NATIONAL 

Circular economy roadmap for 
plastics, glass, paper and tyres 

Pathways for unlocking future growth opportunities for Australia 

JANUARY 2021



Citation

Schandl H, King S, Walton A, Kaksonen AH, Tapsuwan S 
and Baynes TM (2020) National circular economy roadmap 
for plastics, glass, paper and tyres. CSIRO, Australia.

ISBN 978-1-4863-1495-9

Copyright 

© Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 
Organisation 2020. To the extent permitted 
by law, all rights are reserved and no part of 
this publication covered by copyright may be 
reproduced or copied in any form or by any means 
except with the written permission of CSIRO.

Important disclaimer

CSIRO advises that the information contained in this 
publication comprises general statements based on 
scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to 
be aware that such information may be incomplete or 
unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance 
or actions must therefore be made on that information 
without seeking prior expert professional, scientific 
and technical advice. To the extent permitted by 
law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) 
excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, 
including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, 
expenses and any other compensation, arising directly 
or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in 
whole) and any information or material contained in it.

CSIRO is committed to providing web accessible 
content wherever possible. If you are having 
difficulties with accessing this document 
please contact csiroenquiries@csiro.au. 

This report is current as of August 2020. CSIRO continues 
to actively undertake research into the circular economy 
both internationally and for Australia.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the large number of private and public 
sector organisations and their representatives who 
contributed to the roadmap. We were able to engage 
with representatives of Alcoa; Anglo American; Ausroads; 
Australian Electric Car Manufacturing Pty Ltd; Australian 
Food and Grocery Council (AFGC); Australian Forest Products 
Association (AFPA); Australian Glass and Window Association; 
Australian Motor Industry Federation/Motor Trades 
Association of Australia; Australian Packaging Covenant 
Organisation (APCO); Australian Paper Recovery; Australian 
Road Research Board (ARRB); Australian Tyre Industry Council 
(ATIC); Australian Tyre Recycling Association (ATRA); Bandag/
Bridgestone; Barwon South West Regional Resource Recovery 
Group; BASF; BMB Tyre Traders; BSV Tyre Recycling Australia; 
Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia; 
Chemistry Australia; Chip Tyre; D&N Rubber Refinery; Deakin 
University; Department of Environment, Land, Water and 
Planning of Victoria; Department of Primary Industries, Parks, 
Water and Environment; Department of Transport Victoria; 
Downer Group; Ecoflex International; Edith Cowan University; 
Elanem; EPA Tasmania; EPA Western Australia; 5R – Window 
glass recycling; Flexiroc; Green Distillation Technologies; 
Ground Science; Growcom; Industry Edge; Integrated 
Recycling; IQRenew; JLW Services; Lendlease; Licella; Local 
Councils Association; Local Governments NSW; Lomwest 
Enterprises of WA; Martogg Companies; Metro Trains; MG 
Tyres; National Waste and Recycling Industry Council (NWRIC); 
Novum Energy Australia Pty Ltd; Northern Territory EPA; Orora 
Glass; OPAL Packaging; Owens Illinois; Pearl Global Limited; 
PlasTech Recycling Limited (NewTech Poly); Qld Government, 
Department Environment and Science; Queensland University 
of Technology; QLD Government, QLD Government Transport 
and Main Roads; Dept State Development, Manufacturing, 
Infrastructure and Planning; Ray Johnson Scrap Tyre Disposals; 
REPLAS; S&J Australian Scrap Tyre Disposals; South32; 
Stanwell; Tama Australia; Tangaroa Blue; Tyre Stewardship 
Australia (TSA); Tyrecycle; University of Melbourne; University 
of New South Wales; University of South Australia; University 
of Technology Sydney; Victorian Waste Management 
Association (VWMA); Vinyl Council of Australia; Waste and 
Recycling Industry Association of Western Australia; Waste 
Contractors and Recyclers Association of NSW (WCRA); 
Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association 
Australia (WMRR); Waste Recycling Industry Association 
Queensland (WRIQ); World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

We would like to thank Peter Bury, Silvio De Denaro, 
Nick Florin, Lina Goodman, Robert Kelman, Sarah May, 
Deborah Purss, Rose Read, Joseph Sparks, Lyn Turner, 
and Su Wild-River who reviewed the draft roadmap and 
provided useful feedback. We are also grateful for the 
support of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and 
Resources and the Department of Agriculture, Water and the 
Environment we received throughout the process. We thank 
Katherine Wynn and Beni Delaval who contributed to an 
earlier version, Sonja Chandler who copy edited the report and 
Josh Dowse who helped with the messaging of the summary.



Abbreviations

ACT Australian Capital Territory

APCO Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation

ARRB Australian Road Research Board

ATRA Australian Tyre Recycling Association

CDS container deposit scheme

C&D construction and demolition

C&I commercial and industrial 

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

COAG Council of Australian Governments

EMF Ellen MacArthur Foundation

EOL end of life (tyres)

EPS expanded polystyrene

EU European Union

HDPE high-density polyethylene

Kt kilotonne

LDPE low-density polyethylene

LLDPE linear low-density polyethylene

MRF material recovery facility

MSW municipal solid waste

mt metric tonne

Mt million tonne

MUD multi-unit development

NIR near infrared

NSW New South Wales

OTR off-the-road

PCPB polymer-coated paperboard

PE polyethylene

PET polyethylene terephthalate

PP polypropylene 

PREP Packaging Recyclability Evaluation Portal

PRISM Plastic Packaging Recycling using Intelligent 
Separation technologies for Materials

PS polystyrene

PVC polyvinyl chloride

PVDC polyvinylidene chloride

R&D research and development

ROC Regional Organisation of Councils

rPET recycled PET

SDG Sustainable Development 
Goal of the United Nations

SME Small and medium-sized enterprise

TSA Tyre Stewardship Australia

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

USA United States of America



Contents
Abbreviations..........................................................................................................................................................i

Executive summary.............................................................................................................................................41 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................71.1 Waste reduction and the circular economy......................................................................................................................71.2 Policy context in Australia..................................................................................................................................................81.3 A vision for circularity in Australia.....................................................................................................................................91.4 This Roadmap....................................................................................................................................................................102 Plastics..............................................................................................................................................................122.1 Overview of global and Australian landscape................................................................................................................132.2 Summary of key challenges for plastics..........................................................................................................................192.3 Opportunities for plastics in the circular economy........................................................................................................202.4 The road forward – plastics...............................................................................................................................................353 Glass .................................................................................................................................................................383.1 Overview of global and Australian landscape................................................................................................................393.2 Key challenges....................................................................................................................................................................413.3 Opportunities for glass in the circular economy............................................................................................................433.4 The road forward – glass .................................................................................................................................................484 Paper.................................................................................................................................................................504.1 Overview of global and Australian landscape.................................................................................................................514.2 Summary of key challenges for paper.............................................................................................................................554.3 Opportunities in the circular economy of paper............................................................................................................564.4 The road forward..............................................................................................................................................................665 Tyres..................................................................................................................................................................685.1 Overview of global and Australian landscape................................................................................................................695.2 Summary of key challenges for tyres...............................................................................................................................735.3 Opportunities for circularity............................................................................................................................................755.4 The road forward – tyres..................................................................................................................................................836 Strategies for a circular economy transition of plastics, glass, paper, and tyres.........876.1 Improving product design, collection, and sorting outcomes......................................................................................896.2 Building capacity for reprocessing and manufacturing of recycled products nationally...........................................906.3 Market development and innovation to grow the circular economy............................................................................926.4 Harmonising standards, regulations, and messaging across jurisdictions..................................................................946.5 Enabling the circular economy vision.............................................................................................................................96Concluding remarks........................................................................................................................................101References..........................................................................................................................................................104

Figures

Figure 1.1 Circular economy opportunities across the material supply chain...............................................................................10Figure 2.1: Plastics consumption and recovery by polymer type in 2017–18 (tonnes and % recycling rate)..............................15Figure 2.2: Sankey diagram of plastics flows for Australia as at 2017–18, derived from (O’Farrell, 2019a, 2019b) ...................15Figure 2.3: APCO National Packaging Targets and associated APCO projects, figure derived from (APCO, 2020b)...................17Figure 2.4: Summary of key challenges for plastics.........................................................................................................................19Figure 2.5: Uniqlo commitment to reduction in single-use plastics...............................................................................................20Figure 2.6: Substituting plastic for paper packaging in grocery stores may have negative impacts on food waste 
and the environment. ........................................................................................................................................................................23Figure 2.7: 2019 WWF Scorecards ....................................................................................................................................................24Figure 2.8: Recycled PET.....................................................................................................................................................................27Figure 2.9: Plastic waste investment cost and kt of waste abated per year...................................................................................28Figure 2.10: Average time to maturity based on review of 60 waste plastic transformational technologies.............................32Figure 2.11: Sankey diagram of estimated plastics flows for Australia in 2030..............................................................................35Figure 2.12: Key outcomes and activities for a circular economy for plastics by 2022, 2025 and 2030.........................................37Figure 3.1: Sankey diagram of current glass material flows for Australia ......................................................................................41Figure 3.2 Summary of key challenges for the glass circular economy..........................................................................................42Figure 3.3: An automated BottleDrop® redemption centre that’s part of the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative..........43Figure 3.4: The Australasian Recycling Label allows producers and consumers to understand recyclability of products 
or product components and direct materials to the correct waste stream ..................................................................................44Figure 3.5 Glass waste investment cost and kt of waste abated per year......................................................................................46 
Table 3.1: Opportunities for glass in the circular economy............................................................................................................47Figure 3.6: Sankey diagram of estimated glass flows for Australia in 2030...................................................................................48Figure 3.7: Key outcomes and activities for a circular economy for glass by 2022, 2025 and 2030 ...........................................49Figure 4.1: The life cycle of paper ....................................................................................................................................................53Figure 4.2: Export segments of recovered paper in 2018–19.........................................................................................................54Figure 4.3 Sankey diagram of current paper flows for Australia....................................................................................................54Figure 4.4: Summary of key challenges for paper ...........................................................................................................................55Figure 4.5: Paper waste investment cost and kt of waste abated per year (Estimated from CIE, 2020 and Planet Ark, 2015).......63Table 4.3: Opportunities for paper in the circular economy ..........................................................................................................65Figure 4.6 Sankey diagram of estimated paper flows for Australia in 2030...................................................................................66Figure 4.7 Key outcomes and activities for a circular economy for paper by 2022, 2025 and 2030............................................67Figure 5.1: Used tyre arisings in Australian jurisdictions by tyre type in 2018–19........................................................................70Figure 5.2: Percentage of Australian end-of-life tyres ending in landfill, export and domestic recycling by tyre type 
in 2018–19...........................................................................................................................................................................................70

Figure 5.3: Fate of Australian tyres disposed of or processed domestically by tyre type in 2018–19..........................................71

Figure 5.5: The fate of tyres in Australian jurisdictions in 2018–19 ...............................................................................................71Figure 5.6: Summary of key challenges for tyres...............................................................................................................................74Figure 5.7: Examples of ways to avoid and minimise the use of tyres............................................................................................75Figure 5.8: Designing tyres that require less material, have a higher tread wear resistance and are not easily 
punctured can help to reduce end-of-life tyre generation ............................................................................................................75Figure 5.9: Choosing public transport or taxis over passenger cars can help reduce the consumption of tyres and 
thus end-of-life tyre generation........................................................................................................................................................76Figure 5.10: Efficient end-of-life tyre collection schemes, transport logistics and tracking systems are essential for 
enabling value recovery and reducing illegal dumping and export..............................................................................................77Figure 5.11: Cumulative investment cost and used tyre abatement per year if one facility is constructed for 
civil engineering, shredding, crumbing and pyrolysis. ..................................................................................................................80Figure 5.12: Potential market size of tyre-derived product opportunities ...................................................................................82Figure 5.13: Sankey diagram of estimated tyre flows for Australia in 2030...................................................................................84Figure 5.14: Key outcomes and activities for a circular economy for tyres by 2022, 2025 and 2030..........................................85Figure 6.1: Strategies for unlocking the circular economy of plastics, glass, paper and tyres....................................................87
Tables

Table 2.1: Plastic classifications. Compiled from Rahimi and Garciá, 2017; O’Farrell, 2018, 2019; Locock et al., 2019 .............16Table 2.2: Research and innovation opportunities for plastics in the circular economy..............................................................33Table 2.3: Opportunities for plastics in the circular economy........................................................................................................34Table 4.1: Makeup of a mixed paper bale in Victoria ......................................................................................................................60Table 4.2: Estimated recovered paper used in four main grades of paper and paperboard.........................................................61Table 5.1: Capabilities for used-tyre processing and manufacturing of tyre-derived products and fuels in Australian 
jurisdictions indicated with blue colour ..........................................................................................................................................72Table 5.2: Existence of enabling acts, regulations and/or guidelines for used-tyre management across Australian 
jurisdictions indicated with blue colour ..........................................................................................................................................73Table 5.3: Examples of uses for tyre-derived products and fuels...................................................................................................81Table 5.4: Opportunities for tyres in the circular economy.............................................................................................................83Table 6.1: Summary of the circular economy strategies for plastics, glass, paper, and tyres.......................................................88

Executive summary

This industry and technology roadmap informs the 
Australian Government about the preparedness of industry 
and the Australian innovation system to collaboratively 
develop opportunities for waste innovation and a 
circular economy for plastics, glass, paper and tyres 
across the whole supply chain of these waste materials. 
It identifies strategies, enablers and opportunities 
Australia can invest in to create economic development, 
employment and reduce waste and pollution.

Why do we need a technology 
and innovation roadmap for waste 
materials management in Australia?

The way we produce and consume in Australia has led, 
over time, to increasing amounts of waste plastics, glass, 
paper and tyres from industry and households and significant 
amounts of those waste materials were exported. The way 
in which we deal with domestic waste in Australia has also 
entered the public consciousness and many industries 
and consumers share an ambition to reduce waste and to 
avoid waste going to landfill, leaking into the environment 
or being sent offshore. At the same time, exporting of 
waste materials has become more difficult with several 
countries refusing to accept exports of low-quality waste. 

The Australian Government has decided to phase 
out the export of plastics, glass, paper and tyres and 
to take responsibility for Australia’s waste and to 
make sure Australian waste does not contribute to 
environmental and health problems abroad. Such change 
in policy creates challenges but also opportunities. 
A question of importance is whether Australian waste 
management and recycling facilities are prepared to 
deal with an increased volume of waste and whether 
existing capabilities need to be extended. 

There are also more fundamental questions about 
the opportunity of reducing waste across whole 
material supply chains to create an economy which 
manages material sustainably and builds circularity 
into its material supply chains. Many international 
examples have shown that it is possible to add value to 
materials multiple times and that business models and 
technologies that allow to keep material in circulation 
are economically attractive and help create employment. 

Transitioning material supply chains and business models 
to circularity relies on innovation in technologies, products, 
and processes and can occur at each stage of the supply 
chain, from primary material extraction, product design, 
manufacturing, distribution; they can include consumers, 
and benefit from collection and recycling facilities. Identifying 
the opportunities for creating wealth from Australia’s waste 
materials and reducing environmental and health impacts 
are identified in this technology and innovation roadmap 
which aims to support strategic and long-term planning by 
matching short-term and long-term objectives with available 
and emerging technology solutions. The roadmap identifies 
opportunities, analyses enablers that allow solutions to be 
developed and implemented and strategies that can guide 
the decision-making process of government and industry. 

How was the roadmap done?

The process for creating the industry and technology 
roadmap for plastic, glass, paper and tyre waste materials 
commenced with an analysis of available and emerging 
technologies across the whole materials supply chain 
taken from the international literature and business 
experience. Existing options for improving the circularity 
of material flows and reducing end-of-life waste were 
then tested for their viability in the Australian economic 
and regulatory context. This was done by engaging with 
representatives from industry and industry bodies as 
well as government agencies and academia to explore 
enablers and barriers for such opportunities. The 
deep engagement with 83 participants in an extensive 
interview process allowed the identification of five 
core strategies that will benefit a circular economy 
and waste minimisation transition in Australia. 

These strategies are suggested as high-level objectives 
by industry stakeholders and, if implemented, would 
retain and maintain the quality of primary materials. 
This would be through the improvement of collection 
and sorting systems; would include building a national 
reprocessing capability for all four waste materials; and 
would boost market demand for recycled materials. 
Related industries and communities would benefit from 
national harmonisation to provide consistent waste and 
material supply chain governance; and this would create a 
circular economy vision for the Australian economy enabled 
through innovation, new technologies, new business 
models and supported by institutional change that is 
co-developed by industry, government and communities. 



Structure of the roadmap

In chapters 2 through 5, the roadmap presents 
opportunities for a circular economy along the material 
supply chain for each waste material. The focus is 
on opportunities for avoidance and substitution and 
good design, which are critical for a circular economy. 
Opportunities are also found in manufacturing and 
all steps of waste collection, sorting, recycling and 
reintegration of secondary materials into economic 
processing and includes the use of secondary materials 
in product manufacturing or in the construction sector. 

Chapter 6 draws together the rich information that 
was gathered from engaging with industry and 
government stakeholders and sets out an integrated 
circular economy strategy that meets Australia’s 
environmental, economic and social needs. 

It presents five linked actionable strategies aimed at

• improving product design, collection and 
sorting outcomes to retain the quality and value 
of materials and prevent material loss 
• building capacity for reprocessing and manufacturing 
of recycled products nationally aimed at increasing 
the ability to create wealth from waste domestically
• encouraging and facilitating market development 
to grow the circular economy including boosting 
market demand for recycled products and 
products that contain recycled content
• harmonising standards, regulations and messaging 
across jurisdictions to provide consistency in 
governance and create sustainable materials 
management capability in Australia 
• facilitating systemic change from linear to 
circular material supply chains that foster 
sustainable consumption and production.


Taken together the five strategies focus on the whole value 
chain and the governance mechanism that will enable the 
industry community and consumers to transition from the 
current take–make–dispose economic model to circularity. 



1 Introduction 

Global demand for natural resources is unsustainable. 
It is said that by 2030 we will require two planets worth 
of natural resources (Esposito et al., 2018), and resource 
demand will more than double by 2060 – from currently 
90 billion tonnes to 190 billion tonnes. To avoid valuable 
materials going to landfill Australia needs to reconsider 
how we consume natural resources. Transitioning to a 
circular economy can create opportunities and benefits 
for both Australian society and the environment. To be 
successful, the shift needs cooperation and innovation 
across the spectrum of government, industry, research 
and development, and consumption practices. 

1.1 Waste reduction and 
the circular economy

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a 
global blueprint for prosperity for people and the planet. 
The more efficient use of our resources is addressed by 
Goal 12 – to ensure sustainable consumption and production 
patterns (United Nations, 2015). A mechanism by which we 
can achieve this SDG is to shift from a linear ‘take, make, 
dispose’ economy, to a circular economy. In plain language, 
the goals of the circular economy are to retain products 
in productive use for as long as possible, to gradually 
de-couple economic activity from finite resources and 
to design waste out of the system (Meloni et al., 2018). 

“A regenerative system in which resource 
input and waste, emission, and energy 
leakage are minimised by slowing, closing, 
and narrowing material and energy 
loops. This can be achieved through 
long-lasting design, maintenance, repair, 
reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and 
recycling. (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017)”

Australia can learn from other countries that have already 
embarked on introducing circular economy policies and 
initiatives. Not all global solutions will be applicable in the 
Australian context. Australia has considerable innovation 
capacity that can be brought to bear to become a world 
leader in some aspects of waste innovation, building on 
pockets of excellence already existing domestically. 

Transitioning to a circular economy could lead to multiple 
benefits (European Environment Agency, 2016), including: 

1. Resource benefits: improving resource security 
and decreasing import dependency
2. Environmental benefits: less environmental impact
3. Economic benefits: opportunity for 
economic growth and innovation
4. Social benefits: sustainable consumer 
behaviour and job opportunities


Given these benefits, the circular economy is 
increasingly popular with policy makers in Australia 
and globally (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017) and there 
are an increasing number of policy and government 
white papers published on the circular economy. 

The first comprehensive report on circular economy was 
published in 2013 by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 
It articulated the value proposition for implementing 
a circular economy in Europe. Annual net material cost 
savings were estimated to be USD 380–630 billion just for 
the EU manufacturing sector (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 
2013). The first country to commit to implementing a 
circular economy by 2050 was the Netherlands in 2016. 
The Dutch government expects this move to result 
in a 50% reduction in raw material use by 2030 with 
a focus on five economic sectors (biomass and food, 
plastics, manufacturing industry, construction, and 
consumer goods) and a reliance on completed industry 
roadmaps (Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the 
Environment and Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2016).

Finland launched a Circular Economy Roadmap for 2016–2025 
which estimates benefits of 2–3 billion euros by 2030 by 
engaging in the circular economy. Finland’s five priority areas 
are food, forest-based systems, technical loops, transport 
and logistics, and common action and collaboration by 
different institutions (Sitra, 2016). Collaboration across 
stakeholders has been shown to be critical to implementing 
the circular economy at scale (Lieder and Rashid, 2016). 

A circular economy is first and foremost an economic 
concept and a transitional project. It aims to benefit from 
technological disruptions that occur in the digital and 
biotechnology sectors, among other innovations, and 
create new growth opportunities. The circular economy can 
become a core component of Industry 4.0 which focusses 
on smart manufacturing and digital transformation 
enabling a fourth revolution in manufacturing. 
In Australia Industry 4.0 and circular economy can 
create new opportunities in advanced manufacturing by 
leveraging Australian skills and its innovation culture.



1.1.1 Waste reduction and circularity 
in Australia

Australia is making progress in adopting circularity 
principles and transitioning towards a circular economy 
with plans and policies developed (or under development) 
in NSW, Victoria and South Australia. Queensland has 
launched a Circular Economy Lab which is an incubator 
for start-up companies. Western Australia references the 
circular economy in their Waste Avoidance and Resource 
Recovery Strategy 2030. However, a circular economy is a 
much broader ambition and not just a waste management 
strategy. It is important that a transition does not burden 
solely the end-of-life, waste management sector. Instead, 
all parts of the economy should be engaged and involved 
in a transition and this involves importers, manufacturers, 
consumers, households and local government authorities.

In addition to waste reduction and resource efficiency 
benefits, transitioning to a circular economy also offers 
Australia significant economic benefits. These benefits 
are comprised of three main elements: i) the market 
value of the materials being reused or recycled, ii) cost 
savings from the reduced burden from waste disposal, 
and iii) the reduced burden on natural resources from 
resource extraction for raw material (Andersen, 2007). 

Additionally, circularity provides opportunities to boost 
jobs. The recycling sector in Australia currently generates 
9.2 jobs per 10,000 tonnes of waste compared to only 
2.8 jobs for the same amount of waste sent to landfill 
(Access Economics, 2009). For South Australia, engaging 
in the circular economy will create an estimated 25,700 
additional jobs by 2030 compared to a business-as-
usual approach. It would also deliver environmental 
benefits through reducing greenhouse gas emissions 
by 27% (7.7 million tonnes CO2e) (Lifecycles, 2017). 

There is a demonstrable economic benefit; for example, 
if Australia increased its recycling rate by 5% this would 
add an estimated $1 billion to Australia’s GDP (Pickin et 
al., 2018). Analysis by CSIRO has shown Australia’s low 
rate of lithium battery collection. In 2016, only 2% of 
lithium was collected and the remainder sent to landfill 
with the associated environmental consequences. 
This lack of collection and processing infrastructure 
equates to a forecast lost economic opportunity of 
up to $2.5 billion in 2036 (King and Boxall, 2019).

Despite the promising benefits that new socio-technical 
solutions could deliver, there are several trends and 
challenges hindering the widespread adoption of circularity 
principles and the rapid transition to a circular economy. 
Unfortunately, a circular economy and the methodologies 
to deliver it are still poorly understood notions (de Jesus 
and Mendonça, 2018). Similarly, while incorporating 
externalities into the cost of production is essential for 
ensuring a successful transition to a circular economy, the 
concept and implications of externalities are not widely 
understood beyond economist circles (Gigli et al., 2019).

There are also significant transaction costs and perceived 
or actual risks associated with changing processes and 
operations towards a more circular economy. Building a 
circular economy will require leadership and innovative 
effort to address the hurdles and transition costs 
associated with all the major opportunities. Poor market 
price signals are one of the factors that is hindering the 
widespread adoption of a circular economy today. Only 
when all or most of these costs are captured, will we 
have accurate market prices that truly reflect the costs 
and benefits of a circular economy. Other barriers, as 
evidenced by the international literature, include high 
up-front costs; complex international supply chains; 
resource-intensive infrastructure lock-in; failures in 
company cooperation; lack of consumer enthusiasm; and 
limited dissemination of innovation, across both emerging 
economies and developed countries (Chatham House, 2012 
as cited in de Jesus and Mendonça, 2018). Lastly, a major 
cultural–cognitive barrier is that people largely prefer 
(and are used to) using new products (Ranta et al., 2018).

