The undersigned organisations, representing civil society, business organisations and companies active along the waste management value chain, highlight that rules for calculating recycled content in plastics using a mass balance approach under the Single Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) will in influence market dynamics and shape the industry for decades to come. As the first regulation on the calculation of recycled content from chemical recycling at European level, this Implementing Act will serve as a blueprint for future regulations in Europe, including Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), and the End-of-Life Vehicle Regulation (ELVR).

First, we reiterate our strong reservations about recognising chemical recycling for recycled content in single use plastic beverage bottles, as mechanical recycling is already a mature, proven solution in this area, capable of delivering both the quality and the quantity of recycled material needed to meet existing and future legislative targets. The members of this coalition have previously agreed to support the ‘polymer only’ allocation method. However, if the ‘fuel excluded’ method is chosen, it is essential that some safeguards are put in place to ensure that this allocation method provides strong traceability and transparency and is consistent with the objectives of the SUPD.

Although we welcome the increased traceability introduced by the Commission’s draft proposal, we believe it still requires essential improvements. In particular, the document must provide clear, enforceable definitions and ensure that reallocation rules are closely linked to operational realities and limited to outputs that genuinely contribute to a circular plastics economy. This is vital for the credibility of the current SUPD, and also because this Implementing Act will set a precedent for future regulatory frameworks. Any ambiguity or loophole introduced here could be replicated in upcoming legislation, which would have significant implications for the integrity and competitiveness of Europe’s circular economy.

Aligning with PPWR’s sustainability requirements:

• We support inclusion of such a statement in Recital (5) and (27) on the priority of mechanical recycling over chemical recycling: ‘Plastic waste should be processed by the recycling technology that to the greatest extent reduces the negative impact on the environment, taking into account the required quality of the recyclate and the economic viability of the different technologies. Taking this into account, mechanical recycling technologies are in general preferable to chemical recycling technologies from an environmental point of view, and waste that can be recycled mechanically should in general not enter into chemical recycling if mechanical recycling can produce recyclates with similar quality or performance characteristics’. We regret that such a statement is not reflected in the provisions of the Implementing Act. To this end, and in line with the PPWR, sustainability criteria for plastic recycling technologies should be included in the framework of this IA to ensure that such prioritisation as suggested in Recital 27 is legally enforced in the framework of the SUPD. Such sustainability criteria could be aligned with those defined in Article 7.9 of the PPWR.

Ensuring strong definitions to enhance traceability, transparency and level playing field:

