Circularity in Practice Materials Report

The current, predominantly linear approach to the plastics economy results in inefficient resource use, unnecessary waste and unprecedented pollution. This gives rise to the need to transition to a circular plastics economy, in which materials are retained in the economy for as long as possible to minimise waste and pollution. However, the specific approach to delivering operational plastics circularity is often undefined and unclear. Therefore it is necessary to identify barriers and opportunities to circularity that helps to determine where Defra’s existing powers can act and where certain challenges may need to be approached differently to drive positive change.

The objectives of this study were to explore multi-disciplinary barriers and opportunities across the entire lifecycle of plastics for 9 different materials, identifying key interventions and leveraging points that could drive substantial changes in production, material use and waste management practices. The study used a two-part methodological approach: a comprehensive literature review and expert interviews, focusing on both the individual material level and systemic factors influencing circularity. The nine materials covered are:

●Biodegradable and Compostable Plastics – all settings 
●Poly(vinyl) chloride, PVC – in Construction 
●Poly(ethylene) terephthalate, PET – in Packaging 
●High density polyethylene, HDPE – in Packaging 
●High density polyethylene, HDPE – in Construction 
●Low density polyethylene, LDPE – in Packaging 
●Polypropylene, PP – in Textiles 
●Polypropylene, PP – in Packaging 
●Polyhydroxyalkanoates, PHA – all settings 

For each material, an analysis of the barriers and opportunities for circularity across each stage of the plastics lifecycle is presented. This is followed by a discussion on circularity considerations from the perspective of various different disciplines or elements of the plastics value chain (consumer attitudes, economics, technology and infrastructure, policy and regulation, and the waste hierarchy), from which priority intervention for increasing the circularity of the material are identified. The different levers of change for the suite of interventions for the materials are identified before gaps in evidence are indicated.

None of the materials assessed are circular at present, and in most instances, the current consumer attitudes and behaviour, economics, technology and infrastructure or policy and regulation do not present the right enabling environment for these materials to be circular. Across all materials, 5 consistent themes emerged as critical considerations for plastics circularity. First, that all materials hold the potential to move up the waste hierarchy, transitioning from lower-level strategies such as recycling and disposal to higher-level circular practices like reduction, reuse and repair. Second, that in the literature, and by many industry positions, recycling is often misconstrued as reuse, inhibiting progress to the more circular approach of reuse. Third, to enhance circularity, a systemic shift beyond recycling is required, emphasising the importance of reuse, redesign, and the reduction of initial material use. Fourth, that managing the safety, reusability and recyclability of plastics necessitates a precautionary approach to additives and plasticizers, where producers must demonstrate their products meet stringent safety and sustainability standards. Lastly, achieving plastic circularity necessitates diverse, context-specific interventions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, integrating multiple strategies across the plastic lifecycle to address the complexity and scale of the challenges effectively.

In identifying the opportunities and barriers to circularity, a number of limitations are evident. This research was restricted to open access literature, and given the time constraints, the literature review conducted may not be fully exhaustive. Furthermore, limiting research to English-language sources potentially overlooks valuable insights, case studies, and approaches adopted in non-English speaking regions. Additionally, the interviews with materials experts took place without equally parallel inputs from environmental and human health specialists, meaning there may be a degree of directionality bias in favour of potential interventions that do not fully capture the full suite of options.

Overall there is limited accessible data and statistics in the UK in terms of production, use, and waste generation per material or general type which impedes the ability to draw precise conclusions about the national landscape of plastic use and waste. There is also a lack of studies and data on reuse, repair, and remanufacture of plastics, most of the literature available focuses on recycling. There is much conflation between reuse and recycling in the literature, with these terms often being used interchangeably in many papers. Lastly, there is variability in waste management trends and policies across different UK administrations which presents a challenge in developing uniform recommendations that are applicable across the UK.