A transition to a circular economy will require 
profound changes to industrial, institutional, 
economic, social and consumption practices.

1.2 Policy context in Australia

The past 3+ years have seen increasing public and private 
sector interest in the adoption of circularity principles with 
the longer-term aim of developing a circular economy in 
Australia. This has manifested in several related inquiries 
and projects, supported by both industry and government, 
and has been reflected in the National Waste Policy Action 
Plan 2019, which has a specific focus on a circular economy. 

At the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting 
on 9 August 2019, and announced by the Australian 
Prime Minister on 13 August 2019, the federal and state 
governments agreed to develop a timetable to ban the 
export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres. They also 
agreed to develop a strategy to build Australia’s capacity 
to generate high-value recycled commodities domestically 
and increase associated demand. Leaders agreed the 
strategy should draw on the best science, research and 
commercial experience, including that of CSIRO. The ban 
is a trigger point for Australian waste innovation but the 
complexities of growing amounts of waste and the need 
to grow the domestic recycling capability and markets for 
secondary materials need to be addressed by the strategy.

This has become even more important in the context 
of the COVID-19 economic contraction and the need 
to plan for and facilitate an economic recovery where 
a circular economy and waste innovation can make an 
important contribution. By taking responsibility for 
domestic waste, Australia will also fulfil its role as a 
good global citizen. Australian innovation in the waste 
sector may also create opportunities for economic and 
scientific collaboration with our regional neighbours 
and generate export opportunities for technologies.



1.3 A vision for circularity 
in Australia

Australia must endeavour to adopt more circularity 
principles and transition to a circular economy, 
pushing forward the development of high-value 
recycled commodities and greener manufacturing 
solutions based on domestic and global market needs 
and trends. To realise growth, Australia needs to focus 
on increasing its capacity and ability to develop and 
adopt commercially viable solutions for markets while 
also successfully navigating critical infrastructural, 
regulatory and behavioural challenges (Figure 1.1).

A circular economy creates a circular supply chain that 
commences with primary materials and aims to keep 
these materials in use as long and as often as possible, 
thereby adding value to the materials multiple times. 
We distinguish several phases of materials management 
that are relevant for supporting circular material use:

1. Avoidance: For some materials and uses the best 
strategy is to avoid them in the first place and to replace 
them with an equivalent material, product or service 
to avoid the harmful outcome at the end-of-life stage.
2. Design: Designing products for circularity, where the 
design process considers not only product use, but 
also end-of-life and how the product or components 
can be disassembled or reused offers perhaps the 
most economically attractive opportunities for a 
circular economy. Well-known concepts that capture 
this ambition are Design for Environment, Design for 
Disassembly, or Cradle to Cradle principles. This includes 
designing out products and materials that are difficult 
to recover because of economic or technical constraints. 
3. Consumption: Extending the life and value of a product 
and maintaining materials in the productive economy 
for a longer period can be done through reuse and 
repair. An example is a reused iPhone, it retains 
almost 50% of its original value after 2 years, but once 
disposed of, the value of recoverable materials is only 
0.24% of the phone’s original value (Hazell, 2017). 
By accessing existing resources and reused materials, 
the automotive sector has shown up to 70% material 
savings to make new products (Hazell, 2017). Extended 
producer responsibility, product stewardship and 
lease instead of purchase are good examples for 
extending the use value of products and appliances.
4. Collection: Waste collection is an important step 
that, when organised well, contributes to a clean and 
high-value recyclable commodity that can be used for 
reprocessing. The way in which collection systems are 
designed has a large impact for avoiding contamination, 
which often occurs for comingled waste streams. 
5. Sorting: Current collection systems are not ideally 
suited for successful waste separation and will need be 
improved to service a local recycling industry. This is 
a first step to create valuable export commodities.
6. Recycling: The process by which waste commodities 
are converted into reusable material may involve 
mechanical, chemical, biological and energy-recovery 
technologies. Once reprocessed, secondary 
material can be employed in industrial processes 
or used as input in infrastructure projects.
7. (Re) Manufacturing: This is a process in which 
components of machinery, vehicles or infrastructure 
are reused in new applications. For example, steel 
beams can either be recycled into secondary steel or be 
reused as beams. Another example of remanufacturing 
is the global equipment manufacturer Caterpillar 
who operates a remanufacturing division creating 
a second life for diesel parts and components. 
This division has experienced 8–10% growth over 
the last decade (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013) 
and has achieved substantial costs savings. 
8. Disposal: This is the last stepin the waste management 
hierarchy. It relies on well-designed landfills to avoid 
leakage of toxic substances into water and air and 
help reduce the risk of incidental fires and pollution.


The circular economy also requires new business models 
and scientific innovations on which new businesses and 
markets can be based (Leising et al., 2018) including 
service-based solutions. An example is the leasing 
of carpet where the material is processed by the 
manufacturer at the end-of-life stage (e.g. InterfaceFLOR).



The largest economic gains for Australia in terms of 
new industries and job creation lies in solutions at 
earlier stages of the supply chain and higher up in the 
waste hierarchy. Designing new products, materials 
and new processes based on innovative science 
and technology solutions and new business models 
will create new domestic and export markets.

In addition to a forward-looking circular economy 
strategy, Australia will need to solve the more immediate 
issue of both new waste and waste stockpiles through:

• adding value to end-of-life waste by separating and 
beneficiating materials to create new commodities
• establishing beneficiation facilities, 
separation capacity and collection systems 
that create a feedstock for recycling 
• identifying recycling opportunities 
that can occur within Australia


As a rule, a circular economy will require global 
solutions. In the same way that production relies on 
global supply chains, end-of-life waste needs to rely 
on global solutions and infrastructure to reintegrate 
materials into new products and materials.

Figure 1.1 Circular economy opportunities across the material supply chain

1.4 This Roadmap

As an active participant across the circular economy value 
chain, and with deep expertise in waste management 
and recycling research and development (R&D), CSIRO 
has been asked to deliver this Roadmap. It supports 
the response strategy to the waste export bans and 
complements the work of government and industry to 
maximise the capability of our waste management and 
recycling sector. The research has also been able to 
integrate information from stakeholder consultations 
conducted by the Waste and Recycling Taskforce.

This Roadmap will inform the policy and business 
community and the general public about short, 
medium and long-term opportunities for the circular 
economy for four materials – plastics, glass, paper 
and tyres – that exist in Australia by focusing on 
technical and institutional innovation. It defines 
enabling actions that will position the sector for 
sustainable and achievable growth in the future.



This Roadmap aims: 

• to support the development of Australia’s waste 
management and recycling sector by identifying 
growth opportunities for the sector that are driven 
by current trends and that leverage both the sector’s 
comparative advantages and circularity principles 
• to identify new materials, products and processes 
supported by new business models that avoid the 
generation of low-value and hard-to-recycle waste flows


The ultimate beneficiaries of new waste management, 
recycling, and circularity systems are Australia’s 
future generations, which is implicit in this Roadmap. 
However, in line with the objectives of the waste 
export bans, the Roadmap is delivered through a 
lens which primarily considers the economic and 
competitive positioning of Australian industry.

1.4.1 Methodology

The process started with a review of circular economy 
opportunities covering all stages of the material supply 
chain. It then identified enablers that would allow 
commercialisation of innovation more easily. Engagement 
with key industry, government and academic stakeholders 
allowed to identify the challenges and solutions for 
Australia in a circular economy. These stakeholders 
provided insights into what was applicable in the Australian 
context through more than 80 in-depth interviews. 

The evidence gathered is presented in two main sections:

• opportunities for circular economy innovation for plastics, 
glass, paper and tyres across the material supply chain 
• enablers for supporting the process by which opportunities 
are turned into new solutions that are economically 
viable and contribute to reducing waste going to landfill


Consistent with a circular economy approach and 
systems perspective, opportunities for the four 
materials are presented across each stage of the circular 
economy cycle: avoidance, design, consumption, 
collection, sorting, recycling and manufacturing.

The analysis is rounded off by an economic 
assessment of the unit cost of different opportunities 
for diverting waste from landfill by establishing 
experimental waste-abatement curves.

Each chapter focused on a specific waste material starts 
with an analysis of the current status. It contrasts this with 
the opportunities for transforming the existing supply to a 
more circular fashion in order to reduce end-of-life waste 
going to landfill and create economic opportunities during 
the process. The analysis employs a supply chain logic 
and is further supported by identifying key actions and 
outcomes that would be available for each waste material.

By considering the challenges, opportunities, strategies and 
available actions, a synthesis of key actions and outcomes 
was then developed for each material. This results in a 
roadmap or pathway forward for each material, identifying 
the short (next 2 years), medium (next 5 years) and long 
term (10 years) actions and outcomes for each material. 
A Sankey diagram was generated to help visualise the 
potential material flows for plastics, paper, glass and tyres 
in 2030 as Australia transitions to a circular economy.

Drawing on the opportunities and challenges identified 
for the four waste materials, an integrated circular 
economy strategy is set out that meets Australia’s 
environmental, economic and social needs. It presents 
five linked actionable strategies aimed at

• improving product design, collection and 
sorting outcomes to retain the quality and value 
of materials and prevent material loss 
• building capacity for reprocessing and manufacturing 
of recycled products nationally aimed at increasing 
the ability to create wealth from waste domestically
• encouraging and facilitating market development 
to grow the circular economy, including boosting 
market demand for recycled products and 
products that contain recycled content
• harmonising standards, regulations and messaging 
across jurisdictions to provide consistency in 
governance and create sustainable materials 
management capability in Australia 
• facilitating systemic change from linear to 
circular material supply chains that foster 
sustainable consumption and production.


1.4.2 Structure of the report

The Roadmap presents opportunities for four different 
material supply chains. Chapters 2–5 present opportunities 
for a circular economy along the material supply 
chains for plastics, glass, paper and tyres. Each chapter 
discusses opportunities for that particular material for 
avoidance, substitution and good design which are 
critical for a circular economy. The chapters also include 
opportunities for manufacturing and remanufacturing 
and all steps of waste collection, sorting and recycling. 

Chapter 6 draws together information gathered through 
engaging with industry and government stakeholders and 
sets out an integrated circular economy strategy that meets 
Australia’s environmental, economic and social needs. 



2 Plastics

In 2017–18 Australia 
consumed 3.4 million 
tonnes of plastics.

Based on end-of-life 
plastics data compared to 
consumption, Australia has 
a recycling rate of 12%.

There are many types of 
plastics and their recovery 
rate varies significantly. 

The COAG waste export 
ban for plastics commences 
in 2021 (mixed plastics) 
and 2022 (unprocessed 
single type plastics).

In 2018–19 Australia 
exported 187,354 tonnes 
of plastics at an estimated 
value of $43 million.

Australia is missing an 
estimated $419 million of 
value per annum for PET and 
HDPE that is unrecovered.

Of the 320,000 tonnes 
recovered in 2017–18, 
only 125,000 tonnes 
were locally processed.

Local processing capacity 
must increase by at least 
150% to ensure previously 
exported plastic waste 
does not end up in landfill.



Key challenges

• Lack of plastics recycling infrastructure 
• Contamination of plastics
• Lack of advanced material recovery 
facility (MRF) sorting technology
• Lack of reliable, consistent waste data
• The Australian Packaging Covenant (APC) is not mandatory
• Imported plastics not subject to 
controls regarding recyclability
• Lack of market demand for products 
made of recycled plastics
• Lack of standards for recycled materials and products
• Lack of solutions for mixed plastics
• Lack of data to inform decisions


Key opportunities

• Avoidance: Phase out or ban problematic, unnecessary 
single-use plastic packaging. Implement environmental 
campaigns to reduce plastics pollution.
• Design: Improve product design through 
brand owner education tools (e.g. PREP) 
to design recyclable packaging. 
• Consumption: Address plastics’ social licence 
to operate through action on plastics litter and 
evidenced-based decision-making regarding 
substitutes for plastics. Present clear, consistent 
information, labelling (e.g. ARL) and education on 
how to recycle for households. Maintain linkages with 
international initiatives to reduce plastic waste. 
• Sorting: Improve MRF sorting technology to reduce 
contamination levels and sort plastics into types
• Collection: Implement regional and niche 
collection business models for plastics not 
collected via MRFs e.g. product stewardship.
• Recycling: Connect waste processing and manufacturing 
sectors and replace virgin resources with recycled 
material as feedstock (e.g. feedstock recycling).
Develop standards for recycled plastics and products 
to support infrastructure development and confidence 
in specifications for substitution from virgin materials.
Develop new infrastructure for processing plastics 
(washing, flaking and pelletising) and a supportive 
environment for new enterprise and infrastructure.
• Manufacturing: Improve domestic markets for 
products made from Australian recycled content. 
Roll out a coordinated national program for plastic 
research activity. Prioritise or remove barriers to 
government procurement of recycled plastic products. 
Measure and quantify increased market demand. 


2.1 Overview of global and 
Australian landscape

Plastic has become an almost unavoidable part of our 
lifestyle due to its versatility, convenience, low cost 
and light weight. Plastics provide us with many useful 
products such as polystyrene (PS) which protects 
our high-value electronic and lifestyle goods and 
flexible plastics that protect and extend the life of 
food products while they are transported through 
the supply chain, thus preventing food waste. 

Global plastics consumption has grown 23 times over the 
previous 20 years and will double in the next 20 years. 
Most of plastic consumption is for consumer applications 
(Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019) and plastic packaging represents 
26% of the total volume of global plastics consumption. 
After plastic packaging has served its purpose, it is estimated 
that 95% is sent to landfill and thus lost to the economy 
at a rate of USD 80–120 billion per year (Ellen MacArthur 
Foundation, 2016). Globally, only 14% of plastic packaging is 
collected for recycling, and of this, only 5% of the material 
value is retained for reuse (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 
2016). In response to growing awareness of the need for 
plastic recycling, the global plastic recycling market is 
forecast to grow 5–7% to 2026 and it was valued at USD 
34.8 billion in 2017 (Locock et al., 2019). Plastics recycling 
saves energy compared with the production of virgin 
material. One tonne of recycled plastic saves around 
130 million kJ of energy (Garcia and Robertson, 2017). 
It also reduces our dependence on fossil-fuel resources 
by supporting the recovery and reuse of plastics.

While plastics are indeed useful, there is increasing 
consumer and community awareness of their adverse 
impacts when waste is not managed appropriately 
and pollutes our marine ecosystems and terrestrial 
environment while degrading plastics are also a source of 
greenhouse gas emissions. Data shows that by 2050, 95% 
of all seabirds may have ingested plastic waste from the 
marine environment (Hardesty et al., 2014). In particular, 
microplastics (of <5 mm in size) are of concern in the marine 
environment, arising from the breakdown of larger plastics 
(Vince and Hardesty, 2017) such as expanded polystyrene 
(EPS). In response to these challenges, global initiatives 
have been launched to combat plastic waste such as; the 
Alliance to End Plastic Waste1, The Global Plastic Action 
Plan Partnership2, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation3 and 
Sea the Future4, an initiative of the Minderoo Foundation.

1 https://endplasticwaste.org/ (accessed 12 July 2020)

2 https://globalplasticaction.org/about/ (accessed 12 July 2020)

3 https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/ (accessed 12 July 2020)

4 https://www.minderoo.org/minderoo-foundation/news/global-industry-initiative-launched-to-end-plastic-pollution/ (accessed 12 July 2020)



2.1.1 Plastics consumption and waste 
in Australia

Australia’s plastic consumption is predominantly through 
imported and finished goods (66%) with the remainder 
from local manufacturing (34%) (O’Farrell, 2018). Australia 
has two major manufacturers of plastic, LyondellBasell 
Industries who are the sole manufacturer of polypropylene 
(PP) with production sites in Geelong and Dandenong 
in Victoria, and Qenos the sole company in Australia 
who produce high-quality polyethylene (PE) and resins 
with production sites in Altona, Melbourne and Botany, 
Sydney. Chemistry Australia is the peak industry body 
representing the plastics and chemicals industries. 
In March 2020, they announced Plastics Stewardship 
Australia to support the reduction of plastic waste. 

One of the challenges with reporting on plastics 
is there are different types, each with different 
properties, uses and recovery rates. Box 1 and Table 2.1 
summarises the seven plastic classifications and their 
uses. Plastics are used in packaging, agriculture, 
built environment, electrical and electronic goods, 
automotive and other unidentified applications. 

The latest National Waste Report (2016-17) reports 12% 
of plastics were recycled which left 87% of plastics sent 
to landfill and a small 1% sent to energy from waste 
(Pickin et al., 2018). Notably, there is no estimate for 
annual leakage. The latest Australian data for 2017–18 
reports consumption of 3.4 million tonnes and a decrease 
from 12% to 9.4% for the average recycling rate when 
compared to the previous year; however, this decrease 
is mostly associated with how the recycling rate is 
calculated5. The 2017–18 consumption and recovery 
rates (based on consumption divided by recovery) are 
shown for each plastic type in Figure 2.1 with a total of 
320,000 tonnes of plastics recovered (O’Farrell, 2019). 

In 2018–19 Australia exported 187,354 tonnes of 
recovered plastics at an estimated value of $43 million. 
Low-grade plastics comprise 80% of the waste plastic 
exported and much of this material is from municipal 
sources with weak international and domestic markets. 
The higher-value plastics (e.g. PET [polyethylene 
terephthalate], HDPE [high-density polyethylene]) are 
19% of the total and comprise 26% of the value of waste 
plastic exports. High-grade plastics have strong market 
demand domestically and internationally (DEE, 2019a). 

Of the 320,000 tonnes recovered in 2017–18, only 125,000 
tonnes were locally processed. This means if exports 
are discontinued it would be necessary to increase local 
processing capacity by at least 150% to ensure previously 
exported plastics do not go to landfill. While that is a 
significant increase, it only maintains the status quo 
for the current rate of recycling when clearly, Australia 
requires even greater sorting, collection and processing 
capacity to increase from a very low 12% recycling rate.

5 The former takes waste audit data to calculate end-of-life divided by recovery rate to calculate average recycling rate. The latter uses consumption rate in 
place of end-of-life data, which is less accurate for plastics in use for greater than 1 year.



Figure 2.1: Plastics consumption and recovery by polymer type in 2017–18 (tonnes and % recycling rate)

Figure 2.2: Sankey diagram of plastics flows for Australia as at 2017–18, derived from (O’Farrell, 2019a, 2019b) 

Figure 2.2 shows the current flow of plastics through the 
supply chain. Note that end of life is not shown and thus 
while we know almost 90% of end of life plastics are sent 
to landfill, 65% is represented here when accounting for 
other flows. Net additions to long-lived stocks is calculated 
from the known proportion of plastics that are consumed 
annually but do not reach end of life. Leakage is also 
estimated from this flow and based on international 
estimates as Australia does not report annual leakage data. 
The large proportion of plastics to landfill represents a 
large loss of value to the economy, not only in the form of 
jobs and revenue but also in an ongoing reliance on virgin 
materials for the generation of new plastic products.



Box 1: Plastic classifications

A definition of plastic is: “A plastic material is any of a wide range of synthetic or semi-synthetic 
organic solids that are mouldable. Plastics are typically organic polymers of high molecular mass, 
but they often contain other substances. They are usually synthetic, most commonly derived from 
petrochemicals, but many are either partially natural or fully natural (i.e. biobased) (O’Farrell, 2018).”

Table 2.1 shows the plastic codes, names and examples of applications for each type of plastic. 
The recycling rate is the percentage of recovery compared to consumption of each plastic type 
by code. This table also shows examples of products made from recycled content.

Table 2.1: Plastic classifications. Compiled from Rahimi and Garciá, 2017; O’Farrell, 2018, 2019; Locock et al., 2019 

CODE

NAME

USE

RECYCLING RATE
2017/18

PRODUCTS MADE WITH RECYCLING 
CONTENT

PET

Polyethylene 
terephthalate 
(PET or PETE)

• Consumer drink, 
Medicine Bottles


21.1%

• Carpet fibre, fleece jackets
• Food, beverage and non-food 
containers 
• Plastic film and straps


HDPE

High-density 
polyethylene (HDPE)

• Durable containers; 
detergent bleach, shampoo, 
motor oil
• Cereal box liners, retail bags


15%

• Non-food bottles
• Outdoor decking, fencing, tables
• Pipe, buckets, crates, film and 
sheet, recycling bins, water tanks




PVC

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)

• Packaging - rigid bottles, 
plaster packs.
• Medical - bedding, shrink 
wrap, tubes, bags
• Carpet backing, coated 
fabrics and flooring


1.4%

• Pipe, floor coverings
• Packaging film


LDPE

Low Density 
Polyethylene (LDPE)

• Bags, film wrap, sealants, 
wire cable covering


14.3%

• Film (packaging, agricultural 
etc) Agricultural piping. 
Timber substitutes.


PP

Polypropylene (PP)

• Packaging containers, bottle 
caps, carpets


8%

• Box crates, plant pots



PS

Polystyrene (PS) and 
expanded Polystyrene 
(PS-E)

• Packaging Peanuts, 
styrofoam, protective foam.


9.3%

• EPS – can be added to concrete 
pavers and building products,
• Insulation, egg shell cartons, 
office accessories, thermal 
insulation


Other

A mixture of polymer 
types; ABS/SAN/ASA, 
PU, Nylon, Bioplastic 
and other aggregated or 
unknown polymer types

• Multilayer barrier films, 
toothbrushes, some food 
containers, 


3.5%

• Variable depending on plastic type: 
• PU – Carpet underlay
• Nylon, ABS/SAN – Injection 
moulded products








Plastics packaging

Plastic packaging comprises around 32% of overall 
plastics consumption in Australia based on commercial 
and municipal applications, it accounts for just over 70% 
of recovered plastics (O’Farrell, 2019). Packaging waste 
occurs in our urban life (municipal waste) and as part of 
our commercial and industrial sectors. It can be classified 
as rigid or flexible (O’Farrell, 2018). A recent study on 
packaging waste for 2017–18 found Australia generated 
907,401 tonnes of plastic packaging waste. Of this, only 
32% was recovered, which was much lower than recovery 
rates for other packaging materials; glass (50%), paper 
(72%) and metal (54%) (Madden and Florin, 2019). 

Box 2: The Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) 

APCO is the peak body in Australia for packaging and operates a co-regulatory model in partnership between 
industry members and government. It has been appointed by the Australian Government as the organisation 
to facilitate a national Australian vision for all packaging and is applicable not only to plastics but also to 
glass, paper and cardboard packaging. The 2025 National Packaging Targets were released in September 2018 
(APCO, 2018) and updated in 2020 (APCO, 2020b). Figure 2.3 shows the four APCO targets, all of which are specific 
to plastics. Adherence to the APCO recommendations and targets is an option for companies with an annual 
turnover of $5 million or more. Smaller companies are not subject to the targets and some larger companies 
choose not to join APCO. APCO estimates their membership covers 75% of the market share (APCO, 2020b).

Figure 2.3: APCO National Packaging Targets and associated APCO projects, figure derived from (APCO, 2020b)

Soft plastics

Soft plastic packaging is described as plastic which 
can be ‘scrunched’ into a ball and is used in a variety 
of sectors, such as retail shopping bags, commercial 
and industrial shrink wrap, agricultural film, and in the 
building and construction sectors to protect timber 
and plasterboard (APCO, 2019d). Soft plastics are 
generally made of LDPE (low-density polyethylene), 
LLDPE (linear low-density polyethylene) or HDPE. 
It has been reported that Australia consumed around 
336,000 tonnes of soft plastics in 2017 (APCO, 
2019d). While some states have banned single-use 
plastic bags, Australia still consumed 5.7 billion 
single-use HDPE bags in 2016–17 (O’Farrell, 2018). 



High-value plastics: PET and HDPE

The highest recovery rate was achieved for PET at 21.1%, 
where recovery has been supported by container deposit 
schemes (CDS) in all states and territories except Victoria 
and Tasmania which are scheduled to implement a CDS 
by 2022–23. HDPE has a recovery rate of 15% but, because 
of its high level of consumption in Australia, it results in 
the highest amount of unrecovered plastics in Australia 
– a total of 558,000 tonnes. For PET and HDPE, there was a 
combined total of 838,000 tonnes unrecovered6 for 2017–18. 
By not collecting these materials, Australia is missing 
an estimated $419 million of value per year7. There are 
greater opportunities to produce recycled PET (rPET) in 
Australia through investment in producing high-quality 
hot-wash flake and new infrastructure. A new facility to 
be located in Albury by December 2021 will cost $30M 
and process 28,000 tonnes of PET bottles and recyclables 
into food-grade pellets and flake. This new facility is a 
collaboration between Cleanaway Waste Management 
and investment from the NSW Government. The PACT 
Group and Asahi Beverages have committed to purchase 
most of the material jobs (Evans, 2020; Gray, 2020).

