2
Perspectives on Circularity, Plastics Use Sectors, and Sectoral Interdependencies

PERSPECTIVES ON CIRCULARITY AND PLASTICS

To advance the workshop’s goal of exploring pathways supported across sectors, speakers were invited to provide their perspective on the definition of circularity and the requirements to achieve circularity. They then engaged in a panel discussion moderated by Rajesh Buch, Arizona State University (ASU), and chair of the workshop planning committee. Yblin Roman Escobar, Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Green Economy (SIRGE) Coalition, expressed the need for circularity to be seen with not only a technical lens but also a human- and rights-based lens. Alicia Marseille, ASU, talked about the need for collaborative, holistic, and systems-based approaches and bold solutions. Han Zhang, The Dow Chemical Company, shared ways in which industry, with examples from Dow in particular, is changing its business approaches to incorporate circularity. Danielle Holly, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, who gave the Keynote Address summarized in Chapter 1, joined this panel to discuss perspectives on circularity.

Panelist Remarks

Roman Escobar began her remarks by explaining that circularity has long existed in Indigenous peoples’ communities around the world and continues to this day, where one “uses what they need, returns what they take, and keeps nothing in excess.” Many of the intervention methods associated with circularity, including repair, reuse, regeneration, and design, are part of Indigenous culture. She shared that circularity is imbedded in Indigenous communities and that community members can add value to the conversations. She emphasized the nature of rights and responsibility to steward resources, addressing the uneven impacts across communities, and the importance of integrating Indigenous people’s rights into the supply chain, traceability, and environmental, social, and gov-

ernance frameworks. Roman Escobar highlighted a priority of SIRGE—addressing the impacts of ancillary industries beyond polymeric feedstock, particularly minerals (e.g., lithium and copper) and virgin mineral extraction, whose infrastructure often abuts Indigenous peoples’ communities. Therefore, it is important that infrastructure for mineral reuse and secondary material supply chains be scaled up to match. She summarized by saying that every kilo of virgin plastic that is avoided will help all of society.

Marseille addressed four key components of successful efforts that her team at ASU has observed over a decade of conducting applied research projects in sustainability and circularity: (1) collaboration, (2) financial investment, (3) thoughtful and reflective policymaking, and (4) assuming of risks to develop bold solutions. Marseille emphasized that collaboration involves developing mutually beneficial outcomes across the value chain with public, private, and community-based partners. She noted that transitions to circularity will require investment and new, mutually beneficial, business models that move from shareholder-driven value to stakeholder-driven value. With respect to policy, Marseille discussed the need to consider policy outcomes, including unintended consequences, such as the increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that result from increased use of paper bags after a plastic bag ban. Finally, Marseille commented that business as usual will not work and that bold action is necessary, acknowledging that failure will happen. However, she tied this back to her first point regarding the importance of mutually beneficial outcomes with all partners bearing both risk and reward.

Dow is one of the largest petrochemical producers of polyethylene, which is used in flexible packaging. Zhang described Dow’s vision of a circular economy as a new materials ecosystem (Figure 2-1). Its approach is to exert influence on steps within its current linear economy (e.g., purchasing of feedstock, production, and sales to customers), either by direct action or through partnership. It aims to help partners achieve circularity targets and to provide scientific expertise to increase circularity.

Zhang noted that circularity starts with product design, because, currently, many packages technically cannot be recycled or recycling rates are difficult to increase. Dow aims to develop products that are compatible with the recycling system and then work to improve infrastructure, including ways to collect flexible packaging material, sort this material in material recovery facilities (MRFs), and clean and decontaminate this material. Zhang also discussed the development of newer recycling technology (e.g., mechanical or dissolution technology or advanced recycling to break down long-chain polymer to create new virgin-quality polymer) to return alternative and diverse feedstock to the system, including renewable material, plastic waste, and other waste materials. He noted that market demand would require 3 million metric tons of circular and renewable solutions, that is, approximately 4 million metric tons of plastic, biowaste, or renewable feedstock (The Dow Chemical Company, 2022).

After emphasizing the need to address climate change along with circularity, Zhang closed by sharing that industry approaches to partnership have also evolved from a linear mindset to one that connects with companies both upstream and downstream.

