To respond to the crisis, the industry dusted off an old standby: recycling.<\/p>\n
Promises to recycle more have quelled public outcry in the past. For example, amid a backlash against clamshell fast-food containers in the 1980s, chemical companies responded by building recycling facilities<\/a> for polystyrene foam. Many of those initiatives later flopped, and plastics recycling rates have remained agonizingly low: around 9% in the US according to the US Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s latest survey<\/a>, in 2018.<\/p>\n When concerns about plastic waste welled up this time, the industry mobilized in concert<\/a>. Consumer product companies such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Danone made global commitments to reduce their use of virgin plastics, incorporate more recycled resin, and make plastic packaging simpler and easier to recycle. The initiatives usually had deadlines of 2025 or 2030.<\/p>\n The goals were meant to reassure the public that the world\u2019s largest users of polymers were doing something. The firms also hoped that by setting high marks for themselves, they could make substantial progress after decades of floundering. Their demand for recycled plastics was also supposed to pollinate a new ecosystem of plastic waste collection and recycling.<\/p>\n But as in the past, the results have been disappointing. While companies are using more recycled plastics than before, many are not on track to reach their targets. Blaming market difficulties, some have walked back sustainability targets and extended deadlines.<\/p>\n At the same time, recycling companies are struggling to compete with low-cost virgin materials, and many have closed. To salvage recycling, many experts say that plastics sustainability commitments shouldn\u2019t be voluntary and that government intervention, such as with extended producer-responsibility laws, is necessary.<\/p>\n \u201cThe year 2025 was supposed to be the year that plastic recycling would show that it could work. Right?\u201d says Jan Dell, a chemical engineer and plastic waste activist who heads the Last Beach Cleanup, a watchdog group. \u201cThat’s what they promised us.\u201d<\/p>\n Missing the target<\/p>\n Every consumer product company has a different story. Those that have fallen short are blaming the shortcomings of the broader recycling system. Others are happy with their progress and say they are on pace.<\/p>\n Colgate-Palmolive, for example, set a 2025 deadline to reduce virgin resin use by 33% from a 2019 baseline and to make its products with at least 25% recycled resin. As of 2024, the company had come close, reducing virgin resin use by 25% and incorporating 21% recycled plastics materials into its packaging. But in its most recent sustainability report<\/a>, Colgate expressed doubts about the final stretch. \u201cWe continue to make significant progress toward our one-third reduction of virgin plastic; however, we face challenges to achieve this target, including the availability, quality and feasibility of recycled content,\u201d it states.<\/p>\n Danone reached 17% and 29% recycled content in packaging overall and for water bottles, respectively, in 2024 against goals of 25% and 50% for 2025. It also rolled out new goals: a reduction in virgin resin use of 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2040 against a 2020 baseline. \u201cDanone has, as the rest of the industry, faced systemic barriers slowing down its progress, from the underdevelopment of collection and recycling infrastructures to the scarcity of recycled materials,\u201d a company spokesperson says in an email. \u201cAchieving circularity requires systemic change across the full plastics value chain.\u201d<\/p>\n Plastics must undergo a complex process of sortation before it can be recycled.<\/p>\n Credit: After Coca-Cola reached 28% incorporation of recycled content last year\u2014across all materials, not just plastics\u2014it walked back, or \u201cevolved\u201d as it says<\/a>, its plastics sustainability targets. Its earlier goal of 50% recycled content in all packaging by 2030 became 35\u201340% by 2035. In May, PepsiCo sunsetted a goal of reducing virgin resin use by 50% from a 2020 baseline and lowered its target for recycled content from 50% by 2030 to 40% by 2035. \u201cPepsiCo is updating its packaging goals to focus on key markets where it believes its efforts can make the most positive impact and to better account for external factors outside of the company’s control,\u201d the firm says in a news release<\/a>.<\/p>\n Kelly McBee, circular economy manager for As You Sow, a shareholder activist group that pushes companies to adopt sustainable practices, says she is disappointed by the lack of progress: \u201cWith companies reaching the end of 2025 and a lot of these goals for recyclability, for virgin plastic reduction, for recycled content, and the vast majority of company action not keeping pace with ambition, I think we as investor representatives are really asking ourselves: At what point are these company commitments greenwashing? At what point are companies selling a vision for their future that they are not able to implement?\u201d<\/p>\n McBee\u2019s concerns are compounded by the recent failure of countries to sign a global plastics treaty<\/a> and the Donald J. Trump administration\u2019s disinterest in regulating plastics. \u201cWe\u2019re concerned that companies will retreat even from the goals that they have currently,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n “At what point are companies selling a vision for their future that they are not able to implement?”