PS/EPS

Polystyrene and expanded polystyrene have much 
lower consumption rates of 64,000 and 87,000 
tonnes per year, respectively. Rigid PS is a problematic 
packaging material due to a lack of recycling markets 
and its manufacturing process using harmful chemicals 
(APCO, 2019c). EPS is lightweight and very durable and 
is readily used in the transport of a variety of goods, 
including fragile items due to its shock-absorption 
qualities. Its thermal efficiency also helps extend the 
shelf-life of consumables such as fruit, vegetables and 
seafood. This results in EPS being very important to the 
food retail supply chain and demand is growing at an 
estimated 5% per year. As EPS is used extensively for retail 
packaging, it is difficult to estimate the quantity of EPS 
that is imported to Australia. This results in data gaps for 
accurately quantifying consumption of EPS (APCO, 2019b). 
The domestic production of EPS involves approximately 
40 manufacturers nationally, employing 1,000 people and 
revenue of $200–300 million. Of the domestic production 
of EPS, around 30% is used for packaging products, with 
around half exported in food packaging (APCO, 2019b).

The challenges with EPS are that it takes up space 
in waste bins and is lightweight, whereas bins are 
generally charged based on volume. It is a common 
litter from illegally dumped rubbish and although it 
can be collected at transfer stations, these collection 
points are fragmented, and it often goes to landfill. 
Consumer frustration is high for this packaging product 
as people do not know where to take the product at 
end-of-life. The industry price for recycling EPS is highly 
variable and ranges from $250–800 per tonne. Reducing 
contamination of EPS is critical to support its recyclability 
(APCO, 2019b). Despite these recycling challenges there 
are examples of EPS being used as a manufacturing 
input to concrete tiles and construction products. 

PVC

The Vinyl Council Australia is the peak organisation for 
companies across the PVC (polyvinyl chloride) supply 
chain. In 2017–18 PVC recorded the lowest overall recovery 
rate (1.4%) of plastics. However, this figure neglects 
the durable nature of PVC products in the building, 
construction and commercial sectors, such as in window 
frames or floor coverings, which remain in use for years. 
PVC packaging is not currently recycled in Australia 
though it has been in the past. Improved recovery rates 
could be achieved by manual or improved optical sorting 
at MRFs. Even though the commercial and construction 
sectors are significant users of PVC, collection schemes 
for PVC in these industries are challenging due to the 
relatively low volumes of waste arising. PVC can be 
recycled mechanically or reused in flooring applications 
but the main challenges in Australia are the low volumes 
collected and the difficulty in securing a clean supply. 

PVC is a contaminant for the reprocessing of other plastics. 
For example, it becomes corrosive for equipment used in 
rPET manufacturing and acts as a contaminant in products 
derived from feedstock recycling of other plastics types. 
In the past, PVC was collected and diverted through a 
manual sorting process. It is possible to install additional 
technology to sort PVC within MRFs. The PVC industry in 
Australia is obviously sensitive to a ban on PVC single-use 
and packaging products, however, there are international 
examples where PVC, along with PS and EPS are being 
intentionally designed out of packaging and substituted 
with other materials (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016). 

Plastics litter

Based on a 2018 attitudes survey, Australia’s public considers 
plastics pollution the most serious environmental issue 
and ranked it higher than climate change (Dilkes-Hoffman 
et al., 2019). While plastic is littered in our terrestrial 
environment and sent to landfill rather than collected for 
recycling, the litter of plastics in our marine environment 
is also cause for concern. Marine litter has far-reaching 
economic consequences such as a reduction in tourism 
and the fouling of fishing gear, as well as the direct costs of 
collecting marine debris (Hardesty et al., 2014). Plastic waste 
is of particular concern for remote Australian areas and 
islands due to its accumulation and the lack of infrastructure 
available to process local waste (Lavers et al., 2019).

6 This assumes that landfill is the difference between consumption and recovery, which for long-life products may not be the case

7 By applying the February 2020 export price of $300 and $600 per tonne, respectively (Sustainability Victoria, 2020).



2.2 Summary of key challenges for plastics

Figure 2.4 is a summary of some of the major challenges raised during the interview process 
relevant to a plastics circular economy in the face of the upcoming waste export ban. In particular, 
a consistent message was received that there was a lack of time for industry to adapt to the 
ban and this risks plastics being either stockpiled or sent to landfill in the short term. 

In order to address the challenges facing the plastics industry, it will be necessary to improve the circular 
economy for plastics. Enabling actions from a range of actors are specifically addressed in Chapter 6.

Figure 2.4: Summary of key challenges for plastics

1. Lack of plastics 
recycling infrastructure

Australia is missing segments of the recycling supply chain (washing, 
flaking, pelletising) in order to process domestically what has 
been exported. It is challenging to increase recycling capacity 
quickly without that infrastructure in place and there is a risk that 
stockpiling or increased landfill will occur in the short term.

2. Contamination of plastics

Plastics contamination occurs due to a lack of sorting into plastic types and 
by materials such as glass and organics. This prevents value-add to plastics. 

3. Lack of advanced MRF 
sorting technology

Australian MRFs lack advanced separation technology to reduce contamination 
levels and effectively sort PVC, PP and PS. This technology exists overseas but 
has not been installed in Australia. Upgrades to optical sorting is required.

4. Lack of reliable, 
consistent waste data

Australia lacks reliable waste data and consistencey across jurisdictions. 
There is an absence of stockpile data, tracking through the supply chain 
and reporting of annual litter volumes. 

5. The APC not mandatory

As the Australian Packaging Covenant is not mandatory, some companies 
are not actively working towards national packaging targets. It is difficult 
to achieve targets without a mandatory scheme. 

6. Imported plastics 
not subject to controls 
regarding recyclability

There is a lack of control over imported plastics and packaging as it is not 
subject to national packaging targets. This results in non-recyclable plastics 
entering Australia’s supply chain.

7. Lack of market demand 
for products made of 
recycled plastics

Australia has additional capacity to produce recycled products but lacks 
markets, demand, acceptance and awareness of recycled plastics products 
as substitutes for existing products made of virgin materials. This is 
execerbated by the price difference between virgin and recycled materials.

8. Lack of standards 
for recycled materials 
and products

Standards are required for recycled plastics material across the supply chain 
to provide confidence to manufacturers and industry. Standards for recycled 
products are needed to demonstrate they meet specification and reduce risk 
for brand owners and engineers.

9. Lack of solutions 
for mixed plastics

Market value for mixed plastics is low or negative. Australia needs to support 
technologies that can process mixed plastics and divert plastics from landfill.

10. Lack of life cycle 
assessment data to 
inform decisions

Plastics may be being substituted without adequate life-cycle data to 
inform that decision. This results in substitution decisions that may appear 
more environmentally friendly but are actually more detrimental.







2.3 Opportunities for plastics 
in the circular economy

This section highlights the opportunities across the 
circular economy system by dividing them into the 
following stages: avoidance, design, consumption, 
collection, sorting, recycling and manufacturing.

2.3.1 Avoidance

Avoidance is the first step on the waste hierarchy, and the 
first circular economy principle from the 2018 National 
Waste Policy (DEE, 2018b). Plastic waste avoidance is 
supported through strategies such as avoidance of 
single-use plastics, prevention of leakage (litter) into the 
environment and avoidance of problematic packaging.

Figure 2.5: Uniqlo commitment to reduction in single-use plastics

Single-use plastics

Examples of avoidance of single-use plastics are 
supermarket bans on single-use plastic bags. This 
is increasingly being supported by major consumer 
brands, such as Uniqlo (see Figure 2.5), and supports 
a national target of reducing total waste generated 
in Australia by 10% per person by 2030 (DEE, 2019b).

Avoidance is also supported by the APCO national packaging 
target where the goal is to phase out of problematic and 
unnecessary single-use plastics packaging (ACPO, 2020b).

Prevention of plastics litter

Avoidance helps prevent plastic waste entering our 
environment which is of concern to Australian society. 
Litter is also an economic cost as Australia spent 
$70 million cleaning up dumped waste in 2016–17 
(Pickin et al., 2018). Consumer education to reduce litter 
through environmental campaigns leads to a reduction in 
environmental pollution (Willis et al., 2018). Litter surveys 
are an important part of quantifying and tracking litter 
back to its source. These data are vital in the role of plastic 
litter prevention and undertaken by organisations such 
as Keep Australia Beautiful8, Tangaroa Blue9 and CSIRO. 

Operation Cleansweep® is a collaboration between the 
not-for-profit Tangaroa Blue, industry and government 
to prevent pollution from plastic pellets lost through the 
transport of plastic products and from manufacturers.10 
This voluntary industry program prevents plastic pellets 
polluting the environment and is supported by the Victorian 
Government and Chemistry Australia. Another example of 
reducing plastics in the environment is CSIRO’s development 
of digital detection of gross pollutant traps to coordinate 
their cleaning, prevent overflows and maximise efficiencies.

The prevention of plastic waste reaching our oceans can 
be achieved through the removal of plastic microbeads 
(<1mm) from personal care products, substitution 
with biodegradable materials and prevention of fibre 
fragments from clothes through improved water 
treatment such as advanced filters in washing machines 
to prevent microplastics (<5mm) from entering the sewer 
(Wu et al., 2017). A ban of certain consumer single-use 
products (e.g. plastic straws), also supports avoidance 
(this is further discussed in the Consumption section).

Problematic plastic packaging

Problematic plastics are broadly defined as plastics that are 
difficult to collect, contribute to litter, reduce recovery of 
other materials through contamination, or contain hazardous 
chemicals (APCO, 2019c). Multi-layered packaging can also 
be problematic and specific solutions are addressed in the 
Design section. Plastic types identified as problematic in the 
UNEP global commitment are: PVC, PVDC (polyvinylidene 
chloride), PS and EPS (UNEP, 2019). In particular, PVDC and 
PVC remain problematic materials due to the lack of recycling 
pathways and lack of collection. PVDC film has useful barrier 
properties that prevent discolouration and dehydration of 
meat. While there is no global regulation on these products, 
international companies are already making commitments 
to exit from problematic or single-use materials. From the 
400 companies that are a signatory to the ‘New Plastics 
Economy Global Commitment’, 79% are either already 
eliminating or have plans to eliminate PVC and 60% for PVDC 
(UNEP, 2019). One of these companies is the UK supermarket 
chain TESCO which has undertaken to ban PVC as part of 
a commitment to ban all non-recyclable plastic by 2019. 

8 https://kab.org.au/ (accessed 10 July 2020)

9 https://www.tangaroablue.org/ (accessed 10 July 2020)

10 http://www.opcleansweep.org.au/ (accessed 10 July 2020)



2.3.2 Design 

The design stage is a fundamental focus of the circular 
economy. The plastics circular economy ‘is an industrial 
system that must be restorative and regenerative by design’ 
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016, p.5). Design for 
circularity is the first strategy for Australia’s 2025 packaging 
targets. Design is an often-neglected part of the life cycle 
as our traditional linear economy means addressing plastic 
waste with a focus on end-of-life. However, the design 
stage has the greatest potential to transition to a plastic 
circular economy. A focus on design allows us to create a 
plastic product that is reusable, recyclable or compostable. 

“If we really want to shift, it’s 
about a complete redesign and 
rethink of what we do on a systems 
level.” – interview participant

Reusable

The plastics industry has a role in producing less waste by 
developing reusable packages. The most basic example of 
this is the Australian-designed KeepCup. Reusing a KeepCup 
results in a significant reduction of carbon emissions 
compared to a single-use coffee cup (Almeida et al., 2018). 
New business models are part of the circular economy 
and Woolworths have announced a collaboration with 
TerraCycle to establish the ‘Loop’ platform which packages 
common household products in reusable packaging.

Recyclable

One of the biggest challenges for manufacturers and brand 
owners is to identify problematic multi-layered packaging 
and to design recyclable alternatives. Multi-layer products, 
such as chip packets, chocolate wrappers and pill blister 
packets, have combinations of plastic film and aluminium 
foil. These can vary from three to nine (or more) layers and 
provide a light product with strong barrier or mechanical 
properties. While they have superior mechanical properties, 
their layers make them difficult to recycle (APCO, 2019d) 
and multi-layered products containing PVC, PS or bioplastic 
are unable to be recycled through the REDcycle program 
(APCO, 2019c). AMCOR is one example of a company 
that is applying research and innovation to move away 
from multi-layer materials to develop recyclable, high 
barrier, flexible packaging as part of its pledge to have all 
packaging recyclable or reusable by 2025 (AMCOR, 2019).

One aspect of designing for recyclability might be the 
substitution of one material for another, although ideally, 
such substitution would be an evidence-based decision to 
prevent a switch to a material that has greater environmental 
harm. Some companies have substituted EPS for alternative 
materials such as cardboard, fungi or bamboo (APCO, 2019b). 
There is a lack of life-cycle assessment for plastic products 
such as certified biodegradable plastics (APCO, 2019a), 
EPS to landfill compared to EPS to recycling (APCO, 2019b), 
and products made from soft plastics (APCO, 2019d). 

There are options available to brand owners that improve 
their awareness of the impact of their packaging. APCO has 
developed PREP (Packaging Recyclability Evaluation Portal) 
which is an online platform that helps companies verify if 
packaging is recyclable, non-recyclable, or conditionally 
recyclable. The latter depends on consumers following 
instructions. Chemistry Australia has delivered workshops 
known as ‘Quick Starts’ to show product designers how 
to develop a product or package using recycled content. 
This assists companies by providing them with information on 
how to get materials, specifications and identify a moulding 
company that designers can engage to produce their product.

Compostable

Certified compostable plastics have a niche role in packaging 
plastics where they can substitute for single-use plastics 
for takeaway food and events. When used in this way it 
facilitates collection of both waste streams – packaging 
and organics – to be processed with the FOGO (food and 
garden organics) system. The products generated from 
composting facilities can reach an urban, industrial or 
agricultural market which supports the circular economy 
by returning nutrients to the soil. Certified compostable 
plastics are made of bio-based or fossil-based feedstocks 
and have a role in the biological rather than technical 
side of Australia’s circular economy. The role of certified 
compostable plastics is niche as generally, plastics should be 
retained at their highest possible value for reuse or recycling. 

There are two main types of Australian standards for 
biodegradable products – home (Australian Standard (AS) 
4736 (2006)) or industrial (Australian Standard (AS) 4736 
(2006)). It is currently voluntary for manufacturers to verify 
that products confirm to these standards. Companies can 
be verified and apply through the Australasian Bioplastics 
Association to use the ‘Home Compostable Verification’ or 
‘seedling’ logos which are consistent with European labels 
to indicate industrial composting (Australasian Bioplastics 
Association, 2020). Biodegradable products can be open 
to misleading information and this has led to consumer 
confusion over terms such as ‘bioplastic’, ‘biodegradable’, 
‘compostable’, ‘oxo-biodegradable’, ‘degradable’ and 
‘home compostable’ (Choice, 2020). Oxo-plastics are 
particularly problematic as they are designed to fragment 
over time and can contribute to microplastics pollution. 
The ACT and South Australia are in the process of 
phasing out oxo-degradable plastics (APCO, 2019c).



Data to inform design and planning

Improving information through the provision of 
cost-effective data collection through the life cycle of 
a product would support not only improved design 
decisions but also improved planning, management and 
policy development for plastics waste. These data are 
required to estimate the remanufacturing potential for 
plastics (Singh and Ordoñez, 2016) which is underpinned 
by standards to provide manufacturers confidence that 
recycled plastics are fit for purpose. It is suggested that 
data tracking of plastic packaging should be implemented 
so there is tracking from source to sink (Pickin et al., 2018) 
which helps to improve accuracy of waste and recycling 
reporting. The Northern Territory prioritised an electronic 
waste tracking system which was due for implementation 
by 2019 (Pickin et al., 2018). Examples of data-driven 
responses to waste management are the ‘smart bins’ that 
have been deployed in Melbourne and Tasmania to monitor 
odour and communicate when they are full. Another 
example might be cheap, real-time industry 4.0 monitoring 
solutions for gross pollutant traps in waterways that are 
managed and monitored by local government authorities. 

2.3.3 Consumption

This section addresses household consumption practices, 
associated regulations, and consumer perspectives on 
the use of plastics, including a social licence to operate. 

Improve education and harmonised 
household recycling 

Consumer education with improved labelling to indicate 
the recyclability of products or packaging is important to 
support increased collection and reduced contamination. 
Clear and consistent messaging is key to successful 
household recycling. One common example of confusion is 
whether lids can be left on plastic bottles or not. An author 
attempting to resolve this question for their own household 
found the local council website advice was to remove lids 
from plastic bottles for recycling; however, in other linked 
recycling education material, lids where to be placed in 
the rubbish bin. Such conflicting information exacerbates 
the problem of recyclable plastic going to landfill. 

Clear, consistent information will help reduce 
contamination and support improved recycling rate. 
The Australasian Recycling Label has an important role in 
reducing consumer confusion for how to correctly recycle 
packaging. Research indicates households do want to 
recycle (Walton et al., 2019) but receiving mixed messages 
on what is recyclable potentially undermines their efforts 
and their motivation (Miafodzyeva and Brandt, 2013).

Differences in what households can place in their recycling 
bin varies due to different infrastructure constraints 
and different contractual relationships between waste 
operators and councils. These pose challenges, however, 
there is a recognised need to work towards standardised 
infrastructure and contracts, and consistent and clear 
messages supporting plastics recycling for households.

Maintain plastics’ social licence to operate

A growing awareness of sustainability is driving 
consumer purchasing behaviour, and research on 
global consumers from Australia, China, the UK and 
the USA shows that 91% of consumers want brands to 
use sustainable ingredients or materials and 92% of 
respondents report sustainability practices should be 
standard business practice (Stafford et al., 2018). 

The results of a survey collected in May 2018, which was 
representative of the Australian population, showed that 
Australians consider plastic waste a serious environmental 
issue and are concerned about the environmental impact 
of plastics. Most people associate plastic use with 
food-related packaging. However, despite the recognised 
benefits of plastic in extending the life of food products 
and preventing food waste, their increased use is not 
supported. This indicates that plastic packaging is starting 
to lose social acceptance and has negative sentiment 
associated with its use (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019). 

Australians support the reduction of plastics now and 
in the longer term with 80% of respondents indicating 
a desire to reduce their use of plastics. However, there 
was a gap between attitudes and behaviours: those 
indicating they were already acting to reduce plastics 
were fewer than those indicating they wanted to act. 
This gap on individual action extends to the perceived 
responsibility for reducing plastic waste where individuals 
were the lowest-ranked group seen to be responsible 
for reducing disposable plastic. Instead, the Australian 
public hold industry as mostly responsible for reducing 
disposable plastic, followed by the government through 
legislation controls and lastly, individuals though 
consumer choices (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019). 

While the attitudes of the Australian public have been 
collected on their views toward plastic, there is more 
research required on the types of actions that are 
acceptable to them. Included in this research is a need 
to understand where the role of individuals can support 
reduced plastic waste and improved understanding on 
the role of recycling, in addition to prevention and reuse 
of plastics (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019). The results of this 
survey provide evidence of changing societal expectations 
and suggest that manufacturers and brand owners need 
to address issues such as recycling and problem plastics to 
maintain a social licence for the continued use of plastics. 



While plastic offers consumers the benefits of convenience, 
low cost and positive outcomes such as the prevention 
of food waste, consumer sentiment towards plastics is 
increasingly negative, irrespective of these benefits. 
This negative sentiment is driving trials to remove plastic 
from grocery stores, such as a 10-week trial in an Auckland, 
New Zealand, grocery store (Figure 2.6) (NZ Herald, 2020). 
This is occurring despite UK life-cycle-assessment data 
showing that a lightweight HDPE bag performs better 
than paper when the HDPE bag is reused as a bin 
liner (Edwards and Fry, 2011) and shows again a lack 
of evidence-based data available to decision makers. 
There is a need for an Australian evidence base to inform 
substitution decisions, especially with food packaging 
where plastics can extend the shelf life of some products.

Figure 2.6: Substituting plastic for paper packaging in grocery stores may have negative impacts on food waste and the environment. 

Reduce microplastics during domestic clothes washing

Microplastics (<5mm) are released during the use of 
products containing plastics, for example through 
using cosmetics embedded with microbeads or through 
fibre fragments being released during clothes washing. 
The release of microplastics into our environment can be 
prevented at the level of domestic washing or at waste 
water treatment plants (Wu et al., 2017). There are several 
commercially available, low-cost filters for domestic washing 
machines on the market, however, their effectiveness may 
require additional scientific evaluation and research. 



Harmonise policy for single-use plastic products

Identification of products in plastic pollution has 
resulted in a UK ban on the sale and distribution of 
plastic straws, stirrers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds 
from April 2020. These products are also present in 
Australian litter and a community group ‘Better Buds’ 
are calling for a similar ban on plastic-stemmed cotton 
buds, which if flushed down the toilet, can ultimately 
appear on Australian beaches (Better Buds, 2020). 

Consideration of banning certain problematic single-use 
plastics that have existing substitutes will prevent these 
products entering waste streams and littering Australian 
coastal and terrestrial areas. Each Australian state and 
territory has its own approach to implementing single-
use plastic policy and are in various stages of progress 
for either implementing a ban or intending to take action 
(APCO, 2019c). The 2019 WWF Scorecards (Figure 2.7) 
shows the mixed approach taken for different products 
across Australia. These differences cause confusion 
for consumers and difficulties for business that work 
across jurisdictions and would benefit from national 
harmonisation. Australia lags behind Canada, Europe and 
the UK in taking action on single-use plastics although this 
is rapidly changing as jurisdictions (e.g. South Australia, 
Queensland, and ACT) move to take action on single use 
plastics. An ongoing challenge is working to harmonise 
each jurisdictions approach to tackling single use plastics.

Figure 2.7: 2019 WWF Scorecards 

Source: https://www.wwf.org.au/get-involved/plastic-pollution/plastics-scorecard#gs.6f8ajv 
© 9 Oct 2019 WWF-Australia (wwf.org.au). Some rights reserved.



2.3.4 Collection

There are many different types of plastics, some of which 
need different collection methods or business models in 
order to recover and divert from landfill. A Victorian report 
shows that 90% of Victorians are open to changing how 
they sort their waste. Greater separation of waste in homes 
and businesses has been shown to reduce contamination 
and improve recycling outcomes. Improved education 
is key to facilitating improved outcomes (Infrastructure 
Victoria, 2019). The household-level separation of 
organics and glass would be highly beneficial to reducing 
contamination downstream. There is a greater need for 
collection initiatives given 88% of end of life plastics 
are sent to landfill and the majority (just over 70%) 
of plastics collected are packaging plastics. 

Product Stewardship - Container deposit 
schemes (CDS)

Some of the resistance to CDS is that they are costly to 
implement, although the schemes have been shown to 
be most effective at reducing plastic waste into the ocean 
(Schuyler et al., 2018). One commonly stated risk is that a 
CDS will cannibalise existing kerbside-recycling programs.

The USA Container Recycling Institute estimates CDS 
are the most effective mechanism for recovering 
containers for the purpose of recycling. It estimates 
that the USA could achieve 80–90% recycling rates of 
containers based on a 10-cent deposit (Gitlitz, 2013). 

In Australia, CDS schemes are useful for the PET and HDPE 
plastics used in beverage containers. NSW has recently 
implemented a CDS and as of November 2019, it had 
captured 2.7 billion containers.11 There are estimates that 
the NSW scheme has reduced containers reaching landfill 
by 57% (Hannam, 2019). The South Australian scheme 
has been running for 40 years and that state also has 
one of the best recycling rates in Australia. Victoria and 
Tasmania have committed to implementing a CDS by 
2022–23. Therefore, all Australian jurisdictions are on track 
to have a CDS in place which is known to reduce plastic 
litter in the environment. There is now potential to seek 
harmonisation between schemes in each jurisdiction.

Soft plastics consumer packaging

Social business innovation groups such as REDCycle play 
an important role in connecting parts of the supply chain 
to collect LDPE and PP – otherwise known as ‘scrunchable’ 
or soft plastics. REDCycle partners with supermarkets 
who act as collection drop-off points for consumers. 
This material is then cleaned and processed by Australian 
manufacturers Replas, Close the Loop and Plastic Forests 
(Redcycle, 2020). However, due to a lack of market demand 
for products made from recycled products, the RedCycle 
program is at capacity. Companies such as Replas have 
capacity to scale up but are prevented due to a lack of 
demand for their recycled-plastic products. Household 
soft plastics also have contamination levels of up to 20% 
(APCO, 2019d) which poses challenges for recycling.