Panel Discussion

The panelists were first asked to discuss their vision for circularity and approaches to scaling and implementing circularity globally. Marseille discussed ASU’s demonstration of a modular, decentralized hub-and-spoke approach, wherein materials are collected for local remanufacturing in a containerized microfactory—retaining both materials and jobs in the region while reducing GHG emissions. She added that this approach also supports transfer of technical knowledge into communities, including rural and Indigenous communities. Zhang discussed a different approach, emphasizing the need to solve technological pain points before scaling up. Pain points include the diminished quality of post-consumer recycled material, the need to increase energy efficiency of advanced recycling, and the need to be able to work with comingled plastic waste streams. Relatedly, he commented that the changing composition of waste streams means that many existing MRFs may not be able to process materials that did not exist when they were commissioned.

Holly was asked about ways to build upon the successes of the top quartile of EMF Global Commitment members as examples of scaling solutions. She noted that EMF is already working at scale with these companies, and the past five years have been a learning process. Topics under exploration include how plastics are being consumed and labeled, where plastics serve a positive function and how to minimize harm, what alternatives to plastics exist, and what are the unintended consequences of the alternatives. Holly said that innovations, pilots, and ideas will be scaled by bringing them into big conglomerates

and brands and that better collaboration between different alternatives and innovations is needed. She stressed the importance of convening people with different experiences and perspectives in order to move the concept of circularity from a discussion between thought leaders and technologists primarily in the Global North into other communities broadly. Roman Escobar agreed and added that conversations should focus on not only efficiency and technical aspects but also sufficiency and demand. She expressed that such conversations can be uncomfortable because most economic approaches push for constant growth, and she offered the concept of the wellbeing economy used in the European Union as a counterpoint. Reiterating earlier comments, Roman Escobar emphasized the need for a different mindset that considers sufficiency, responsibility, and a rights-based and systems approach.

Building on those responses, the panelists were asked to discuss ways to ensure that social impacts are addressed. Marseille explained that containerized microfactories can be used to turn the hundreds of millions of waste pickers across the globe—most of whom are women—into producers and move them up the supply chain. Zhang reflected on the importance of incorporating the social considerations, the need for working with the vast informal waste sector, particularly in Southeast Asia, and on developing responsible sourcing guidelines. Holly noted the negative consequences of transitioning to an economy that still does not work for all people and the importance of bringing people with expertise in social impacts to the table. She also noted that moments of disruption offer an opportunity to create change for a better future.

The panel was then asked to address the efficacy, or lack thereof, of recycling within the waste hierarchy and the potential to shift to shorter loops such as extended use, reuse, and refill. Zhang agreed that reuse and refill should be prioritized where possible; however, Dow defines a circular economy as one that keeps every molecule in the life cycle as long as possible, of which recycling plays a part. He stressed the importance of holistically evaluating life cycle impacts including water consumption and energy consumption in addition to GHG emissions. Marseille reflected on the statistic that, despite a 40-year history, only 9 percent of plastics are currently being recycled and many brands are not factoring recycling into their investments in circularity. She suggested seeking examples of successful reduction and repair and then scaling them. Holly underscored the need for policy and infrastructure investment to activate the other re-x models, adding that infrastructure at the point of collection is insufficient for the other re-x models. Roman Escobar highlighted that recycling comes late in the product life cycle, solving the end-of-life problem for a product that has not been appropriately designed for continued use. She encouraged a focus on design and strategies that prevent the production of plastic in the first place, as well as a rights-based (and grounded-in-reality) perspective of the supply chain, and agreed that policy has an important role to play in this systemic change.

The panel then discussed the role of voluntary targets and whether their use impedes the passage of policy and regulation. Holly expressed that EMF believes that voluntary targets are important, do not impede policy action, and should be ambitious by design,

and encourages their continued use. Holly further explained that news of companies failing to reach their voluntary targets may be nuanced; some companies may in fact have pulled back intent, while others have missed the targets but better understand what it takes to make the changes and are positioning themselves for greater impact and scale. She said that the setting of the voluntary targets and the attempt to reach them helps businesses to understand where policy can be an important lever.

