A collaborative investigation, published on January 27, 2026, and led by independent journalist Ludovica Jona, took a closer look at the realities of chemical recycling of plastics. The investigation questioned whether chemical or “advanced” recycling is a sustainable approach and sheds some light on practices that are described as greenwashing.
Plastic manufacturers are increasingly pushing to expand chemical recycling. Part of this push is the stricter regulatory requirements for increased recycled content in plastics given by the EU’s new packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR; FPF reported). It is unclear whether current recycling practices can keep up with the ever-increasing production of plastics.
What is chemical recycling?
The main method of recycling used today is mechanical recycling, where plastic waste is physically shredded and melted to form recycled products. Chemical recycling instead aims to break down “hard-to-recycle” plastic waste into its raw building blocks to create recycled products. The most popular chemical recycling method is called pyrolysis, and the output of this process is pyrolysis oil.
But pyrolysis oil is very hazardous. In order to be refined into usable plastic, this oil first has to be mixed with virgin material to avoid damaging factory machines. A 2023 report by civil society organization Zero Waste Europe estimated that 5–20% of pyrolysis oil needs to be mixed with 80–95% virgin plastic material.
The mass balancing approach
However, there are food packaging products that are being marketed as up to 100% recycled. According to the investigation, this is done by applying mass balance accounting via certification schemes. Here is a simplified example to illustrate how this works:
Let us assume a batch of 1000 kg of plastic is produced to make new bottles. 100 kg (10%) is pyrolysis oil from chemical recycling of used plastic, and 900 kg (90%) is virgin plastic material. Using mass balance, manufacturers can choose to label 10% of the plastic bottles made from this batch as 100% recycled, and the rest of the bottles as 0% recycled. However, technically all the bottles are just made from 10% recycled material. Some argue this approach is a form of greenwashing and is misleading for consumers.
In a peer-reviewed article published in May 2025, Soomro et al. review methods to quantify recycled content in plastics. “Itemised [recycled content] amounts cannot be guaranteed with the mass balance approach, opening claims to greenwashing given the inability to evidence [recycled content] in an individual product,” the authors highlight. They conclude that current EU policies are too vague and call for governments to set clear guidelines on what types of mass balance approach and certifications are acceptable.
Is chemical recycling a viable option to address plastic pollution?
A 2024 report commissioned by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) reviewed chemical recycling of plastic waste and found the technical feasibility, environmental benefits, and economic viability of the technology are not sufficiently demonstrated. They argued that excessive subsidies or investments may lock-in environmentally unfavorable processes and infrastructure (FPF reported).
References
Stefano Valentino (January 27, 2026) “Ghost recycling: how Big Oil re-brands and sells fossil fuel as green plastic.” VoxEurope
Zero Waste Europe (October 2023) “Leaky loop “recycling”: A technical correction on the quality of pyrolysis oil made from plastic waste.”
ISCC (May 15, 2024) “Mass balance explained.”
Soomro et al. (May 2025) “Quantification of recycled content in plastics: a review.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108426
Peter Quicker (May 2024) “Status, potentials and risks of Chemical recycling of waste plastics.” Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN)
