Sustainability Atlas
Chemistry & Materials Science·14 min read··...

Data story: key signals in Polymers, plastics & circular chemistry

The 5–8 KPIs that matter, benchmark ranges, and what the data suggests next. Focus on data quality, standards alignment, and how to avoid measurement theater.

The United States recycles less than 6% of its plastic waste—a figure that has declined since China's 2018 import ban and remains the lowest among OECD nations. Meanwhile, over $1.4 billion flows annually into chemical recycling infrastructure, and new ISO standards finally provide a common language for measuring circularity. For sustainability professionals, the challenge is no longer whether to track plastics circularity, but which metrics actually predict success and which constitute measurement theater. This data story examines the 5–8 KPIs that genuinely matter, establishes benchmark ranges grounded in 2024–2025 evidence, and provides a framework for standards-aligned measurement that separates signal from noise.

Why It Matters

The plastics circularity gap represents one of the most consequential measurement failures in industrial sustainability. According to the U.S. Plastics Pact's 2023–24 Impact Report, member companies—representing 33% of all U.S. plastic packaging by weight—achieved only 11% post-consumer recycled (PCR) content against a 30% target, while the national effective recycling rate stalled at 13.3% versus a 50% goal. The disconnect between stated ambitions and measured outcomes reflects fundamental problems in how organizations define, collect, and report circularity data.

The economic stakes are substantial. The EPA's 2024 Infrastructure Assessment identified a $36.5–$43.4 billion investment gap needed to modernize U.S. recycling systems by 2030. If fully deployed, this capital could increase national recycling rates from 32% to 61% across all materials. For plastics specifically, the gap is more acute: states with bottle deposit programs recycle 34% of packaging compared to just 7% in non-deposit states, demonstrating that policy design—and the metrics that inform it—directly determines material recovery outcomes.

The regulatory environment is accelerating measurement requirements. California's SB 54 mandates recyclable or compostable packaging by 2032, Oregon's Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program launched in July 2025, and the federal "Accelerating a Circular Economy for Plastics and Recycling Innovation Act" (H.R. 9676) signals Congressional intent to establish national standards. Companies operating without robust circularity metrics face both compliance risk and competitive disadvantage as procurement standards increasingly require verified recycled content claims.

Key Concepts

Polymers and Polymer Architecture: Polymers are macromolecules composed of repeating monomer units, and their architecture—linear, branched, or cross-linked—determines recyclability. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) exhibit favorable depolymerization characteristics, while multi-layer flexible packaging containing mixed polymer types presents significant recycling barriers. Understanding polymer architecture is essential for evaluating chemical recycling feasibility claims.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): LCA quantifies environmental impacts across a product's entire lifecycle, from raw material extraction through end-of-life. For plastics circularity, LCA boundaries must explicitly address whether recycled content credits are allocated to the recycler or the downstream user, a methodological choice that can swing reported GHG reductions by 30–50%. The ISO 14040/14044 standards provide LCA methodology, but inconsistent system boundary definitions remain a primary source of measurement incomparability.

Scope 3 Emissions and Plastics Value Chains: Scope 3 emissions—indirect emissions across the value chain—typically represent 80–90% of a plastics company's carbon footprint. For brand owners, virgin plastic production in Scope 3 Category 1 (purchased goods) creates direct financial exposure to carbon pricing mechanisms. Measuring Scope 3 plastics emissions requires reliable mass balance data and consistent allocation methodologies, areas where current reporting practices diverge significantly.

Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and Recycling Economics: CAPEX requirements for chemical recycling facilities range from $200–500 million for commercial-scale operations, with payback periods highly sensitive to virgin polymer pricing and feedstock availability. Eastman's Kingsport molecular recycling facility represents a $250+ million investment targeting $75–100 million EBITDA by 2025. Understanding the relationship between capital deployment and operational metrics is essential for evaluating circular economy business model viability.

Chemical Recycling Technologies: Chemical recycling encompasses several distinct processes: pyrolysis (thermal decomposition producing oils and waxes), depolymerization (breaking polymers to monomers), gasification (conversion to synthesis gas), and solvent-based purification. Each technology has different feedstock requirements, yields, and quality outputs. Conflating these technologies under a single "chemical recycling" label obscures critical performance differences and enables measurement theater.