Roman Escobar agreed that voluntary standards are useful at the company level for compliance but cannot replace strong binding regulations, particularly with respect to the rights of Indigenous people. She has heard from companies that mandates help to provide a level playing field so that companies that want to make a product that respects people and the planet do not pay extra to do so. Zhang also agreed that voluntary targets are important, noting that Dow supports international legally binding instruments on plastic waste to foster a circular economy. He also said that, while they may not be able to meet aggressive targets, actually meeting all targets might mean that they were not aggressive enough, and, as Holly explained, lessons can be learned from these missed targets.

PERSPECTIVES ON CURRENT STATE OF CIRCULARITY WITHIN THE PACKAGING, BUILDING MATERIALS, AND TEXTILE SECTORS

After the panel provided a basis for shared understanding of approaches to circularity, participants heard from practitioners and researchers in each use sector, through a brief discussion moderated by Jenna Jambeck, University of Georgia, co-chair of the Roundtable on Plastics. Helene Wiesinger, Food Packaging Forum, discussed challenges specific to plastics that come in contact with food, such as issues with potential toxic chemicals and recycling. Phil Rozenski, Novolex, described the role of packaging, lessons with regard to policy, and difficulties stemming from the multitudes of definitions within the realm of sustainability and circularity. Beth Forsberg, Goodwill, addressed the magnitude of the issue with textiles, with approximately half of Goodwill’s received donations not fit for traditional use but lacking other solutions at scale. Brian London, SMART, discussed the change in both the composition of fabrics and the magnitude of production over the past 60 years and the need to work with partners upstream to change the outcomes downstream. Kristen Rinehart, Advanced Drainage Systems, described the use of recycled plastics in durable goods in the building sector. Finally, Teresa McGrath, Habitable, discussed the needs to simplify the material palette used in buildings, design with reuse in mind, and reuse where possible.

State of Packaging

Wiesinger set the stage by discussing the scale of the packaging industry and the attendant waste (Figure 2-2), noting that the six years after release of the EMF report discussed above have seen little improvement. As of 2022, only 2 percent of total plastic feedstocks come from renewables, not accounting for energy needs, and 40 percent of the

total plastics produced go into packaging, or 160 metric tons annually (Houssini et al., 2025). Unique to packaging, almost all packaging becomes waste within the same year as production; packaging has a very short lifetime and limited reuse options. Wiesinger reiterated that recycling rates of plastic are around 9–10 percent and that use of incineration as a waste management strategy is increasing, particularly in China and Southeast Asia.

Wiesinger then addressed the challenges of food packaging, which comprises about 50 percent of all packaging (Ncube et al., 2020). Food packaging’s major function to protect food results in very specialized materials, often multilayer, that are not recyclable. Of particular concern are the chemicals present in plastic, such as the mixture of different chemical additives and process aids. Wiesinger highlighted that plastic packaging is not inert; there can be bidirectional exchanges between the food and the plastic. Plastic packaging can emit chemicals to the environment, giving rise to food safety concerns, and chemicals from foods can migrate into the plastic, impacting end-of-life recycling or reuse (e.g., plastic containers stained from previously stored foods).

According to the Food Packaging Forum, more than 4,700 food contact chemicals (FCCs) are potentially used during manufacture of plastic food contact materials, and almost 3,700 FCCs have been found in plastic material, food, or food simulants; these lists do not necessarily overlap (Figure 2-3). Wiesinger noted that this issue exists during the use phase, production, and end of life. The presence of a wide variety of chemicals precludes control of the recycled output, that is, producing high-quality recycled material that can be re-utilized in the food packaging sector is difficult. This problem in turn creates a problem for material flows because recycled plastic cannot be used in sensitive

applications even if the material is recovered. Moreover, degradation of this material can also occur during recycling, resulting in more harmful chemical products.

Regarding this point, Rozenski shared his thoughts on policy and circularity, namely that the least sustainable solution is one that does not work. He also highlighted the need to support implementation of policy, not just passage of legislation, and suggested extended producer responsibility (EPR) as one of the best pathways forward. Rozenski also cautioned against overlapping and contradictory policy, hidden incentives, and unintended consequences, and stressed the need to consider tradeoffs, including those between addressing plastic waste and minimizing carbon footprint. He believes that policy must be flexible and dynamic, so that it can change as the circumstances change. These policies could be aided by ecomodulation and periodic reviews from producer responsibility organizations.

