As EU rules require more recycled plastic, consumers still have no way of knowing whether a bottle really contains recycled material. Researchers are developing a blockchain-based traceability system to improve transparency. Because without credible proof, trust in environmental claims and the circular transition could be at risk.
On 12 August 2026, the European Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) becomes fully applicable across the 27 Member States of the European Union. Just weeks before the deadline, eight countries (Czechia, Bulgaria, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia) have asked the European Commission for further clarification and greater flexibility in the implementation of the regulation. According to these governments, some of the new obligations could impose significant costs on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, and may prove difficult to implement within the required timeframe. On the opposite side, several environmental organisations argue that Brussels has yielded too much ground to the plastics industry, weakening key aspects of the legislation.
More recycled plastic. An ambitious target, an invisible problem
The PPWR sets ambitious objectives. On the one hand, the European Union aims to reduce the overall volume of packaging waste by promoting reuse and limiting unnecessary packaging. On the other, it seeks to increase the share of recycled material in plastic products. For single-use PET (polyethylene terephthalate, one of the most widely used plastics for manufacturing bottles and food containers) bottles, the target is to reach at least 30% recycled content by 2030. By the same date, all packaging placed on the EU market will also have to be designed to be recyclable.
Yet a little-known technical obstacle remains. Imagine being able to examine a plastic bottle at the molecular level. Today, there is no method capable of distinguishing molecules originating from recycled material from those produced from virgin fossil feedstocks. Once they enter petrochemical facilities, the two streams are mixed together and become chemically indistinguishable. In other words, it is impossible to "scan" a bottle and determine with certainty which carbon atoms come from recycled plastic waste and which come from fossil resources. This traceability challenge lies at the heart of an increasingly heated debate among industry, researchers and environmental organisations. To address it, the European Union is developing new certification rules and accounting systems for recycled content, designed to verify recycled content even when it cannot be physically identified in the final product.
Turning recycled plastic into traceable data
When recycled content cannot be directly measured in the final product, what makes a label claiming "30% recycled content" credible? How can greenwashing be avoided? As recycled content cannot be directly measured in the final product when chemical recycling processes are used, the PPWR and the forthcoming European implementing acts, expected by the end of 2026, rely on mass balance systems to allocate and verify recycled content claims. The debate has become particularly intense in the field of chemical recycling, where recycled feedstocks and virgin fossil feedstocks become chemically indistinguishable during processing.
Consider a simplified example. Plastic waste is processed through pyrolysis, producing a refined oil suitable for conversion into new plastics. This oil is then fed into a steam cracker together with conventional fossil feedstocks. Once inside the process, the different carbon sources become chemically indistinguishable. Under a mass balance approach, the recycled content introduced into the system can be allocated to the final output, provided that the total recycled-content claim does not exceed the amount of recycled material actually introduced into the process. In practice, consumers have no way of knowing whether the very bottle they are drinking from, actually contains recycled plastic or not. A significant challenge that, amid an increasingly complex web of regulations and technical requirements, risks deepening consumer scepticism and eroding trust in both environmental claims and the institution's responsibility for overseeing them.
Should we recycle or rethink plastic altogether?
If plastic is a major source of pollution while chemical recycling is so controversial, why invest so much energy in recreating plastic, rather than focusing on reducing or eliminating it?
For Clara Jarauta, technical coordinator of the PLASTICE project, “reducing unnecessary plastic remains a priority, especially for avoidable single-use applications. In fact, the waste hierarchy established in European policy clearly prioritises waste prevention and materials reuse over recycling. As such recycling should not be seen as a substitute for reduction, but as one necessary component within a broader circular economy strategy. At the same time, eliminating plastics entirely is neither technically nor environmentally optimal in many sectors, as these materials provide important functionalities such as lightweighting, food preservation, hygiene, durability and energy efficiency as they are being implemented in several value chains. The real challenge here, thus, is not simply the existence of plastics, but the current linear model in which many products are designed without considering their reuse, repair or end-of-life pathways”.
This brings us to one of the core objectives of the PLASTICE project, which is directly aligned with improving the quality and circularity potential of the recycled products obtained through thermochemical and enzymatic technologies, thus enabling their reintroduction into the plastics value chain. How? Through a blockchain-based traceability system designed to improve transparency and accountability across the recycling value chain.
The recycled bottle challenge: from opacity to transparency
Mass balance cannot realistically be bypassed in chemical recycling: “PLASTICE does not replace mass balance; it builds a more transparent layer on top of it”, explains Luis Meijueiro from Fundación CTIC.
PLASTICE is building a blockchain-based traceability software platform covering the entire plastic recycling chain. The system is a cloud-based platform: “We work on a software system that stores, registers and also retrieves this information”, Meijueiro adds.
The blockchain-based software is a sort of large digital vault where information follows predefined registration procedures. Every company involved in the chain must register its own operations and data. Each participant signs the information using its own digital key, while previously registered records cannot be altered or deleted. One of the key objectives is to help companies demonstrate where recycled materials originate, which chemicals were used during processing, how much water or energy was consumed and whether operations comply with environmental regulations. “You cannot skip or bypass certain operations. You cannot use the key for another. The regulation is inside the code”, Meijueiro says.
But how scalable is such a system once developed, especially in the absence of a binding legal framework requiring its adoption? “I think that the market regulates itself,” Meijueiro argues. “If you’re a company and you look for oil, you won’t buy oil without information, you better buy from another partner able to communicate transparent information”.
Saving trust before it's too late
Environmental organisations do not share this optimism. While acknowledging the importance of the PPWR as "the first regulation in the European region which actually introduced waste prevention measures and quotas", they consider the term recycling inappropriate when applied to certain processes.
“From our point of view, we would rather consider pyrolysis and gasification as chemical recovery practices”, says Lauriane Veillard, Chemical Recycling Expert at Zero Waste Europe (member of the global movement Break Free From Plastic). This is because pyrolysis and gasification require large amounts of energy, generate significant environmental impacts and, crucially, result in the loss of physical traceability of the recycled carbon contained in the waste stream. At a time when the United Nations warns of a dramatic increase in plastic pollution and global per-capita plastic consumption continues to rise, largely driven by packaging, environmental organisations are calling for a drastic reduction in plastic use. “Refill and reuse have become key concepts in the debate”, Veillard underlines.
In an ideal world, it would be fantastic to live without plastic pollution but, in the meantime, what does Veillard think of a blockchain-based traceability system applied to mass balance? “The higher the traceability, the better. Every actor within the process should always aim for the highest transparency – Vaillard says – If traceability comes to developing circularity in the long run, this is also really key”. But until traceability can be fully ensured, “industry should not make claims about recycled content without strong traceability and transparency", she argues, because today's labels can ultimately be misleading: “Making an allegation at the product level while using mass balance would lead to greenwashing if the mass balance chain is not controlled because there is no certainty that this specific product would actually contain the allegation."
Without credible traceability, recycled-content claims risk undermining consumer confidence in the transition towards a circular economy – while it is crucial to have everyone's engagement and trust.