Europe’s plastics industry some time ago declared sustainability as well as the protection of the environment and natural resources as its key objectives. In 2015 the calls for recycling and upcycling intensified – not surprising in times of tight and quite expensive virgin polymer. Maybe this time round the demand of the continent’s recycling associations that it is "urgently necessary" to use more recyclate in high-value applications will have a more effective and long-term impact. At the same time there was a lot of activity on several environmental and health-related issues, initiated by interest groups, EU authorities and individual states.

These efforts at times served totally contradicting interests. One of the topics that elicited totally different responses was whether bioplastics are environmentally-friendly. Another contentious issue was whether the "green" measures taken by companies and elaborated upon in detail in their sustainability reports actually help protect resources, or are merely a part of greater PR and marketing strategies. Does Coca-Cola's famous "PlantBottle" made of 100% rPET actually point the way to the future? And what about Adidas’ announcement that it will use a rising amount of marine plastic litter in its sporting goods? The last 12 months a whole plethora of reports about environmentally-friendly and bio-based products swept across the plastics industry. If these are indeed indicative of a newfound sense of protecting our planet while at the same time turning a profit, we could indeed be turning a new leaf.

The European Commission was under particularly strong pressure in 2015 to pass a concrete and sustainable circular economy package for the region. In June, the environmental working group within the European Parliament explicitly called on the Commission to pass the law before the end of the year. On 2 December, after months of quarrels about definitions, wording and deadlines, the Brussels-based authority then finally released the document, containing a number of suggestions on how to prevent waste generation and promote recycling. The Commission also declared its intention to develop a special “plastics strategy” by 2017. Although the EU's action plan for a circular economy was welcomed by the plastics industry, the resolution is the cause of much controversy among both producers and processors.

Recyclers have expressed their disappointment at the new proposal, and both national and European associations have criticised the document. Rather than merely focus on raising recycling rates, the EU is looking to optimise a product’s entire life cycle. For electric goods, this means that the separation into their individual components should become easier, thereby promoting both reuse and recycling. Still, the German Federation for Secondary Raw Materials and Waste Removal (bvse) maintains that the new EU proposal does not deliver any effective impulses for the creation of a pan-European recycling network. Plastics Recyclers Europe (PRE) has also expressed criticism, calling the stipulation that 55% of all plastics packaging waste be recycled by 2025 too lax, while also pointing out that the revised package no longer mandates an EU-wide ban on landfill, which has instead been replaced with a limit to landfill amounting to 10% of the total waste generated by private households. The latter provision is due to go into effect by 2030. PlasticsEurope is another association that has for some time called for a binding ban on landfill.

Several studies released throughout the course of the year showed that a more efficient waste economy in developing countries as well as states like the US, the OECD member countries and the EU could contribute significantly to protecting the environment. At the same time, the recycling industry and the creation of a more sustainable economy also would boost employment. If the circular economy concept were to be applied more rigorously throughout the EU, by 2030 an additional 3m jobs could be created, and the unemployment rate could be lowered by up to 520,000, research carried out by the UK’s Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) found.

In spring the European Parliament passed a resolution aimed at limiting the use of thin-walled plastic bags. In July, member states had to choose between two options – to reduce the per capital consumption of thin-walled plastic bags to 90 by the end of 2019, and in a subsequent step to 40 by 2025, or to put in place laws that would ban the free handout of these bags by the end of 2018.

A number of associations in 2015 also declared war on one-way cutlery. German environmental organisation Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH), for instance, launched a “multiple ways to-go” campaign for reusable alternatives to one-way coffee cups, calling for a fee of 20 cents for the latter. Also, ahead of the climate talks in Paris, the French National Assembly passed a law regulating the use of plastic bags and compostable one-way cutlery – part of the country’s energy transition package (“transition énergétique pour la croissance verte”).

The issue of disposable cups was also taken up across the Atlantic in 2015. A recent study by researcher Freedonia found that several American coffee chains are already developing strategies aimed at reducing the amount of one-way cups. At the same time, bans on the use of disposable EPS cutlery and packaging are being implemented in a rising number of US cities and communities. Closer to home, Coca-Cola plans to take its 0.5 and 1.5 litre returnable PET bottles off the German market entirely – a move that has elicited severe criticism from several environmental groups.

A controversial study recently published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) showed that the use of biodegradable plastics does not quantifiably or qualitatively improve the problem posed by plastic litter in the marine environment. The research also found that oxo-biodegradable plastics are no solution, either. On the contrary, the latter degrade so quickly that they dissolve into the highly dangerous micro-plastic. In spring, scientists working at Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute noted that the presence of micro-plastic in the marine environment is an increasingly disquieting global problem, not least since no technologies have so far been developed to remove such plastic parts from the oceans. The institute has launched a year-long study on micro-plastic, which it hopes will provide new facts and insights into the problem, while simultaneously highlighting trends and developments in the political, legal and public realm and – most importantly – introduce a range of technical solutions to the problem.

A remarkable and hope-inspiring turn in the marine litter debate occurred in June, when the G7 meeting wrapped up with a statement calling for the protection of the marine environment. The heads of state who attended the meeting pledged their support for an action plan aimed at improving the national systems in place to prevent, reduce and remove waste from the oceans. The resolution was welcomed by the World Plastics Council (WPC), whose head, Sabic’s Abdulrahman Al-Fageeh, said the challenge posed by plastic waste in the ocean requires a global response.

As part of numerous small-scale initiatives in the Mediterranean as well as the North and Baltic Seas, committed fishermen continued to remove tonnes of plastic bags and canisters from the oceans in 2015, while environmental activists across Europe and Turkey cleaned the continent’s beaches and shorelines. Plastics organisations, meanwhile, commented on these activities by rightly pointing out that the problem is not caused by plastics producers, but by the behaviour displayed by ship owners and end users. Some marine researchers, meanwhile, assert that the root of the marine litter issue lies not at sea but on land. A study published in the autumn by McKinsey in cooperation with Ocean Conservancy on "Land-based strategies for a plastic-free ocean" asserts that more than 80% of marine litter comes from the mainland, and of this, about three-fourths emerge from unregulated waste streams. The research said China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand in particular need to work at massively reducing their plastic waste streams.

Underlining the fact that the political establishment, industry, NGOs and the public need to work together to tackle plastic waste, the Waste Free Oceans (WFO) initiative this year for the first time held its annual conference – titled “Guardians of the Sea” – at the European Parliament in Brussels. The main focus of the event, which was open to the public, was on the fishery group Europêche, which brings together 17 national organisations from 11 different EU states.

Under the EU chemical regulation REACH, use of HBCD flame retardants in foamed insulation materials made of XPS and EPS was supposed to be banned across Europe from 21 August onwards. However, a consortium comprised of several EPS producers managed to push through an extension on the use of the controversial flame retardant. In their letter to ECHA, the European agency that administers REACH, the producers pointed out that availability of the alternative PolyFR flame retardant does not suffice to meet demand.

However, in countries like Germany, Austria and Switzerland, HBCD materials are hardly used on construction sites anymore. Several months ahead of the deadline for the ban – and also before the EU decided to extend the use of HBCD – EPS producers in these three countries had voluntarily agreed to switch their output to PolyFR. That is by no means customary elsewhere in Europe, and the brominated flame retardant is also still widely used elsewhere in the world, despite several international attempts to institute bans.