As a final key area of concern, Rozenski mentioned the overwhelming number of terms within the sustainable packaging arena with the proliferation of organizations and certifications. As a result, each customer is seeking something slightly different, complicating harmonization and collective action.

State of Textiles

Forsberg opened her comments with a quote from the founder of Goodwill, Edgar J. Helms, from over 100 years ago, that is consistent with the current waste management

situation: “The Goodwill Industries should not only ‘save the waste’ in men and things but ought also to ‘use the waste.’ How little we receive from wastepaper, rags, etc., because we collect it only and do not convert it into useful things.” Explaining Goodwill’s goals to collect, sell, and salvage, Forsberg highlighted the amount of work needed to move from an organization based on donations to one with a responsibility for material recovery, especially given the scale of material that Goodwill processes across its federated system (e.g., Goodwill received 5.9 billion pounds of donations in 2024 [Figure 2-4]). She acknowledged that much of the infrastructure needed across the system to collect and process waste material at this scale does not exist, but suggested that some infrastructure basics do exist in Goodwill.

Forsberg noted that 50 percent of donations to Goodwill is not of sufficient quality or condition for traditional use. A solution for this remainder does not yet exist, but an opportunity to innovate does. She highlighted the importance of partnerships with mutually beneficial outcomes, providing the example of discussions with Alicia Marseilles and Rajesh Buch of ASU, who saw the utility of rejected material in the Goodwill warehouse as clean and dry feedstock.

That said, Forsberg commented on the change in materials donated to Goodwill over time; the increased volume partly reflects products specifically designed and manufactured with a limited lifespan. She suggested that the community engage in collaborative, creative, curious work and ended with a question: How can Goodwill repair, reuse, and then responsibly provide feedstock for textile-to-textile and other recovery systems?

London described the mission of the Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles (SMART) Association as “the next step in the product lifecycle” after Goodwill. He contextualized the current problem with the history of textiles, which progressed from primarily low volumes of cotton-based materials, where people historically kept the loops small, effectively downcycling fabric in their own homes, to a massive industry predominantly using polyester. He said that the current landscape requires SMART members to reckon with the effects of “American culture, consumerism, economic forces, and globalization, and taking materials, they are given without choice or knowledge of the composition.”

To reiterate, London said that the volumes of textiles have significantly increased with the frequent and inexpensive changing of fashions as well as the readily available “fast fashion.” He provided estimates of volumes over the past 60 years, noting that annual consumption of textiles in the United States increased from about 1 million tons in the 1960s, to 10 million in the 1990s, to 20 million now (EPA, n.d.a), which represents a 20-fold increase since the first attempts to find end markets for reuse. At this stage, however, London said that international export reuse has become the predominant focus in the industry.

London then discussed reuse options within textiles, reiterating the importance of reuse to minimize carbon footprint. He noted that thrift is an important business for reuse domestically, which is preferable to shipping textiles internationally, although access to secondary markets in countries where the majority of their textiles are used clothing from the United States and Europe (i.e., the Global North) continues to be beneficial. London said that downstream uses, for example, wiping cloths, automotive industry, and janitorial use, remain a large part of the industry, but polyester and other synthetic fibers do not serve those purposes. He explained that polyester wears down more quickly than cotton; even with the desire and intent to extend the life of garments, the durability is decreasing.

London posed a question about how to address these issues in a closed loop, with circular solutions. He expressed the readiness of SMART members to supply feedstock, acknowledging that the amount is not yet at the scale needed to produce new garments and that current garments made with recycled content come from bottles rather than old garments. To recycle old garments into new, it is important to accurately identify the material in the old garments and understand how to break them down for further use. He commented on a recent shift across the industry in that conversations across the supply chain are becoming more interconnected rather than siloed and linear, and are moving beyond direct commercial relationships toward relationships that also involve legislators and policymakers, manufacturers, and brands. London reiterated that downstream challenges will continue if upstream design is not addressed, particularly by considering blends and their impact on reuse and recycling. He closed with another open question about the most conducive approaches to returning material to the state needed for feedstock.

