Resources, Conservation & Recycling 162 (2020) 105030

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full length article

Extended producer responsibility: How to unlock the environmental and T

economic potential of plastic packaging waste?
Susanna Andreasi Bassia, , Alessio Boldrina, Giorgia Faracab, Thomas F. Astrupa
⁎

a
Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
b
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Edificio Expo, Calle Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Seville, Spain

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Several are the challenges related to plastic waste, spanning from littering, high collection costs, and low re-
Household source-segregated plastic waste cycling rates. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is considered a key initiative to tackle some of these issues.
Life Cycle Assessment To evaluate EPR role and effectiveness, 40 management scenarios focused on plastic packaging waste generated
Environmental assessment by Italian households were investigated, and their environmental performance (via a consequential life cycle
Economic assessment
assessment) and the economic sustainability of their waste value chain (via a cost-benefit analysis for each
Recycling target
stakeholder) were compared to the recycling targets. Overall, packaging waste management represented an
Circular economy
environmental burden. Yet, environmental benefits can be achieved by maximizing the collection rate, while
minimizing the impurities collected with the source-segregated plastic and the processing losses in the recycling
chain. Furthermore, the cost-benefit analysis showed that the recyclers are the weakest link in the value chain,
and recycling of soft plastic and mixed polyolefin is generally not profitable. This increases the risk of exporting
low-quality materials outside Europe, where their fate is uncertain. Finally, the results demonstrate that im-
proving plastic packaging recyclability and strengthening the market for secondary plastic is critical for reaching
the European recycling targets of 55% in 2030.

1. Introduction systems are expected to play a major role in this regard by making
producers responsible for the end-of-life phase (OECD, 2001), thereby
While representing a major technological breakthrough in itself, plastic also providing incentives for more recycling-friendly plastic packaging
is associated with a wide range of challenges in its waste phase, from (OECD, 2018). Although different EPR systems have been implemented
marine pollution to limited recycling (Bio Intelligence Service, 2011; globally (Monier et al., 2014), EPR often includes an environmental fee
EC, 2018a). Following the substantial attention plastic waste has received in that producers and importers pay to have their products managed
recent years, and promises of considerable economical gains voiced by a through a producer responsibility organization (PRO), namely, a “col-
wide variety of stakeholders (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017, 2016), the lective entity set up by producers or through legislation, which becomes
EU recently defined a new circular economy strategy (EC, 2018a) by pro- responsible for meeting the recovery and recycling obligations of the
viding guidelines for its management, with reuse, repair, and recycling as individual producers” (Monier et al., 2014). However, little consensus
the preferred options. Despite this heightened attention in recent years, exists about how best to distribute costs and responsibilities between
actual recycling and off-setting of virgin plastic production is extremely the involved stakeholders (Monier et al., 2014), and existing EPR and
limited; for instance, in the EU, less than 30% of plastic was collected for take-back systems have yet to demonstrate genuine improvements in
recycling in 2017 (EC, 2018a). With a new EU recycling target for plastic product design and plastic recyclability (Watkins et al., 2017). The
packaging of 50% by 2025 and 55% by 2030 (EC, 2018b), significant im- question is, can EPR and take-back systems offer the incentives needed
provements are needed in the coming years. to attain the EU's high recycling targets?
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) and take-back/deposit Plastic recycling is characterized by several challenges: low material

Abbreviations: CAPEX, capital investment expenditure; EU, European Union; EPR, Extended producer responsibility; FU, Functional unit; GWP, Global warming
potential; HDPE, High-density polyethylene; LCA, Life cycle assessment; LDPE, Low-density polyethylene; MPO, Mixed polyolefin; MRF, Material recovery facility;
OPEX, operating expense; PMFP, Particular matter formation potential; PET, polyethylene terephthalate; PP, Polypropylene; PRO, Producer responsibility organi-
zation; wPE, Weighted person equivalent
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Andreasi Bassi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105030
Received 20 February 2020; Received in revised form 28 May 2020; Accepted 26 June 2020
Available online 09 July 2020
0921-3449/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Andreasi Bassi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 162 (2020) 105030

densities involving high collection costs (WRAP, 2007), a variety of generated by Italian households; iii) identify limitations associated with
different polymers (e.g. PET, HDPE, PP) with distinctive chemical current plastic waste management and existing EPR systems; and (iv)
structures, properties (e.g. thermos-plasticity, bio-degradability, den- provide recommendations for improving the sustainability of plastic
sity) and additives (Villanueva and Eder, 2014), and a product design packaging waste management while ensuring appropriate incentives for
based on product functionality rather than considerations regarding individual stakeholders. Household plastic packaging waste was se-
waste sorting and recycling (NewInnoNet, 2016). Most often, post- lected due to its heterogeneity and considerable current attention,
consumer plastic is often contaminated with relatively high levels of shown by the high recycling targets set by the EU on this type of waste
impurities, potentially affecting downstream resource quality and re- (EUROPEN, 2016). Moreover, Italy was selected based on its long his-
cycling processes (Eriksen et al., 2018). Furthermore, the economic tory of EPR implementation (Watkins et al., 2017), a source-segregated
viability of plastic recycling is often limited, due to i) a lack of stable plastic collection rate in line with the European average (EC, 2019;
market demands (EC, 2018a) (e.g. due to concerns about material PlasticsEurope, 2019), and a well-established plastic recycling industry
quality and/or stability of supply), ii) competition with low-cost virgin that absorbed 13.9% of the total European converters demand in 2018
alternatives and iii) complex value chains involving a variety of sta- (PlasticsEurope, 2019).
keholders within the recycling system (NewInnoNet, 2016;
Villanueva and Eder, 2014). A consistent evaluation of these recycling 2. Materials and methods
systems is needed, to identify the most appropriate system configura-
tions and to ensure the best possible level of sustainability. 2.1. Case study: management of household plastic packaging in Italy
Several studies have evaluated the sustainability of plastic waste
management. From an environmental perspective, life cycle assessment The case study covers plastic packaging waste management-related
(LCA) has been applied to plastic waste, comparing recycling versus activities from the point of waste generation (collection from bins) to
disposal (Arena et al., 2003; Chilton et al., 2010; Huysman et al., 2015), marketing the processed flakes/granules ready to be used in new pro-
different collection rates (Rigamonti et al., 2014) and different re- ducts (Fig. 1). The stakeholders directly involved in the value chain are:
cycling technologies (Shen et al., 2010; Shonfield, 2008). However, i) the municipality, ii) the plastic packaging producer responsibility
most of the studies included only one or few environmental impact organization (PRO), iii) the material recovery facility (MRF), and iv)
categories (Hestin et al., 2015) - meaning that environmental trade-offs the recyclers of clear PET, light blue PET, mixed-color PET, HDPE, PP,
may not be identified - or are interested in quantifying environmental films and mixed polyolefins. In Italy, producers and importers of plastic
burdens of the current plastic waste management (Ferreira et al., 2017; packaging pay an environmental fee to the PRO per ton of plastic
Haupt et al., 2018) and not the effects of its upgrading. A detailed mass packaging produced/imported. The environmental fee was 188 EUR/t
balance and LCA of Austrian plastic waste was performed by Van Eygen in 2017 (Corepla, 2018a). Citizens sort generated plastic packaging
et al., (2018), but was not followed by an economic assessment. From waste into a separate bin, together with some unwanted impurities (e.g.
an economic perspective, the majority of studies only analyzed collec- non-plastic materials, labels, residuals in uncleaned containers). Mu-
tion costs (Greco et al., 2015; Groot et al., 2014; Jaeger and nicipalities are responsible for organizing and implementing the col-
Rogge, 2014), sorting costs (Cimpan et al., 2016) or provided an en- lection of source-segregated plastic waste, either as a single-stream
vironmental life cycle costing based on rather simplified modeling ap- (only plastic) or co-mingled with metals (Corepla, 2018a), and they
proaches and life cycle inventory (Feil et al., 2016; Pressley et al., 2015; receive a financial compensation from the PRO that decreases with
van Velzen et al., 2013). Even the more complete environmental life increasing content of impurities (303.8 EUR/t plastic packaging re-
cycle costing (e.g. Faraca et al., 2019a) did not quantify the effects of ceived ANCI and Corepla, 2014). All non-sorted packaging plastic ends
specific initiatives for individual stakeholders, nor identified bottle- up in mixed waste, which is also managed by the municipality. The PRO
necks in the value chain. When the focus was placed on analyzing the is responsible for transferring part of the environmental fee to the
efficiency and the application of the extended producer responsibility of municipality, setting purity targets for the sorted material, and sam-
packaging material (e.g. Cunha et al., 2014; Ferreira da Cruz et al., pling/analyzing the waste. For simplicity, all plastic was assumed to be
2014; Rigamonti et al., 2015a), it was not possible to extrapolate any collected as a single-stream (e.g. one bin for plastic), corresponding to
conclusion for plastic since all material fractions were aggregated. 75% of plastic collection schemes in Italy (Corepla, 2018a). After col-
These studies thereby fail to include a stakeholder perspective when lection, the material is transported to the MRFs, represented by private
evaluating circular economy systems where cooperation is of particular companies contracted by the PRO to sort the materials into seven pri-
importance (Schaubroeck et al., 2019). As such, no studies in the lit- mary fractions (bales), namely, clear PET bottles, light blue PET bottles,
erature to date have provided a consistent approach for evaluating mixed-color PET bottles, HDPE, PP, soft packaging (film), and mixed
these multi-stakeholder recycling systems that are so essential for polyolefin (MPO). The MRF is characterized by sorting efficiencies (i.e.
promoting a circular economy. the kg of targeted polymer that the plant can correctly sort in the
The present study differed from the already published work for corresponding bale) and purity of the bales (i.e. kg of un-wanted con-
several reasons: a detailed data collection to combine national and taminations in the bale) and its residues are sent to disposal. Being the
European data was performed; a detailed mass balance to track each legal owner of the sorted plastic, the PRO sells the bales through open
polymer and the impurities along all the value chain was modeled; auctions, and recyclers buy these bales and sort, shred, wash, extrude,
several waste management alternatives and modeling choices were and pelletize the materials for the production of plastic flakes (in the
compared; midpoint and endpoint environmental impact categories case of non-food-grade PET) or granules (in all other cases). The tech-
were quantified and combined in a single indicator; and the economic nical yields quantify the efficiency of the recyclers, which is the kgs of
sustainability of the system was evaluated from the perspective of dif- flakes/granules per kg of entering bale. The flakes/granules are sub-
ferent stakeholders. sequently sold to converters for manufacturing the final plastic pro-
The overall aim of this study is to provide a consistent framework ducts.
for evaluating the environmental and economic impacts of selected
packaging plastic waste management solutions, including EPR. Based 2.2. Management alternatives
on an Italian case study, this is addressed through the following specific
objectives: i) establish an assessment framework that covers the reg- Five management alternatives for managing plastic packaging waste
ulatory, environmental and economic spheres relative to individual were evaluated: A1 and A2 represent two baseline systems, each with
stakeholders in the recycling value chain; ii) apply this framework to a different collection systems, while alternatives A3–A5 represent three
selection of alternative options for managing plastic packaging waste options for future improvements. Alternatives A3-A5 are based on a