• We understand that the SUPD does not specify where the recycled content should come from, and this Implementing Act is the appropriate place to define it. However, we would remain extremely careful on aligning the definition of recycled plastic from post-consumer plastic waste with the definition under the PPWR, without implementing the same safeguards as in the PPWR. While the plastic recycling industry is going through an important crisis, European recycled plastic market must be protected. A mirror clause has been included in the PPWR to ensure that plastic waste collected and/or recycled outside the EU must comply with the same environmental, social and quality rules as plastic waste collected and/or recycled within the EU in order to be counted as recycled content. Such a clause is essential to ensure the competitiveness of the European industry, while ensuring the same level of quality and environmental standards for the recycled plastic imported into the EU in the form of plastic recyclate or incorporated into products. Therefore, we recommend keeping the definition of recycled plastic from post-consumer plastic waste as defined in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2683. However, if we align the SUPD with the definition of the PPWR, we should also implement the same safeguards as in the PPWR, including the mirror clause.
• While this implementing act intends to cover both mechanical and chemical recycling processes, the list of definitions only contains a definition of mechanical recycling. However, as the only reference to mechanical recycling is in Article 5.2(a), where it is referred to as a suitable recycling technology pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2022/1616, the definition in Article 1(25) is irrelevant. Conversely, a clear definition of chemical recycling is needed to clarify the scope of this Implementing Act and determine which technologies are targeted by the proposed mass balance accounting methodology under Article (7). The absence of a definition of chemical recycling, despite it being the main target of this legislation, raises questions and creates conceptual ambiguities, as well as leading to considerable uncertainty in interpretation for practical implementation. Such definition should refer to the definitions of recycling under the Waste Framework Directive, to ensure that fuel produced along the process of chemical recycling cannot contribute to recycling content. This definition shall cover all chemical recycling processes, and the calculation methods detailed in this Implementing Act must be suitable for all different recycling technologies.
• The definition of ‘eligible material’ should be improved as it refers to post-consumer plastic waste and intermediate fractions from the treatment of such waste (such as pyroil), which have the status of waste until the recycling process is fully completed – or until the material meets requirements for national or regional End-of-Waste. Therefore, facilities treating such waste should have the appropriate waste treatment permits. Additionally, it’s clear that only post consumer plastic waste and intermediate fractions stemming from it can be included as suitable input for the calculation of recycled content. We recommend that a more explicit term be used to remove any ambiguity, e.g. ‘eligible waste’. We also propose to reflect in this definition the priorisation of mechanical recycling over chemical recycling, as suggested in the Recital (5) and (27), by adding: “If, for a given plastic waste, chemical recycling has a higher environmental impact than mechanical recycling and mechanical recycling is available for equivalent quality applications, then it shall not be considered as eligible material for chemical recycling’.
• The deletion of the ‘plastic’ category of outputs as in the previous draft raises serious transparency concerns. While this Implementing Act serves to define the methodology for calculating the recycled plastic content of single-use plastic beverage bottles, the category of output ‘plastic‘ has been removed and replaced with ‘non-fuel‘. We recommend keeping two distinct categories, ‘chemical building blocs’, referring to plastics, and ‘non-fuel other co-products’ to ensure traceability of the different materials and the alignment with the SUPD. ‘Non-fuel other co-products’ shall have a fair market value similar to the market value of the ‘Chemical building blocks’. Such differentiation is necessary to ensure transparency and provide reliable data for the 2030 revision, particularly on the evaluation of the ability of chemical recycling to achieve plastic-to-plastic loops.
• The definition of ‘losses’ is currently aligned with the definition of waste under the WFD. We believe that this output category should be broadened to prevent credit reallocation between materials which do not find high value applications and are therefore poorly valorised further down the value chain. For example, in the case of pyrolysis reactors where the feedstock is a mixture of virgin oil processing residues and post-consumer waste plastics, some low-value by-products may be generated (e.g water), which should not be eligible to credit reallocation. Therefore, we propose to broaden the definition of ‘losses and by-products’ to include these low-value by-products. The criteria to differentiate a co-product from a by-product can be set as having a market value equal or above the one of any chemical building blocks of the chain.

Addressing shortcomings in the mass balance accounting process

• As a general comment, we appreciate the clear improvement in the explanation of when and how the mass balance accounting method should be used in the chemical recycling process. However, to ensure greater clarity in such a technical implementing act, we encourage the Commission to use formulas, which would highly simplify the current text. Providing additional guidance with concrete examples of calculations would help to ensure that both operators and verifiers, as well as public authorities, correctly apply the proposed mass balance method. In particular, the calculation method set out in Article 5.2 — i.e. the percentage of recycled plastic is multiplied by the weight of the respective bottle part — should apply to all recycling technologies, with the percentage of recycled plastic being calculated using the method set out in Article 5.2 or Articles 6 and 7, depending on the recycling technology used.
• We believe that Article 7 introduces unnecessary complications that could lead to confusion when interpreting and implementing the mass balance accounting calculation. Therefore, we propose modifying provision 7.3 so that the calculation point is placed just before the entrance to the first stream cracking operation. This means that if the heavy fraction of the pyrolysis oil undergoes a secondary processing step before being added to the process with the pyrolysis naphtha and pyrolysis gasoil, this is taken directly into account when computing the weight of the eligible input material and the total input material evaporated at the maximum acceptable boiling point established in (a), as set out in provisions 7.3(b) and 7.3(c). With such approach, the provision 7.3.(d) can be deleted and the provisions 7.3.(e) to (g) would be highly simplified.
• We appreciate that the method set out in Article 7 requires ‘process-specific operational data representative of the respective mass balancing period’, which forms the basis for greater traceability and transparency in the chemical recycling process. Nevertheless, given the elevated level of traceability that is stipulated, it is perplexing that provision 7.3.(e) outlines a lenient pathway for operators who do not fulfil their obligations in demonstrating compliance with the established methods. Therefore, no credit reallocation shall be permitted in subsequent steps for those economic operators unable to provide verifiable evidence of 7.3.(a) to (c).
• It is positive that the use of credit reallocation has been limited to the necessary steps, and that the reallocation process itself has been clarified. In particular, we appreciate that the dual-use factor takes into account the proportion of material remaining on the recycling pathway when the output is liquid or gaseous. However, it is imperative to integrate the entire value chain, including the downstream sector, into the notion of reallocation and dual use. For example, when benzene is produced from the steam cracker, the yield and energy consumption of the recycling pathway to PX, then PTA and then PET must be considered to prevent misleading claims about recycled content. Otherwise, some process losses or energy recovery might be accounted for as recycled content, which would not align with the definition of recycling in the Waste Framework Directive. Therefore, when attributing the dual-use factor based on the proportion of material remaining on the recycling pathway, the yield of the subsequent recycling processes should be taken into consideration. Furthermore, the Commission should provide clear guidance on documenting and verifying these dual-use factors for materials remaining on the recycling pathway.