<\/p>\n Kelly McBee, circular economy manager, As You Sow<\/p>\n Share Colm Jordan, head of advocacy and education at the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) producer and recycler Indorama Ventures, challenges the perception that consumer products companies can\u2019t find the recycled resins they need. In Europe, which mandates 25% recycled plastics content by 2025 and 30% by 2030, companies have overshot their goals. In 2024, Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling had 46% recycled content against a goal of 35%; PepsiCo Europe achieved 58% in 2022 against a 50% target for 2030.<\/p>\n \u201cSome brand owners say they struggle to access quality recycled material, but many are already exceeding the legal requirements in place today,\u201d Jordan says.<\/p>\n Not all companies are walking back targets. For example, Procter & Gamble is sticking to its goal of a 50% reduction in virgin plastics use by 2030 from a 2017 baseline. The company had achieved a 21% reduction as of 2024. \u201cWe\u2019ve made strong progress by pursuing a multi-faceted strategy that includes lighter packaging, increased use of recycled materials, and increasing use of plastic alternatives,\u201d P&G spokesperson Jennifer Corso says in an email.\u00a0<\/p>\n And although companies are landing short of recycling targets, they have made substantial gains. For example, Coca-Cola increased its use of recycled PET, used in beverage bottles, by 50% from 2020 to 2024. PepsiCo tripled its use of recycled plastics over that period, to 15%. More broadly, the US PET bottle collection rate hit 33% in 2023, the highest level since the 1990s, according to the National Association of PET Container Resources, an industry group. The incorporation of recycled PET content in bottles reached 16%, a 3% gain from the year before.<\/p>\n \u201cThe reality is that there has been a tremendous amount of progress that\u2019s been made in the last 5 years,\u201d says Jonathan Quinn, who heads the US Plastic Pact, an organization made up of plastics suppliers, consumer product companies, and local governments.<\/p>\n Quinn says that such targets are meant to be aspirational and that loftier goals drive more progress than easy ones. \u201cIt\u2019s about progress over perfection,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n As to whether the industry loses credibility when it fails to meet goals it set to much fanfare, Quinn points again to that progress. \u201cThe seriousness of the industry has been there, has been visible,\u201d he says. \u201cIf there is a regression, that\u2019s a challenge of whether the industry was serious. But as long as there\u2019s continued progress, that is what we need to see.\u201d<\/p>\n Moving goalposts<\/p>\n Big consumer product companies have, for the most part, failed to meet their original recycling targets and have either pushed out or relaxed their goals<\/p>\n Coca-Cola<\/p>\n Old goal: 50% recycled content in all packaging by 2030<\/p>\n New goal: 35\u201340% recycled material in packaging, including 30\u201335% recycled plastics, by 2035<\/p>\n 2020: 12%<\/p>\n 2024: 18%<\/p>\n Colgate-Palmolive<\/p>\n Old goal: 25% recycled plastic and a one-third reduction in virgin plastics from a 2019 baseline by 2025<\/p>\n New goal: No change<\/p>\n 2020: 10%<\/p>\n 2024: 21%<\/p>\n Danone<\/p>\n Old goal: 25% recycled plastic in all packaging and 50% in water bottles by 2025<\/p>\n New goal: A 30% reduction in the use of virgin, fossil fuel\u2013based packaging by 2030 versus 2020 and a 50% reduction by 2040<\/p>\n 2020: 10%<\/p>\n 2024: 17%<\/p>\n Keurig Dr Pepper<\/p>\n Old goal: 25% recycled plastic and a 20% reduction in virgin plastics from a 2019 baseline by 2025<\/p>\n New goal: 25\u201335% postconsumer resin by 2035<\/p>\n 2020: 2%<\/p>\n 2024: 16%<\/p>\n Nestl\u00e9<\/p>\n Old goal: 50% recycled PET in all brands and to reduce virgin plastic use by one-third versus 2018 by 2025<\/p>\n New goal: No change<\/p>\n 2020: 2%<\/p>\n 2024: 15%<\/p>\n PepsiCo<\/p>\n Old goal: 50% recycled plastic and a 50% reduction in virgin plastic from a 2020 baseline, per serving, across food and beverage portfolio by 2030<\/p>\n New goal: 40% or greater recycled content in plastic packaging by 2035. Virgin plastic reduction has been sunsetted.<\/p>\n 2020: 5%<\/p>\n 2024: 15%<\/p>\n Primo Brands (formerly BlueTriton Brands)<\/p>\n Old goal: 25% recycled PET by 2021 and 50% by 2025<\/p>\n New goal: Beverage packaging to incorporate an average of 50% recycled or renewable material by 2035<\/p>\n 2020: 20%<\/p>\n 2024: 36%<\/p>\n Procter & Gamble<\/p>\n Old goal: 50% reduction in virgin plastics by 2030 from a 2017 baseline<\/p>\n New goal: No change<\/p>\n 2020: 8%<\/p>\n 2024: 17%<\/p>\n Unilever<\/p>\n Old goal: 25% recycled plastic by 2025 and a 50% reduction in virgin plastic compared with 2019<\/p>\n New goal: Reduce virgin plastic 30% by 2026 and 40% by 2028 from a 2019 baseline as well as use 25% recycled plastic by 2025<\/p>\n 2020: 11%<\/p>\n 2024: 21%<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Source: Company documents.