2
S. Andreasi Bassi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 162 (2020) 105030

Fig. 1. System boundaries (dotted line), mass flows (black solid lines), and monetary flows (orange solid lines) relevant for the Italian packaging plastic waste
management. Dark gray boxes represent the stakeholders included in the study: municipality, producer responsibility organization (PRO), material recovery facilities
(MRFs), and recyclers. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

door-to-door collection (namely A1), as this system is more frequently • A4) Improved recyclability for PET, HDPE, PP, and films: All plastic
adopted when implementing new separate collection systems in Italy packaging products sold on the market were designed for improved
(Bain and Company, 2013). recyclability, and the choice of additives, labels, glues, etc. was
The five management alternatives were: compatible with plastic recycling systems (APR, 2020; EPBP, 2020).
For all polymers, higher sorting efficiencies, higher technical yields
• A1) Door-to-door collection: The waste management system re- in the recycling plants, and higher market values of bales and
presented the Italian waste management in 2017 assuming that all flakes/granules relative to A1 were assumed.
the source-segregated plastic was collected with a door-to-door • A5) Deposit system: A deposit system for PET bottles was introduced
collection. The collection efficiency was 62% ± 9% (ISPRA, 2017) as an alternative to the collection in A1, similar to the well-estab-
and the share of impurities in the bin was 10% ± 2.5% of the col- lished Danish deposit system which achieves a return rate of 91%
lected materials. The source-segregated plastic was sent directly to (Dansk Retursystem, 2019). The deposit system was assumed to be
the MRF characterized by average sorting efficiencies and both the operated directly by the PRO, without involving other stakeholders.
bales and the secondary material were sold in the market with The introduction of the deposit system caused a higher cost of the
average market prices in 2017 (see Appendix A). door-to-door collection of the remaining plastic and a higher market
• A2) Street collection: Similar to alternative A1 but involving street price for the PET bales.
collection instead of door-to-door. Collection efficiency was as-
sumed as being identical to A1, albeit with a higher share of im- 2.3. Modeling approach and scope
purities of 30% ± 5% reflecting available data (see Appendix A).
Contrary to A1, municipalities involved a pre-sorting plant before The assessment framework was established in accordance with LCA
the MRF to reduce the content of impurities and thereby received standards (ISO, 2006a,b), thereby keeping goal and scope, life cycle
larger financial compensation from the PRO (Guerrini et al., 2016). inventory, and system boundaries consistent across alternatives and
The other parts of the system were identical to A1. assessments. The functional unit (FU) was “the management of 1000 kg
• A3) Improved recyclability for PET bottles: All PET bottles sold on of household plastic packaging waste, having a fractional composition
the market were assumed to be clear unpigmented, and the type of of 9% clear PET bottles, 13% light blue PET bottles, 9% mixed-color
additives, labels, glues, etc. was compatible with plastic recycling PET bottles, 2% opaque and sleeve-labeled PET bottles, 3% PET trays,
systems (APR, 2020; EPBP, 2020). This was reflected by higher PET 10% HDPE, 7% PP, 28% soft packaging, and 19% other polymers”
sorting efficiencies in the MRF, higher technical yields in the PET based on Italian data (Conte, 2016). Impurities found alongside the
recycling plants, and higher market values for PET bales and PET source-segregated plastic (43% non-plastic packaging, 4% metals, 21%
flakes relative to A1. other combustibles, 32% fines Albetti et al., 2012) were assessed by i)

3
S. Andreasi Bassi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 162 (2020) 105030

including all waste management activities as an integral part of the than RecBales and lower than RecGranules. However, the RecEU was cal-
alternatives, and ii) subtracting the counter-factual management (i.e. culated as a simple average between RecBales and RecGranules, since
waste management of the mixed waste if the impurities were correctly plastic recyclers have been traditionally reporting only the overall ef-
thrown in the mixed waste bin). The geographical scope of the case ficiency (kg of secondary material sold in the market per kg of material
study was Italy, and the temporal scope was 2017–2030. The modeling entering the plant) and not the efficiencies of the single reprocessing
was carried out with the software EASETECH (Clavreul et al., 2014), steps.
while Excel and STAN (Cencic, 2016), a software that performs un-
certainty propagation and data reconciliation, were used for material
2.3.2. Life cycle assessment
flow analysis to ensure balanced and consistent material flows
The LCA adopted a consequential approach to model the potential
throughout the system.
effects of future decisions, reflected by the individual management alter-
Based on the definition of goal and scope, relevant stakeholders
natives (Ekvall et al., 2016). For this reason, system expansion was applied
within the value chain were identified (Fig. 1), material and monetary
to address multi-functional processes. For example, the produced flakes
flows were quantified (Fig. 1), and alternatives were modeled for
and granules substituted virgin material that would otherwise have been
comparison (Section 2.2). The regulatory, environmental, and eco-
produced applying a value-corrected substitution factor as it is commonly
nomic spheres were evaluated by i) recycling rate calculation, ii) life
done in consequential LCAs (Van Eygen et al., 2018a), which is defined as
cycle assessment and iii) multi-stakeholder economic cost-benefit ana-
the market price ratio between secondary and primary granules. In all
lysis, respectively.
alternatives, PET HDPE, and PP substituted virgin fossil polymers; in al-
ternatives A1, A2, A3, and A5, granules produced from soft plastic and
mixed polyolefin MPO bales were assumed to replace outdoor furniture
2.3.1. Recycling rate
otherwise made of wood and cast iron (Van Eygen et al., 2018a); and in
The regulatory sphere was represented by EU recycling targets, the
alternative A4, the quality of granules from soft plastic was assumed to be
key performance indicator for member states (EC, 2018c,b, 2008).
high enough to replace virgin PP and LDPE. The energy produced by in-
European legislation included the concept of recycling rates at the be-
cineration substituted marginal energy production, calculated as the
ginning of the ‘90 s. However, its definition has been changing with
growing technologies (Ekvall and Weidema, 2004), based on the Italian
time. The Directive 2008/98/EC (EC, 2008) included the objective of
data provided in the GECO2018 report (Keramidas et al., 2018): Marginal
“preparing for re-use and recycling” 50% of the generated paper, metal,
electricity (6% biomass, 18% hydro, 1% natural gas, 28% solar, 28% wind,
plastic, and glass waste from households by 2020. The Directive al-
19% CHP) and space heating (3% electrical boilers, 49% biomass, 21%
lowed countries to report directly the collected material or the outputs
hydrogen, and 27% central heating). Energy from the biomass was as-
from MRFs if there were no significant losses (EC, 2011). With the new
sumed responsible for also 0.32 fossil CO2/kgwood, due to the indirect land-
Directive 2018/851 (EC, 2018c) and 2018/852 (EC, 2018b), the Eur-
use change (Faraca et al., 2019b). Industrial heating consisted of 50% coal,
opean Commission amended the Waste directive 2008/98/EC and the
48% biomass, and 2% hydrogen. Each process included capital goods,
packaging and packaging waste Directive 94/62/EC and it stated that
transport, ancillary materials, energy consumption, and direct and indirect
“the calculation of the recycling targets should be based on the weight
emissions (Appendix A).
of municipal waste which enters recycling” (recycling operations de-
ReCiPe 2016 v1.1 (Huijbregts et al., 2017) was applied as an LCA
fined as the recycling of waste into products, materials or substances)
collection to express the results as a single indicator: end-point impact
excluding all the losses of materials due to sorting.
categories for the three areas of protection (human health, ecosystems,
The recycling rates were determined at several points in the value
and resources) were quantified, followed by normalization, weighting,
chain to highlight the difference in the results: i) Weight of the source-
and aggregation (Laurent et al., 2019; PRé Consultants, 2001).
segregated plastic, including both plastic packaging and impurities
(Reccoll = kgcollected/1000 kgpackaging plastic); ii) mass sold as bales after
sorting (Recbale = kgbales/ 1000 kgpackaging plastic); iii) quantity of tar- 2.3.3. Economic analysis
geted packaging plastic in the bales without impurities (Recbale The economic analysis involved a multi-stakeholder approach for
pack = kgtargeted plastic packaging in the bales/1000 kg packaging plastic); calculating a separate cost-benefit analysis for each stakeholder
and iv) kg of flakes/granules produced by the recyclers (Soltani et al., 2016) to identify potential imbalances and/or economic
(Recgranule = kggranules/1000 kgpackaging plastic). losses (Freeman, 1984). Table 1 provides an overview of financial costs
The recycling rate required by the actual EU legislation (RecEU) and revenues for the selected stakeholders. The cost-benefit analysis of
should include the sorting steps of the recyclers but not the physical the MRF and the seven recycling plants were calculated similarly to
losses due to shredding and extrusion, meaning that it should be higher Cimpan et al. (2016):