Providing a robust certification framework and reporting to strengthen traceability

• While we welcome the inclusion of detailed verification obligations and the requirement for third-party certification by accredited verifier under Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, the proposed framework must ensure that verification is carried out by third-party bodies that have proven technical expertise in recycling technologies and supply chain traceability. This obligation is particularly important for imported materials, for which absolute vigilance and enhanced controls must be implemented to prevent the import of plastics that are allegedly chemically recycled. Member States must invest in capacity building and knowledge transfer to ensure that their competent authorities are equipped to understand and audit the complex mass balance systems used in chemical recycling pathways.
• We recommend that reporting requirements at Member States level maintain a clear separation between recycled content originating from mechanical recycling and that obtained through chemical recycling via mass balance accounting. As explained in Recital (17), Regulation (EU) 2022/1616 already establishes a reporting chain throughout consecutive manufacturing steps, including data on the type of recycling technology used (see Declaration of Compliance in Annex III, Part A). Therefore, maintaining traceability of recycled plastic with a distinction between the technologies used would not create unnecessary administrative burdens for operators and would enable policymakers, industry and civil society to monitor market trends, assess the relative contribution of each technology and better understand their respective environmental and economic impacts. A similar distinction should also be made for recycled materials from EU-based and non-EU recycling facilities to ensure full transparency on the origin of recycled content and facilitate informed policy decisions.

This joint position paper reflects the views of a diverse coalition of organisations spanning civil society and the waste management, recycling, and plastics value chains. While we support the Commission’s aim to introduce greater clarity and traceability to the calculation of recycled content, we firmly believe that stronger safeguards, clearer definitions, and alignment with sustainability principles are essential. As the first regulation to define the use of mass balance accounting for chemical recycling at EU level, this text will shape the legislative and investment landscape for years to come. It is therefore critical that this framework ensures both environmental integrity and a level playing field for all recycling technologies – mechanical and chemical alike – while protecting the value of truly circular and high-quality recycling. We stand ready to engage with the Commission and co-legislators to ensure the final act reflects these shared goals.

Ecopreneur.eu, the European Sustainable Business Federation, represents around 5,000 SMEs and larger companies committed to sustainability across sectors and EU Member States, many of them pioneering circular business models. With its eight member associations, Ecopreneur.eu is the only cross-sectoral business organisation advocating ambitious measures, rules and regulations for a low-carbon, circular and socially inclusive economy in Europe and beyond. We advocate a new economic framework in which sustainability is promoted, the environment respected, and ecological principles are followed. Ecopreneur.eu and our members bring concrete experience from pioneering companies into the political debate, show best practice examples that prove the viability of sustainable business models. https://ecopreneur.eu

Environmental Action Germany (Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. – DUH) has been campaigning to preserve the natural foundations of life for 50 years. In doing so, it brings together protecting the environment with consumer protection like no other organisation in Germany. https://www.duh.de

EuRIC, the European Recycling Industries’ Confederation is the umbrella organisation for the recycling industries in Europe. Through its 80 members from 24 European countries, EuRIC represents more than 5,500 large companies and SMEs involved in the recycling and trade of various resource streams. They represent a contribution of 95 billion EUR to the EU economy and 300,000 green and local jobs. https://euric.org

FEAD is the European Waste Management Association, representing the private waste and resource management industry across Europe, including 20 national waste management federations and 3,000 waste management companies. Private waste management companies operate in 60% of municipal waste markets in Europe and in 75% of industrial and commercial waste. This means more than 500,000 local jobs, fuelling €5 billion of investments into the economy every year. https://fead.be

Zero Waste Europe is the European network of communities, local leaders, experts, and change agents working towards a better use of resources and the elimination of waste in our society. We advocate for sustainable systems; for the redesign of our relationship with resources; and for a global shift towards environmental justice, accelerating a just transition towards zero waste for the benefit of people and the planet. www.zerowasteeurope.eu