Medical PVC

The Vinyl Council of Australia has implemented a PVC 
collection program in partnership with Baxter Healthcare 
to collect PVC from hospitals. PVC is estimated to 
comprise 25–30% of hospital waste. To recycle medical 
PVC is cheaper or cost neutral for a hospital compared 
to sending it to landfill. Recycling it also has significant 
environmental benefits. Recycling uses 85% less energy 
and 1.8 kg of carbon emissions per kg of product recycled. 
The PVC collected from hospitals is manufactured into 
new products (State Government of Victoria, 2020). 
This program has been implemented into 90 hospitals 
in Australia and New Zealand although with 693 public 
and 657 private hospitals in Australia (AIHW, 2019) this 
means fewer than 10% of Australian hospitals have 
adopted this program. Barriers are likely to be social 
rather than technical or economic. Therefore, there 
are further opportunities to explore incentives for 
hospitals to implement the PVC collection program. 

Agricultural plastics

The agricultural sector consumed 91,000 tonnes of plastic 
in 2017–18. The recycling rate was 7%. The majority (51,000 
tonnes) of plastics consumed is LLDPE and LDPE. A major 
use of these flexible plastics is silage wrap and horticulture 
wraps. PP is used in twine and netting products.

In the past there was an Australia collection system 
called Plasback that captured flexible plastics from farms. 
This system still operates in New Zealand, but significant 
challenges have halted its operation in Australia. There 
is no longer a plastic processer in mainland Australia 
who will accept agriculture plastics with their higher 
levels of contamination than commercial and industrial 
film. Envorinex in Tasmania will collect clean agriculture 
flexible plastics, but it is not feasible to transport 
mainland plastic across to Tasmania. The additional soil 
and on-farm contaminants reportedly can reduce plastic 
processing (wash and remove contaminants) throughput 
from approximately 1,400 kg per hour to around 600 kg 
per hour. Victorian recyclers currently have enough clean 
plastic to process from other sources and are at capacity 
and are therefore reluctant to accept agricultural plastics. 
Moreover, the glues on silage wrap produce a tacky 
substance during washing that affects machine processing. 
A New South Wales company, Plastic Forests processes 
agricultural plastics but has a wating list for new customers 
(Plastic Forests Pty Ltd, 2020) and processes agriculture 
plastics into agriculture products such as fence posts.

11 https://returnandearn.org.au/ (accessed 12 July 2020)



There has been a great deal of farmer education on 
returning farm plastics and farmers generally support 
recycling systems and want to reduce plastic being 
buried or burnt on farm. Investigation is needed into 
collection systems for on-farm plastics, recognising that 
solutions may vary depending upon farm crop type.

Implementing a collection system that allows a farmer 
to collect plastic at time of use, and possibly store 
these where contamination is minimised is a potential 
solution. Mobile, regional processing systems known as 
microfactories, may be a solution by providing low volume 
decentralised manufacturing options. A focus on Victorian 
dairy farmers and silage wraps could be an initial focus. 

2.3.5 Sorting

Australian MRFs have developed to be attuned to export 
markets that could accept higher levels of contamination 
than are allowed now. They focus on separating out 
higher-value plastics, such as PET and HDPE. Our 
research consistently advised us that improved sorting 
technologies, including improved optical-sorting 
technologies, exist but have not been installed in 
Australia and this requires additional investment. 

Sorting technology can recognise plastic bottles behind 
sleeves and can potentially separate plastic bags or 
film from paper. Removal of PVC and plastic film as 
part of sorting will reduce contamination levels for 
downstream processing. One of the challenges for 
plastics is that black plastics interfere with the near 
infrared (NIR) sorting technologies (Locock et al., 2019) 
that are present in standard recycling plants. Recycling 
technology company Steinert have a sorting solution that 
has been demonstrated to sort black plastics, by type, 
back into pure grades. This includes airflow technology 
that helps sort flat and lightweight black materials.

An example of improved sorting of food-grade plastics 
is the application of luminescent labels on packaging 
that can be detected and separated in MRFs using 
ultraviolet light. This technology complements existing 
NIR technology and has been tested in the UK. It is known 
as PRISM (Plastic Packaging Recycling using Intelligent 
Separation technologies for Materials) (Kosier et al., 2016).

Separation of plastics into clean sources during the 
collection stage provides a good pathway to higher-value 
solutions. This solves challenges such as contamination 
of material streams and mixed plastics, which often 
results in material pathways with lower-value outcomes. 
For example, only a small amount of PVC contamination 
causes problems for downstream processing; it can corrode 
rPET technology and contaminate feedstocks derived 
from feedstock recycling. Similarly, PVC recycling can 
be contaminated by the presence of other plastic types.

2.3.6 Recycling 

To absorb previously exported material, Australian needs a 
150% increase in plastics recycling capacity. ACOR estimates 
that 50% of current exports can be processed using planned 
or implemented infrastructure (ACOR, 2019). This leaves a 
significant gap in Australia’s infrastructure for processing 
plastics (washing, flaking and pelletising) once they have been 
sorted and this is largely as Australia has come to depend 
upon exports to other countries. As Australia ‘re-shores’ this 
capability we should be aware of Australia’s relatively high 
labour and energy costs, which have forced at least one plastics 
recycler in Adelaide to close due to a $100,000 increase in 
energy prices over 18 months (Dayman, 2017). It is necessary to 
coordinate energy, manufacturing and waste policy in order 
to create a supportive environment for new investment into 
Australian recycling and manufacturing infrastructure. The 
importance of domestic manufacturing capability has been 
demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic when increased 
demand for goods is unable to be met through imports. 

The COAG response strategy for the waste plastics export 
ban identifies that the Federal Government has a role 
to play in supporting investment through commercial 
and concessional loans, competitive grant funding or 
taxation measures (COAG, 2020). There also needs to be a 
consideration of regional needs, balanced with a national 
plan for critical infrastructure to process collected material. 
Some interview participants reported a lack of plans 
available for state and national infrastructure and these 
plans would inform priorities at the local government level 
resulting in more strategic investment in infrastructure.

It is important that reprocessing techniques deliver higher-
quality resins that can compete with virgin materials 
on price and quality (Locock et al., 2019). Noting that 
a circular economy perspective means waste plastics 
should be processed with consideration that they 
can be an input to manufacturing, it is also vital that 
standards are developed across the supply chain to give 
companies confidence to utilise recycled plastics.

“You (the waste sector) are the start of the 
supply chain because you are supplying 
us (industry) with feedstock. We need 
quality and therefore we need standards 
and clarity” – interview participant

Plastics recycling saves energy compared with the production 
of virgin material. One tonne of recycled plastic saves 
around 130 million kJ of energy (Garcia and Robertson, 2017). 
It also reduces our dependence on fossil-fuel resources by 
supporting the recovery and reuse of plastics. Materials 
recovery constitutes material-processing operations that 
include mechanical recycling, feedstock recycling or biological 
(organic) recycling. These methods aid in the conversion of 
waste plastic into lower or same-grade plastic materials or 
further, into monomer building blocks and other products.



Mechanical recycling 

Mechanical recycling is the dominant form of 
material recovery whereby plastic waste is processed 
into secondary raw material or products without 
significantly changing the chemical structure of the 
material. Such processing readily lends itself to recycling 
thermoplastics such as PET, PE, PVC and PP, but is not 
applicable to thermoset polymers such as unsaturated 
polyesters or epoxy resins due to their permanent 
crosslinking during manufacture (Locock et al., 2019).

Mechanical recycling covers primary, closed-loop recycling 
where the end product is used for the same purpose as 
the original, such as PET bottles made from both virgin 
and recycled PET (Figure 2.8). It also covers secondary 
recycling where the material is downgraded (‘downcycled’) 
for a different purpose and usually a lower-value end 
use. This process requires sorting, grinding, washing 
and extrusion (Rahimi and Garciá, 2017). Challenges to 
mechanical recycling arise from different plastics each 
responding differently due to their chemical composition, 
behaviour and thermal properties. Future work involves 
developing strategies for mixed or contaminated feedstocks 
(Garcia and Robertson, 2017) including understanding the 
properties and characteristics of mixed plastics. Polywaste 
Technology™ (https://newtecpoly.com/polywaste/) is 
one Australian technology that utilises mixed-plastic 
feedstock which is then extruded into products for 
commercial, industrial, agricultural or domestic products.

Hot-wash flake and rPET

There are significant opportunities to increase domestic 
production of rPET which requires high-quality, food-
grade hot-wash flake which is often sourced overseas. 
Coca-Cola Amatil has a target of 70% recycled plastic in 
bottles by the end of 2019 (Coca-Cola Amatil, 2019). In 
order to achieve this, they are purchasing 16,000 tonnes 
of rPET from Thailand to meet their needs (Mitchell, 2019). 
In 2018 almost 20% of Australian plastic exports were 
high-value PET/HDPE so there is an opportunity to utilise 
exported PET locally once the infrastructure is in place. 

A new facility to be located in Albury by December 
2021 will process 28,000 tonnes of plastic waste (Evans, 
2020; Gray, 2020). This involves a collaboration with 
Cleanaway Waste Management to provide feedstock, 
and both PACT Group (packaging expertise) and Asahi 
Beverage Group have committed to purchase most of the 
material from the new facility. This example illustrates 
the importance of collaboration across the supply chain 
linking waste management with markets for reuse.

Figure 2.8: Recycled PET



Investment implications for increasing 
the circularity of plastic

• Statistics from 2017 to 2018 indicate that 
Australia exports 158–186 kt of plastic waste 
per year (Blue Environment Pty Ltd., 2019).
• Expected revenue loss to Australia from the plastic 
waste export ban is around $43.5M per year.
• An investment of approximately $2.65M in an MRF 
facility can process around 20,000 tonnes of plastic 
waste each year and generate around 46 jobs.
• An LDPE-processing plant in Bell Bay, Tasmania, 
with in investment cost of $1.47M, can process 
1,500 tonnes of LDPE waste per year (Vinall, 2019).
• An rPET-processing plant in Albury, NSW, has an 
expected investment cost of $30M, can process 
up to 28,000 tonnes of plastic waste annually, and 
create 30 local jobs (Evans, 2020; Gray, 2020).
• The investment cost of Licella’s Cat-HTR 
(Catalytic Hydrothermal Reactor) technology, where 
plastic waste is processed into a synthetic oil or biocrude, 
was estimated to be $40–50M. The processing capacity 
of this plant is approximately 20,000 tonnes per year, 
and the number of jobs created is around 18 jobs.
• The cumulative weight of plastic waste that could 
potentially be abated (i.e. not going to landfill) 
in a year is approximately 140 kt. The total 
investment cost would be approximately $99M. 


Figure 2.9: Plastic waste investment cost and kt of waste abated per year

• On average, the investment cost to 
process plastic waste is as follows:
– MRF sorting of plastic waste $0.13M/kt
– LDPE processing $0.98M/kt
– rPET processing $1.07M/kt
– Cat-HTR $2.25M/kt. 







Feedstock recycling

‘Feedstock recycling’ is sometimes called ‘chemical 
recycling’, but might involve chemical, biological or 
thermal processes. It involves the decomposition of a 
plastic or the conversion of a plastic to its monomers 
or petrochemical components. An example is pyrolysis, 
where plastics are heated to a high temperature with 
a catalyst (Rahimi and Garciá, 2017). This produces 
gases, fuels and waxes (Garcia and Robertson, 2017). 

Feedstock or chemical recycling is not yet common on an 
industrial scale due to the high energy requirements and 
the low price of petrochemical feedstock compared to 
monomers developed from waste plastics (Hopewell et al., 
2009). A recent report by Closed Loop Partners reviews 
60 technologies that transform waste plastics into purified 
plastic or feedstocks and nearly all are at lab scale and 
requiring investment (Closed Loop Partners, 2019). Yet this 
type of recycling is critical to close the gap between waste 
recycling and manufacturing and transition to a circular 
economy. Where mechanical recycling compromises 
plastics after a number of processing cycles (e.g. PET is 
good for around 6 cycles (Tullo, 2019)), feedstock recycling 
generates new products, reduces dependence on fossil 
fuels and is a solution for low value mixed plastics. 

Australian-developed technology, Licella, uses a catalytic 
hydrothermal reactor (Cat–HTR) which is a technology 
capable of returning mixed plastics back into oil using 
high temperatures and high-pressure water (Licella, 2019). 
The water is then reused which closes the loop on the 
process. The Licella process is a solution for mixed plastics 
(except PVC which will contaminate outputs) and can produce 
liquids, waxes, diesel, petrol and gases such as ethylene.

The Licella technology has been developed over the past 
10 years in collaboration with the University of Sydney. 
A pilot plant has been operating on the NSW Central North 
Coast. The next stage is the first commercial or pioneer 
plant. There are challenges with securing investment and 
grants for pioneer plants as currently, Australian schemes 
do not support first commercial plants unless they produce 
energy. The cost for the Licella pioneer plant is estimated at 
$40–50 million (Licella, 2019). The first Licella commercial 
plant will be built in the UK with a capacity of 20,000 
tonnes per annum. The example of Licella illustrates the 
importance of supportive environments for Australian 
waste innovation that follow the innovation pathway from 
laboratory to pilot, and on through to commercial scale. 

In 2019, Deakin University was awarded a research grant 
of $190,000 by Sustainability Victoria (in partnership with 
Qenos and GT Recycling) to develop a project on Catalyst 
Assisted Polyethylene Recycling for High Value-Added 
Applications (Sustainabiity Victoria, 2020b). The project 
aims to transform inconsistent and highly variable PE 
plastic waste into product(s) with consistent properties. 
The project expects to generate new knowledge in PE 
recycling and processing through a unique combination 
of innovative methodologies and the synergy of a 
multidisciplinary team. The expected outcomes of the 
project include the foundation for a new Australian industry 
in plastic recycling and a potential game changer in the 
production of value-added products from PE waste, which 
allows the closing of the loop and depolymerisation of PE 
waste to be used as a raw material for new PE production.

Further future research in feedstock recycling is in catalyst 
development (Garcia and Robertson, 2017), which should 
help lower the energy requirements. International company 
LyondellBasell have announced a collaboration with 
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) to advance chemical 
recycling of plastics with the goal of producing clean 
feedstock for polymer production (LyondellBasell, 2019). 

New research is looking at the biodegradation of PET 
(and other plastics) using enzymes to convert PET 
polymers into monomers, PET surface treatments, 
degradation, and reduction strategies for microplastics 
and plastic microbeads (Taniguchi et al., 2019). 
CSIRO is also researching the conversion of PET to 
monomers using natural biological processes at room 
temperature, in order to develop new feedstocks. 



Biological recycling

Biological or organic recycling involves microbiological 
treatment of biodegradable plastics. Under composting 
digestion conditions, outputs are organic residues, 
methane, CO2 and water (Locock et al., 2019). 
A South Australian invention known as POET uses 
anerobic digestion to convert plastic and food waste 
into methane.12 POET is said to require a $2.5 million 
investment to develop a 100 tonne per week plant13 
(however, the current status of the technology is unclear). 

While there are approximately 150 compost facilities 
in Australia, some regions lack composting facilities 
that will accept biodegradable products. This is due 
to their use of short-rotation composting processes 
which doesn’t allow time for certified biodegradable 
products to breakdown. There is a gap in knowledge of 
the infrastructure that will currently accept compostable 
plastics (APCO, 2019a) and in data characterising what 
packaging materials might be replaced with compostable 
plastic (Madden and Florin, 2019). In-vessel composting has 
been identified as the most favourable organics recycling 
route for certified compostable plastics (APCO, 2020a).

Waste to energy

Energy recovery of plastic wastes can be performed by 
several thermochemical conversion pathways − to produce 
heat and electricity via well-controlled combustion 
processes, to generate liquid fuel via pyrolysis, and to 
produce synthesis gas via gasification (this synthesis 
gas can be used to produce value-added products 
such as hydrogen, chemicals, and gaseous fuels). 

Combustion-based processes are required to meet 
standard minimum operating conditions (at a minimum 
temperature of 850°C for 2 seconds after the last injection 
of combustion air) in order to minimise the formation of 
dioxins and furans (Bunce, 2010). Pyrolysis of plastics is 
well studied, however, primary liquid products may require 
further treatment or processing to manage impurities or 
contamination and to meet existing industry standards 
where applicable. In order to maximise the advantages of 
these technologies, integration into a hybrid design could 
lead to efficiency improvements in the overall system as 
well as the quality of the products (Wu and Williams, 2010).

In Australia, energy recovery is used in South Australia 
with a cement kiln. There is also thermal treatment of 
medical waste which includes plastics; however, this does 
not capture energy from the process (O’Farrell, 2018). It is 
known that gasification waste-to-energy plants are more 
efficient when the fuel contains waste plastic as it has a 
high calorific value and low moisture content (Hla et al., 
2014). PVC is not suitable for waste to energy (APCO, 2019c).

There is a duality for waste to energy. On one side, 
Australia might adopt waste-to-energy technology that 
has been used globally as a solution for mixed waste and 
diversion of problematic waste from landfill. Alternatively, 
Australia might leap-frog the need for waste to energy 
through improved design, collection and sorting. This 
would allow higher-value processing to occur and result 
in retention of the material in the economy rather 
than incineration. One participant called for a national 
waste-to-energy framework and others recognised the 
potential for waste plastics to be required for their high 
calorific value, which may result in competition for other 
technologies that retain the material in the economy.

“Let’s … prioritise recycling over waste to 
energy to reduce competition for recycling 
feedstock.” – interview participant

Waste to energy is the second-last option on the 
waste hierarchy to disposal to landfill. Victorian 
Government policy recognises the need to provide 
clear policy to prioritise higher-value technologies 
while managing a one-way path for waste to energy 
by placing a cap of 1 million tonnes per year that can 
be diverted to waste to energy (DELWP, 2020).

12 https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-machine-turns-waste-plastic-into-energy-15734/ (accessed 12 July 2020)

13 https://www.first5000.com.au/blog/waste-eating-system-targets-fast-food-industry/ (accessed 12 July 2020)



2.3.7 Manufacturing

Products manufactured from recycled content

There are companies that manufacture finished products 
where recycled content is part (or all) of the product. 
Many of these are SMEs and some have regional facilities. 
The types of products made from waste plastic are for 
the civil, commercial and agricultural sectors. Product 
examples include fitness circuits, outdoor furniture, 
bollards, decking, signage and more. Other initiatives for 
plastic reuse include examples such as plastic into roads 
through the collaboration between Close the Loop and 
Downer, plastic railway sleepers and acoustic panels from 
Integrated Recycling (Sustainabiity Victoria, 2020a).

Close the Loop accessed a $40,000 government grant to 
develop an additive for road base that includes recycled 
plastic (Close the Loop, 2020). The result is a road surface 
that is more durable and flexible than conventional road 
surface products (Tran and McIver, 2018). Close the Loop 
have two products: TonerPlas™ which enhances the 
properties of traditional asphalt so that it lasts 65% longer 
and uses problematic soft plastics; and TonerPave™ which 
is a new asphalt that reduces cracking and has a 23% lower 
carbon footprint compared to standard asphalt (Close the 
Loop, 2020). These solutions have arisen from a highly 
innovative SME, intent on developing new markets for its 
recycled products. Equally critical to commercialisation 
has been collaborative partnerships with Downer and 
initially, the Hume City Council for trialling the product 
on a road in their region (ECORoads, 2020). Since the 
trial in Victoria, TonerPave™ continues to be deployed 
in other areas, for example, it was used in resurfacing 
the Queenstown, New Zealand, airport in 2018.

Options to grow markets for recycled plastics

• Develop government procurement policies 
preferencing or allowing recycled products
• Institute procurement targets, increasing over time
• Monitor and track impact of government 
procurement policies to ensure their effectiveness
• Remove structural barriers in infrastructure 
contracts and specifications that preference virgin 
material where a suitable recycled alternative exists
• Identify which plastic types are suitable 
for use in different products (i.e. roads, 
non-structural civil products) 
• Undertake case studies for recycled products 
to raise awareness of their existence
• Develop products that have a local 
market, minimising transport costs
• Develop testing methodologies and 
specification evidence to build confidence 
and reduce risk for engineers responsible for 
substituting from virgin to recycled product
• Track plastics through supply chains, supporting 
confidence in the chain of custody for materials
• Develop or improve standards for recycled material 
throughout the supply chain: point of collection, 
MRF, recycling (wash, flake, pellet), final products 
• Improve transparency and consistency of standards 
and link with global standards where relevant
• Maintain high-quality recycling infrastructure, 
ensuring material is processed at highest 
possible value and lowest contamination level 
(particularly important for food-contact plastics) 
• Investigate socio-technical barriers for recycled 
content in government procurement, large 
infrastructure projects and industry applications
• Encourage forward procurement commitment 


A major challenge for manufacturers is the lack of market 
demand for recycled plastics products. The cost can 
sometimes be higher than existing substitutes due to smaller 
volumes being manufactured or the higher feedstock cost 
compared to virgin materials. Recycled plastics products 
are extremely robust, as well as being water and termite 
resistant. They won’t crack, splinter or rot and will never 
need painting. The higher initial cost can be offset when 
reduced maintenance costs are recognised, however, these 
are not typically considered in procurement policy.

Initiatives to drive market demand for products using 
recycled plastics is urgently required. Changes in government 
procurement policy to incentivise recycled plastics 
products has been met with support by industry. However, 
procurement policy changes should be measured to ensure 
intended impacts are realised and tangible market demand 
for recycled plastics is realised. Major infrastructure projects 
are an opportunity for ‘sinkhole’ projects where large 
volumes of recycled plastics products can be substituted for 
products made from virgin materials (e.g. highway noise 
barriers and plastic railway sleepers). However, this will 
not occur without enough evidence to provide engineers 
with confidence and trust to specify a new product. 

Third-party research and testing methodologies are 
needed to overcome industry preferences for existing 
virgin materials. New products could be supported by 
case studies to raise awareness of the availability of new 
products. Moreover, as companies manufacturing recycled 
products are often SMEs, support for these companies 
to market their products and connect with supply chain 
partners will facilitate market growth for recycled products.



Research innovation in partnership with industry

Innovation and partnerships between science and 
industry has an important role to play in developing 
a circular economy for plastics in Australia. Research 
interventions might occur across the circular economy life 
cycle but particularly in the design and manufacturing 
phase. It is also beneficial for Australia to maintain a link 
with international initiatives to reduce plastic waste. 
Examples include the UN, the Ellen McArthur Foundation, 
WRAP UK and the Alliance to End Plastic Waste.

There is a well-known challenge for the translation of 
R&D into industry, commonly referred to as the ‘Valley of 
Death’. This challenge applies to Australia and while there 
is funding for research, and funding for the purchase of 
infrastructure, attendees at the National Plastics Summit, 
March 2020 requested strategies that support technology 
transfer and access to capital to bridge the valley of 
death. A recent study of technologies that modify waste 
plastic found an average 17-year time frame to reach a 
growth phase in the market (Closed Loop Partners, 2019), 
see Figure 2.10. Our interview data suggested that it might 
take 5–8 years to get a product ready for market or 10+ years 
to reach a point for the first commercial scale plant. 

To accelerate early-stage R&D it is important to 
encourage those developing new products, either SMEs 
or researchers, that they engage with their end-user 
market early in the development phase. This is an 
important step in securing feedback that is relevant for 
industry trials and securing buy-in to a new product. 
Accelerators or innovation hubs are an approach to 
foster and accelerate innovation. Examples include the 
Queensland circular economy hub or the Indonesia-Australia 
Systemic Innovation Lab on Marine Plastic Waste.

Figure 2.10: Average time to maturity based on review of 60 waste plastic transformational technologies

Source: CLP, 2019, p.16

Our data revealed a potential funding gap for projects 
that are scaling from pilot to commercial stages and 
adding value to waste streams (i.e. novel, new-to-market 
technology). In order to address this gap, existing 
institutions, such as the Australian Renewable Energy 
Agency (ARENA), might consider broadening their scope 
to include resource recovery. Alternatively, to leverage 
private investment, Australia might want to consider 
incentives (e.g. tax deductions) that are proportional 
to the investment necessary at industrial scale. 

The Federal Government provided $20 million for 
short-term research collaborations (CRC-P Round 
8) between industry and research institutions for 
pre-commercial activities. States and territories also 
have funding grants available from time to time. A more 
comprehensive national program for plastic research 
activity would help to coordinate and accelerate research 
and path-to-market activities. This would facilitate 
collaboration across the innovation system and industry 
and potentially result in improved applications to 
state and federal research grants. Table 2.2 presents a 
summary of the challenges for plastics where research 
capability can support a plastics circular economy. 