Table 1
Financial burdens and benefits of the included stakeholders. MRF: material recovery facility; CAPEX: capital expenditure; OPEX: operating expense.
Stakeholder Responsibilities Outputs Costs Benefits

Municipality Collection Source-segregated plastic Collection costs (door-to-door or street) Financial compensation from the PRO
Administration costs
Pre-sorting (A2)
PRO Ensuring recycling rates N/A Financial compensation to Environmental fee from companies
municipalities Sale of bales to recyclers
Service fee to MRFs
Quality analysis of the MRF's bales
OPEX
Disposal of MRF's residues
MRF Sorting Bales CAPEX Service fee from the PRO
OPEX
Recyclers Sorting, shredding, compacting, washing, melting, Flakes or granules CAPEX Sale of flakes/granules
etc. OPEX
Purchase of the bales from the PRO
Disposal of residues

4
S. Andreasi Bassi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 162 (2020) 105030

• The capital expenditure (CAPEX) included the annualized building Faraca et al., 2019a; Martinez-Sanchez et al., 2016; Pressley et al.,
and equipment costs together with the project and installation costs. 2015; Pringle and Barker, 2004). The costs of incineration and land-
Annualized CAPEX was calculated as the total CAPEX multiplied by filling were specific of the Italian context and included incineration and
n
the capital recovery factor that is equal to i * (1 +n i) , where i is the landfill taxes (EEA, 2013; Moretto and Favot, 2017), while the ancillary
[(1 + i) 1]
interest rate and n the lifetime of the plants. material consumption and emissions to the environment were based on
• The operating expense (OPEX) included the maintenance and the French, Danish and Italian plants (Beylot and Villeneuve, 2013;
Møller et al., 2013; Turconi et al., 2011). Specific Italian data were used
insurance of the building and the equipment, the energy (electricity
and heat), the ancillary material consumption (e.g. diesel), and the for the costs and revenues of the PRO (ANCI and Corepla, 2014;
personnel salaries. Corepla, 2018a, 2015), cost of personnel (Federambiente, 2012), elec-
tricity (Eurostat, 2019), heat (Eurostat, 2018), diesel (Statista, 2018).
All economic data were normalized for Italy for 2017, using pur- Prices of plastic bales, secondary and primary material were built on
chasing power parities (World Bank, 2019) and inflation rates market data (Camera di commercio di Milano, n.d.; Corepla, 2018a,
(fxtop.com/, 2019). 2013, 2012; PIE, n.d.; Plasticker.de, n.d.; Popovic, 2017; WRAP, 2017).

2.6. Scenario analysis

2.4. Uncertainty analysis
Seven scenarios were modeled for each plastic packaging waste
Due to the inherent variations in most data, the around 300 para-
management alternative (A1-A5). Two scenarios (a-b) evaluated key
meters describing the model (e.g. transfer coefficients, emissions, con-
assumptions regarding waste management:
sumptions, costs) were defined as probability distributions (normal,
uniform, or triangular) rather than as fixed values. The propagation of
a) Production of food-grade PET granules was maximized rather than
the uncertainty in the mass balance was performed in Excel and STAN,
PET flakes based on Van Eygen et al. (2018): 54% of the entering
allowing to have consistent transfer coefficients for all the fractions
material is sorted out as higher quality PET and can be recycled in
from the waste generation until the production of secondary material
food-grade granules, while the remaining 46% has lower quality and
(i.e. sorting efficiencies, technical yields and cross-contaminations in
is used for flakes production. The energy and ancillary material
each bale).
consumption were modified accordingly. The food-grade PET
The uncertainty in the data was propagated with Monte Carlo
granules substituted food-grade virgin PET, instead of amorphous
analysis (1000 samples), and the parameters contributing the most to
PET;
the uncertainty of the results were identified by global sensitivity
b) Collection rate was increased to 83% (i.e. the highest collection rate
analysis (Bisinella et al., 2016). In Section 3, all results are presented as
reported in Italy (ISPRA, 2017));
the average of the Monte Carlo iterations plus/minus the associated
c) Four additional scenarios (c-g) evaluated key modeling choices:
standard deviation. Data distributions were identified based on an ex-
d) The composition of the generated packaging plastic waste was based
tensive literature review addressing all foreground data (see Appendix
on the manual sorting from Conte (2016) that included higher
A for references), including around 45 reference sources for material
contents of PET (from 33% to 50%) and HDPE (from 10% to 17%)
balances, 50 references for the environmental assessment, and 25 re-
and lower contents of soft packaging (from 28% to 13%) and other
ferences for the economic assessment. Background data were retrieved
polymers (from 19% to 9%);
from the ecoinvent v3.5 “consequential” database (Wernet et al., 2016).
e) Soft packaging and mixed polyolefin were assumed to substitute
thermal plaster instead of wood and cast iron;
2.5. Life cycle inventory f) Virgin plastic was modeled following the inventory described in
Franklin Associates (2011) instead of the one provided by ecoinvent
While this paragraph summarizes the life cycle inventory of the v3.5 (Wernet et al., 2016). The energy utilized was updated with the
study, a detailed description of all data, references, and assumptions is marginal electricity and heat used for all the other processes;
available in Annex A. Residual waste collection, door-to-door and street g) Average electricity for 2017 based on the GECO2018 report
source-segregated plastic collection and deposit systems are modeled (Keramidas et al., 2018) was used instead of marginal electricity;
using literature data for diesel consumption (Ferreira et al., 2017; h) Average space and industrial heat for 2017 based on the GECO2018
Larsen et al., 2009; Nilsson and Christensen, 2011; Rigamonti et al., report (Keramidas et al., 2018) was assumed instead of marginal
2014; Van Eygen et al., 2018a) and Italian collection costs space and industrial heat.
(D'Onza et al., 2016; ISPRA, 2017; Utilitalia and Bain and
Company, 2018). The mass balance of the MRF was modeled by com- 3. Results and discussion
bining information on different sorting efficiencies for each polymer
found in the literature (Arena et al., 2003; Axion Consulting, 2009; 3.1. Recycling rate
Cimpan et al., 2016; Conte, 2016; Giugliano et al., 2011; Haig et al.,
2015; Perugini et al., 2005; Pressley et al., 2015; Rigamonti et al., 2014; The recycling rates reported in Table 2 were calculated based on the
Shen et al., 2010; Shonfield, 2008; Turner et al., 2015; Van Eygen et al., mass balances modeled for the different alternatives (see Fig. 2 for A1
2018b) and the quality requirements of the Italian plastic PRO for and Appendix A for the other alternatives). By comparing Reccoll and
plastic bale (Corepla, 2018b). Data for the ancillary materials and en- Recbale, it is evident that only about 60% of the collected materials in
ergy consumption for the pre-sorting plant, the MRF, the simplified A1 and 40% in A2 were sold as bales, reaching 70% in A3 and A4 with
sorting (used in the deposit system) and recycling plants for each of the higher sorting efficiencies. The amount and quality of the source-seg-
polymers were based on literature (Arianna Ambiente, n.d.; regated and collected plastic waste may reflect the involvement of the
Axion Consulting, 2009; Chilton et al., 2010; Cimpan et al., 2016; population, but in itself, it provides little information about the en-
Conte, 2016; Franklin Associates, 2011; Haupt et al., 2018; vironmental savings due to recycling because it does not take into ac-
McDougall et al., 2001; Perugini et al., 2005; Pressley et al., 2015; count the processing losses. Reccoll in A2 was relatively high (89%)
Rigamonti et al., 2014; Torregrossa et al., 2005; Turner et al., 2015; because of high levels of impurities in the collected waste, and conse-
Van Eygen et al., 2018b). The capital and operational expenditures of quently, Recbale was only 37%. Overall, none of the individual alter-
sorting and recycling plants were calculated based on operating plants natives (different collection rates in A1 and A2, recyclability improve-
in Europe (Axion Consulting, 2009; Cimpan et al., 2016; Conte, 2016; ment in A3 and A4, or the deposit system in A5) reached the 50% EU