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

ISO 59020:2024 Provides Standardized Circularity Measurement: Published in 2024, ISO 59020 establishes requirements and guidance for measuring circularity performance using mandatory and optional indicators. The standard addresses resource inflow metrics (recycled content, renewable content, reused content) and outflow metrics (recoverability, recyclability potential) across defined system boundaries. Organizations adopting ISO 59020 can now benchmark performance using internationally recognized methodology, reducing the comparability problems that plagued earlier voluntary frameworks.

Molecular Recycling Achieves Commercial Scale: Eastman's Kingsport, Tennessee facility—the world's largest molecular recycling plant at 110,000 metric tons per year capacity—began revenue-generating operations in March 2024. The facility processes hard-to-recycle PET including opaque and colored packaging through a methanolysis process that yields virgin-quality monomers. This represents proof-of-concept for circularity claims that previously lacked commercial validation, with verified production data now available for industry benchmarking.

Mass Balance Certification Enables Supply Chain Verification: The ISCC PLUS certification system provides chain-of-custody verification for recycled and bio-based content claims using mass balance accounting. While mass balance approaches face criticism for allowing statistical rather than physical traceability, they provide a practical framework for attributing recycled content in complex petrochemical value chains. Major chemical companies including Dow, BASF, and LyondellBasell now offer ISCC PLUS-certified grades, creating market mechanisms for premium pricing on verified circular content.

EPR Programs Demonstrate Policy-Measurement Feedback Loops: Oregon's EPR implementation, launching July 2025, will add over 600,000 households to curbside recycling programs while establishing producer fee structures tied to packaging recyclability. Early EPR states provide data on how measurement requirements drive material design changes—producers redesigning packaging to reduce fees effectively create natural experiments in measurement-induced behavior change.

What Isn't Working

Recycled Content Measurement Lacks Standardization: Despite ISO 59020's publication, actual recycled content measurement practices remain inconsistent. Self-reported PCR content claims often lack third-party verification, and methodologies for calculating recycled content in mass-balanced systems vary by certifier. The U.S. Plastics Pact reports member companies averaging 11% PCR content, but this figure aggregates data collected using different definitions, sampling methods, and verification levels, limiting its utility for performance comparison.

Chemical Recycling Yields Often Omit Energy and Process Losses: Announced chemical recycling capacities frequently report feedstock input rather than usable output, obscuring actual material recovery rates. Industry analyses suggest pyrolysis processes typically achieve 50–70% liquid yields, with further losses in upgrading pyrolysis oil to polymer-grade feedstock. Organizations citing "100,000 tons of plastic waste processed" without disclosing net polymer output contribute to measurement theater that inflates perceived circularity performance.

Recyclability Design Claims Exceed End-of-Life Reality: Packaging labeled "recyclable" based on material composition often fails to achieve actual recycling due to collection infrastructure gaps, contamination, and sorting limitations. The U.S. Plastics Pact found that while 50% of member packaging met design-for-recyclability criteria, effective recycling rates remained at 13.3%. This 37-percentage-point gap between "potential" and "actual" recyclability represents a fundamental measurement disconnect that undermines consumer trust and policy effectiveness.

Scope 3 Plastics Emissions Rely on Generic Emission Factors: Most corporate Scope 3 plastics calculations use database emission factors (such as ecoinvent or GaBi) rather than supplier-specific primary data. Given the substantial variation in production energy sources, feedstock origins, and process efficiencies across polymer producers, generic factors can misrepresent actual emissions by 30–50%. Organizations claiming Scope 3 reductions through recycled content switches without supplier-specific validation may be reporting measurement artifacts rather than genuine decarbonization.

Key Players

Established Leaders

Eastman Chemical Company: Operates the world's largest molecular recycling facility in Kingsport, Tennessee (110,000 metric tons/year) and secured DOE funding for a second facility in Longview, Texas. Eastman's methanolysis technology produces Tritan Renew and Cristal Renew copolyesters with up to 75% certified recycled content.

Dow Inc.: Pursues multiple chemical recycling pathways through partnerships with Mura Technology (HydroPRS hydrothermal process), Xycle, and Freepoint Eco-Systems. Dow targets 600 kilotons of advanced recycling capacity by 2030 and participates in the Closed Loop Circular Plastics Fund.