Table 2.2: Research and innovation opportunities for plastics in the circular economy

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 
OPPORTUNITY

DESCRIPTION

Problematic materials

Alternatives or substitutes for non-recyclable or difficult-to-recycle multi-layer plastics. Innovations 
that use single layers or single material plastics while retaining the properties and benefits provided 
by the layered product. (i.e. AMCOR [https://www.amcor.com/] investing in recyclable packaging 
solutions for flexible packaging). Solutions for other plastics that are difficult to recycle due to the 
contents they package such as chemicals or paint (i.e. Paintback [https://www.paintback.com.au/] 
investing in research to convert paint packaging into new products). 

Data analytics

Data tracking of plastics through the supply chain including stockpiles and improved accuracy of 
waste, litter and recycling reporting. Methods for tracking and preventing illegal dumping. Metrics 
for measuring circular economy progress.

Market platform

An Australian database or system for recycled products that provides case-study data, recycled-
content percentages, validation of waste source (i.e. Australian waste) and type of recycled plastic 
use. Matchmaking systems (e.g. ASPIRE [King et al., 2016, King et al., 2020 ]) that connect companies 
that have waste with companies that want waste. Provision of case-study information from any lab 
or industrial testing to support certification of products for procurement purposes.

Social behaviours

Research on household recycling behaviours, understanding myths against using recycled-content 
materials and products and social behaviours to boost market demand. Research on the types of 
actions acceptable to the Australian public for plastics waste reduction (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019).

Material science

Microfactories such as UNSW e-waste microfactory to produce filament for 3D printing. Research into 
the properties (e.g. rigidity, tensile strength, temperature deflection) of mixed polymers, or certain 
proportional mixes of waste plastics being converted to products, to support evidence that they meet 
procurement specifications. Research into feedstock-recycling opportunities appropriate to Australian 
conditions and needs.

Product testing and standards

Research on in situ monitoring of environmental factors and product performance of recycled-content 
products. Testing methodologies and standards for new recycled-content products.

Business model design

Technologies and collection systems that can operate in regional–rural communities, low volume, 
unique mix environments. Manufacture products relevant to local communities using a system-based 
approach and sound business model for a circular economy.

Decision support systems

Life-cycle assessment for plastic products to support an evidenced-based approach for decision 
making, including: certified biodegradable plastics (APCO, 2019a); EPS landfill vs recycling 
(APCO, 2019b); products made from soft plastics (APCO, 2019d).

Plastic litter prevention

Understanding source and impact of microplastics, including potential to prevent pollution during 
washing of textiles and capture at waste water treatment plants (European Comission, 2018). 
Greater understanding of degradation rates of plastics in the environment (Chamas et al., 2020).





Biobased plastics – long-term transition 
to renewable feedstocks

Biobased plastics are made from renewable resources 
and it is important to note that not all bioplastics are 
compostable. There are no limitations for bioplastics 
being processed and recycled alongside traditional 
plastics. One of the benefits of using bioplastics is 
the reduction in carbon emissions, or in some cases 
negative global warming potential, for the life cycle 
of the product (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016). 
Bioplastics must compete against the low cost of oil and 
while they offer a transition away from fossil-derived 
feedstocks, they are currently a small percentage of 
the global market. The transition towards renewable 
feedstocks should be a future target of plastics in the 
circular economy, preceded by greater amounts of 
collection, processing and reuse in our economy. 

2.3.8 Summary of opportunities for plastics

Australia requires an immediate focus on infrastructure to 
process and recycle plastic in order to address the upcoming 
ban on plastic waste export. However, beyond that, there 
are big opportunities to improve the 12% recycling rate and 
divert plastic from landfill. This requires efforts across the 
plastic life cycle, including avoidance. Australia needs to focus 
attention towards design, consumption and collection, rather 
than depend solely on the waste management sector to 
solve the plastics waste problem. This requires collaboration 
across governments, industry and research institutions, 
in collaboration with communities and the not-for-profit 
sector. Product innovation that shifts Australia to a circular 
economy of plastics requires investment now to set us on this 
path. The link between waste streams and manufacturing 
feedstocks is the most critical link that supports retaining 
plastic in our productive economy. Strategies to address 
these opportunities is provided in Chapter 6.

A summary of the opportunities for each stage of 
the circular economy is provided in Table 2.3.



Table 2.3: Opportunities for plastics in the circular economy

CIRCULAR 
ECONOMY STAGE

OPPORTUNITIES

Avoidance

• Phase out or ban problematic, unnecessary single-use plastics packaging 
• Continue litter surveys around Australia to quantify and track plastic pollution
• Encourage support of industry campaigns to prevent plastic pollution (e.g. Operation Cleansweep®)
• Prevent plastic waste reaching our environment and oceans by banning or substituting microbeads and 
developing strategies to filter microplastics
• Support environmental campaigns to reduce plastic pollution


Design

• Design plastic products for reusability, recyclability or compostability
• Ban oxo-plastics as they contribute to the problem of microplastics
• Substitute certified-compostable plastics for food packaging where linked with organics processing 
(e.g. food courts, takeaway food or events)
• Research and innovation to develop recyclable packaging
• Design out problematic or multi-layer materials
• Improve data tracking
• Employ brand-owner education tools (e.g. APCO PREP to design recyclable packaging) 
• Develop life-cycle assessment data to inform design substitutions
• Develop new business models for reusable packaging


Consumption

• Provide clear, consistent information, labelling and education on how to recycle for households
• Standardise recycling contracting for councils
• Maintain plastics’ social licence to operate through action on plastics litter and evidence-based data to 
inform substitution decision making
• Prevent microplastics pollution during textile washing
• Harmonise state and territory policy for single-use plastics


Collection

• Household education supports reduced contamination
• Implement Container Deposit Schemes in Victoria and Tasmania and look for opportunities to harmonise 
approaches in each jurisdiction
• Incentives to improve participation in PVC recycling for Australian hospitals. Research to understand barriers 
to adoption.
• Implement regional and niche collection business models for plastic not collected via MRFs (e.g. soft plastics 
and Agricultural Plastics)


Sorting 

• Improve MRF sorting technology to reduce contamination levels and sort plastic types
• Improve household separation (e.g. bins for glass and organics)


Recycling

• Invest in new infrastructure for processing plastics (washing, flaking and pelletising) 
• Coordinate waste, manufacturing and energy policy to create a supportive environment for new enterprises 
and infrastructure
• Support greater investment in hot-wash flake processing
• Connect the waste processing and manufacturing sectors and replace virgin resources with recycled material, 
recognising that feedstock recycling is critical to the transition to a plastics circular economy
• Support environments for Australian innovation that follow the innovation pathway from laboratory to pilot, 
and through to commercial scale
• Implement technologies capable of processing mixed plastics
• Collaborate across the supply chain, linking waste management with markets for reuse
• Improve knowledge of infrastructure that processes certified-compostable organics across Australia
• Develop clear policy guidelines for waste-to-energy infrastructure without impacting on higher-value 
processing opportunities


Manufacturing

• Improve domestic markets for products made from Australian recycled content
• Support research–industry innovation for the development of new recycled-content products and markets, 
and support innovation hubs and linkages to international initiatives
• Prioritise or remove barriers to government procurement of recycled-plastics products. 
• Measure and quantify increased market demand 
• Develop standards to provide engineers with the evidence they require to specify a new product
• Maintain linkages with international initiatives to reduce plastic waste
• Implement a coordinated national program for plastic research activity
• Accelerate research and development through accelerators or innovation hubs and encourage early 
engagement of new products with end markets
• Support SMEs to market their products, connect with supply chain partners and break into new markets
• Include biobased plastics as part of a long-term (20–30 year) strategy for transitioning to a circular economy








2.4 The road forward – plastics

A possible future state of plastics flows for 
the year 2030 is presented in Figure 2.11. 

Figure 2.11: Sankey diagram of estimated plastics flows for Australia in 2030

The key assumptions to develop this vision of 2030 is an 
average 80% recovery rate of plastics once they reach 
end of life. Of these recovered plastics they are either 
recycled using mechanical or feedstock recycling or sent 
to energy recovery or composting facilities. Leakage to the 
environment has been reduced by 90% compared to 2018. 
There has been an overall increase in consumption in line 
with increased population but at a reduced rate compared 
to increases between 2014-2018. There is an increase 
in net additions to stocks in line with a transition from 
single-use plastics towards durable or reusable plastics. 

Figure 2.12 shows a prioritisation of the short, medium 
and long-term actions for plastics, presented with their 
associated outcomes. While it might be argued that 
some medium-term activities could be short term and 
vice versa, decisions have been made to prioritise core 
strategic activities that should be completed within the 
short, medium and long-term time frame. Note that 
activities presented in 2025 may commence earlier.



2022

The short term is a consolidation of work that has been 
commenced by government in the harmonisation of policy 
across jurisdictions. The most significant activity needed is 
the rapid investment in plastics-processing infrastructure 
as a consequence of onshoring waste processing through 
the waste export ban. This includes investment in sorting 
technologies or manual sorting to develop a cleaner, less 
contaminated waste stream. Also required are activities 
that boost market demand for recycled-plastics products, 
initially led through government procurement. The critical 
issue of design should also be addressed to assist with the 
incorporation of recyclable material into the supply chain.

2025

The medium term is used to consolidate work that will 
have commenced earlier on standards for recycled-plastic 
materials. This work is necessary to provide confidence 
to the market in specifications which support the 
adoption of recycled plastics and products by industry. 
This activity supports increasing market demand. 
Further infrastructure will be implemented to process 
niche or regional plastics. This might involve the use of 
strategic regional hubs, investment in the recycling of 
agricultural or medical wastes or technologies such as 
energy recovery or microfactories. Building further on 
driving market demand, it is important that activities 
continue to support the expansion of markets. 

2030

The longer term will see a continuation of the earlier 
strategies, but with an emphasis on realising the circular 
economy for plastics and achieving the national target of 
80% average resource recovery. This can be achieved by 
implementing commercial-scale feedstock recycling which 
connects the waste and plastics-manufacturing sectors in 
Australia. If achieved sooner, this key activity will greatly 
accelerate Australia’s transition to a circular economy. 
In addition, Australia would benefit from evaluating 
biobased feedstocks as a substitute for imported fossil-
derived feedstocks. By 2030 Australia would benefit 
by achieving consistency across Australia for council 
waste contracts, which are often long term. While this 
activity is represented in 2030, work to achieve this goal 
would need to have been commenced years earlier.

In Figure 2.12, a code has been entered at the start of each 
key activity to indicate the relevant actor(s) responsible for 
that activity: G = government, I = industry, R = research, and 
C = community. As we would expect, most activities are 
either government or industry led, or some combination 
of the two. Community rarely features in Figure 11 as 
communities are generally the target or beneficiaries of 
activities and outcomes (e.g. education campaigns) rather 
than drivers of activities, however community pledges 
(e.g. Better Buds) can drive avoidance behaviours.



Key outcomes

Export ban for non-value-added plastics waste

195,000 tonnes new processing infrastructure 
to recycle previously exported plastics 

Container deposit scheme established 
in Victoria and Tasmania

Improved sorting outcomes arising from 
increased use of the ARL resulting in 
cleaner waste streams for recycling

Accelerated innovation for adding 
value to plastics waste

Improved domestic market 
opportunities for products made 
from Australian recycled content

Increased participation in product 
stewardship by industry

Key outcomes

100% of packaging to be reusable, 
recyclable of compostable

80% recovery rate for rigid-
plastic packaging 

60% recovery rate for flexible-
plastic packaging 

Increased community awareness 
for where to recycle plastics and 
reduced collection contamination

Increased market demand 
and improved confidence of 
recycled-plastics products

Improved technology options 
for plastics processing; organics, 
microfactories, regional hubs 
and energy recovery where 
recycling is not possible

Key outcomes

80% average resource 
recovery rate for plastics

Significant reduction in plastics 
litter and waste to oceans

Certified-compostable plastics 
available in multiple jurisdictions

Improved data transparency 
for waste plastics to inform 
policy and decision making

New jobs provided by Australian 
domestic plastics recycling 
capacity and infrastructure 

Australia closing the loop on 
plastic waste processing and resin 
manufacturing by replacing virgin 
resources with recycled material

2030

2022

2025

Key activities

G: Monitor effectiveness of 
government procurement policies 
for recycled-plastics products

I/G/R: Implement regional, niche, 
microfactory and mixed plastics 
processing infrastructure 

G: Provide clear, consistent information, 
labelling and education campaigns 
for how to recycle for households 

G/I/R: Consolidate standards 
for recycled plastics 

G: Harmonise strategies for 
local council recycling bins

G/C: Conduct ongoing litter surveys 
and environmental campaigns 
to prevent plastics pollution

G/R: Maintain links with 
international initiatives to reduce 
plastics waste in oceans

I/R: Develop data to support evidence-
based decisions for plastics substitution

I: Improve clarity on facilities that can 
accept certified-compostable plastics

Key activities

G: Use grants, loans and streamlined approvals to 
stimulate recycling infrastructure investment

I: Support new infrastructure for processing 
plastics (washing, flaking, pelletising) and improve 
the efficiency of existing infrastructure

I: Invest in optical sorting technology and/or 
manual sorting to reduce plastics contamination 

G: Harmonise state and territory policy on problematic, 
unnecessary single-use plastics packaging

G/I/R: Evaluate and prioritise recycling infrastructure 
needs that are matched to market demand 

G: Review the plastics packaging product stewardship 
scheme and increase engagement by industry

G/I/R: Coordinate a national program 
for plastic research activity

G/R: Adopt procurement policy for recycled-
plastics products and investigate barriers to 
procurement at all government levels

I: Design plastic products for reusability, recyclability 
or compostability, supported by training tools 

G/I: Develop and implement industry and community 
environmental campaigns to reduce plastic pollution

I: Industry pledges for recycled plastics

Key activities

I: Implement feedstock recycling 
at commercial scale in Australia

I/R/G: Review potential for bio-
based, sustainable feedstocks 
to be produced in Australia

G/I/R: Achieve significant 
improvements to plastics waste 
data flows and transparency 
for stockpiles and flows 
across jurisdictions

G/I: Standardise long-term 
waste contracting for councils

I: Implement compostable 
packaging for food courts, 
takeaway food and major 
events in Australia and link 
with organics processing

R/I: Innovate to prevent 
microplastics from 
entering wastewater

Figure 2.12: Key outcomes and activities for a circular economy for plastics by 2022, 2025 and 2030.
(Actors: G = government, I = industry, R = research and C = community). 



3 Glass 

Glass is used mainly for food 
and beverage packaging, 
with other uses ranging 
from windows to household 
goods, solar panels and 
automotive components.

In Australia, approximately 
1,280 kilotonnes (kt) 
of glass packaging is 
consumed each year and 
approximately 181 kt of flat 
and architectural glass is 
produced annually. 

Glass manufacturing in 
Australia is dominated 
by a few large companies. 

Imports meet 18% of 
domestic glass demand 
and Australia exports a 
small amount of glass cullet 
(<2% of recycled glass).



Key challenges

• Collection systems – the predominant system in 
Australia is co-mingled kerbside collection. The highly 
mechanised system leads to glass breakage. This 
exacerbates cross-contamination with other recyclable 
flows and small fragments are more difficult to recover.
• Sorting and re-processing technology – cullet needs to 
be colour sorted into clear, green and amber for recycling 
into glass containers. Furthermore, ceramics, porcelain 
and other glass composition types and contaminants 
need to be sorted out of the stream for various 
applications. These processes are capital intensive.
• Some hindrances to re-processed glass markets 
concern compliance of recycling operations with 
environmental standards for waste handling, and 
duplication of compliance burden for recycled 
glass products in different jurisdictions.
• Losses to landfill: although 78% of post-consumption 
glass packaging is collected and 50% recovered, only 
36% is returned to the economy in recycled packaging. 
• Sophisticated sorting is available in limited locations and 
mostly owned by a small number of large companies. 
The destination of glass consumption may be far from 
the places of re-processing or glass manufacture.


Key opportunities

• Maintain the quality of glass flows throughout its life 
cycle to reduce the need for large capital investments, 
enabling market entry for SMEs and regional operators.
• Use separation-at-source systems to decrease cross-
contamination, including segregation of recyclables, 
lower compaction rates for glass and reuse schemes.
• Invest in sorting and re-processing technologies, and 
improved quality assurance to remove contaminants.
• Strengthen end markets through government 
procurement and incentives to increase the use of recycled 
glass or glass fines and aggregates in new products.
• Engage with civil construction and regulatory bodies 
to increase uptake of recycled glass and aggregates 
in building and construction, and harmonise 
materials standards and compliance requirements 
across jurisdictions (federal, state and local).
• Encourage behavioural and cultural change, 
including consumer education about the value 
of glass recycling, industry education on design 
and procurement, and incentives to increase 
recycling in public and commercial places. 
• Implement tracking technologies and data collection 
from beginning to end of the value chain to pinpoint 
and measure losses in efficiency, inform decision making 
and measure effectiveness for further improvement.


3.1 Overview of global and 
Australian landscape

From an environmental perspective, there’s no 
question of the benefit of recycling glass in Australia. 
For every tonne of glass collected from the kerbside and 
recycled, the net savings are more than half a tonne of 
greenhouse gases, 2.3 KL of water, over 6 GJ of energy, 
and nearly a tonne of solid waste to landfill is avoided 
compared to using virgin materials (EPA NSW, 2010).

From a material circularity perspective, the most prominent 
use of recycled glass is in packaging and much more 
packaging glass can be recycled. Although 50% of waste 
packaging glass is recovered, only 36% of glass waste 
ultimately returns to locally produced glass packaging 
products (Madden and Florin, 2019b). This compares with 
recovery rates of 33% in U.S. where recyclable flows are often 
comingled and contrasts with the recycling rate of container 
glass in the EU-28, which is stable at 74% (Harder, 2018)

From recent industry reports and interviews across the 
sector, the main technical issues are in collection, sorting 
and logistics, and maintaining quality throughout the glass 
consumption–production–consumption cycle. When the 
quality of glass flows is compromised through excessive 
crushing or contamination, this leads to a greater need for 
(and investment in) beneficiation, and more of the glass 
ends up as glass fines in lower-value terminal end products.

Retaining the quality of the glass in waste flows is important 
because the value of waste glass at collection can be low or 
negative. Stockpiling activity is sensitive to the differential 
between the cost of beneficiating and recycling, and the 
cost of virgin material inputs. There are opportunities to 
better support local markets for recycled glass products 
(cullet14 and sand) and no issues with the quantity of 
supply. Current flows to landfill could be diverted either to 
recycling for glass packaging, construction or other terminal 
uses, some of which are at an early stage of development 
(Flood et al. 2018; Heriyanto, Pahlevani, and Sahajwalla 
2018a). Some hindrances to re-processed glass markets 
concern compliance of operations with environmental 
standards for waste handling, and duplication of compliance 
of recycled glass products in different jurisdictions.

The COAG Waste Export Ban will have a minimal effect on 
the glass recycling industry as less than 20Kt of an estimated 
1.3 Mt of annual waste glass flows in Australia is exported, 
and this is sold as value-added glass cullet. However, within 
the COAG Waste Export Bans - Response Strategy (2020)
companies and individuals all have a role in working to 
reduce waste where possible and make productive use of 
our waste as resources where we can’t avoid its generation.

14 Cullet is recovered glass pieces 8–50 mm in size that have been sorted by colour and separated from other materials.



3.1.1 Glass consumption and production 
in Australia

In mass flows, more than 80% of glass is used in 
packaging such as bottles and jars. In terms of 
monetary flows, however, more than 50% of the 
value of glass production is in other products:

• automotive and other transport 
windows and windscreens
• building windows, skylights and architectural features
• solar panels


Approximately 1,280 kt of glass packaging was consumed 
in Australia in 2017–18 (APCO, 2019d). Volumes of the other 
glass uses are difficult to find. By value, glass packaging 
makes up 42% of the $4.2 billion glass and glass product 
manufacturing industry in Australia, and 53% is flat 
glass and architectural glass (Kelly, 2019). The remaining 
5% is made up of products such as household and 
commercial drinking glasses, plates and cookware, 
electronics, medical technologies and fibre optic cables.

We have used this market share of flat and architectural 
glass in Australia, the global mix of non-packaging 
glass consumption in 2017–1815, and current 
Australian prices16 to derive volume flows in kt.

An estimated 181 kt per year of flat and architectural glass 
is produced in Australia, assuming Australia’s consumption 
mix of non-packaging glass types is the same as the global 
average. From the ABS Waste Accounts (ABS, 2019), reported 
waste glass flows from construction and demolition were 
32.3 kt in 2017. Thus, we estimate a net ~149 kt per year of 
flat glass has been added to building stock in recent years.

Over the next few years, there are several trends 
impacting demand for glass in Australia. Flat and 
architectural glass for residential and non-residential 
building construction is expected to decline following 
completion of many large-scale developments and a fall 
in investment (Kelly, 2019). Demand for glass packaging 
in production is expected to increase with long-term 
growth in wine exports, and despite falling per capita 
consumption of alcohol17. Demand for household 
products that contain glass is also expected to rise. 
The reduction of car manufacturing in Australia has 
also reduced demand for automotive glass production.

15 https://www.adroitmarketresearch.com/industry-reports/flat-glass-market (accessed 30 April 2020)

16 See e.g. https://www.oneflare.com.au/costs/glazier (accessed 5 May 2020)

17 From interviews with industry, the effect of COVID-19 has been increased glass packaging waste flows counter to seasonal variation. Anecdotally, this may be 
from increased alcohol consumption.



Glass packaging manufacture in Australia is dominated 
by Owens-Illinois Australia and Orora Limited, while 
Viridian (CSR Limited) is the largest Australian flat 
glass manufacturer. Small-to-medium companies 
make up the rest of the domestic glass manufacturing 
industry. About 18% of the value, and 13% of the 
physical volume of domestic demand for glass is met 
by imported glass products (Kelly 2019; APCO 2019d), 
mainly low-priced products from China and Indonesia. 
Australia exports a small amount of glass products, 
estimated at 2% of industry revenue (Kelly 2019).

The 1.3Mt of glass waste in Australia is from three 
primary waste streams: municipal solid waste (MSW), 
commercial and industrial (C&I) and construction and 
demolition (C&D). Nearly 80% of glass packaging waste 
comes from MSW. Kerbside collections are sorted in a 
material recovery facility (MRF), and further cleaning 
and colour sorting occurs in a secondary process called 
beneficiation. The two outputs are: cullet which can be 
used in re-manufacturing of glass packaging and; glass 
fines which can be used in small quantities in industrial 
applications and large flows into construction.

3.2 Key challenges

There are considerable losses of glass to landfill during 
collection and processing (see Figure 3.1). Although 78% 
of post-consumption glass packaging is collected and 50% 
recovered, only 36% is returned to the economy in recycled 
packaging (Madden and Florin, 2019b). Approximately 
10% of all waste glass ends up in construction or industrial 
uses (the remainder in export and stockpiles). Even before 
collection, over 280 kt of glass per year is destined to 
landfill due to incorrect disposal at the kerbside.

Co-mingling and compaction of collected recyclable 
material can lead to irretrievable cross-contamination 
and the creation of glass fines (pieces smaller than 
8mm often mixed with ceramics, bottle caps and other 
detritus). Glass fines can be recovered and recycled, 
but this involves more sophisticated sorting and 
beneficiation plant, which in turn are investments 
that are dependent on long-term contracts and prices. 

Figure 3.1: Sankey diagram of current glass material flows for Australia 

Source: Allan, 2019; APCO, 2019d; Madden and Florin, 2019b 



If more glass were to be diverted from landfill, more 
recycled flows would be available to re-manufacturing 
and ultimately displace the need for virgin material in 
glass packaging. There is also the opportunity to displace 
the need for virgin material in ‘terminal’ uses for glass, 
for example, glass sand in road construction. The demand 
for processed glass fines and engineered sands in civil 
works can be substantial but they are connected to the 
specific and discontinuous timing of major projects. 
Another common challenge for glass recyclers delivering 
to construction is meeting compliance for product 
standards, sometimes across several jurisdictions. To quote 
the Response Strategy to implement the August 2019 
agreement of the Council of Australian Governments:

“To support procurement of recycled glass, there is a need 
to develop national specifications and standards to increase 
confidence in the use of recycled crushed glass and glass 
fines in construction and civil works (particularly roads). 
Local governments are looking to utilise glass fines in civil 
works but in some cases have indicated uncertainty regarding 
appropriate engineering specifications...” - COAG (2020) p25

Glass per tonne has a relatively low commodity value 
compared to plastic or cardboard. The value of glass at 
collection is –$30 per tonne (Centre for International 
Economics, 2019). That is, collectors pay MRF operators 
to take the mixed waste glass. Through processes of 
sorting glass from contaminants, and further cleaning 
in beneficiation, the glass can be returned to a quality 
that is comparable with virgin material. Clean, recycled 
glass cullet prices are $70–$75 per tonne, but depending 
on how much treatment is needed, and demand 
for locally produced glass, the price of the output 
may not compete with cheaper imported glass.