5
S. Andreasi Bassi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 162 (2020) 105030

Table 2
Recycling rates for the five alternatives and the scenarios a, b, and c, expressed as average ± standard deviation. RecEU is a simple average between Recbale and
Recgranule. A4-scenario b (improved recyclability and higher collection rate) is the only case where the recycling rate was higher than the 55% target for 2030
(EC, 2018b).
Alternatives
Indicator A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

Reccoll 70% ± 9% 88% ± 11% 70% ± 9% 70% ± 9% 77% ± 6%

Recbale 43% ± 7% 37% ± 10% 44% ± 7% 50% ± 7% 48% ± 4%
Recbale pack 40% ± 6% 34% ± 10% 41% ± 6% 47% ± 6% 46% ± 4%
Recgranule 34% ± 5% 29% ± 8% 35% ± 5% 43% ± 6% 40% ± 3%
RecEU 38% ± 4% 33% ± 7% 40% ± 4% 46% ± 5% 44% ± 3%
RecEU – scenario a 38% ± 4% 33% ± 4% 39% ± 4% 46% ± 5% 44% ± 3%
RecEU – scenario b 51% ± 3% 46% ± 8% 53% ± 3% 63% ± 1% 52% ± 1%
RecEU – scenario c 46% ± 5% 40% ± 8% 47% ± 5% 53% ± 5% 54% ± 2%

recycling target for 2025 (EC, 2018b). However, almost all the alter- 1.3E−02 ± 5.9E−03 wPE (A2, street collection), where A1 resulted
natives with a collection rate equal to 83% exceeded the 50% target, better than A2 in more than 70% of the Monte Carlo iterations. Com-
and by combining a high collection rate with improved recyclability of pared to A1, improving the recyclability only of PET bottles (A3), in-
all polymers (A4-scenario b) it was possible to achieve even the 55% EU cluding a deposit system (A5), and improving the recyclability of all
target for 2030 (EC, 2018b). This suggests that existing plastic recycling plastic products (A4), decreased the environmental impacts by 40%,
systems in Europe primarily based on EPR implementations are in- 64% and 103%, respectively, due to the larger quantities of virgin
sufficient, and that design improvements are most likely needed to plastic being substituted. Alternatives A4 and A5 scored almost always
reach the legislative targets. better than A1 (in 96% and 94% of the Monte Carlo iterations) in-
dependently from the uncertainty of the parameters. GWP represented
a net burden particularly due to large direct emissions of fossil CO2
3.2. Life cycle assessment from incinerating the non-recycled plastic waste (2.5 ± 0.009 t CO2
per t of plastic packaging incinerated). On the other hand, PMFP always
Fig. 3 (I, II) shows the aggregated results of the LCA in weighted provided net savings (negative results), albeit the contribution from
person equivalent (wPE), where all impact categories are normalized virgin plastic was higher than from energy production. As such, in-
and weighted to provide a single score. The characterized mid-point creased plastic incineration means higher GWP impacts and smaller
and end-point results for all the impact categories and area of damage PMFP savings, indicating that measures aiming at maximizing recycling
are reported in Appendix B. The largest contributors to the single end- efficiency, reducing the presence of impurities in the collected waste,
point indicator were global warming potential (GWP) and particulate and minimizing physical losses in the recycling chain should be prior-
matter formation potential (PMFP) shown in Fig. 3, III and IV, respec- itized. PET contributed to 62% and 80% of the savings coming from
tively. Therefore, the following discussion is focused on these two ca- material substitution for GWP and PMFP in A1, respectively. This re-
tegories only. Plastic waste management generally represented an en- flects that energy demands for virgin PET production are higher than
vironmental burden (positive score; see Fig. 3), unless the collection for the other polymers (Franklin Associates, 2011), and PET is the most
rates were maximized and the material losses minimized. The en- abundant polymer in plastic packaging waste (Andreasi Bassi et al.,
vironmental impacts were similar for both baseline alternatives, i.e. 2017). The uncertainties associated with GWP and PMFP (indicated in
1E−02 ± 3.6E−03 wPE (A1, door-to-door collection) and

Fig. 2. Results of the mass balance of alternative A1 and the corresponding recycling rates. Note that the input called “impurities & fines” was modeled subtracting
the counter-factual management (collection of the residual waste and disposal).

6
S. Andreasi Bassi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 162 (2020) 105030

Fig. 3. Single end-point indicator grouped per impact category (I) and per process (II) and midpoint results of GWP (III) and PMFP (IV) for the five alternatives and
the two framework scenarios regarding waste management (a, b). The other framework scenarios (c, d, e, f, and g) are shown for the basic alternatives only if outside
the uncertainty interval. All results are shown with the average and their standard deviation. wPE: weighted person equivalent; FU: functional unit; GWP—Human
Health: Global warming potential on the human health area of protection; PMFP-HH: particular matter formation potential on the human health area of protection. .

Fig. 3 as standard deviations) were caused mainly by the variability Although the overall ranking was not affected, the results demon-
related to the collection rate (and of the pre-sorting efficiency in A2), strated the critical importance of the waste composition (Bisinella et al.,
and to a lesser extent to the fuel consumption in the collection phase, 2017), in that the environmental impacts were 79% lower with the
the energy recovery efficiency, and the NOx emissions from the in- adjusted composition (A1-scenario c). In contrast, only a 4% difference
cinerator. More details relating the global sensitivity analysis results are was found when changing the assumption of material substitution for
in Appendix A. mixed polyolefin (A1-scenario d). A 33% higher single score was ob-
The scenario analysis confirmed the ranking of the management tained when modeling virgin plastic substitution with a different da-
alternatives in most situations: A4 (recyclability improvement for all taset (A1-scenario e). Modeling heat substitution as an average heat mix
products) was always the best alternative, and A5 (deposit) was the (A1-scenario g) decreased the results by only 8%, while changing as-
second-to-best alternative in all scenarios involving a constant collec- sumptions for electricity modeling (A1-scenario f) decreased the results
tion rate, except for scenario b, where A3-scenario b (PET bottle re- by 97%, which is in accordance with previous LCA studies
cyclability improvement and a high collection rate) was better than A5- (Andreasi Bassi et al., 2017; Faraca et al., 2019b).
scenario b (deposit and a high collection rate). Finally, the door-to-door
collection always appeared slightly better than street collection.
3.3. Multi-stakeholder economic benefits
The environmental single scores decreased by 12% and by 57%
when recycling into food-grade PET granules was maximized (A1-sce-
Fig. 4 provides an overview of financial revenues (negative values)
nario a vs A1) and when higher collection rates were achieved (A1-
and losses (positive values) based on the economic analysis of the in-
scenario b vs A1). However, the uncertainty propagation revealed that
dividual stakeholders. In the following, A5 is discussed separately, due
there is, statistically, no difference between recycling PET into food-
to the different features of the deposit system. Detailed results of the
grade and amorphous PET (baseline alternative vs scenario a); con-
cost-benefit analyses for all stakeholders in all alternatives and sce-
versely, increasing the collection rate (scenario b vs baseline alter-
narios can be found in Appendix B.
natives) results in a better environmental performance between 80%%
The municipality experienced losses of 189–197 EUR/FU in A1, A2,
and 97%% of the Monte Carlo iterations.
A3, and A4 (to be paid by Italian citizens through a waste tax). The

7
S. Andreasi Bassi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 162 (2020) 105030

Fig. 4. Mean and standard deviation of the economic evaluation for the municipality (I), the PRO (II), the material recovery facility (III), and recyclers (IV). The
results of the framework scenario were shown only when outside the uncertainty range. Due to space limitations, only PET and flexible packaging (film) recyclers
were shown, where PET indicates the sum of the clear, light blue, and mixed colors PET recyclers. CAPEX: capital expenditure; OPEX: operating expenses. FU:
functional unit. Detailed results are in Appendix B.