LyondellBasell Industries: Joint venture partner in Cyclyx International, which is building a 300 million pound per year feedstock preprocessing facility in Houston. LyondellBasell's CirculenRevive products use advanced recycling-derived feedstock with ISCC PLUS certification.

ExxonMobil: Operates one of North America's largest chemical recycling facilities in Baytown, Texas, having processed 70 million pounds of plastic waste through October 2024. Plans $200+ million expansion targeting 500 million pounds per year capacity by 2026.

SABIC: Produces TRUCIRCLE certified circular polymers using pyrolysis oil feedstock from Plastic Energy and other advanced recycling partners. SABIC's European operations provide benchmark data for chemical recycling economics transferable to U.S. market conditions.

Emerging Startups

PureCycle Technologies: Operates a solvent-based polypropylene purification facility in Ironton, Ohio, targeting virgin-quality PP from contaminated post-consumer feedstock. Despite financial challenges ($224 million net loss through Q3 2024), PureCycle's technology addresses the PP recycling gap—PP has the lowest recycling rate among major commodity polymers.

Resynergi: Raised $18 million in February 2024 for microwave pyrolysis technology converting HDPE, LDPE, PP, and PS to oils and waxes. Relocated to California to access state incentives for advanced recycling infrastructure.

Alterra Energy: Licenses pyrolysis technology with 20,000 tons per year demonstrated capacity. Received investment from Infinity Recycling's Circular Plastics Fund I and ships pyrolysis oil to Gulf Coast refiners.

Cyclyx International: Joint venture of Agilyx, ExxonMobil, and LyondellBasell developing feedstock preprocessing infrastructure. Houston facility (delayed to mid-2025) will aggregate and prepare mixed plastic waste for chemical recycling processes.

DePoly SA: Swiss company developing room-temperature PET depolymerization requiring no pre-sorting, with U.S. commercialization planned. Technology addresses textile and mixed PET waste streams currently unrecyclable through mechanical processes.

Key Investors & Funders

Closed Loop Partners: Manages the Circular Plastics Fund ($45+ million) with anchor investments from Dow, LyondellBasell, NOVA Chemicals, and Chevron Phillips Chemical. Fund structure combines catalytic debt and equity for post-pilot scale recycling infrastructure.

Infinity Recycling: Closed €175 million Circular Plastics Fund I in May 2024, backed by the European Investment Fund, ASR, ING, and KIRKBI. Led investment in Alterra and Pryme targeting chemical recycling technology scale-up.

U.S. Department of Energy: Provides critical R&D and infrastructure funding including $15.1 million for the Institute for Cooperative Upcycling of Plastics (iCOUP) and support for Eastman's Longview facility through the Industrial Demonstrations Program. DOE's BOTTLE Consortium coordinates federal plastics recycling research.

Circular Innovation Fund: Joint venture between Demeter (Paris) and Cycle Capital (Montreal) with L'Oreal as anchor investor. Targets growth-stage companies across circular packaging, recycling innovation, and eco-efficient processes.

The Circulate Initiative: Funds plastics circularity research and maintains the Plastics Circularity Investment Tracker covering 2018–2024 investments across 107 countries. Provides market intelligence for impact-oriented investors.

Examples

Eastman-Rumpke Partnership for Hard-to-Recycle PET: Eastman partnered with Rumpke Waste & Recycling to source colored and opaque PET containers excluded from mechanical recycling. Rumpke modified sorting operations to capture PET previously destined for landfill, achieving 15,000+ tons of new feedstock in the first year. The partnership demonstrates how chemical recycling capacity creates demand signals that alter MRF sorting economics. Key metric: material previously valued at negative $20–50 per ton (disposal cost) now commands $50–100 per ton positive value.

U.S. Plastics Pact Activator Progress Tracking: The U.S. Plastics Pact tracks circularity metrics across 100+ companies representing 5.57 million metric tons of plastic packaging. By 2023, 22% of Activator companies had eliminated all items on the Pact's Problematic and Unnecessary Materials list, while 50% of packaging met design-for-recyclability criteria. This aggregate data—despite its limitations—provides the most comprehensive benchmark for corporate plastics circularity performance in the United States.

California SB 54 Recyclability Standard Development: California's Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act requires 65% of single-use packaging to be recyclable by 2032. The state's recyclability determination process mandates demonstrated 40%+ statewide collection and recycling rates for materials to qualify as "recyclable"—moving beyond design-based claims to outcome-based verification. Early compliance assessments are establishing precedent data for national recyclability standards.