Waste glass reprocessing is sensitive to price and when 
prices are low, glass waste (particularly glass fines) is 
stockpiled. There are current challenges in recovering glass 
from mixed waste loads, and in 2018, recycled glass fines 
were priced at $0–$49 per tonne (Sustainability Victoria, 
2014; Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office, 2019)18.

In addressing the challenges facing the glass 
industry, it will be necessary to improve the circular 
economy for glass. Enabling actions from a range 
of actors are specifically addressed in Chapter 6.

Figure 3.2 Summary of key challenges for the glass circular economy

18 This can be compared to $220 per tonne for newsprint and magazines, $400 per tonne for PET and $600 per tonne for HDPE (Sustainability Victoria, 2019a)

1. Collection systems 
that compact and 
contaminate glass flows

The predominant system in Australia is co-mingled kerbside 
collection. The highly mechanised system leads to glass breakage. 
This exacerbates cross-contamination with other recyclable 
flows and small fragments are more difficult to recover.

2. Hindrances to new and 
existing local markets 
for recycled glass

Concerns raised by industry in interviews centre around compliance of recycling 
operations with environmental standards for waste handling, and duplication 
of compliance of recycled-glass products across different jurisdictions.

3. Investment in sorting and 
re-processing technology 
or alternative systems

Glass cullet needs to be colour sorted into clear, green and amber for 
recycling into glass containers. Furthermore, ceramics, porcelain and other 
glass composition types and contaminants need to be sorted out of the 
stream for various applications. These processes are capital intensive.

4. Losses to landfill

Although 78% of post-consumption glass packaging is collected and 50% 
recovered, only 36% is returned to the economy in recycled packaging. 

5. Transport costs 
and logistics

Sophisticated sorting is available in limited locations and mostly owned by 
a small number of large companies. The destination of glass consumption 
may be far from the places of re-processing or glass manufacture.







3.3 Opportunities for glass 
in the circular economy

The opportunities discussed next are firstly about retaining 
and maintaining the quality of glass flows throughout 
the recycling process. This ‘de-risks’ the sensitivity of the 
whole glass recycling system to prices and makes it more 
likely that recycled-glass products connect to the input 
needs of the packaging, construction and other industries. 
Secondarily, this incentivises retaining volume flows 
and thereby alleviates losses to landfill (higher recovery 
rates). Ultimately, with more certainty and volume, this 
may encourage more private investment. If the initial 
emphasis was on collection efficiency and greater waste 
glass volume flows rather than quality, this would not 
address low prices, losses to landfill or stockpiling issues.

There has been significant investment over the last 
20 years in large scale MRFs and beneficiation to 
handle low quality input from co-mingled collection. 
These facilities are mostly on the east coast and 
owned by a handful of large companies. Emphasising 
quality input first permits a more distributed resource 
recovery sector that is accessible to SMEs.

A strategy of separation at source and retaining higher 
quality of glass in waste flows, reduces the need for 
economies of scale, expensive equipment and costly 
transport of recyclate from regional areas to facilities 
in major cities. This allows more opportunities for SME 
recyclers, micro-factories and recycled glass applications 
at regional scale. For example, since 2014 Northern Rivers 
Waste has operated a glass processing plant in Lismore, 
NSW that recycles waste glass into glass sand for road 
construction. Concurrently they enabled separation at 
source through providing residents with special collection 
satchels to separate out problem waste that might 
normally contaminate waste glass and other recyclables.

There are also some early-stage innovations in looking 
for alternative ‘terminal’ uses for glass. These can be 
high-value products, but the glass can no longer be 
recycled e.g. engineered glass sand in road construction, 
and novel recycled products like glass tiles (Heriyanto 
et al., 2018a; Flood et al. 2018; Heriyanto et al., 2018b).

This section highlights the opportunities across the 
circular economy system by breaking these into the 
following stages: avoidance, design, consumption, 
collection, sorting, recycling and manufacturing.

3.3.1 Avoidance

Glass is 100% recyclable without loss of material 
quality, so there is a low incentive to avoid glass. 
There is still good reason to avoid single-use glass 
containers just as with other packaging materials.

Develop reuse of glass containers

Reusing and refilling glass containers avoids the additional 
crushing, melting and re-manufacturing processes in 
recycling glass, and can create opportunities for local 
economies19. For example, the Oregon Beverage Recycling 
Cooperative20 in the USA uses a cooperative governance 
model to oversee a glass container reuse scheme that 
operates across the full supply chain and works with 
local businesses. Collection of whole containers in public 
spaces (see Figure 3.3) is established and the reuse scheme 
involves glass manufacturers also operating in Australia21.

Figure 3.3: An automated BottleDrop® redemption centre that’s 
part of the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative

There may also need to be a techno-cultural shift to 
extend consumer responsibility for refillable packaging. 
For example, in hospitality it is common to crush waste 
glass on-site to save on space. If reverse logistics were part 
of a reuse scheme, consumers may have to return containers 
to a place near the original retail location. Neither of 
these are difficult cultural changes but some education 
and promotion of a reuse scheme would be required.

19 See also https://www.reusablenation.com/zero-waste-living/return-and-refill-revolution-small-businesses-are-creating-local-circular-economies-for-these-5-
industries (accessed 12 July 2020)

20 https://www.obrc.com (accessed 12 July 2020)

21 https://www.o-i.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2018csrreportupdate.pdf (accessed 12 July 2020)



3.3.2 Design

Design out breakages and cross-contamination

Thicker glass used in glass packaging may avoid breakages 
in collection, transport and sorting. Although this may 
add marginally to the cost of the consumer product, 
it helps retain the quality of the waste glass flow through 
reducing the creation of glass fines that are harder 
to sort and can cross-contaminate with other waste 
flows. Irrecoverable contaminated flows go to landfill. 
Owens-Illinois operating in Oregon, USA, have designed 
and manufactured thicker glass bottles for the container 
reuse scheme mentioned earlier (see also Avoidance).

Design for separation at source

Some glass containers may be sold with a lot of other 
materials embodied in the product (e.g. with significant 
amounts of aluminium or plastic shrink wrap). This may 
be interpreted wrongly as unrecyclable by the consumer 
who sends the whole used package directly to landfill, 
or it may actually lead to technical difficulties in the 
recovery of the glass. Designing out problematic mixed 
materials on glass containers or designing product parts to 
be disassembled, enables consumers to properly separate 
and dispose of recyclable (and non-recyclable) materials.

3.3.3 Consumption

Raise responsibility for recycling efficacy

Around 22% of waste glass is put directly into bins 
for landfill (Sustainability Victoria, 2014; APCO, 2019d). 
A key element to effective recovery of glass waste 
flows is education on better practice of ‘separation at 
source’ for homes and businesses (see also Collection). 
Separation at source refers to the separation of waste 
flows at the point where they enter the waste system, 
usually where a consumer places the waste into a bin.

Knowing what products, or parts of products, are recyclable is 
key to enabling a culture of extended consumer responsibility. 
Labelling such as the Australasian Recycling Label22 allows 
consumers to assess, and packaging manufacturers and brand 
owners to declare, the recyclability of materials in different 
applications (see Figure 3.4). Consumers and producers need 
to be aware of the label, and understand how to use it, for 
it to be an effective design element. To alleviate consumer 
confusion and provide clarity in the waste collection and 
treatment industry, it would help to have a nationally 
consistent approach. Investment in equipment for separated 
collection would also be an enabler (see also Collection).

Figure 3.4: The Australasian Recycling Label allows producers and consumers to understand recyclability of products or product 
components and direct materials to the correct waste stream 

Source: https://recyclingnearyou.com.au/arl/

22 https://recyclingnearyou.com.au/arl/ (accessed 13 July 2020)



Planning to consume more recyclables

In glass packaging recycling and in terminal uses of waste 
glass, government can set procurement standards for 
recycled content in consumables, building construction 
and infrastructure projects. The C&D sector is responsible 
for nearly a third of all waste flows nationally (Blue 
Environment Pty Ltd, 2018) and much of this is recycled, 
but the input of recycled material back into construction 
is less well known. Through local and state building codes 
and procurement requirements on government-funded 
projects, large flows of recycled glass and other materials 
can be directed to secondary uses in construction. 

According to Sustainability Victoria (2019b), the use of glass 
sand in road construction in Victoria has measurably reduced 
glass stockpiles at a rate of around 400–700 tonnes per day 
(this is variable with construction schedules but would 
amount to around 146 kt per year if operating continuously). 
Encouraging the use of waste glass that cannot be recycled 
into glass packaging is an identified opportunity for all levels 
of government in the COAG Waste Export Bans – Response 
Strategy (Council of Australian Governments, 2020).

3.3.4 Collection

Separation at source

Separation at source removes glass as a 
contaminant of other recyclable flows and 
maintains a higher quality and value of the glass 
to be passed on to sorting and beneficiation.

Co-mingled kerbside collection commonly leads to 
cross-contamination and breakages during compaction 
in collection trucks. Separate kerbside collection of glass 
(and reduced compacting), can address this issue but there 
is also the need to consider additional costs to councils 
and rate payers (LGNSW, 2020). A structural–institutional 
consideration is the usual duration of contracts that local 
government and business have with collectors. This is 
often 3–7 years (Allan, 2019) and, from interviews with 
industry and local government, usually greater than 5 years. 
Similar contract durations occur in the subsequent stages 
between material recovery and consumers of recycled glass. 
Any policy intervention on the waste collection sector with 
shorter time frames, needs to allow for grandfathering of 
existing contracts before imposing new requirements.

All states have, or are planning to have, a CDS. Through 
this method of collection, the quality of material waste 
flows is high enough that the glass by-passes the MRF stage 
and proceeds to beneficiation, generally at a higher price 
(around $70 per tonne [Centre for International Economics, 
2019]). South Australia has had a CDS scheme since 1977, 
and 41.4 kt of containers was returned to collection 
depots for recycling in 2018–19 (a return rate of 76%).23 
Other states report similarly high recovery rates, and CDS 
schemes are generally effective though not necessarily 
more so than dedicated bins for kerbside collection. 

Nationally, only about 10% of waste glass packaging 
(126 kt of total glass packaging sold) is collected through 
CDSs (APCO, 2019d). CDS schemes could expand to include 
glass bottles for wine and spirits24 and in New Zealand, 
around 30% of the population is served by a system that 
collects glass at kerbside in a crate separate from other 
materials (Allan, 2019). There is a trial of glass-only kerbside 
collection currently underway in Yarra City, Victoria.25

Public bins for glass-only collection 

Another action that could reduce direct flows to landfill is 
bins for glass-only collection in public spaces. This enables 
separation at source for away-from-home consumption 
where source separation does not usually happen 
(e.g. in public buildings, food courts and public parks). 

3.3.5 Sorting

The majority of MRFs lack the technical capacity to sort 
co-mingled, contaminated municipal waste into specific 
material types that have low levels of contamination 
(Department of the Environment and Energy, 2018). Almost 
all MRFs in Australia sort materials by hand. Out of 193 
facilities, 9 are semi-automated, 9 are fully automated, 
and the remaining 175 are hand-sorted (Seadon, 2019). 
Semi-automated and fully automated ‘clean’ MRFs26 utilise 
optical sorters to detect anywhere between three and 
eight materials, such as plastics, paper, metals and glass. 
For glass, there is additional beneficiation: sorting out 
ceramics and non-spec glass, and sorting by colour.

23 https://www.epa.sa.gov.au/environmental_info/container_deposit (accessed 20 May 2020)

24 Originally these bottle types were excluded because they were not significant in litter, which was an early driver for CDS schemes.

25 https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/Grants-and-funding/Research-Development-and-Demonstration-grants/Case-study-Yarra-City-Council-trials-glass-and-
food-waste-recycling (accessed 20 May 2020)

26 A ‘clean’ MRF further sorts partially segregated dry recyclables, such as a kerbside co-mingled stream, into materials suitable for sale on to recycling. 
This includes the beneficiation stage.



Investment in sorting technology

Optical sorting is capital intensive ($5–20 million AUD 
depending on scale) but it leads to higher recovery 
rates, even for co-mingled input. Seven beneficiation 
plants equipped with optical sorting and X-ray 
technologies are located in Adelaide, Melbourne, 
Sydney, and Brisbane. Large-scale ‘clean’ MRFs or 
beneficiation plant such as in Brisbane rely on high 
volumes (>100 kt per year) of glass for commercial 
viability (Owens-Illinois, 2017). There is a $20 million 
‘Super MRF’ in Guildford, Western Australia, with optical 
sorting to perform beneficiation in addition to basic 
sorting. This facility uses economies of scale to turn 
co-mingled input into clean output for re-manufacturing 
(Sustainability Victoria, 2018). Due to the need for 
volume and their location, these plants receive loads 
from regional areas, and interstate transfers. They 
are not always located near glass recyclers and there 
can be an additional transport cost for that transfer.

Robotic sorting is also possible, though slower, 
and it tends to favour low-volume flows, 
sorting for quality not quantity (Redling, 2018). 
One advantage of robotic sorting over straight 
optical sorting is its potential to use learning 
algorithms to enable more sophisticated sorting.

A comparison of the relative costs and economic benefits of 
investment in glass waste abatement in shown in Figure 3.5. 
Sorting equipment involves investments of the order of 
$10 million, generates 26 jobs and recovers approximately 
150kt/year. Glass processing for civil works (road and other 
construction) is more investment but potentially generates 
more jobs and can recover just as much per year.

Figure 3.5 Glass waste investment cost and kt of waste abated per year

3.3.6 Recycling and Manufacturing

The combined annual output of Australia’s two dominant 
glass packaging manufacturers is approximately 
1,100 kt per year while the recycled content of that flow is just 
over 360 kt per year (Madden and Florin, 2019b; Centre for 
International Economics, 2019). From interviews with industry, 
we understand there is the technical capacity to have more 
than 80% of the input into glass packaging manufacture 
be recycled glass cullet. There is an unknown quantity of 
recycled flat glass returning to new construction in Australia 
and it would help to track high-value flat-glass flows.

Lower-value terminal uses can divert large volumes of 
material away from landfill including glass in asphalt, 
sand and abrasives, concrete, materials, drainage, road 
aggregates, and landscaping. Higher-value uses for glass 
fines and aggregates include glass wool insulation, filler 
powder for various resins paints and glues, and water-
filtration media (Sustainability Victoria, 2018; Flood et 
al., 2018). For commercial viability, lower-value uses 
depend on large sales volumes, and this implies either 
greater capacity to produce, or greater allowance to 
stockpile large inventories of recycled glass, or both.

If we realise the opportunities outlined in the previous 
stages, more recovered material could be diverted from 
landfill and make it to re-manufacturing. At this point, 
there is ample spare capacity to take on more recycled 
glass cullet into new glass packaging. For glass fines, 
re-manufacturing mostly involves terminal secondary uses. 
Here, the restrictions are less about technology and fixed 
capital, and more about regulations and compliance.

For example, in one Australian state, a maximum tonnage 
limit for all recycling facilities is applied to reduce 
stockpiling. Due to the density of glass, facilities can only 
stockpile a limited amount and this inhibits their ability to 
provide glass aggregate to the civil construction sector at 
scale. Conversely, an estimated 16% of cullet is stockpiled at 
the beneficiation stage when demand for recyclate is low 
‘at the time of beneficiation’ (APCO, 2019c). This can lead 
to expensive transport of stockpiles to avoid compliance 
issues, while attempting to accommodate variable demand.

Per year, 150 kt of treated waste glass could go into 
construction (Centre for International Economics, 2019), 
which is in addition to our estimate of the net approximately 
149 kt per year of architectural glass added to building stock. 
One of the opportunities identified in the COAG Waste 



Export Bans – Response Strategy is a: ‘framework that allows 
[industry] to produce and store recovered glass in sufficient 
quantities to meet demands for a sand substitute for larger 
infrastructure projects…’ and to ‘update the waste regulations, 
so that collected glass is considered a valuable feedstock rather 
than a waste’ (Council of Australian Governments 2020).

Improve access27 to markets for products 
made from recycled glass

In construction applications, virgin sand can be obtained 
cheaply, although this depends on declining local resources. 
At the same time, a barrier to the use of recycled glass 
in construction materials is the updating of standards 
to allow of the use of materials that contain recycled 
glass (Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office, 2019).

From interviews and some reports (Sustainability 
Victoria, 2018), there is a perception in the construction 
market that recycled glass may be substandard. Another 
opportunity identified in the COAG Waste Export Bans – 
Response Strategy is to: ‘develop and align specifications 
for the use of recycled glass in a range of construction 
applications’ (Council of Australian Governments 2020).

If it would be useful to have standards for recycled 
glass that meets the expectations of the construction 
industry, it would be yet more useful to coordinate 
standards across jurisdictions. One irritant expressed 
in interviews with industry was the time and cost 
to meet compliance for the same product and 
application, multiple times in different jurisdictions.

There are also new markets where industry and 
government can play a part encouraging innovation. 
For example, microfactories that produce glass (and 
other waste) composite tiles and operate on small sites 
(50 m2), offer an alternative to large capital-intensive 
plants, for regional locations (Heriyanto et al., 2018a).

Recycling of flat and architectural glass is not well tracked 
and yet this product class is among the highest-value 
end uses of glass. Momentum Recycling (USA) partnered 
with the End of Waste Foundation (USA) to track glass 
from bin to brand. Using blockchain software, glass 
movement was tracked from kerbside to new products to 
measure what quantities are recycled, where efficiencies 
are lost, and provide data to increase recycling rates. 
The data are used to create a glass certificate with the 
amount recycled, chain of activity and carbon offsets, 
which consumers and business can purchase.28

We have estimated that a considerable volume of glass is 
added to the building stock each year and, ultimately, it 
would be useful to know when glass is likely to come out 
of the building stock. This also applies to the substantial 
amount of glass in Australia’s 13 million solar panels.

3.3.7 Summary of opportunities for glass

Table 3.1 summarises the range of possible opportunities 
that in combination could decrease flows of glass to landfill 
and increase the recovery of glass for use in the economy.

 Table 3.1: Opportunities for glass in the circular economy

CIRCULAR ECONOMY STAGE

OPPORTUNITIES

Avoidance

• Support reuse and refill schemes for glass containers


Design

• Design out breakages and cross-contamination
• Simplify packaging design to avoid composite materials
• Design for disassembly to enable separation at source
• Use thicker glass to avoid breakages and enable reuse schemes


Consumption

• Raise responsibility for material recovery
• Plan to consume more recyclables


Collection

• Implement dedicated-glass kerbside bin systems for recycling
• Improve separation at source in public spaces and food courts
• Improve consumer recycling behaviour to separate at source


Sorting 

• Invest in infrastructure to achieve sorting best practice
• Dedicate systems to improving quality of sorted glass 


Recycling and Manufacturing

• Track high-value flat-glass flows
• Enable processing of more recovered materials (e.g. solar panels)
• Improve access to markets for products made from recycled glass
• Encourage use of glass fines and engineered san in road construction
• Innovate to use glass that is unable to be recycled in novel building products and industrial applications






27 Access is defined here as the ability to enter a market – a qualitative change in conditions.

28 Maile K. (2019). Momentum Recycling partners with End of Waste Foundation. Recycling Today. https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/momentum-end-of-
waste-software-to-track-glass-recycling/ (accessed 10 December 2019)



3.4 The road forward – glass 

It is possible to envision what the material flows of a 2030 
circular economy for glass might look like (for comparison 
with Figure 3.1). In such a future, the proportions of glass 
material flows through all stages of the circular economy 
are shown in Figure 3.6. A summary of key activities for 
glass waste management and expected outcomes for the 
2022, 2025, and 2030 timeframes are shown in Figure 3.7.

Through changes to procurement and harmonised 
compliance standards, there are enlarged, well-defined 
end markets for recycled glass, and more consistent 
governance that enables industry to develop and supply 
to that demand. This, combined with processes to improve 
separation at source and retain material quality, supports 
a system with larger and higher-valued glass flows. 

Secondarily, this environment encourages industry 
investment in capital to track and capture more waste glass 
(e.g. improved collection systems and collection of new 
waste sources such as solar panel glass). Responding to 
these issues first means that the latter stages will involve 
less investment in ‘end-of-pipe’ solutions to deal with 
contaminated flows and, ultimately, the target of 80% 
recovery of glass in packaging will be realised by 2030.

In Figure 3.7, a code has been entered at the start 
of each key activity to indicate the relevant actor(s) 
responsible for that activity: G = government, I = industry, 
R = research, and C = community. As we would expect, 
most activities are either government or industry 
led, or some combination of the two.

Figure 3.6: Sankey diagram of estimated glass flows for Australia in 2030

(Note the reduction in both virgin material inputs and flows to landfill and stockpiles when compared to Figure 3.1)



Figure 3.7: Key outcomes and activities for a circular economy for glass by 2022, 2025 and 2030.
(Actors: G = government, I = industry, R = research and C = community). 

Key outcomes:

Reduced cross-contamination 
in collection and sorting

Reduced direct waste glass flows 
to landfill from households

Retaining quality and value of glass flows 
at collection reduces flows from MRFs to 
Landfill by more than half (estimated)

Industry can plan to invest for expanded 
future recycled glass markets

Reduced compliance burden for 
facilities to process waste glass 
to road base and asphalt

Waste glass in stockpiles is used 
for road construction

Glass flows to stockpiles are reduced 
to 40% of current streams

Key outcomes:

Flat and architectural glass is tracked 
to EOL and recycled increasing 
return flows to construction

Industry invests in the capital to 
better capture waste glass flows 
and begins to innovate in new 
recycled products and processing

Larger flows of higher quality 
waste glass are recycled

SMEs and regional operators 
can exploit higher quality waste 
glass flows to deliver to small-
scale & regional demand

Export flows negligible

Key outcomes:

80% of packaging waste 
glass is recovered

Virgin material drops from 
50% to less than 20% of 
input to glass production 

Glass recovered from 
C&D waste increases

Recycling industry an 
essential service in resource 
and material supply

2022

2025

2030

Key activities:

G/I: Separate bins for glass

G/C: Education on separation at source 
practices for homes and businesses 

G/I/C: Uptake of recyclability 
labelling and education

G/I: Procurement standards and 
practices for minimum recycled content 
in consumables, building construction 
and infrastructure projects

G/I: Harmonised quality standards 
for uses of recycled glass in 
construction across jurisdictions

G: Procurement planning for 
new infrastructure and repairs to 
create recycled glass markets

G/I/C: Local re-use & refill, and CDS 
schemes reduce direct flows to landfill

I: Design out problematic mixes of materials

Key activities:

I/R: Supporting innovation for 
more recycled material in products

I/R: Tracking high value glass flows 
in construction and automotive 
uses and EOL solar panels

G/I: Contractual arrangements in 
collection and sorting transition 
to assume glass separation 
at source as standard

Key activities:

I: Investment in optical 
sorting and other ‘clean’ MRF 
technologies to handle any 
remaining co-mingled streams

G/I: Financial and institutional 
support to secure recycling 
as an essential service



4 PaperMost paper production in Australia 
is used in packaging, particularly in 
manufacturing cardboard boxes. 
Cardboard and paper manufacturing 
is a concentrated market dominated 
by three companies and the 
barriers to entry are high. 
In 2019, eight facilities nationally 
were producing paper goods, and 
clustered in four states (NSW, 
Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania). 
In 2018–19 and like previous 
years, Australia consumed an 
estimated 4,318 kt of paper, 
paperboard, and paper products. 
Of the consumed paper, 
an estimated 62% was 
recovered (2,676 kt) and 
38% went to landfill (1,642 kt). 
Of the recovered paper fibre 
almost 60% was reprocessed 
(1,559 kt) in local mills for 
paper and paperboard 
(cardboard) manufacturing, 
which is almost fully consumed 
domestically as recycled 
products. The remaining 
40% of recovered paper was 
exported to overseas markets, 
including mixed paper (370 kt). 
Mixed paper represents 14% of 
recovered paper fibre and will 
be subject to the forthcoming 
waste export ban in July 2024.
Of the reprocessed paper 
fibre (1,559 kt), almost 94% 
was turned into cardboard 
boxes and industrial 
packaging (1,475 kt), and 
the rest into recycled office 
paper (55 kt), pet care 
(25 kt), newspaper (20 kt), 
and moulded fibre (12 kt) 
such as egg cartons. A small 
amount generated from the 
paper production process 
is turned into compost or 
used for waste to energy. 