State of Building Materials

McGrath began her comments by acknowledging that the building sector is also largely in a linear economy, where some materials are reclaimed (particularly metals such as copper or steel), but others (including plastics) are often downcycled and incinerated or landfilled at the end of life. Focusing on plastics within this sector, she shared that, in the United States each year, 1.2 million tons (1.1 million tons) of plastic in carpet are discarded, which is equivalent to all plastic water bottles, bags, and straws used in the United States each year (McGrath et al., 2024), not counting plastic windows, siding, and flooring, which all have a shorter service life than other building materials. In line with other panelists, McGrath commented that extending service life is a significant part of circularity. She noted that carpet does have a more robust recycling system than other materials, but most is downcycled, a delay from the landfill but not fully circular, with only approximately 0.5 percent recycled into new carpet.

McGrath explained that Habitable believes in the need to simplify the materials palette, use long-lasting timeless materials that will match the lifespan of the building, reuse where possible, and design for reuse at the end of life, including selecting longer-lasting, safer products to begin with (Figure 2-5). McGrath pointed to its ranking guidance within product categories, covering plastic, mineral, and plant-based materials.

Rinehart agreed and emphasized the role of durable goods, particularly reused or made with recycled material, that do not pass through consumers multiple times a year and do not rely on consumers to make the right decision for circularity but keep the material in service for decades.

Panel Discussion

The experts in packaging were asked to speak more about hidden incentives for regulatory action for plastics. Rozenski suggested a lack of transparency with bills being passed; California, for example, has two interacting bills that may effectively ban com-

postable packaging. Such a ban will likely increase use of traditional plastics that are more difficult to recycle. Policymakers may not realize that these bills will interact in this way, where attempts to improve composting may effectively eliminate composting.

For the textile sector, a question was raised about the potential for retail storefronts such as Goodwill to serve as a place for education about circularity principles and impacts. Forsberg said that the key to education is starting young, sharing that Goodwill offers grade-school-level programs about sustainability and responsible recycling. She continued that one needs to keep education simple to minimize confusion for the consumer, but it would be helpful to provide information about the offtake for the materials recovered. Forsberg suggested an opportunity for a credible story telling about the life cycle of a garment, educating from the municipal perspective, brand partner perspective, and the perspective of people who collect and sort materials. London agreed about the importance of education and development of consumer-facing information such as tags or digital passports that could help both the sorters and members of the public.

The building materials experts expressed a particular concern for the continued wide use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in building systems and infrastructure, noting there are barriers to circularity in terms of its legacy additives and lack of consistent collection. The experts were asked what will allow establishment of a scalable end-of-life system for PVC. McGrath shared that the building sector is the largest user of PVC, from pipes to flooring to siding and roofing, and it is challenging to reuse or recycle because any flexible PVC contains additives, stabilizers, orthophthalates, or terephthalates that pose health effects. While the aim is to discontinue use of products containing legacy chemicals of concern, there are also related health concerns about disposal of PVC in landfills or through incineration.

McGrath elaborated that the generation of new PVC is a highly toxic process that uses mercury, asbestos, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances for manufacturing. The end of life is also problematic, including incineration during which dioxins are released. She expressed that every stage of the PVC life cycle has challenges that alternatives might minimize, such as linoleum to replace vinyl flooring, or ceramic or plant-based materials, the latter tending to be longer lived and possessing better reuse potential.

PERSPECTIVES ON CROSS-SECTORAL SYNERGIES AND INTERDEPENDENCIES

Rachel Meidl, Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, moderated a discussion about cross-sectoral synergies and interdependencies, framing the conversation around balancing tradeoffs such as life cycle impacts and safety and material performance. The panelists provided opening remarks. Sandeep Bangaru, Eastman Chemical, highlighted the need for innovation and policy that supports it; Cam Pascual, WWF, emphasized the urgency of the plastic pollution problem and the economic consequences associated with it; and Julia Koskella, Systemiq, talked about the complexities and challenges in working across sectors.

Panelist Remarks

Bangaru began by explaining that Eastman is currently focused on products that are developed with care for society and the needs of a growing population while addressing the issues of plastic waste and climate and environmental impacts, and he cited circularity as the solution. For circularity, he emphasized a need for significant acceleration of development of new business models and materials. Furthermore, he said that reduce and reuse can address approximately 30 percent of the plastic issue in an environmentally friendly way, but any percentage beyond that could have unintended environmental and social justice consequences. Bangaru noted that 40–50 percent of plastic waste production cannot be addressed with reuse models and rather requires recycling.

