written by Recycling Europe

The Commission’s package is a first step in the right direction. But first steps do not stop plant closures, nor do they secure Europe’s strategic autonomy in plastics. EU plastic recyclers need practical solutions, and they need them fast.

The European Commission’s newly announced winter package to boost circular plastics marks an important political signal: Brussels has finally acknowledged the depth of the crisis facing Europe’s plastics recycling industry. After years of warnings from recyclers, the message is starting to land. But while the direction is right, the speed and strength of the response remain insufficient.

The Commission is correct to frame circularity as a pillar of Europe’s competitiveness, economic security and climate strategy. Plastics recycling sits squarely at the intersection of all three. According to the Commission’s own analysis, circular solutions could cut the sector’s emissions by nearly half while improving the EU’s trade balance by billions of euros annually. Yet today, Europe’s recyclers are fighting for survival.

Across the EU, plastics recycling plants are closing at an alarming pace. Reduced capacity utilisation, sustained financial losses and collapsing margins have already resulted in the loss of around one million tonnes of recycling capacity. We are no longer talking about a theoretical risk to future targets, but about a present-day industrial contraction, happening while Europe continues to import cheap virgin plastics and recycled materials produced under far weaker environmental and social standards.

Against this backdrop, several elements of the Commission’s package deserve recognition. Creating separate customs codes for virgin and recycled polymers is a long-overdue step. Without proper differentiation at the border, enforcement is impossible and market distortions thrive. However, for customs codes to be efficient, they need to be complemented with strong, credible and systematic monitoring of imports. This is particularly important given the mounting evidence of fraudulent recycled-content claims and the growing influx of low-cost materials from third countries. EU recyclers cannot compete in a market where rules apply unevenly.

The Commission’s intention to introduce EU-wide end-of-waste (EoW) criteria for plastics is strongly praised. Fragmentation of national rules has long undermined the Single Market for recycled plastics, creating legal uncertainty and unnecessary administrative barriers, especially for small and medium-sized recyclers. Harmonised criteria can increase trust in recycled plastics, enable cross-border trade and unlock demand. This is a foundational measure but also one that has been discussed for years. Delivery now matters more than intent.

Recycling Europe also supports the Commission’s plan to strengthen enforcement of EU rules on imported food-grade recycled plastics. Ensuring that materials placed on the EU market comply with the same safety and quality requirements as those produced domestically is essential for regulatory fairness.

Similarly, mobilising EU and national funding instruments to support investment and innovation is necessary. But funding alone cannot compensate for structurally broken markets. No amount of public money will make recycling viable if recycled plastics are consistently undercut by virgin materials priced below production cost, or by imports produced without equivalent standards.

This is where the package falls short. The Commission rightly acknowledges the acute pressure on the sector yet proposes only pilot measures while deferring tougher decisions to future initiatives, including the Circular Economy Act in 2026. For many recyclers, 2026 is simply too late.

What is urgently needed is a clear prioritisation of local content, European-sourced recyclates. Public procurement, product policies and market incentives must actively favour local circular materials, not treat them as interchangeable with imports. Mandatory and ambitious recycled content targets are equally critical. Voluntary approaches have failed to deliver stable demand, leaving recyclers exposed to extreme price volatility and sudden demand shocks.

Trade defence mechanisms must also move faster. Monitoring markets is useful, but monitoring without timely corrective action risks becoming an academic exercise while industrial capacity disappears. The entry into force of the plastic waste export ban to non-OECD countries in 2026 will further tighten the system. Without strong internal demand and fair competition safeguards, Europe risks stockpiling plastic waste while shutting down recycling plants — a paradox no circular economy strategy can afford.

On chemical recycling, Recycling Europe supports regulatory clarity, particularly regarding its accounting in recycled content targets for PET bottles. Chemical recycling has a role to play where mechanical recycling cannot deliver. But it must complement, not displace, existing technologies that are already proven, lower-carbon and operating at scale. The fastest emissions reductions and resource savings will come from strengthening what works today, not betting the sector’s future on still-maturing solutions.

“The Commission’s package is a first step in the right direction. But first steps do not stop plant closures, nor do they secure Europe’s strategic autonomy in plastics. Circularity cannot remain a long-term aspiration while short-term industrial realities are ignored. EU plastic recyclers need practical solutions, and they need them fast.“

Europe has the policy framework, the technological know-how and the industrial base to save and advance plastics recycling. What it needs now is political urgency. Recycling Europe calls on policymakers, industry and all stakeholders to engage in a constructive, results-driven dialogue in the months ahead, and to translate that dialogue into swift, decisive action. The cost of delay is now a cost measured in lost capacity, lost jobs and lost credibility for Europe’s circular economy ambitions.