Key challenges• Contamination of paper in the co-mingled recycling 
bin reducing the recyclability of recovered fibre• Sorting outcomes not able to meet 
contamination specifications• Packaging design not supporting recyclability 
and longevity of recovered fibre• Limited domestic demand and end markets 
for recovered paper products• Small profit margins and tight operating conditions 
for parts of the paper and paperboard supply chain• Reduced capacity and end markets to handle 
increases in recovered mixed paper post-ban• Lack of infrastructure in some states of 
Australia and many regional areas limit 
solutions for recycling and reprocessing• Lack of accurate and in-depth data including life-
cycle assessments of substitution products 
Key opportunities• Avoidance and prevention: Support the digitisation 
of information (the ‘paperless’ office); elimination of 
unnecessary packaging and substitution of disposable 
paper products with reusable products.
• Design: Design eco-friendly packaging, including 
aspects such as simplifying packaging design to avoid 
composite materials; replacing problematic paper 
coatings with biodegradable options; removing 
hazardous inks from paper products; and incorporating 
consistent labelling to facilitate recycling and reuse.
• Consumption: Educate users of paper how to 
preserve and recover the value of paper and reduce 
the application of difficult-to-recycle ‘stickies’.
• Collection: Encourage separation at source through: 
establishing multiple-bin systems for kerbside recycling; 
dedicated collection of polymer-coated paper products 
(and other coated-paper products); multi-unit development 
solutions; improving collection at public events, 
stadiums, and food courts; improving consumer recycling 
behaviour; and harmonising messaging about recycling.
• Sorting: Invest in infrastructure to achieve sorting 
best practice, and in systems dedicated to improving 
quality of collected paper and sorting. 
• Recycling and manufacturing: Support opportunities 
for increased production and end markets for packaging 
and industrial paper products (e.g. corrugated cardboard 
boxes) and procurement of recycled office and printing 
paper; increase the amount of recyclate used in a variety 
of products such as hygiene and tissue products, moulded 
fibre, pet care, and construction and support growth in these 
industries; invest in and develop recycling infrastructure; 
support investment in composting technologies and 
waste to energy solutions for end-of-life paper.
4.1 Overview of global and 
Australian landscapeThe paper industry has long been perceived as a 
closed-loop system with its ability to generate and 
reuse recycled paper. Despite this, the industry still 
loses considerable fibre throughout the production and 
consumption of paper-related products. The industry has 
made significant progress to mitigate fibre damage and 
loss but changes are still required at a whole-of-system 
level to preserve the value of fibre for as long as possible 
throughout the cycle (WEF, 2016), preventing loss to 
landfill and achieving increased circularity of paper.
On an annual basis, the global consumption of paper 
approximately equals the production of paper and both 
continue to gradually increase over time, with more than 
400 million tonnes consumed per year (Garside, 2019; 
Haggith et al., 2018). Even though some societal and 
technological trends reduce the consumption of paper, 
these are offset by global trends that increase its 
production and consumption. Broadly, a shift to the 
internet and a digital economy is seeing a reduction in the 
production of office paper and stationery-related products, 
along with decreases in newsprint and paper products 
connected to marketing, such as catalogues and brochures 
(IBISWorld, 2019a). These downward trends are typical of 
advanced world economies yet demand for traditional 
paper goods remains high in the developing world where 
there is less penetration of the internet and computers. 
In contrast, an increasing global population with rising 
consumer incomes has led to increases in consumer 
spending and greater consumption of paper products. 
Moreover, online retail has continued to grow. 
These changes have driven a growth in packaging and 
an increased market for hygiene and tissue products, 
such as nappies and paper towels (IBISWorld, 2019a). 
This increased demand has stabilised the pulp and paper 
industry and offset the significant decline in demand 
from office paper and print media. As a result, global 
revenue in the paper and pulp industry has remained 
relatively steady over the last 5 years at approximately 
$US422 billion in 2019, with more recent growth 
(0.8%) demonstrated in 2019 (IBISWorld, 2019a). 
The shift from the more traditional paper production 
of graphic paper and newsprint to packaging and 
hygiene products continues to drive demand for 
fibre and pulp. In addition, environmental concerns 
about single-use plastic packaging and a preference 
for paper and paperboard as a low-cost packaging 
material for food and beverages has also helped to 
boost the pulp and paper industry (IBISWorld, 2019a). 



Fast facts• The global production of paper and cardboard 
was approximately 419 million tonnes (mt) 
in 2017, with a similar amount consumed 
annually, approximately 423.3 million mt.
• The three largest paper producers are 
China, the USA, and Japan – together 
producing almost half of all paper.
• China is the world’s largest paper and 
paperboard consumer, consuming 113 million 
mt annually. The USA is the second-largest 
consumer, using 71 million mt annually.
• There has been a shift away from paper being the 
industry’s predominant product to packaging.
• Half of paper production goes into packaging 
paper, and almost one-third into graphic paper.
• Global industry revenue was estimated at 
$US422.4 billion over the 5 years to 2019. 
Sources: Garside, 2019; IBISWorld, 2019a4.1.1 Paper consumptions and production 
in AustraliaIn Australia, consumption of paper reflects global trends, 
and paper production is geared toward meeting domestic 
paper needs and overseas market opportunities. 
Typical of developed economies, there has been a gradual 
decline in the production of newsprint and office-based 
paper in Australia as the internet and digital office reduce 
the need for these types of paper products. However, 
production of packaging and industrial paper products 
remained strong in 2018. Most paper production in Australia 
is used in packaging, particularly the manufacturing of 
corrugated paperboard for cardboard boxes and customised 
containers, such as cardboard fruit crates, product displays, 
beverage packaging, and recycled paper bins made 
from cardboard (IBISWorld, 2019b; Industry Edge, 2019). 
In 2019, revenue for corrugated paperboard container 
manufacturing in 2019 was $3 billon (IBISWorld, 2019c) 
with products serving nearly all sectors of the economy. 
Demand for cardboard packaging is driven by downstream 
industries including manufacturers, wholesale traders, 
and agriculture, and is dependent on the state of 
the broader economy and factors affecting import 
competition. Most corrugated and paperboard products 
manufactured in Australia are used locally and the 
remainder exported (Industry Edge, 2019). The export of 
corrugated paperboard has slowly declined over recent 
years due to difficulties competing in overseas markets 
where competitors operate with lower manufacturing 
costs. In 2018–19, exports remained a low share of industry 
revenue and are expected to represent less than 0.1% 
of industry revenue in 2023–24 (IBISWorld, 2019c). 
In other end markets, there has been consistent growth 
in alternative uses of paper such as moulded fibre 
used in egg cartons and fruit trays; pet-care products 
such as kitty litter; and composting products such as 
soil conditioner (Industry Edge, 2019; RRMB, 2019b). 
However, despite their growth these alternative uses 
remain a small segment of paper production end markets.
Paper production in Australia is a concentrated market 
with eight facilities nationally producing paper goods. 
These are concentrated in four states (NSW, Victoria, 
Queensland and Tasmania) and dominated by a few 
companies (Visy Industries, Australian Paper, Norske Skog 
and Orora29) (Industry Edge, 2019). The barriers to 
entry are high with paper production requiring large 
capital expenditure, lengthy approval processes for 
new infrastructure, and long contract times to secure 
supply chains and end markets. The profit margins 
are also considered marginal (IBISWorld, 2019b). 
Using recycled content in paper productionThe amount of recyclate used in paper production depends 
on the type of product being produced and the relative 
prices of recyclate and virgin fibre. Virgin pulp is used 
in conjunction with recycled content to provide added 
strength properties to the produced goods. For example, 
packaging that requires extra strength will typically contain 
liners made from virgin pulp with recycled content making 
up the middle layer of a cardboard box. In 2018–19, it is 
estimated that paper production in Australia used 1,559 kt 
of recycled content, representing 45% of the total fibre used 
to manufacture paper and paperboard. This percentage has 
declined over the last decade (from 55% in 2008–09) and 
reflects the declining quality of recovered paper in Australia, 
the demand for high strength and virgin fibre packaging, 
and international trade factors (Industry Edge, 2019). 
Recycled paper fibre is reused up to seven times before the 
fibres are no longer suitable to be used in paper products. 
At this end point, the fibre can be composted, or used in 
processes where energy is recovered (waste-to-energy 
technologies). Disposal to landfill is also used to manage 
the sludge generated from paper production. Australian 
paper manufacturing companies are developing ways 
to reduce their disposal of produced waste to landfill. 
For example, Australian Paper, working with a local organic 
reprocessing company, turned its production waste into soil 
conditioner to reduce its disposal to landfill (AFPA, 2018). 

29 In May 2020, Australian Paper merged with the fibre business of Orora to form Opal Packaging owned by Nippon Paper Industries. https://opalanz.com/app/
uploads/2020/05/Opal-Media-Release_20200501_Final.pdf (accessed 13 July 2020) 



The flow of paper fibre from production to consumption 
and back to reuse in a further paper product involves 
multiple steps and processes, and numerous actors 
are involved directly and indirectly in the supply chain. 
Figure 4.1 shows each part of the process and the 
actors involved in the life cycle of paper, all of which 
can contribute to maintaining the quality of the paper 
fibre and preserving its longevity for ongoing reuse. 
Figure 

4.1: The life cycle of paper 

Source: adapted from World Economic Forum, 2016 

Paper flows in Australia 

Paper flows in Australia are complex and data 
presented below are drawn from an assessment of 
paper recycling infrastructure and paper exports 
report prepared for the Department of Agriculture, 
Water and the Environment in 2019 (Industry Edge, 
2019). Paper flows are estimated as follows:

• In 2018–19, Australia consumed an estimated 4,318 
kt of paper, paperboard and paper products, 
which was similar to previous years. 
• Paper fibre recovery for the same period 
was 2,676 kt, representing 62% of paper, 
paperboard and paper products consumed, 
though not all is available for recycling. 
• Of the recovered fibre there were two main destinations: 
– 60% (1,559 kt) was used in local mills for 
paper and paperboard manufacturing and 
recycled-paper product manufacturing 
– 40% (1,071 kt) was exported to overseas markets as 
either pulp, intermediate inputs, or final products, 
of which 370 kt was mixed paper, and which 
will be subject to an export ban in July 2024.





Local manufacturing using recovered fibre 

Australian paper manufacturers predominantly use 
recovered fibre to produce packaging and industrial 
paper products, such as corrugated cardboard boxes, 
industrial sacks, and recycled bags. The production of 
carboard boxes and packaging has grown and some of 
Australia’s domestic production is exported overseas.

In 2018–19, approximately 95% (1,475 kt) of the recovered 
paper fibre was used to produce packaging and industrial 
paper products, collected mainly as carboard boxes sourced 
from the commercial and industrial sectors (75%) and the 
remainder from the MSW sector (25%). The remaining 
recovered fibre goes into much smaller market segments 
for the production of recycled office paper (55 kt) and 
newspaper (20 kt), which are both considered markets 
that are saturated and in decline (IBIS, 2019b). 

PAPER MAKING

Pulp and paper industry 
(virgin and recycled 
paper manafacturing)

PRINTING 

Print companies 
operating on graphic 
papers and packaging

SORTING 

Public or private sector 
MRF operators of mixed 
recyclables or dedicated 
paper sorting facilities

CONVERTING 

Cardboard packaging 
/ boxes producers 
preparing products

COLLECTION 

Private sector, local 
council or other 
waste collectors

USE 

End user of paper 
product who also 
enters product into 
recycling stream

LOGISITCS, 
HANDLING & 
DISTRIBUTION

ORDER INITIATION 
/ MARKETING



Other domestic manufacturers using recovered fibre produce 
pet care such as kitty litter (25kt) and moulded fibre (12kt), 
such as egg cartons and moulded cardboard fruit trays. 
These alternative products use recovered newsprint and C&I 
collected paper and are small market segments but showing 
rapid growth. Recovered fibre also ends up used in organic 
composting (10 kt) where it is used in soil conditioners, 
which is strictly regulated, and in waste-to-energy plants. 
Other documented uses of recovered fibre have been in the 
construction industry where it is used in gypsum though it 
is unclear the size of this market segment but likely small. 

Even though the largest portion of Australia’s paper 
consumption is recycled (62%), a large amount of paper and 
paperboard products are disposed to landfill (38%). Most of 
this comes through the general waste stream though 
some does come from the co-mingled recyclable system. 

Exports of recovered fibre

Paper production is a globalised industry and Australia 
provides a range of intermediate inputs into the supply 
chain through the international market. In 2018–19 
Australia’s exports of recovered paper declined by 16% on 
the previous year, a fall of 211 kt (Industry Edge, 2019). 

In describing exports of recovered paper, a different 
set of terms are used and refer to four export products 
based on the type of pulping process that is used: 

• The main product Australia exports is ‘unbleached 
kraft’, which comprises the packaging and industrial 
paper grades that are dominated by corrugated 
(cardboard) boxes. Australia exported 657 kt of 
unbleached kraft in 2018–19, largely to China 
where it is used in packaging manufacturing. 
• The second-largest recovered paper export, 
at 370 kt, is ‘other’, also referred to as ‘mixed’ 
paper or ‘unsorted’ recovered paper. 
• Two smaller export market segments, exporting 
51.4 kt and 26.2 kt, respectively, were ‘newsprint’ or 
‘mechanical’ grade based on mechanical pulping, 
and ‘bleached chemical’ which is bleached office 
and printing paper made from chemical pulping. 


In 2018–19, all market segments for exports of 
recovered paper declined, except for ‘mixed paper’, 
which increased by 18% (Industry Edge, 2019). 
From July 2024, mixed paper will be banned from 
export in Australia. Figure 4.2 shows the size of the 
different market segments exported in 2018–19.

Figure 4.2: Export segments of recovered paper in 2018–19

Figure 4.3 summarises the flow of paper, paperboard, 
and paper products, in a simplified form, starting with 
virgin material. Using the figures discussed previously 
it applies a Sankey diagram to show the general flow of 
recovered fibre from consumption, collection, recovery, 
production, and destination into end markets. 

Figure 4.3 Sankey diagram of current paper flows for Australia

 
Export segments of recovered paper in 2018–19 
summarises the flow of paper, paperboard, and paper products, in a simplified form, 
virgin material. Using the figures discussed previously it applies a Sankey diagram to 
general flow of recovered fibre from consumption, collection, recovery, production, and 
into end markets. 
Sankey diagram of current paper flows for Australia 
59%
34%
5%2%
Unbleached kraftMixed paperNewsprintPrinting paper 
Figure 4.2: Export segments of recovered paper in 2018–19 
Figure 4.3 summarises the flow of paper, paperboard, and paper products, in a simplified form, 
starting with virgin material. Using the figures discussed previously it applies a Sankey diagram to 
show the general flow of recovered fibre from consumption, collection, recovery, production, and 
destination into end markets. 
Figure 4.3 Sankey diagram of current paper flows for Australia 
59%
34%
5%2%
Unbleached kraftMixed paperNewsprintPrinting paper 
Figure 4.2: Export segments of recovered paper in 2018–19 
Figure 4.3 summarises the flow of paper, paperboard, and paper products, in a simplified form, 
starting with virgin material. Using the figures discussed previously it applies a Sankey diagram to 
show the general flow of recovered fibre from consumption, collection, recovery, production, and 
destination into end markets. 
Figure 4.3 Sankey diagram of current paper flows for Australia 
59%
34%
5%2%
Unbleached kraftMixed paperNewsprintPrinting paper 
National Circular Economy Roadmap for Plastics, Glass, Paper and Tyres | Figure 4.2: Export segments of recovered paper in 2018–19 
Figure 4.3 summarises the flow of paper, paperboard, and paper products, in a simplified form, 
starting with virgin material. Using the figures discussed previously it applies a Sankey diagram to 
show the general flow of recovered fibre from consumption, collection, recovery, production, and 
destination into end markets. 
Figure 4.3 Sankey diagram of current paper flows for Australia 
59%
34%
5%2%
Unbleached kraftMixed paperNewsprintPrinting paper

4.2 Summary of key 
challenges for paper

The key challenges facing the circular economy of paper in 
Australia are evident in each of the various stages typically 
used to describe circularity, for example the design, 
consumption, collection, and remanufacturing stages. 
In addition, there are also industry challenges that are 
structural such as a concentrated market dominated by few 
companies and an industry connected to the global market of 
pulp, paper, and paperboard and subject to international trade 
and currency factors. Moreover, short-term challenges include 
the forthcoming waste export ban of mixed paper, imposed 
by the Australian Government and commencing July 2024. 

The ban highlights a range of weaknesses in the waste 
and resource recovery system, many of which are 
interconnected and identified through government 
and industry reports, government submissions and 
consultations, and stakeholder consultations through 
this project. Figure 4.4 lists these key challenges. 

Addressing the range of challenges facing the pulp 
and paper industry will be necessary to improve the 
circular economy for paper. Many factors influence 
these challenges and require enabling actions from 
a range of actors to facilitate optimal outcomes. 
These are specifically addressed in Chapter 6. 

Figure 4.4: Summary of key challenges for paper 

1. Contamination of paper 
in the co-mingled recycling 
bin reducing the recyclability 
of recovered fibre

The presence of glass fines, food, organics, nappies, batteries, 
and clothes are all extrinsic sources of contamination limiting 
the quality and longevity of recovered paper fibre.

2. Sorting outcomes not 
able to meet contamination 
specifications

Reduced technology in MRFs around Australia results in an 
inability of MRFs to sort mixed paper and contaminated 
recyclables from potentially recoverable material. 

3. Packaging design not 
supporting recyclability and 
longevity of recovered fibre

The use of certain dyes, inks, polymer layers, and mixed materials in 
packaging intrinsically limits the recoverability of the paper fibre.

4. Limited domestic demand 
and end markets for 
recovered paper products

The end markets for recycled paper products are affected by a range of factors 
including global trade influences such as supply and demand and the value of the 
Australian dollar, consumer choice including government procurement policies, 
and the barriers to entry for new manufacturers of recycled paper products.

5. Small profit margins and 
tight operating conditions 
for parts of the paper and 
paperboard supply chain

Larger vertically integrated companies are more likely to manage 
the operational costs in the industry going forward. Australia 
now has two companies which are vertically integrated.

6. Reduced capacity and 
end markets to handle 
increases in recovered 
mixed paper post-ban

Long approval processes, high capital investment, and 
considerable regulatory burdens reduce the speed and 
likelihood of increasing reprocessing infrastructure.

7. Lack of infrastructure in 
some states of Australia 
and many regional areas 
limit solutions for recycling 
and reprocessing

Low volumes of recovered material and long travel distances make 
the business cases for traditional recycling solutions in regional areas 
unviable. Some states, particularly Western Australia, lack reprocessing 
infrastructure for paper, paperboard, and paper products.

8. Lack of accurate and 
indepth data including 
life-cycle assessments of 
substitution products

Data gaps reduce the ability to target improvements and build 
business cases for investment, particularly data related to 
collection, sorting, and contamination of recyclables.







4.3 Opportunities in the 
circular economy of paper

This section highlights the opportunities across the 
circular economy system by breaking these into the 
following stages: avoidance, design, consumption, 
collection, sorting, recycling and manufacturing.

4.3.1 Avoidance

The avoidance and prevention of waste generation is 
fundamental to mitigating many of the issues undermining 
a transition to a circular economy. Waste prevention refers 
to any measure taken before a substance, material or 
product becomes waste, is applicable to all phases of a 
product lifecycle (European Parliament Directive, 2008), 
and is commonly described as three groups of measures: 

• Reduction at source focuses on preventing waste in 
the pre-use stage, for example, through elimination 
of unnecessary packaging (APCO, 2019a), and through 
product design, taxes on packaging, and procurement 
guidelines (Hutner et al., 2017). Eliminating waste 
during the production of paper and paper products 
is also a critical aspect of waste prevention and the 
pulp and paper industry globally and nationally are 
continually developing more sustainable solutions 
for paper production (WEF, 2016; AFPA, 2018). 
• Substitution includes replacing the product with 
an alternative such as with a non-paper product. 
• Intensification particularly targets the use stage 
of a product, where use is increased through 
sharing or lengthening the life of the product. 


Implementing these types of changes for paper 
requires design of alternative products, and redesign and 
changes to paper products, workflows, work practices, 
consumer habits, and societal expectations in how 
products and services are delivered and consumed. 

Even though waste prevention has been part of the 
waste hierarchy for some years it still faces challenges 
and issues that limit its uptake and effectiveness 
(Hutner et al., 2017; Van Ewijk and Stegemann, 2016; 
Zacho and Mosgaard, 2016), including a lack of public 
education (Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, 2019). 
Nonetheless, wastepaper has been identified as having 
the second-highest potential for prevention, second 
to food, largely due to the relative ease for consumers 
to reduce paper waste compared to other waste 
types such as plastic (Zacho and Mosgaard, 2016). 

Mechanisms for supporting change require: introduction 
of procurement guidelines and policies that stipulate 
waste reduction as a criterion and address product 
attributes such as durability and unnecessary packaging; 
incentives to encourage waste reduction and recycling; 
regulation; and promotional and education campaigns 
including packaging reduction (APCO, 2019a; Hutner et 
al., 2017; Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, 2019). 

Examples of avoidance and waste prevention

Digitisation of information – the ‘paperless’ office

The paperless office concept provides opportunities 
to avoid the consumption of paper yet is still met 
with challenges and limitations associated with 
implementation of an e-office. Public administration 
changes such as electronic submission and handling 
of forms (Hutner et al., 2018; Mirabella et al., 2013) 
demonstrate the potential waste prevention from 
e-government. Academic institutions including 
schools and universities have also been identified as 
opportunities for considerable paper waste prevention.

Elimination of unnecessary packaging 
and ordering of ‘extras’

Design, manufacturing, and distribution of paper products 
involves multiple actors along the supply chain who each 
have a role to play in minimising waste. For example, 
initiators of orders of paper products can avoid schemes that 
encourage the over ordering of extra copies (WEF, 2016). 

Substitution of disposable paper 
products with reusable products

Examples of the cultural shift towards reducing wastepaper 
in the takeaway food industry has been replacement 
of cardboard beverage cups with ‘keep’ cups. Studies 
show a combination of initiatives such as pricing, 
environmental messaging, and the provision of reusable 
cups support change in consumer behaviour away from 
using disposable cups for beverages (Poortinga and 
Whitaker, 2018). In addition, the potential to prevent 
waste at public events has also been demonstrated 
through the use of reusable cups at sports stadiums 
(Hutner et al., 2018). Disposable paper products in food 
courts could be reduced through substituting with reusable 
plastic plates (with a compostable paper liner that can be 
easily removed from each plate to manage food waste) 
that undergo a hygiene process between patrons.



4.3.2 Design

Designing products for circularity covers all aspects of the 
consumption cycle and at its core is designing to maintain 
the inherent value of the materials. In the context of paper 
circularity, this refers to designing paper, paperboard, and 
paper products to maintain the quality of the paper fibre 
and prevent its loss during paper recovery, reprocessing, 
and remanufacturing (WEF, 2016). Thoughtful eco-design 
ensures products can be readily reused, mitigating the 
need to go to landfill and prolonging the life of the paper 
fibre. Design changes also involve changes to packaging 
and labelling that facilitate the recycling and reuse 
process and enables change in consumer behaviour. 

Designing eco-friendly packaging 

Simplifying packaging design to 
avoid composite materials

Simplifying the design of packaging to single-stream 
materials and avoiding a composite of materials would 
be beneficial. For example, redesigning a package 
made from cardboard with two different sorts of 
plastic, plus wires and staples with a single material 
stream. Simpler packaging would increase the ease and 
efficiency of recycling, prevent damage and loss of paper 
fibre, reduce the likelihood of disposal to landfill, and 
mitigate risk of damage to equipment at paper mills. 

Replacing problematic paper coatings 
with biodegradable options 

Improvements in biodegradable food packaging 
can mitigate the issues of contaminated packaging 
and subsequent reduced recycling rates. One such 
improvement is the use of biopolymers to improve 
the strength and barrier properties of packaging 
and replace the polymer or wax-coated liners that 
are not biodegradable. Seaweed extract and various 
starch derivatives have been successfully tested and 
shown to be viable options (Beltrán et al., 2014). 

Another approach for improving the biodegradability 
of packaging is to use starch-based edible films, 
though these films typically lack the strength and 
barrier resistance properties of traditional packaging 
(Jeevahan and Chandrasekaran, 2019). Research 
has shown the addition of nanocellulose (e.g. from 
dried banana pseudo stems) to the starch-based film 
improves the film’s properties and offers a solution for 
reducing synthetic plastics in packaging materials.