financial compensation from the PRO covered only between 60 and the main expense was purchasing the plastic bales, followed by op-
70% of the costs related to the collection and management of the erational activities, while for PP, film, and MPO recyclers, the major
source-segregated plastic packaging waste in all alternatives, while cost was found in operational activities. Less important factors were
municipalities additionally had to cover the costs for managing the non- transport costs for the bales and the disposal of residues. Recycling soft
source-segregated plastic packaging material. This observation is in plastic and mixed polyolefin was particularly critical, with financial
accordance with reports for other materials in other countries losses of around 100 EUR/t soft plastic input and 150 EUR/t polyolefins
(Ferreira da Cruz et al., 2014; Rigamonti et al., 2015b). Contrary to the input, respectively. In fact, post-consumer film is rarely collected se-
LCA, the results of the economic assessment demonstrate that the dif- parately from households (EC, 2018d; Recoup, 2014a; Villanueva and
ference between A1 and A2 is very small for the municipalities, effec- Eder, 2014), and it is a challenging product (CEFLEX consortium, 2018;
tively indicating little incentive for municipalities to reduce the level of Horodytska et al., 2018; Plastics Recyclers Europe, 2018) because of
impurities in the source-segregated plastic bin. The profits of the MRF multi-polymer composition (Eco-emballage, 2012; Horodytska et al.,
were around 30 EUR/FU in A1 and A2, a value directly proportional to 2018), significant content of glues, inks, and coating (Eco-embal-
the collection rate. Small variations between A1 and A2 were observed lage, 2012; Plastic Recyclers Europe, 2018a), and its negative con-
for the municipality and the MRF, but not for the PRO and recyclers. sequences on the sorting efficiencies of other plastic streams
The results showed economic losses for the PRO in A1 (58 ± 35 EUR/ (Axion Consulting, 2009; Recoup, 2014b,a). Film recycling was eco-
FU) and A2 (24 ± 60 EUR), in accordance with recent financial reports nomically feasible (negative net results, see Fig. 4) only in A4, where
(Corepla, 2018a, 2017), demonstrating that increasing collection rates major design efforts were assumed to ensure virgin PP and LDPE sub-
resulted in increasing financial losses for the PRO. Overall, the en- stitution of the recycled granules.
vironmental fee from industry represented over 65% of the PRO's in- Based on uncertainty propagation and Monte Carlo calculations, the
come, which achieved financial revenues only in A4, representing a probability of generating a profit for the individual polymers was de-
situation with higher and more stable market prices for bales. termined. Recycling clear and light-blue PET, HDPE, and PP appeared
The recyclers were the weakest link in the chain. The aggregated profitable in more than 90% of cases, recycling of HDPE in 80% of
results of the cost-benefit analysis for all recyclers involving all poly- cases, and recycling of mixed-color PET in 35% of cases, while soft
mers demonstrated no practical difference between A1 and A2 (total plastic and mixed polyolefin represented a net economic loss in more
revenues were between −3.7 and −4.6 EUR/FU), whereas revenues than 95% of cases. This is consistent with the recognized lack of
tripled in A5 (−15 EUR/FU) and A3 (−18 EUR/FU) and increased 13- European market demand for low-quality recycled plastic and the
fold in A4 (−65 EUR/FU). These results reflect the larger quantities, consistent export of plastic waste to Asia. This suggests that higher
more homogenous properties, and higher economic value of the ma- environmental fees should be paid by producers of less recyclable ma-
terials entering the system in A3 and A4. For PET and HDPE recyclers, terials (soft and mixed plastics) and poorly designed materials. The

8
S. Andreasi Bassi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 162 (2020) 105030

recyclers were associated with the largest uncertainty among all sta- market for secondary material, in agreement with recent developments
keholders, with a standard deviation between 51% for PP and over in Italy (Corepla, 2019) and France, including the introduction of
300% for PP (in A1). The results were particularly sensitive to technical economic incentives for “recycling-friendly” product designs. Second,
yields in recycling (i.e. how many kgs of granules are produced per kg financial compensation provided to municipalities should also be re-
of bale entering the plant), contributing to about 60–73% of the total defined to support increased collection of the highest possible material
uncertainty, with the remaining uncertainty associated with price var- quality. While deposit systems can bring both economic and environ-
iations for bales and granules and the collection rate. The relative un- mental improvements compared to the baseline, their implementation
certainty of the result was smaller in A3 and A4 compared to A1 and should be carefully integrated with existing EPRs and plastic waste
A2, reflecting the modeled reduced variability of the technical yield and management systems, to guarantee financial robustness and stability
of the market price with improved product recyclability. throughout the value chain.
Only three of the scenarios (a, b, c) affected the results of the eco-
nomic analysis. Recycling PET into food-grade granules (scenario a) 3.4.3. The challenges of European recyclers
provided no clear economic advantage for the recyclers, due to higher Environmental and economic performances have the potential to
capital investments. Increasing collection rates (scenario b) only in- improve significantly, but only when involving recycling-oriented
creased the material quantities received by each stakeholder: both product designs that would minimize the amount of rejects from the
revenues and losses increased correspondingly. Evaluating a different MRF and enable marketing of a more homogenous quality (A3 and A4).
plastic composition (scenario c), improved the financial situation for However, although significant efforts are carried out to enhance the
the PRO, MRF, and recyclers in all alternatives. This demonstrates that recycling of PET bottles (EPBP, 2020), PET trays, HDPE, and PP
the entire EPR system is financially vulnerable to changes in plastic (Plastics Recyclers Europe, 2018), the growing use of engineered plastic
waste composition, for example, due to changes in consumer behavior, packaging may counteract these efforts (Eco-emballage, 2012), as also
producers, and prevention initiatives. This further illustrates that reg- indicated by the results (A1-A2 versus A3-A4).
ularly reviewing and adjusting financial incentives for the improved The results reveal that only between 15% (in A2) and 36% (in A4) of
management and recycling of plastic waste is essential. generated plastic packaging waste can be transformed profitably into
By introducing a deposit system (A5), municipalities could reduce flakes and granules, thereby highlighting a systemic weakness in the
their costs to around 50 EUR/t of collected waste (even with higher plastic recycling system, namely the lack of an independent and stable
costs for collecting the remaining plastic), as the financial responsibility demand for secondary plastic products. Without improving the profit-
for PET bottle collection would be associated with the PRO. The MRF's ability of plastic recycling, large amounts of the plastic waste generated
profits were reduced to 16 ± 8 EUR/FU due to lower throughput, while may be shipped to low- and middle-income countries
the PET recyclers would generate larger profits through higher tech- (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015; Plastic Recyclers Europe, 2018b)
nical yields and the market value of the now cleaner materials. with lower environmental standards and cheaper labor, without
Compared to the baseline, the PRO observed a loss of 137 ± 68 EUR/ creating the local jobs and the cleaner industrial activities envisioned
FU in A5, thus reflecting a situation with the PROs being fully re- by the “plastic circular economy” (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015).
sponsible for costs associated with collection, management, and sorting,
while the costs for plastic packaging waste collection were shared with 3.4.4. Reflections on the assessment framework
the municipalities in the other alternatives. Naturally, financial re- The choice of the three criteria to evaluate plastic waste manage-
sponsibility for the deposit system may be allocated differently; how- ment alternatives (recycling rate, LCA, and multi-stakeholder economic
ever, the results demonstrate that environmental fees from producers evaluation) gave a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and
have to be increased in the case of deposit systems. weaknesses of the studied system. While the assessment framework was
implemented for plastic packaging, it may potentially be applied to any
3.4. Recommendations for plastic waste management waste fraction. Similar analyses are recommended for those waste
fractions where collection, sorting, and market conditions are strongly
3.4.1. Data quality and availability regulated by legislation, for example, other packaging materials, bat-
This study indicates that limited data availability reduces the basis teries, end-of-life vehicles, and WEEE (Monier et al., 2014). Such ana-
for system improvements, as also pointed out in previous LCA studies lyses can help legislators to introduce or improve EPR policies, to in-
(Andreasi Bassi et al., 2017). Indeed, considerable differences in data dividuate which costs are carried by which stakeholder, to identify
quality and data availability were observed: more environmental data possible bottlenecks, to increase local job creation, and to decide when
were available than economic data (45 studies versus 20), and more it is necessary to intervene to reduce specific environmental impacts.
studies addressed the costs of collection and sorting in contrast to re- However, a large amount of data is needed to obtain detailed and re-
cyclers (10 studies versus 3). Data published by the European PROs liable results in terms of environmental and economic assessment, and
were often aggregated, with the least accessible data representing the applying the assessment framework to contexts with very little avail-
deposit systems. Legislators are thus highly recommended to address able data (e.g. developing countries) may be very time demanding and
data transparency when establishing requirements for EPR and deposit bring to limited results. Finally, the majority of life cycle impact as-
systems, as data availability limits the basis for system improvements, sessments does not include any impact for the plastic dispersed in the
and also in the interest of enhancing monitoring of implemented environment that are less relevant in Europe compared to other geo-
measures e.g. regarding material composition, level of impurities, cor- graphical contexts.
relation between impurities, and type of collection, material flows be-
tween stakeholders. 4. Conclusions