Eastman has been investing in advanced recycling of polyesters and cellulosic bio-polymers and is seeing progress in producing food and medical grade plastics with high yields. He reemphasized the need for complementary technologies, particularly to address products that do not have suitable ends of life today. It is important that it be done in a framework that considers all environmental and social impacts, beyond carbon emissions, so that one challenge is not exchanged for another. He also raised the issue of transparency with data and appropriate attribution of impacts.

Bangaru echoed sentiments of earlier panels regarding the need for policy, particularly in providing clarity and certainty that is conducive to investment in innovation. He also suggested that policy discussions should start by defining intended outcomes and goals, noting that some existing policy intended to create end markets for recycled content has led to import of cheaper waste plastic from overseas (around one third of the current demand) rather than increasing recycling rates of locally generated materials, and, in turn, closure of local waste processing facilities.

Pascual highlighted the impacts of plastic on humans and the environment across the life cycle, from production to improper disposal, and encouraged a holistic systems change. They cited a 2024 survey that found that 85 percent of Americans think that “plastic waste pollution is a serious and concerning problem that requires immediate political action to solve” (WWF, 2024). To address this finding, Pascual shared WWF’s perspective that unnecessary plastics should be eliminated to decrease plastic production, the sources for necessary plastics should be sustainable and decoupled from fossil fuels, and material systems require improvement.

Pascual also raised the cost of plastic pollution for society, namely that global management of plastic waste costs $32 billion each year, and that the societal lifetime cost of the plastic projected to be produced in 2040 could reach $7.1 billion (WWF, 2021). They also recognized that the current fragmented nature of regulations poses a financial burden on companies and that cross-sectoral work is important to resolve these issues.

Koskella agreed that a systems-level approach is important for moving towards circularity and addressing challenges therein. She shared that Systemiq and Pew reported

that currently known technologies make it possible to resolve greater than 80 percent of plastic pollution and leakage with ambitious and coordinated efforts and cross-industry synergies (with a focus on packaging, municipal solid waste, and consumer goods) (Pew and Systemiq, 2020). She noted that other reports (Light House, 2025; Systemiq, 2023) have looked at building materials and textiles and similarly highlighted the ability of known technology to manage 70–90 percent of plastic pollution; it is just a matter of making it happen.

Specifically, Koskella shared a recent report that focused on synergies between polyethylene terephthalate (PET) packaging and textile circularity in the United States, explaining that over 100 billion bottles and 10 billion textile garments are made from the same polymer, PET, but where 23 percent of PET packaging or bottles are recycled, only 1 percent of textiles made from PET are recycled (Systemiq, 2024). Regarding challenges to design, the majority of polyesters are combined with other materials in textiles, and although bottles can become new bottles or polyester textiles with existing mechanical recycling technologies, reversing the flow and making polyester garments into bottles would require simpler design or depolymerization.

Koskella also noted that encouraging flow between sectors can cause other issues, asking:

• Who pays for the system if the bottles are collected and used by a different industry?
• Who has preferential access to the recycled content being created?
• How will global supply chains be optimized and how will this affect trade (e.g., bottles are primarily created in the United States and textiles in Asia)?

Koskella emphasized the importance of a full value chain approach and that similar policy levers can be applied in all sectors. For example, reduce and rethink to decrease the overall use of plastic, design for recycling, reuse, or modularity and refurbishment, minimize leakage during collection and recycling, and improving safety and disposal. She also noted that getting control of microplastic leakage is an important part of the circularity conversation. Koskella concluded by reflecting on the potential for EPR across the sectors; already applied in packaging, EPR is becoming more prominent in textiles and could be applied in construction materials. However, she said, what is developed in one sector must be transferred to the others while avoiding known pitfalls.

Panel Discussion

Noting that plastics do not stay within a single sector, and thinking beyond those discussed during this workshop, the moderator asked the panelists whether EPR and recycled content mandates—often developed in a sector-specific way—are reinforcing silos, and what kind of cross-sector policy approaches could better support circularity across the system.