Action Checklist

  • Adopt ISO 59020:2024 as the measurement framework for circularity performance reporting, defining clear system boundaries and mandatory indicator sets
  • Establish third-party verification protocols for recycled content claims, requiring ISCC PLUS or equivalent certification for mass-balanced materials
  • Distinguish between "recyclability potential" (design-based) and "effective recycling rate" (outcome-based) in all external communications
  • Collect supplier-specific emission factors for Scope 3 plastics calculations rather than relying solely on database averages
  • Report chemical recycling performance using net polymer output rather than feedstock input to avoid yield-washing
  • Map collection infrastructure coverage for all packaging formats to identify gaps between design-for-recyclability and actual recovery
  • Benchmark PCR content against U.S. Plastics Pact peer data (current average: 11%) with 30% as the 2025 target
  • Evaluate CAPEX requirements and payback periods for chemical recycling investments using Eastman's Kingsport facility economics as reference
  • Monitor EPR implementation in Oregon, Maine, and Colorado for emerging compliance requirements affecting national operations
  • Participate in ISO TC 323 and ASTM D20.96 standards development to influence circularity measurement methodology evolution

FAQ

Q: How should organizations choose between mechanical and chemical recycling metrics? A: Mechanical and chemical recycling address different material streams and yield different outputs, requiring distinct KPI sets. Mechanical recycling metrics should focus on material quality retention (measured by melt flow index, intrinsic viscosity, and contamination levels) and direct recyclate yield rates (typically 60–80% of input). Chemical recycling metrics should separately report feedstock input, process yield (liquid output divided by input), and final polymer conversion rate. Organizations processing mixed portfolios should report both pathways separately rather than aggregating into a single "recycling rate" that obscures performance differences.

Q: What recycled content targets are realistic for 2025–2030 based on current infrastructure? A: The Association of Plastic Recyclers estimates current U.S. mechanical recycling capacity could process nearly 2 billion additional pounds annually if feedstock collection improved. Combined with approximately 500 million pounds of emerging chemical recycling capacity, realistic PCR content targets are 15–20% by 2027 and 25–30% by 2030 for companies with dedicated supply chain investments. The 30% target by 2025 set by the U.S. Plastics Pact will likely be missed by most members—the 2023 average of 11% suggests 20% is more achievable for the Pact cohort.

Q: How can we distinguish genuine circularity progress from measurement theater? A: Three indicators separate substantive progress from reporting artifacts. First, outcome-based metrics (tons recycled, verified PCR incorporated) should improve alongside input metrics (design changes, collection infrastructure)—progress only on design metrics without corresponding recovery improvements indicates potential greenwashing. Second, Scope 3 emissions reductions claimed through recycled content should be validated with supplier-specific data rather than database emission factors. Third, chemical recycling claims should include full mass balance disclosures showing input tonnage, process losses, and net polymer output—facilities reporting only input capacity without yield data warrant skepticism.

Q: What role do digital product passports play in circularity measurement? A: Digital product passports (DPPs) enable material-level traceability that current aggregate reporting cannot provide. ISO 59040 establishes the Product Circularity Data Sheet framework, while the EU Digital Product Passport regulation (effective 2027 for select categories) creates precedent requirements. For U.S. organizations, DPP implementation provides future-proofing against expected regulatory requirements while improving the granularity of circularity measurement. Current pilot implementations suggest DPP data infrastructure investments of $0.5–2 million for mid-sized consumer goods companies, with ongoing data management costs of 0.1–0.3% of revenue.

Q: How do EPR programs affect circularity measurement requirements? A: Extended Producer Responsibility programs create legally binding measurement obligations that exceed voluntary commitments. Oregon's 2025 EPR implementation requires producers to report packaging volumes, material types, and recyclability classifications with third-party verification. Fee structures based on recyclability assessments create direct financial incentives for measurement accuracy—overreporting recyclability increases compliance costs when actual recycling rates fail to meet design claims. Organizations operating in EPR states should anticipate measurement requirements expanding nationally as Maine, California, and Colorado programs mature.

Sources

Topics

polymersplasticsLCAScope 3capexcompliancerecycling chemistry

Related Articles