3.4.2. The role of EPR The regulatory, environmental and financial implications of five
The PRO is a critical stakeholder in the waste value chain and may different plastic packaging waste management alternatives and 7 sce-
absorb the majority of risks, due to its direct connection to all the other narios for each alternative were analyzed to identify potential bottle-
stakeholders. However, based on the results herein, further develop- necks in the recycling chain and thereby suggest possible improvements
ment of the EPR is paramount to reaching the European recycling tar- of the system. By simultaneously increasing the source-segregated
gets by 2025, while minimizing the environmental burdens prevalent in plastic collection rate and the recyclability of all plastic products, the
plastic packaging management. First, environmental fees should be Italian plastic packaging system would reach a 63% recycling rate and
increased to reflect a product's recyclability and the existence of a would reduce the environmental impacts of 200% shifting from being a

9
S. Andreasi Bassi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 162 (2020) 105030

burden to a saving. The environmental performance was proportional Supplementary materials

to the amount of plastic recycled as flakes and granules, rather than the
amount collected from households, clearly illustrating that collecting Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
material that will be discarded later during the following sorting steps the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105030.
has no environmental benefit. This demonstrates that it is essential to
account for the quality of the source-segregated plastic. The results of Appendices
the study lead to several recommendations for future regulations: the
data quality needs to be improved especially for the data published by • Appendix A: Detailed information on background information on
PRO and deposit systems; the new definition of recycling rate of the the Italian case study, goal and scope, alternatives and scenario
European Union appears to be consistent with the environmental results modeling, life cycle inventory data, results of the mass balance and
(higher rate higher benefits), but the collection rate and the quantity of results of the global sensitivity analysis.
impurities in the source-segregated plastic bin can add some important • Appendix B: Detailed results of the LCA (characterized mid-point
information regarding the efficiency of the system. Also, extended results, characterized end-point results, aggregated end-point results
producer responsibility policies (EPR) are crucial to reach environ- in the three areas of protection, normalized end-point results in
mental and economic sustainability because they are the connection person equivalent, and weighted single score in weighted person
link between the different stakeholders and can influence all of them equivalent), the economic analysis (per functional unit and per ton)
either with directive incentives (as with the municipalities) or with the and recycling targets.
quality requirements for the bales (as with the MRF and the recyclers).
Finally, recyclers are the weakest key of the chain because they are the References
only completely private institutions that have to deal with market
variation and fixed operational costs. Even with a high collection rate, Albetti, G., Drago, F., Gelato, C., Della, C., Estranea, F., 2012. Caratterizzazione Della
recycling certain polymers would not be economically profitable in Frazione Estranea. SERUSO SpA, Lecco, Italy.
ANCI, Corepla, 2014. Accordo ANCI-Corepla. Allegato tecnico imballaggi in plastica [in
Europe: without both a stronger support to create better input quality italian]. http://www.corepla.it/corepla/raccolta/AllegatoTecnico.pdf.
(as for flexible packaging or multi-polymeric products) and a stronger Andreasi Bassi, S., Christensen, T.H., Damgaard, A., 2017. Environmental performance of
market demand by plastic converters, there is a risk that plastic waste household waste management in Europe - an example of 7 countries. Waste Manag.
69, 545–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.042.
initially collected for recycling would be either send to disposal or ex- APR, 2020. Welcome to the APR Design® Guide for Plastics Recyclability [WWW
ported to low- and middle-income countries. Document]. URL https://plasticsrecycling.org/apr-design-guide/apr-design-guide-
home(accessed 4.9.19).
Arena, U., Mastellone, M.L., Perugini, F., 2003. Life Cycle cycle assessment of a plastic
packaging recycling system. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8, 92–98. https://doi.org/10.
Funding sources
1007/BF02978432.
Arianna Ambiente, n.d.Analisi ambientale della Filiera Petrino – Relazione Analisi Ciclo
Funding for this work comes from the European Commission, di Vita [in Italian] [WWW Document]. 2000. URL www.ariannambiente.it.
Axion Consulting, 2009. A Financial Assessment of Recycling Mixed Plastics in the UK.
through the Horizon 2020 project Res Urbis (grant agreement 730349).
WRAP.
Bain & Company, 2013. Analisi Dei Costi Della Raccolta Differenziata: Seconda Edizione
2013 [in Italian]. federambiente, Rome, Italy.
Disclosures Beylot, A., Villeneuve, J., 2013. Environmental impacts of residual Municipal Solid Waste
incineration: a comparison of 110 French incinerators using a life cycle approach.
Waste Manag. 33, 2781–2788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.07.003.
The views expressed in the article are the sole responsibility of the Bio Intelligence Service, 2011. Plastics Waste in the Environment. European Commission
authors and in no way represent the view of the European Commission DG ENV, Paris, France.
and its services. Bisinella, V., Conradsen, K., Christensen, T.H., Astrup, T.F., 2016. A global approach for
sparse representation of uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessments of waste management
systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 378–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-
1014-4.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Bisinella, V., Götze, R., Conradsen, K., Damgaard, A., Christensen, T.H., Astrup, T.F.,
2017. Importance of waste composition for Life Cycle Assessment of waste man-
agement solutions. J. Clean. Prod. 164, 1180–1191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Susanna Andreasi Bassi: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, jclepro.2017.07.013.
Methodology, Investigation, Software, Visualization, Writing - original Camera di commercio di Milano, n.d.Camera di commercio Milano (private database) [in
draft. Alessio Boldrin: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Italian] [WWW Document]. URL http://www.milomb.camcom.it/home(accessed 7.
23.18).
Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Giorgia
CEFLEX consortium, 2018. CEFLEX [WWW Document]. URL https://ceflex.eu/(accessed
Faraca: Methodology, Visualization, Investigation, Validation, Writing 4.10.19).
- review & editing. Thomas F. Astrup: Conceptualization, Cencic, O., 2016. Nonlinear data reconciliation in material flow analysis with software
Methodology, Supervision, Writing - review & editing, Funding acqui- STAN. Sustain. Environ. Res. 26, 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serj.2016.06.
002.
sition. Chilton, T., Burnley, S., Nesaratnam, S., 2010. A life cycle assessment of the closed-loop
recycling and thermal recovery of post-consumer PET. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54,
1241–1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.002.
Declaration of Competing Interest Cimpan, C., Maul, A., Wenzel, H., Pretz, T., 2016. Techno-economic assessment of central
sorting at material recovery facilities - the case of lightweight packaging waste. J.
Clean. Prod. 112, 4387–4397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.011.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Clavreul, J., Baumeister, H., Christensen, T.H., Damgaard, A., 2014. An environmental
assessment system for environmental technologies. Environ. Model. Softw. 60,
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ- 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.06.007.
ence the work reported in this paper. Conte, C., 2016. Analisi sperimentale di un impianto di selezione avanzata dei rifiuti
plastici da raccolta differenziata [in Italian]. MSc. thesis.. Politecnico di Milano.
Corepla, 2019. Reminder/Dal 1.01.2019 sono cambiati gli importi del CAC sulla plastica.
Istituite 4 fasce. [in Italian] [WWW Document]. URL http://www.corepla.it/news/
Acknowledgments
reminderdal-1012019-sono-cambiati-gli-importi-del-cac-sulla-plastica-istituite-4-
fasce(accessed 4.10.19).
Special thanks are extended to Thomas Lynggaard and Vincenzo Corepla, 2018a. Relazione sulla gestione 2017 [in Italian]. http://www.corepla.it/
documenti/4646a702-7746-46ba-a0d5-f4497a656d25/Relazione+sulla+gestione.
Conte, for all of their interesting insights into plastic recycling, and to
pdf.
Anders Damgaard and Paola Federica Albizzati, for their constant Corepla, 2018b. Le specifiche dei prodotti [in Italian][WWW Document]. URL http://
support with LCA and EASETECH. www.corepla.it/le-specifiche-dei-prodotti(accessed 1.14.19).

