Through active involvement in policy and advocacy, we help shape the future regulatory framework for plastic recycling — both in nationally and internationally.
A voice for increased circularity
Our goal is not just to recycle more, but to recycle more efficiently and resourcefully. We want the plastic that re-enters the market to retain its function and value — making true circularity possible.
We take part in consultations, industry dialogues, standardisation efforts, policy responses and meetings with politicians and authorities.
Our experience and expertise are increasingly in demand — even at the global level — proving that we have become a recognised voice in the field.
International visitors come to Site Zero to learn from our technology and strategy, giving us an important role in shaping the future of plastic recycling.
Higher requirements for material recycling
Not all recycling methods have the same climate benefit and value. Today, conventional material recycling — where plastics are mixed, lose their value, and can no longer circulate — is still considered equivalent to high-quality recycling, where plastics are sorted by type and recycled in separate cycles to preserve their value.
We advocate for legislation that recognises this difference and for policy instruments that reward the methods delivering the greatest climate benefits.
The fact that the EU now distinguishes between material recycling and high-quality material recycling in the new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) shows that our message has made an impact.
“Legislation should clearly distinguish between recycling methods with different climate and resource impacts.”
High-quality material recycling as the norm
We want high-quality material recycling — enabled by advanced sorting — to become the standard.
Research shows that this approach is the most resource-efficient and delivers the greatest climate benefits. https://ivl.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1936329/FULLTEXT01.pdf
It’s also essential for keeping plastics in circulation — returning them to the market as substitutes for fossil-based raw materials in new packaging and products.
“High-quality material recycling should be the starting point in the design of future policy instruments.”
Increased collection of plastic packaging
Despite advanced technology and a well-functioning infrastructure for collecting plastic packaging, source separation remains far too low.
We want to see a paradigm shift — where every piece of sorted plastic packaging is recognised as a climate action.
To make that happen, more actors need to step up: municipalities responsible for collection, producers placing packaging on the market, and opinion leaders reaching out to consumers.
We educate, collaborate, communicate, engage with the media, and welcome visitors to Site Zero — all to build a new popular movement for plastic sorting.
The goal: for more packaging to reach our processes — and be truly recycled.
“More actors need to take responsibility for getting more people to sort.”
Responsibility for plastic in residual waste
We have clearly voiced our support for the government’s proposal to include plastic packaging sorted from residual waste — via post-sorting facilities (MRFs) — within producer responsibility, as a complement to property-based collection.
Otherwise, this plastic risks being unnecessarily incinerated. By bringing these material flows into the system, we can increase collection rates and reduce the EU fees for non-recycled plastic.
Requirements for increased traceability and transparency throughout the recycling chain
We’ve developed a robust and transparent traceability model that follows the journey of plastic — from its arrival at our facility in Motala to its transformation into new recycled raw material.
Our process includes strict certification requirements, detailed recycling reports, regular inspections of our recycling partners, and voluntary third-party audits carried out annually.
By going beyond legal requirements, we’re raising industry standards, strengthening trust in the recycling system, and ensuring that collected plastic is truly recycled in the most resource-efficient way.
Our model has been recognised by EUROSTAT, the European Commission’s statistical office, as a best-practice model within the EU. This demonstrates that high transparency isn’t just possible — it’s already happening.
For producers, it means confidence that recycling fees are used responsibly. For consumers, it’s a guarantee that sorted plastic is being given a genuine second life.
“Every recycler should be able to answer how, where, and by whom the material has been recycled.”
Stricter supervision and auditing
We welcome stronger regulatory requirements across the industry.
There are still major gaps in traceability and reporting, and our goal is a fair system that rewards responsible operators and ensures that material flows are properly managed throughout the value chain.
“Regulation must be strengthened to ensure that material flows are managed responsibly across the entire chain.”
“Energy recovery” – misleading language that hinders recycling
In Sweden, the term energy recovery is often used to describe the incineration of waste to extract energy.
This is misleading. Neither materials nor resources are actually recycled — even if some of the energy is fed back into the energy system.
In the rest of Europe, the term energy recovery is used in its correct sense, clearly signalling what is really happening: energy extraction from waste, not recycling.
The misuse of the term energy recovery risks creating a false sense of sustainability among both decision-makers and the public.
It fuels greenwashing and weakens the incentive to sort waste at source, as many people believe that plastic is “recycled” in waste-to-energy plants anyway.
To truly increase the recycling of plastic packaging, we need language that reflects reality — not one that hides resource losses behind positive wording.
We therefore urge incineration operators, authorities and communicators to stop using the term energy recovery when referring to incineration — and instead use clear, honest language: incineration with energy recovery.
Only by being transparent about what’s really happening can we build understanding and willingness to sort waste for proper plastic recycling.
“Calling incineration recycling misleads both the public and decision-makers — and hinders the transition to circularity.”
