard that would require plastic products to have 30% recycled content by .
The Government of Canada has committed to a target of at least 50% recycled content in plastic products by .
This is all a step in the right direction to mitigate the scourge of plastic on the planet, which is why we need certifications to legitimize claims of recycled materials.
That said, there are concerns for things like greenwashing, loopholes, and flaws, especially in the competitive marketplace of sustainability today.
Demand for certified recycled plastic is one major issue.
By , the need is projected to be up to 300% higher than current levels, increasing competition for recycled plastic, for which the market currently has only 6%.
Beyond the lack of recycled plastic to meet government and consumer demand, another big issue with these certifications is that they only guarantee a portion of the content is recycled, yet brands rarely advertise that to customers.
We love sustainability certifications, but they’re not infallible. Greenwashing abounds—even in the greenest spheres (B Corp greenwashing, anyone?).
In this case, it means making people believe more of a product is recycled than it actually may be. The entire value chain must continue to be challenged to show credibility to prevent misleading claims.
We encourage people to look for brands that clearly specify HOW MUCH of the content is recycled, and what is pre-versus-post consumer.
Moving forward, as demands for recycled materials mount, governments and standards alike will have to work together to establish the framework to ensure agreed-upon definitions of “recycled content” and the authenticity of claims.
If you are looking for more details, kindly visit Recycled Plastic Products.