10
S. Andreasi Bassi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 162 (2020) 105030

Corepla, 2017. Relazione sulla gestione 2016 [in Italian]. http://www.corepla.it/ cycle assessment and valuation of the packaging waste recycling system in Belgium.
documenti/621248cb-892c-4351-bef3-4e55f4559919/03+Relazione+sulla J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 19, 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-015-
+gestione+2016.pdf, Milano, Italy. 0383-x.
Corepla, 2015. Contratto di selezione di rifiuti di imballaggi in plastica [in Italian]. Franklin Associates, 2011. Cradle-to-gate Life Cycle Inventory of nine plastic resins and
Corepla, 2013. Relazione Sulla Gestione 2012. Corepla, Milan, Italy. four polyurethane precursors - revised final report. The Plastic Division of the
Corepla, 2012. Relazione Sulla Gestione 2011. Corepla, Milan, Italy. American Chemistry Council. Prairie Village, Kansas, USA.
Cunha, R., Ferreira, N., Simões, P., Faria, S., Cabral, M., Jaeger, S.De, 2014. Economic Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston,
viability of packaging waste recycling systems: a comparison between Belgium and USA.
Portugal. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 85, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec. fxtop.com/, 2019. Inflation calculator and change of price between 2 dates [WWW
2013.12.015. Document]. URL https://fxtop.com/en/inflation-calculator.php?A=1&C1=EUR&
D'Onza, G., Greco, G., Allegrini, M., Onza, G.D., Greco, G., Allegrini, M., 2016. Full cost INDICE=ITCPI2005&DD1=01&MM1=01&YYYY1=2010&DD2=01&MM2=01&
accounting in the analysis of separated waste collection efficiency: a methodological YYYY2=2017&btnOK=Compute+actual+value(accessed 7.23.18).
proposal. J. Environ. Manage. 167, 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015. Giugliano, M., Cernuschi, S., Grosso, M., Rigamonti, L., 2011. Material and energy re-
09.002. covery in integrated waste management systems. An evaluation based on life cycle
Dansk Retursystem, 2019. Dansk Retursystem [WWW Document]. URL https://www. assessment. Waste Manag. 31, 2092–2101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.
danskretursystem.dk/(accessed 4.24.19). 02.029.
EC, 2019. How much plastic packaging waste do we recycle?[WWW Document]. URL Greco, G., Allegrini, M., Del, C., Gori, P., Gabellini, L., 2015. Drivers of solid waste col-
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20191105-2(ac- lection costs. Empirical evidence from Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 364–371. https://
cessed 5.6.20). doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.011.
EC, 2018. A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy. European Commission, Groot, J., Bing, X., Bos-Brouwers, H., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J., 2014. A comprehensive
Brussels, Belgium. waste collection cost model applied to post-consumer plastic packaging waste.
EC, 2018. Directive (EU) 2018/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 85, 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.
May 2018 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste. Off. J. 019.
Eur. Union L 150/141 141–154. Guerrini, E., Fortunato, A., Gollo, G., Fortunata, A., Gollo, G., 2016. Raccolta differenziata
EC, 2018. Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 imballaggi in plastica: tipologie di raccolta e qualità. Analisi Della Raccolta Nella
May 2018 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste. Off. J. Eur. Union L 150/109. Provincia Di Torino. - Novembre 2016 [in Italian]. Città metropolitana di Torino,
EC, 2018. A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy - Commission staff Osservatorio Metropolitano Rifiuti, Turin, Italy.
Working Document. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Haig, S., Morrish, L., Morton, R., Onwuamaegbu, U., Speller, P., Simon, W., 2015. Plastics
EC, 2011. Commission Decision of 18 November 2011 establishing rules and calculation to Oil Products. Zero Waste Scotland.
methods for verifying compliance with the targets set in Article 11(2) of Directive Haupt, M., Kägi, T., Hellweg, S., 2018. Modular life cycle assessment of municipal solid
2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Off. J. Eur. Union L 310/ waste management. Waste Manag. 79, 815–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
11 11. 2018.03.035.
EC, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 Hestin, M., Faninger, T., Milios, L., 2015. Increased EU Plastics Recycling Targets:
November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives. Off. J. Eur. Union 3–30 Environmental. Economic and Social Impact Assessment. Plastic Recyclers Europe.
https://doi.org/2008/98/EC.; 32008L0098. Horodytska, O., Valdés, F.J., Fullana, A., 2018. Plastic flexible films waste management –
Eco-emballage, 2012. Projet de développement du recyclage des emballages ménagers en a state of art review. Waste Manag. 77, 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
plastique [in French]. http://www.ecoemballages.fr/sites/default/files/documents/ 2018.04.023.
vf_sept2012.pdf, Paris, France. Huijbregts, M.A.J., Steinmann, Z.J.N., Elshout, P.M.F., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M.,
EEA, 2013. Typical charge (gate fee and landfill tax) for legal landfilling of non-hazardous Zijp, M., Hollander, A., van Zelm, R., 2017. ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle
municipal waste in EU Member States and regions [WWW Document]. URL https:// impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/typical-charge-gate-fee-and(accessed 22, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y.
12.4.19). Huysman, S., Debaveye, S., Schaubroeck, T., Meester, S.De, Ardente, F., Mathieux, F.,
Ekvall, T., Azapagic, A., Finnveden, G., Rydberg, T., Weidema, B.P., Zamagni, A., 2016. Dewulf, J., 2015. The recyclability benefit rate of closed-loop and open-loop systems:
Attributional and consequential LCA in the ILCD handbook. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. a case study on plastic recycling in Flanders. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 101, 53–60.
21, 293–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-1026-0. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.014.
Ekvall, T., Weidema, B.P., 2004. System Boundaries and input data in consequential life ISO, 2006. ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management – Life Cycle Assessment –
cycle inventory analysis. Int. J. LCA 9, 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Requirements and Guidelines. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels,
BF02994190. Belgium.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017. The new plastics economy. https://www. ISO, 2006. ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management – Life cycle Assessment –
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/New-Plastics-Economy_Catalysing- Principles and Framework. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels,
Action_13-1-17.pdf. Belgium.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016. The new plastics economy: rethinking the future of ISPRA, 2017. Rapporto Rifiuti Urbani - Edizione 2017 [in Italian]. Istituto Superiore per
plastics. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_New_Plastics_Economy.pdf. la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA), Rome, Italy.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015. Potential for Denmark as a Circular Economy a Case Jaeger, S.De, Rogge, N., 2014. Cost-efficiency in packaging waste management: the case
Study from: delivering the Circular Economy – a Toolkit for Policy Makers. https:// of Belgium. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 85, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/20151113_ resconrec.2013.08.006.
DenmarkCaseStudy_FINALv02.pdf. Keramidas, K., Tchung-Ming, S., Diaz-Vazquez, A.R., Weitzel, M., Vandyck, T., Després,
EPBP, 2020. Design Guidelines [WWW Document]. URL https://www.epbp.org/design- J., Schmitz, A., Rey Los Santos, L., Wojtowicz, K., Schade, B., Saveyn, B., Soria-
guidelines(accessed 4.9.19). Ramirez, A., 2018. Global Energy and Climate Outlook 2018: sectoral mitigation
Eriksen, M.K., Pivnenko, K., Olsson, M.E., Astrup, T.F., 2018. Contamination in plastic options towards a low-emissions economy – Global context to the EU strategy for
recycling: influence of metals on the quality of reprocessed plastic. Waste Manag. 79, long-term greenhouse gas emissions reduction. EUR 29462 EN. Luxembourg. 10.
595–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.08.007. 2760/67475.
EUROPEN, 2016. European and National Legislation on Packaging and the Environment. Larsen, A.W., Vrgoc, M., Christensen, T.H., Lieberknecht, P., 2009. Diesel consumption in
The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN), waste collection and transport and its environmental significance. Waste Manag. Res.
Brussels, Belgium. 27, 652–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242×08097636.
Eurostat, 2019. Electricity price statistics [WWW Document]. URL http://ec.europa.eu/ Laurent, A., Gade, A.L., Leclerc, A., Plouffe, G., Benini, L., Boulay, A.-.M., Bulle, C.,
eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_price_statistics#Electricity_ Hauschild, M., Hellweg, S., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Jolliet, O., Pfister, S., Ponsioen, T.,
prices_for_non-household_consumers(accessed 7.23.18). Verones, F., R., van Z., 2019. Global environmental damages from human activities
Eurostat, 2018. The European Commission's Oil Bulletin [WWW Document]. Dir. Energy. [In Preparation].
https://data.europa.eu/euodp/data/dataset/eu-oil-bulletin (accessed 1.28.19). Martinez-Sanchez, V., Hulgaard, T., Hindsgaul, C., Riber, C., Kamuk, B., Astrup, T.F.,
Faraca, G., Martinez-Sanchez, V., Astrup, T.F., 2019a. Environmental life cycle cost as- 2016. Estimation of marginal costs at existing waste treatment facilities. Waste
sessment: recycling of hard plastic waste collected at Danish recycling centres. Manag. 50, 364–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.02.032.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 143, 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019. McDougall, F., White, P., Franke, M., Hindle, P., 2001. Integrated Solid Waste
01.014. Management: a Life Cycle Inventory, second ed. UK.
Faraca, G., Tonini, D., Astrup, T.F., 2019b. Dynamic accounting of greenhouse gas Møller, J., Jensen, M.B., Kromann, M., Lund Neidel, T., Bjørn Jakobsen, J., 2013. Miljø-
emissions from cascading utilisation of wood waste. Sci. Total Environ. 651, og samfundsøkonomisk vurdering af muligheder for øget genanvendelse af papir,
2689–2700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.136. pap, plast, metal og organisk affald fra dagrenovation. Miljøprojekt nr. 1458 https://
Federambiente, 2012. Occupazione e Costo del Lavoro - Edizione 2012 [in Italian]. doi.org/978-87-92903-80-8.
Federambiente, Rome, Italy. Monier, V., Hestin, M., Cavé, J., Laureysens, I., Watkins, E., Reisinger, H., Porsch, L.,
Feil, A., Pretz, T., Jansen, M., Thoden van Velzen, E.U., 2016. Separate collection of 2014. Development of guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). BIO
plastic waste, better than technical sorting from municipal solid waste? Waste Manag. Intelligence Service; in Collaboration with Arcadis, Ecologic. Institute for European
Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242×16654978. Environmental Policy (IEEP), Umweltbundesamt (UBA) prepared for the European
Ferreira da Cruz, N., Ferreira, S., Cabral, M., Simões, P., Marques, R.C., 2014. Packaging Commission – DG Environment.
waste recycling in Europe: is the industry paying for it? Waste Manag. 34, 298–308. Moretto, A., Favot, M., 2017. Una panoramica sulla regolazione delle tariffe di accesso
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.035. agli impinati di trattamento rifiuti - [in Italian]. In: 3rd MatER Meeting, Innovation &
Ferreira, S., Cabral, M., De Jaeger, S., Da Cruz, N.F., Simões, P., Marques, R.C., 2017. Life Trends in Waste Management. Milan, Italy.