<\/p>\n Trouble at recyclers<\/p>\n Regression is apparent, however, at the recycling companies that supply consumer product makers. These firms take in bales of plastics from municipalities and sort, shred, and wash them into clean, resalable pellet or flake. Many are struggling and say insufficient demand for their product is partially responsible. Just this year, a PET recycling affiliate of Alpek in North Carolina closed. In California, Evergreen Recycling shut down a recycling line, and another firm, rPlanet Earth, which represented about 4% of US PET recycling capacity, Association of Plastics Recyclers (APR) closed.<\/p>\n \u201cBy my count, in the US, more plastic recyclers have shut down than started up 2018 when China banned imports of our plastic waste and 2025,\u201d says Dell of the Last Beach Cleanup. For Dell, rPlanet Earth\u2019s closure was a watershed moment. She points out that California gives financial support to recyclers, has a recycled content mandate, and has long possessed a deposit law that ensures a relatively easy-to-recycle stream of bottles. \u201cAll the so-called supporting policy that the recyclers say is needed to make plastic recycling work exists in California. And that puppy still shut down because it could not make money,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n The closure also dismayed APR, which pointed a finger at consumer brands. \u201cLike many U.S. recyclers, rPlanet Earth faced low demand for its products while competing against a surge of low cost imported material and cheap, oversupplied virgin plastic,\u201d the trade group said in a statement<\/a> in September. \u201cThese dynamics are driven by two factors: brands pulling away from recycled content commitments to instead buy more new virgin plastic, and by brands choosing to buy imported rPET to meet their U.S. recycled content requirements instead of buying from US recyclers like rPlanet.\u201d<\/p>\n In an interview with C&EN, Steve Alexander, APR\u2019s president, spreads the blame around. \u201cYou\u2019ve got a tsunami of factors that are out there that are basically impacting the recycler\u2019s ability to produce material on a domestic basis,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Recycling is expensive, Alexander says. \u201cThere\u2019s always been a price premium relative to virgin material,\u201d he says. \u201cAt some point, you can\u2019t blame the brands for the fact that they have to be cognizant of their price as well and their cost structure.\u201d<\/p>\n In recent years, Chinese companies have built massive amounts of virgin PET capacity, flooding the market and driving down prices. \u201cYou\u2019ve got overproduction of virgin material, you\u2019ve got increasing investments by the chemical and plastics manufacturers that far outweigh, in new virgin capacity production across the globe, any investments they\u2019re making in recycling activities,\u201d Alexander says.<\/p>\n And Alexander notes that much of this capacity came online over the past 5 years, after the consumer product companies made their commitments. \u201cI don\u2019t want to give anybody a complete pass on this, but I think that the realities have changed in that period of time,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Sally Houghton, executive director of the PET Recycling Corporation of California (PRCC), agrees with Alexander that cheap imports are a big reason that business conditions for recyclers have been difficult. PRCC is a nonprofit that buys bales from redemption centers and material recovery facilities and supplies them to recyclers. It also provides other support to California recyclers. Houghton says that the oversupply situation drove the price premium that US-produced recycled resin carries over virgin resin from 5\u201310% to more than 20%.<\/p>\n But for As You Sow\u2019s McBee, a pledge to incorporate more recycled material implies a willingness to pay higher prices. \u201cThe material that is available has a higher cost, certainly, so companies need to back up their commitments with financial action,\u201d she says. For example, she points out that in 2020, Nestl\u00e9 promised it would be willing to bear up to $1.5 billion in additional costs<\/a> for recycled materials.<\/p>\n
Renovare<\/p>\n West Virginia<\/p>\n Mechanical: Plastics to solid fuel<\/p>\n 2022<\/p>\n PreZero US<\/p>\n South Carolina<\/p>\n Mechanical: Polyethylene and polypropylene<\/p>\n 2022<\/p>\n Regenyx<\/p>\n Oregon<\/p>\n Chemical: Polystyrene pyrolysis<\/p>\n 2024<\/p>\n New Hope Energy<\/p>\n Texas<\/p>\n Chemical: Mixed-plastics pyrolysis<\/p>\n 2024<\/p>\n Myplas<\/p>\n Minnesota<\/p>\n Mechanical: Polyethylene film<\/p>\n 2024<\/p>\n Omni Polymers<\/p>\n Ohio<\/p>\n Mechanical: Rigid plastic containers<\/p>\n 2024<\/p>\n Evergreen Recycling<\/p>\n Californiaa<\/p>\n Mechanical: Polyethylene terephthalate<\/p>\n 2025<\/p>\n Alpek<\/p>\n North Carolina<\/p>\n Mechanical: Polyethylene terephthalate<\/p>\n 2025<\/p>\n rPlanet Earth<\/p>\n California<\/p>\n Mechanical: Polyethylene terephthalate<\/p>\n 2025<\/p>\n
\n A plastics sortation machine at a processing faciity.<\/p>\n
\n Shutterstock<\/p>\n
\n <\/a><\/p>\n
\n
\n Hard times
\n
\n
\n Multiple US plastics recycling plants have closed in recent years.
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n
\n a Partial closure.
\n
\n Sources: The Last Beach Cleanup, C&EN research.
\n
<\/p>\n
![\"Alexander](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/tullo.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n