Koskella noted that the cross-sectoral work is primarily reflected in the lessons learned, rather than a shared EPR, and also mentioned the lack of harmonization within EPR to date. She highlighted the successes of takeback and deposit return programs for bottles in the Philippines, Colombia, and Germany. Similar work has been done work with consumer electronic goods, and opportunities have been identified for building materials and textiles. Koskella reiterated that the pitfalls are not only in collection but also in design, ensuring that goods are designed for the next loop rather than exported to low-income economies. She cited PET bottles as an example of some success in keeping the materials more circular and local, and encouraged a greater focus on maintaining materials at the highest value, reselling locally, and recycling locally.

Koskella also believes that current policy does not recognize the cross-sectoral synergies of recycling targets. Downcycling is viewed as a “bad outcome,” but she pondered whether that is actually the case. If the construction sector is a viable end market for flexible packaging material, then the material could be in use for longer (i.e., in a building for upwards to 20 years) than if it was assigned another life. Here, Koskella suggested, the outcome is mutually beneficial outcome because otherwise there is a limited offtake market for flexible packaging that requires food grade content, which is difficult at scale.

Pascual agreed about the issues posed by disparate EPR policies, and noted that considerations of plastic footprinting do not adequately factor in substitution and alternative materials. They highlighted the importance of new alignment through the value chain and across sectors to make progress.

Bangaru also agreed on the utility of cross-sectoral learnings from EPR, particularly in product design. He noted that many materials end up co-mingled, with many additives and coatings. He suggested an opportunity to educate the reclaimed material suppliers and to explain why a stream is being rejected. Bangaru also reiterated the comments about downcycling and alternatives, noting that if people are benefiting from recycling, and it enables the material use to remain at a high quality for longer and curbs virgin production, then it remains part of the solution.

Regarding recycled content mandates, the panel then discussed whether the competition and demand for the same recycled content feedstock could create challenges. Koskella noted that current demand for recycled content is not sufficient to move toward circularity, with recyclers running under capacity or shutting down, so driving demand could support the infrastructure. Simultaneously, the aim is to increase the amount of recycled content available, stabilize the recycling industry, and allow the industry to grow and collect material that is not yet collected and sorted.

Bangaru repeated the data about the plateaued levels for current materials recycling— approximately 25–30 percent of PET and closer to 10 percent for other materials—and stressed the opportunity to reclaim more of the material. He also repeated his comments about materials being imported rather than reclaimed and recycled from local markets and the need to incentivize the desired outcome.

Pascual agreed that having more demand for recycled content would be a “good problem” and shared the approach of the WWF Bioplastic Feedstock Alliance, which brings together companies that are competing for feedstocks to coordinate on questions to ask of suppliers and to harmonize sustainability standards used in purchasing. WWF encourages ways to take companies in competition for feedstock and rather align the companies on standards for highest and best use.

The panel was then asked how reuse and other models can be brought into focus, investment, and policy. Bangaru noted that in the European Union, packaging and packaging waste regulation had aspirational and effective reuse targets but the implementation of shared targets is enabling actors to deflect accountability to others who may be likewise relying on the efforts of others to achieve collective targets, whether at the brand level, article level, or member-state level. He suggested incentives and policies that drive ownership by the economic operators. Bangaru also stated that reuse is an interesting opportunity for business model innovation, consumer innovation, and material innovation, as well as collaboration.

Pascual suggested that reasonable expectations be set and that the ambition and time-frame be scaled and targeted for success, because the new systems in development are competing with robust, optimized, and entrenched systems. Pascual shared one example of work to make reuse the default framework: the NextGen Consortium led a pilot project with reusable cups in Petaluma, CA, that immersed the full community (MRF operators, retailers, brands, consumers, local government) and resulted in 88 percent of the community reporting that they knew how to return their cups and 83 percent being at least aware of the pilot.

These comments tied into the final question for this panel about the role of partnerships and collaborations and opportunities for shared definitions, metrics, data sharing, and infrastructure. Bangaru sees an opportunity for shared infrastructure, with specific interest in secondary sorting and partnerships to share materials among companies with use for different types of feedstocks where a residual bale might otherwise have ended with incineration. Pascual encouraged a breakdown of silos, creativity in outreach between sectors, and spaces for precompetitive work. Koskella highlighted the increased importance of reverse logistics to more granularly match feedstock suppliers and feedstock buyers and cautioned against fragmentation that can increase confusion. She closed by emphasizing the need for public–private partnerships when infrastructure such as washing hubs can benefit more than individual brands.