Chemical recycling sparks both hope and controversy: some hail it as a game changer in the battle against plastic waste; others doubt that its feasibility and risks are worth the investment. Supporters counter: “If we applied that logic to transportation, we’d still be riding horses instead of driving cars.”

“The business-as-usual case for plastic waste is not sustainable… There is no doubt that a major undertaking is required to ramp up recycling,” reads a white paper to which the Spanish technology centre CIRCE and other organisations contributed their shared vision, which helps companies meet environmental challenges. It sees recycling and circular solutions as an integral part of “the triangle of ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’” against a backdrop of alarming statistics. In 2022 the OECD predicted the amount of plastic waste was set to triple by 2060, while only 9% was being successfully recycled globally. Analysis by the trade association Plastics Europe says over 70% of plastic on the continent is incinerated, landfilled, or exported.

The most common recycling method is mechanical recycling, which processes plastics waste into secondary raw materials or products without significantly changing its chemical structure. It is often chosen for its cost and energy-efficiency, but there are limitations. “Many plastics contain additives and multi-layer structures that mechanical recycling struggles to process,” says Clara Jarauta, head of Waste Valorisation and Renewable Gases Team at CIRCE, and Technical Coordinator of the EU’s PLASTICE project which aims to develop new solutions to boost radically the amount of plastic that is recycled. “Chemical recycling offers solutions where mechanical recycling falls short.”

Chemical recycling: via a variety of different technologies, the chemical structure of polymeric waste is altered to turn it back into substances that can be used as raw materials to make plastics or other products. There is widespread industry excitement about its potential: “Chemical recycling is a game-changer and a key building block of the circular economy – not only in Europe,” Dr Markus Steilemann, President of Plastics Europe and CEO of Covestro, told a chemical recycling event in Brussels. “Through chemical recycling, materials that would otherwise end in landfills or incinerators can be effectively transformed into high-quality products comparable to virgin materials,” says CIRCE’s paper. Plastics Europe forecasts a significant increase in planned chemical recycling investment from €2.6 billion in 2025 to €8 billion in 2030. A Joint Research Centre (JRC) study in 2023 by the European Commission and the universities of Gent and Maastricht said an 80% plastic recycling rate could be achieved by 2030, with chemical recycling contributing over a third.

Its protagonists stress it is no “silver bullet”: “Chemical recycling is complementary to mechanical recycling—it can process plastic waste types that are contaminated, mixed, or degraded, which cannot be handled by mechanical recycling,” Cefic, the forum for the EU chemical industry, told Icons in an emailed response. “The complementarity between both recycling strategies is key to increase the recycling rate and recyclability in the coming years,” says Clara Jarauta. She points to investment from major companies and regulatory support for chemical recycling: “The growing number of pilot projects and industrial-scale plants also demonstrates its potential viability,” she adds. The PLASTICE project, due for completion in November 2026, seeks to develop new solutions beyond mechanical recycling, in line with EU roadmaps for chemical recycling. “The first promising results” from four pilots are expected in 2025.

Overall, progress has been mixed in terms of getting chemical recycling projects up and running. Difficulties have been reported both in Europe and North America, but other ventures are advancing. The US company Eastman has insisted that investment in a new plant in France remains on course, pending clarification of EU regulations. “Chemical recycling is not yet widely deployed today, primarily due to high investment costs, regulatory uncertainties, and the lack of a strong business case compared to virgin materials,” notes Cefic. Clara Jarauta cites “high energy consumption, economic feasibility, and potential environmental risks from emissions and waste byproducts” as the main challenges.

But for some of its detractors, viability is a long way off. “It's going to take another 50 years before chemical recycling will work. That's the reality because there are no conditions for making it happen, it's just very, very expensive and energy-intensive,” comments Janek Vahk, Zero Pollution Policy Manager at Zero Waste Europe (ZWE), which connects NGOs from around the continent. Its report in 2024 drew on the testimony of industry insiders to argue that “cracks are starting to show” in the presentation of chemical recycling as a potential fix for the plastic waste crisis. Another study by the US campaign group Beyond Plastics dismissed chemical recycling as a “pseudo-solution” of “smoke and mirrors”.

Campaigners would prefer to see the emphasis shift significantly towards more re-use of plastics, and reduced production. Regarding the treatment of waste, Janek Vahk describes chemical recycling as “the second worst option” after incineration. ZWE’s denunciation of chemical recycling has been contested: Chemical Recycling Europe (CRE), which represents technology providers, accused it of a “grave misinterpretation of facts” following another ZWE report about what Vahk describes as “ridiculously small amounts” of yield from pyrolysis, one of the main techniques. Chemical recycling’s proponents agree that much work needs to be done to address environmental and regulatory challenges. In Europe, there are industry calls for harmonised data to assess its impact on the climate – and for regulation to incentivise waste collection, sorting and recycling, while restraining waste shipments outside the EU. “The deployment of chemical recycling technologies at scale will require a supportive regulatory framework, harmonised rules across Member States, and increased demand for recycled materials,” says Cefic.

The EU has set some ambitious goals, such as a 30% target for recycled content in plastic bottles by 2030. Janek Vahk fears that industry pressure will lead to European regulatory requirements being watered down, such as over how recycled content is calculated under a procedure known as allocation. “The transparency issue is really the biggest concern we have because it seems like now it's really going towards deregulation and towards the industry getting what they want,” he says. “In the end it seems like the companies will be able to actually allocate pretty freely in terms of recycled content.” “I think (the allocation process) should be established transparently, ensuring traceability of the waste,” responds Clara Jarauta, arguing also for specific verification standards, close monitoring, and penalties for non-compliance. However, she expressed concerns about setting fixed percentages on recycled content without considering current technology and the compatibility of different recycling options and raw material sources.

“Permissible allocation rules are the subject of a controversial debate between industry demands for flexibility and NGO concerns about greenwashing,” states a February 2025 report by scientists from Mannheim and Lund universities, designed to aid industry actors and policymakers reach informed decisions. “The chemical industry advocates flexible allocation… as a strategy to make recycled material financially attractive. NGOs, on the other hand, argue for a homogeneous allocation of recycled content to avoid cherry-picking and greenwashing. Our analysis shows that both arguments are right — but under different circumstances,” it says in its conclusions. The plastics industry’s “natural incentive to lobby for a flexible allocation regime”, it goes on, “may, under certain conditions, also make sense from an environmental policy perspective”.

The sensitive nature of chemical recycling is evident, and several industry experts preferred not to comment. Its advocates insist that despite some major unresolved regulatory issues, it has a crucial role to play in the essential transition to a circular economy for plastics. But is chemical recycling being driven by political imperatives rather than sound science and market reality? What grounds are there for confidence, given the current low rate of take-up?

“If we applied the same logic to transportation, we’d still be riding horses because the first cars were unreliable, expensive, and made up only a tiny fraction of vehicles on the road. Just like early automobiles needed time to scale, improve, and replace horse-drawn carriages, chemical recycling is in its early stages,” argues Clara Jarauta. “The key question isn’t how much it’s doing today, but whether it has the potential to transform how we deal with plastic waste in the future. The reality is that these technologies are still expensive and inefficient today, but technological development and digital solutions are evolving faster than ever. It would be a shame not to take advantage of that, don’t you think?”


PLASTICE channels:
Project website: https://plastice.eu/
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/plastice/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/people/Plastice/61566612875721/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_jhgw96tX2er3xxNIHqTGw