11
S. Andreasi Bassi, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 162 (2020) 105030

NewInnoNet, 2016. Analysis of the plastic packaging value chain - Deliverable 2.4 - initiatives [accepted manuscript]. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 150, 1–2. https://doi.
HORIZON 2020 | CSA| WASTE-4a-2014I Grant Agreement No. 642231. org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104411.
Nilsson, P., Christensen, T.H., 2011. Waste collection: systems and organization. In: Solid Shen, L., Worrell, E., Patel, M.K., 2010. Open-loop recycling: a LCA case study of PET
Waste Technology & Management. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 277–295. bottle-to-fibre recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 34–52. https://doi.org/10.
OECD, 2018. Extended producer responsibility [WWW Document]. URL http://www. 1016/j.resconrec.2010.06.014.
oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/extendedproducerresponsibility.htm(accessed 4. Shonfield, P., 2008. LCA of management options for mixed waste plastics. Waste Resource
29.18). Action Programme WRAP. WRAP.
OECD, 2001. Extended Producer Responsibility: a Guidance Manual for Governments. Soltani, A., Sadiq, R., Hewage, K., 2016. Selecting sustainable waste-to-energy technol-
OECD, Paris, France, pp. 164. ogies for municipal solid waste treatment: a game theory approach for group deci-
Perugini, F., Mastellone, M.L.M., Arena, U., 2005. A life cycle assessment of mechanical sion-making. J. Clean. Prod. 113, 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.
and feedstock recycling options for management of plastic packaging wastes. 12.041.
Environ. Prog. 24, 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.10078. Statista, 2018. Average prices of diesel fuel in Italy from 2000 to 2017 (in euros per liter)
PIE, n.d.PIE (Plastics Information Europe) - private database [WWW Document]. URL [WWW Document]. URL https://www.statista.com/statistics/603718/diesel-fuel-
https://pieweb.plasteurope.com/(accessed 7.23.18). prices-italy/(accessed 7.23.18).
Plastic Recyclers Europe, 2018a. LDPE Film [WWW Document]. URL https://www. Torregrossa, M., Lanza, P.A., Nicosia, S., Sammartino, O., 2005. Materie plastiche nei
plasticsrecyclers.eu/sites/default/files/2018-09/LDPEFilm Factsheets_1.pdf (ac- rifiuti. I fabbisogni di energia e di acqua per il recupero: caso studio. Atti dei seminari
cessed 4.10.19). di Ecomondo 2005 (26-29 ottobre): tecnologie innovative per l'industrializzazione.
Plastic Recyclers Europe, 2018b. Circular economy [WWW Document]. URL https:// [in Italian].
www.plasticsrecyclers.eu/circular-economy(accessed 4.10.19). Turconi, R., Butera, S., Boldrin, a., Grosso, M., Rigamonti, L., Astrup, T., 2011. Life cycle
Plasticker.de, n.d. Raw Materials & Prices [WWW Document]. URL https://plasticker.de/ assessment of waste incineration in Denmark and Italy using two LCA models. Waste
preise/index_en.php(accessed 7.23.18). Manag. Res. 29, S78–S90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242×11417489.
Plastics Recyclers Europe, 2018. Plastics Recyclers Europe [WWW Document]. Turner, D.A., Williams, I.D., Kemp, S., 2015. Greenhouse gas emission factors for re-
URLhttps://www.plasticsrecyclers.eu/(accessed 4.10.19). cycling of source-segregated waste materials. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 105, 186–197.
PlasticsEurope, 2019. Plastics - the Facts 2019. PlasticsEurope. EPRO, Brussels, Belgium. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.026.
Popovic, P., 2017. OUTLOOK ’18: europe R-PET, the market that lost its bottle [WWW Utilitalia, Bain & Company, 2018. Analisi Dei Costi Della Raccolta Differenziata in Italia
Document]. URLhttps://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2017/12/28/ [in Italian]. Utilitalia, Rome, Italy.
10178216/outlook-18-europe-r-pet-the-market-that-lost-its-bottle(accessed 12.4.19). Van Eygen, E., Laner, D., Fellner, J., 2018a. Integrating high-resolution material flow data
PRé Consultants, B.V., 2001. The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for Life into the environmental assessment of waste management system scenarios – the case
Cycle Impact Assessment. Amersfoort, Netherlands Methodological Report. nr. 1999/ of plastic packaging in Austria. Environ. Sci. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
36A (third edition). est.8b04233.
Pressley, P.N., Levis, J.W., Damgaard, A., Barlaz, M.a, Decarolis, J.F., 2015. Analysis of Van Eygen, E., Laner, D., Fellner, J., 2018b. Circular economy of plastic packaging:
material recovery facilities for use in life-cycle assessment. Waste Manag. 35, current practice and perspectives in Austria. Waste Manag. 72, 55–64. https://doi.
307–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.012. org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.040.
Pringle, R.T., Barker, M..., 2004. Starting a Waste Plastics Recycling Business. Aberdeen van Velzen, E.U.T., Bos-brouwers, H., Groot, J., Bing, X., Jansen, M., Luijsterburg, B.,
Forward and Aberdeenshire Council, Edinburgh, Scotland. 2013. Insights Into the Complex Issue of Recycling Plastic Packaging Waste.
Recoup, 2014. UK Household Plastics Collection Survey 2013. Recycling of Used Plastics Wageningen UR Food & Biobased Research, Wageningen, Netherland.
Limited (RECOUP), Peterborough, UK. Villanueva, A., Eder, P., 2014. End-of-Waste Criteria for waste plastic for conversion, JRC
RECOUP, 2014. Plastics Packaging: Collection, Sorting and Reprocessing (CSR). Recoup Technical reports. European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for
(Recycling of Used Plastics Limited), Peterborough, UK. Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, Spain. 10.2791/13033.
Rigamonti, L., Ferreira, S., Grosso, M., Marques, R.C., 2015a. Economic-financial analysis Watkins, E., Gionfra, S., Schweitzer, J.-.P., Pantzar, M., Janssens, C., Ten Brink, P., 2017.
of the Italian packaging waste management system from a local authority's per- EPR in the EU Plastics Strategy and the Circular Economy: a focus on Plastic
spective. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 533–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10. Packaging. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium.
069. Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., Weidema, B., 2016.
Rigamonti, L., Ferreira, S., Grosso, M., Marques, R.C., 2015b. Economic-financial analysis The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int. J. Life
of the Italian packaging waste management system from a local authority's per- Cycle Assess. 21, 1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8.
spective. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 533–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10. World Bank, 2019. PPP conversion factor, GDP (LCU per international $) [WWW
069. Document]. URL https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPP(accessed 4.
Rigamonti, L., Grosso, M., Møller, J., Martinez Sanchez, V., Magnani, S., Christensen, 9.19).
T.H., 2014. Environmental evaluation of plastic waste management scenarios. WRAP, 2017. Historical data of the Material Pricing Reports [WWW Document]. URL
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 85, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12. http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/materials-pricing-report(accessed 7.23.18).
012. WRAP, 2007. Realising the Value of Recovered Plastics. Recovered plastics Market
Schaubroeck, T., Petucco, C., Benetto, E., 2019. Evaluate impact also per stakeholder in Situation Report. WRAP, Banbury, Oxon, UK.
sustainability assessment, especially for financial analysis of circular economy

12