Advancement in biodegradable food packaging has also 
included the recent development of nanomaterials to 
improve the barrier and strength properties of packaging. 
Nanomaterials can also add ‘smart’ properties to 
packaging that improve food monitoring and shelf life 
(Huang et al., 2018). However, nanomaterials are still in 
the evaluation phase for food packaging, undergoing 
safety assessments for their potential impact on 
human health and possible environmental issues.



Removing hazardous inks from paper products 

Redesigning disposable packaging to be eco-friendlier 
also includes changing attributes such as hazardous inks, 
which are raising health concerns as well as environmental 
issues (Deshwal et al., 2019; Pivnenko et al., 2015). Three 
solutions for dealing with hazardous inks on packaging 
include prevention, removal, and constraining their use. 

Prevention would require the banning or phasing out of 
hazardous inks through legislation of industry standards, 
which is estimated to take at least a decade to take 
effect (Pivnenko et al., 2016). The removal of ink requires 
improved efficiency in the de-inking process in which 
chemicals are removed from paper during reprocessing. 
However, yields may be lost during de-inking processing 
and increased sludge produced, which would also need 
to be managed (Pivnenko et al., 2016; Van Ewick et al., 
2016). Constraining relies on improved collection systems 
to divert contaminated paper from clean paper flows. 

Consumer behaviour research shows support for cups 
with no printed messages, no lid, use of eco-friendly 
paper, and embossed logos (Hong et al., 2019) among 
consumers in South Korea where there is a ban on 
disposable coffee cups for in-store customers. 

Incorporating consistent labelling to 
facilitate recycling and reuse

Improved and consistent labelling and other packaging 
changes that enable correct recycling behaviour 
and improved consumer choices would also help 
address contamination issues. Changes to Australia’s 
packaging covenant are working to improve recycling 
outcomes (APCO, 2019a, 2019b). Harmonisation of 
recycling messages across jurisdictions would also 
support improved household recycling behaviour. 

4.3.3 Consumption

In a circular economy framework, consumption refers to 
the reuse and repair of a product whilst largely maintaining 
the integrity of the initial product. In the wastepaper 
context this could include reuse of packaging for repeated 
functions. The problems with reusing paper products 
are twofold. First the product may be changed in a way 
that does not support its eventual recycling. For example, 
reusing a cardboard box may require strengthening 
through applying adhesive tape, which in turn creates 
issues with contamination and recycling efficiencies 
(Hubbe et al., 2006; Rita et al., 2013). A broader system 
change would be required to modify the use of adhesive 
products or develop strategies, such as eco-friendly 
protein solutions (Tayeb et al., 2017), for improving the 
re-pulping of products contaminated with ‘stickies’. 

A second problem of consumer reuse and repair also 
relates to contamination where a product is reused in a 
way that contaminates the paperboard to such an extent 
that composting for soil use is the only solution. It is likely 
that as the quality of paper reduces with repeated use the 
final end use is limited to composting or combustion, or 
other markets for low-grade paper products which are yet 
to emerge (Centre for International Economics, 2019).

Educating users of paper at all levels 
that paper is a recoverable resource

Education and awareness programs to inform users of 
paper, paperboard, and paper products on how to preserve 
and recover the value of the paper so that it can be reused 
would be beneficial. This includes information on avoiding 
destroying, dirtying, and crumpling paper during its 
use and increasing the paper’s efficiency, for example 
photocopying both sides, and reducing printing margins 
on documents. In addition, informing paper users about 
contamination from glass, food, and other organic material 
and how to enter paper products into the recycling stream 
after use would enable improved outcomes (WEF, 2016). 



4.3.4 Collection

Collection systems in the circular economy are critical to 
support the ongoing value extraction of resources into 
alternate and recycled products. For recovered paper, 
collection is the cornerstone for mitigating contamination 
issues, which underpin one of the main limiting factors for 
successful recycling of paper products. Paper contamination 
with glass fines is particularly problematic and evolves 
from co-mingling recyclable paper with glass. In traditional 
kerbside collection systems, increasingly rubbish is 
compacted to such a point that glass is often crushed, 
contaminating paper products and reducing the quality 
of the collected paper delivered to MRFs, making it more 
difficult to sort (Department of Environment and Energy, 
2018; Victorian Auditor Generals Office, 2019). It is estimated 
that in 2018–19, 62% of consumed paper in Australia was 
recovered for reprocessing or export (Industry Edge, 2019), 
with contamination of paper, particularly from co-mingled 
kerbside recycling, significantly limiting this recovery rate. 

Similarly, food contamination, organics, textiles, nappies, 
batteries, and paper coatings are all sources of contamination 
that further necessitate source separation of paper products 
from other contaminants. The quality of paper recovered from 
selective systems is considerably superior to that recovered 
from co-mingled systems of collection (Miranda et al., 2013). 
Although larger MRFs with advanced sorting mechanisms are 
able to recover more contaminated paper, they are still limited 
in what they can achieve from a co-mingled system, and not 
as effective as separation at the source (Miranda et al., 2013). 

Multiple bin systems for source 
separation of kerbside recycling

A two-bin system (a bin for organics and a bin for dry 
recyclables) that separates organics from dry recyclables 
(paper and other packaging) has the advantage of 
reducing food-contaminated paper. Such changes require 
consumer education, end markets for organic composting, 
and a two-bin recyclable system Australia wide. One 
limitation of this approach is that it does not solve the 
issue of glass fines contamination (APCO, 2019b). 

A multiple-bin system separates recyclables into multiple 
sources so that food-contaminated paper goes into 
organics and glass contamination is prevented through 
glass separation from paper and cardboard. This type of 
system requires improved labelling, consistent messaging 
across jurisdictions, consumer education, end markets 
for increased recycled paper, multiple bins, and new 
systems for collection of multiple bins (APCO, 2019b).

Dedicated collection of polymer-coated paper 
products (and other coated-paper products)

Increased recovery of polymer-coated paperboard (PCPB) 
from municipal waste and C&I waste streams to prevent 
contamination of paper recyclables could be achieved 
through dedicated collection and incentive schemes. 
Success would also require improved labelling, consistent 
messaging, consumer education, end markets for these 
types of products, and a dedicated collection system.

Multi-unit development solutions

Collection problems specific to multi-unit developments 
(MUDs) have been identified and require dedicated planning 
and policy interventions (Victorian Auditor-General’s 
Office, 2019). Resource recovery rates and contamination 
rates in MUDs are sub-optimal compared to single 
dwellings and recognised as a growing problem with 
increasing numbers of people residing or working in 
MUDs. Opportunities to improve waste management and 
recycling in MUDs have been identified (Sustainability 
Victoria, 2018) and require the necessary planning and 
policy changes to implement appropriate collection systems 
and services (Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, 2019).

Improving collection at public events, 
stadiums, and food courts

Initiatives in Australia to increase collection of recyclables 
and prevent contamination through reduced co-mingling of 
waste have already been successfully undertaken at some 
of Australia’s largest sporting venues (Cuthbertson, 2018). 
Opportunities exist to extend these initiatives more widely. 

Improving consumer recycling behaviour and 
harmonising messaging about recycling

Changing consumer behaviour to increase recycling rates, 
decrease contamination, and reduce waste going to landfill 
has been underdeveloped in parts of Australia (Victorian 
Auditor-General’s Office, 2019) and provides opportunity 
for a cultural shift towards a circular economy. A range of 
approaches for improving consumer recycling behaviour 
have been described and mechanisms used to support other 
pro-environmental behaviour could also be used (Steg and 
Vlek, 2009). Interventions include incentives, penalties, use 
of targets and feedback, promotional campaigns, prompts, 
pledges, and waste education. Digital sorting games that 
incorporate feedback mechanisms for increasing recycling 
have also been effective in decreasing contamination rates 
and used as an effective education tool (Luo et al., 2019). 

One significant opportunity for improving household 
and business recycling behaviour is for consistent 
and straightforward messaging about recycling and 
harmonising these messages across jurisdictions. Education 
campaigns that focus on source separation and presenting 
materials for collection along with teaching consumers 
how to preserve the value of paper fibre during its use 
will help to ensure clean and sorted paper products 
are collected, aiding the recoverability and recyclability 
of paper fibre and preventing its loss (WEF, 2016). 



4.3.5 Sorting

Opportunities exist in Australia to optimise the sorting 
process of recyclables to avoid fibre loss and the loss of 
potentially recoverable materials. This includes changes 
to both MRFs where co-mingled kerbside recyclables are 
sorted and single-stream facilities that receive only paper 
and cardboard. MRFs in Australia vary in their capacity and 
capability to sort co-mingled recyclables, from small to 
large volumes and from basic to highly advanced sorting 
(Madden and Florin, 2019; MRA, 2018). Single-stream 
facilities are important in the recovery of paper and at 
the industrial level these facilities target unbleached kraft 
such as corrugated cardboard packaging collected from 
shopping centres and large users. The material is baled 
and made ready for export or reprocessing (DoEE, 2018).

Sorting of ‘mixed’ paper is particularly problematic, with 
most paper and paperboard at MRFs left unsorted and 
baled into a mixed-paper bale comprising multiple material 
types, and usually contaminated (from 5% to 20%) – mainly 
from glass fines but also food, organics, clothing, batteries, 
and nappies. The value of mixed-paper bales in 2019 was 
virtually negligible (RRMB, 2019b). Issues related to sorting 
of mixed paper are particularly salient as the introduction 
of the Australian government waste export ban in July 
2024 targets mixed paper. It is estimated the ban will 
result in an additional 377 kt of mixed paper remaining in 
Australia, which previously had gone to export (CIE, 2020). 

Table 4.1 shows an example of the makeup of a mixed paper 
bale and demonstrates the relatively high proportion of 
newsprint and magazine (31%), and corrugated carboard 
(47%) that are currently not being sorted at the MRF. These 
paper types can attract prices up to $340 per tonne if baled 
and able to meet contamination specifications (RRMB, 
2019a). Until MRFs undertake secondary sorting of mixed 
paper to meet standards for local processing or export 
quality it will remain virtually unsaleable (DoEE, 2019). 

Table 4.1: Makeup of a mixed paper bale in Victoria 

MATERIAL TYPE 

QUANTITY 
(KT)

PERCENTAGE 
MAKEUP

Fibre – boxboard

3,300

12%

Fibre – liquid paperboard

200

1%

Fibre – newsprint and magazine

8,700

31%

Fibre – office paper

1,400

5%

Fibre – old corrugated cardboard

13,300

47%

Fibre sorting losses

1,400

5%

Total

28,300

100%





Source: Resource Recovery Market Bulletin, March 2019

Investment in infrastructure to 
achieve sorting best practice 

Opportunities to improve sorting outcomes require 
investment in MRF infrastructure, to upgrade sorting 
capability and capacity to achieve best practice sorting. 
These changes include optical-sorting technology, slowing 
throughput, and increased manual sorting to improve 
removal of contaminants and possibly to undertake 
a ‘positive sort’ of high-value materials (DoEE, 2018; 
Madden and Florin, 2019; MAR, 2018). In addition, taking 
upstream measures such as improving source separation, 
reducing contamination, and using dedicated single-stream 
collection systems would help improve the efficiency 
and reduce the potential cost burden on the MRF. 

Systems dedicated to improving quality 
of collected paper and sorting 

Opportunity exists to establish glass-free collection systems 
and sort large quantities of paper and cardboard free from 
major contaminants into recovered paper grades suitable 
for sale. For example, to meet the quality requirements 
for domestic reprocessing or export, Australian Paper 
Recovery operates a ‘glass-free’ MRF in Victoria to 
ensure the quality of recovered fibre. The company uses 
a dedicated collection system for paper and carboard 
products supported by an increasing number of local 
participating councils (DoEE, 2019; Industry Edge, 2019). 



4.3.6 Recycling and Manufacturing

These stages of the circular economy involve recycling and 
manufacturing activities such as mechanical, chemical, 
biological, and energy recovery technologies to convert 
the recovered product into a reusable material and 
alternate products. Opportunities for recovered-paper 
reprocessing and remanufacturing depends on the 
quality of the recovered paper, technical requirements 
of the remanufactured product, and end markets for 
products, which need to be sustainable and cost effective. 
Technology issues and capacity are also currently limiting 
some of the reprocessing outcomes for recovered 
paper in Australia (Australian Government, 2019a). 

Opportunities for remanufacturing include a diversity 
of options ranging from end products with large 
market segments to smaller niche markets. Also, some 
opportunities represent new uses of recovered paper 
and are still in an innovation phase where taking 
recyclate into industrial uses requires further support 
for testing and development of standards for use in new 
markets. Furthermore, remanufacturing options may 
be limited due to geographic location and available 
infrastructure. Nonetheless, finding a local use of the 
sorted material to reduce travel distances is an important 
consideration in the circularity of a resource.

Packaging and industrial paper 
products opportunities

Production of packaging and industrial paper products 
such as corrugated cardboard boxes, folding boxes, 
industrial sacks, and paper bags not only use the largest 
amount of recycled content but also are a large and 
steady market both domestically and internationally. 
Table 4.2 shows the relative portion of recovered paper 
in a range of paper grades and sub-grades. Corrugated 
cartons have by far the highest recovered paper content. 
Because of the large volumes of corrugated carboard boxes 
generated domestically, opportunities to utilise large 
volumes of recovered paper are possible if contamination 
can be reduced and sorting improved, potentially 
utilising recyclables from MSW streams currently ending 
up at MRFs as mixed paper (CIE, 2020; RRMB, 2019c). 

Table 4.2: Estimated recovered paper used in four main grades 
of paper and paperboard

MAIN PAPER 
GRADE 

SUB-GRADES

ESTIMATED 
RECOVERED 
PAPER %

Packaging and 
industrial

Corrugated cartons

>50%

Folding boxes

<20%

Sacks and bags

<10%

Newsprint

<20%

Printing and 
communication

Magazines and catalogues

+/– 15%

Office and copy paper

<15%

Printing

<10%

Tissue

<3%





Source: Resource Recovery Market Bulletin, November 2019

Recycled office and printing paper opportunities

The second-most produced product of recycled-paper 
content in Australia is the production of recycled office 
paper. In recent years the size of this market segment has 
declined due to the digitisation of information and use of 
the internet. Moreover, cheap imports and paper made 
from virgin material still comprise almost half the supply 
of office paper used in Australia. Governments, as the 
largest users of office and printing paper (RRMB, 2019c) 
could increase the market of recycled office paper through 
procurement policies to preference purchase of recycled 
office and printing paper over virgin materials (CIE, 2020). 

Increasing the amount of recyclate in products 
– particularly post-consumer recyclate 

Increasing the amount of recyclate in products is another 
way of providing opportunities for increased reprocessing 
of recovered paper. APCO targets this strategy through their 
goal of achieving 50% average recycled content included in 
packaging by 2025 (APCO, 2020b). Important to this goal is 
to ensure that the level of post-consumer recycled content 
increases so that recovered paper recycling is maximised. 
In many instances, material derived from production waste 
referred to as ‘pre-consumer content’ is used to achieve 
the recycled content (RRMB, 2019c). A system for verifying 
recycled content and its provenance would strengthen 
initiatives to include increased recyclate in packaging. 



Hygiene and tissue products

At present hygiene and tissue products, a stable though 
competitive market with rising import penetration, 
do not use large amounts of recovered paper in their 
products. However, niche manufacturing of recycled 
tissue paper is a growing albeit small market segment 
where people are prepared to pay premium prices for 
a high-value product (IBISWorld, 2019d). For example, 
Queensland Tissue Products manufactured by ABC Tissue 
produce 20 kt of hygienic recycled tissue at an advanced 
paper-recycling plant in Brisbane from high-quality 
recovered paper. The tissue is used to produce recycled 
toilet paper (Queensland Tissue Products, 2020). 

Moulded-fibre products and pet care

Domestic manufacturers are using recovered paper to 
produce moulded-fibre products such as egg cartons, 
fruit trays, and other mouldings used in packaging. 
In addition, recycled newsprint is used in pet-care 
products (e.g. kitty litter). Both market segments though 
small are showing rapid growth (IndustryEdge, 2019). 

Building and construction opportunities

New engineering approaches are identifying additional 
opportunities for using reprocessed paper and cardboard 
in building and construction products. These include as 
sound absorbers and insulators (Secchi et al., 2016) and 
for improving thermal qualities in concrete (Fraile-Garcia 
et al., 2019). Studies show cardboard-based panelling is 
more effective than traditional methods for absorbing 
sound and its environmental footprint is more favourable 
than conventional gypsum board (Secchi et al., 2016). 
Corrugated cardboard added to reinforced concrete 
slabs has been shown to improve the thermal 
qualities of concrete, and increased costs incurred 
during production were offset by the improvement 
in thermal performance (Fraile-Garcia et al., 2019). 

Opportunities to export recovered paper pulp

The global impact of importing countries, such as China, 
demanding lower levels of contamination in mixed paper 
has contributed to a recent increase in the global market 
for recovered paper pulp. Although this pulp product has 
been available for many years, it has not attracted the 
international demand and price experienced more recently 
(RRMB, 2020). In 2018, China imported 295 kt of recovered 
paper pulp which represented a major increase on previous 
years and just over a third (36%) of the worldwide total. 

In producing recovered paper pulp, the source country 
is responsible for removing contaminants and processing 
the pulp so that it is ready for manufacturing. The pulp 
is then dried and exported to paper and paperboard 
manufacturers internationally. Alternatively, recovered 
paper pulp is used domestically as part of the local supply 
chain for manufacturing packaging such as cardboard 
boxes (CIE, 2020). In reality, pulp is often processed 
into paper products at the same facility (paper mill), 
which is the case in vertically integrated companies.

Recycling infrastructure

Recycling infrastructure in Australia requires planning 
approvals and considerable time to build and develop 
(Centre for International Economics, 2019). In addition, 
new recycling activities and infrastructure require the social 
acceptance of host communities (Sustainability Victoria, 
2018b; SWRRP, 2018), which add to the time and expense of 
developing new proposals such that they can operate with a 
social licence. Investment in reprocessing capacity includes 
upscaling existing mills or building new facilities (MRA, 2018).



Investment implications for increasing 
the circularity of paper fibre

• Clean paper will be exempt from the waste export 
ban, therefore, the impacted volume of the ban would 
be 436 kt, at a material value of $22M (CIE, 2020).
• For 2016–17 it was estimated that 5.6 Mt of paper and 
cardboard waste were generated in Australia (Centre 
for International Economics, 2019; IndustryEdge, 2019).
• Approximately 60% was recycled and 40% was sent 
to landfill or stockpiled (Centre for International 
Economics, 2019; IndustryEdge, 2019).
• An investment of $244M in a mixed MSW paper-
processing facility could potentially abate 280 
kt of paper fibre per year (CIE, 2020).
• On average, an investment of $468M in a C&I paper-to-
recycled-corrugated-packaging facility could potentially 
abate 430 kt of paper fibre to landfill per year (CIE, 2020). 
• An investment of $438M, on average, in a recycle 
carton board/folding box board facility could potential 
abate 322 kt of paper fibre per year (CIE, 2020).
• Opal invested approximately $90M to processes 
paper waste into high quality recycled office paper. 
At full capacity, approximately 80 kt of paper waste 
can be processed per year and the facility can 
support 250 manufacturing jobs (Planet Ark, 2015).
• The cumulative weight of paper fibre abated (i.e. not 
going to landfill) in a year is approximately 1,110 kt. 
The total investment cost is approximately $1,240M.


Figure 4.5: Paper waste investment cost and kt of waste abated per year (Estimated from CIE, 2020 and Planet Ark, 2015)

• On average, the investment cost to 
process paper fibre is as follows:
– Processing paper fibre to recycled paper $1.1M/kt
– Processing of mixed MSW paper to 
recovered pulp $0.87M/kt
– Processing of C&I paper to recycled 
corrugated packaging $1.1M/kt
– Recycled carton board/folding box board $1.4M/kt



• Cost savings from sending paper fibre to 
landfill is around $70 per tonne.




Paper-production waste for organic recycling 

Waste generated during paper production and paper 
reprocessing has often ended up in landfill, but companies 
are developing more efficient processes to reduce 
waste and more sustainable solutions for its disposal. 
Reprocessing of paper involves de-inking to remove 
inks and paper coatings from recovered paper products 
using physico-chemical treatments. This process creates 
a by-product of rejected wood fibres called sludge. 
Opportunities exist to compost mill sludge as an alternative 
to landfilling, which can then be used to improve soil 
nutrients (Gea et al., 2005; Hubbe et al., 2010). For 
example, in 2017 Australian Paper, an integrated pulp and 
paper manufacturer, reduced organic production-waste 
material being sent to landfill from its Maryvale Mill in the 
Latrobe Valley by recycling it into agricultural products 
used for composting and soil remediation, working 
towards a zero waste to landfill target (AFPA, 2018). 

Technologies for paper unable 
to be re-manufactured

At some point the quality of the paper fibre will become 
degraded to such an extent that recovery of fibre in the 
material form is unable to be achieved and recovery 
in the energy form or as a downcycled product are 
the remaining solutions beyond sending to landfill 
for disposal. Three possible options include organic 
composting, waste to energy, and anaerobic digestion. 

Composting paper products

Even though it is preferable to recycle wastepaper back 
into packaging, opportunities exist to include wastepaper 
in organic processing, particularly for packaging that is 
heavily contaminated with food or other organics (APCO, 
2019a). Produced compost could be used for rehabilitating 
former mine sites (APCO, 2019a) or to improve nutrients 
and water-holding capacity in soil, with the end use 
dependant on quality control and meeting certification 
standards. Potential to use wastepaper as a bulking agent 
to improve composting of green waste and difficult organic 
material, such as pig manure, has been identified but its 
effectiveness depends on achieving the optimal percentage 
combination of wastepaper with the organic material 
(Wong et al., 2017; Zhang and Sun, 2018). Wastepaper 
mingled into organic processing tends to slow down 
the efficiency of the biodegradability process unless 
the proportion of paper is strictly controlled (Alvarez et 
al., 2009). Even so, water-resistant coated-paperboard 
products common in wastepaper are also able to be 
successfully used in composting (Hubbe et al., 2010). 

Waste to energy facilities

Waste-to-energy facilities are a relatively expensive 
alternative but would be a potential option for lower-value 
recovered paper (Centre for International Economics, 
2019) and residual wastepaper. However, it requires a long 
approval process over many years and may face social 
resistance if not part of an overall plan for sustainable 
waste management solutions (Walton et al., 2019).



Anaerobic digestion

Another form of waste to energy, anaerobic digestion 
could provide a solution preferable to disposal to landfill. 
Compared to waste-to-energy plants, anaerobic digestion 
has a smaller geographical footprint, can operate at smaller 
capacities, has fewer regulatory hurdles for approval, and is 
likely to encounter less social resistance. For these reasons, 
anaerobic digestors are suited for regional communities, 
particularly if the energy produced from the digestor 
can be linked into an agricultural production process.

4.3.7 Summary of opportunities for paper

Table 4.3 summarises the range of possible 
opportunities that in combination could decrease 
residual wastepaper and increase the circularity 
of paper, paperboard, and paper products.

Table 4.3: Opportunities for paper in the circular economy 

CIRCULAR ECONOMY 
STAGE

OPPORTUNITIES

Avoidance 

• Digitise information – the ‘paperless’ office
• Eliminate unnecessary packaging and ordering of ‘extras’
• Substitute disposable paper products with reusable products (e.g. reusable cups) 


Design

• Design eco-friendly packaging: 
- Simplify packaging design to avoid composite materials
- Replace problematic paper coatings with biodegradable options 
- Remove hazardous inks from paper products 



• Incorporate consistent labelling to facilitate recycling and reuse


Consumption

• Educate users of paper how preserve and recover the value of paper
• Reduce the application of difficult-to-recycle ‘stickies’


Collection

• Encourage multiple-bin systems for separation at source for kerbside recycling
• Implement dedicated collection of polymer-coated paper products (and other coated-paper products)
• Develop multi-unit development solutions
• Improve collection at public events, stadiums, and food courts
• Improve consumer recycling behaviour


Sorting 

• Invest in infrastructure to achieve sorting best practice
• Invest in systems dedicated to improving quality of collected paper and sorting 


Recycling and 
Manufacturing

• Support opportunities for increased production and end markets for packaging and industrial paper 
products (e.g. corrugated cardboard boxes) and opportunities for procurement of recycled office and 
printing paper
• Increase the amount of recyclate in a variety of products such as hygiene and tissue products, 
moulded-fibre products, pet-care products, and building and construction materials; and grow these markets
• Support opportunities to export recovered paper pulp
• Invest in and develop recycling infrastructure
• Invest in technologies for paper unable to be re-manufactured: Organic reprocessing and composting for 
paper-production waste and wastepaper at end of life; and waste to energy technology








4.4 The road forward

Figure 4.6 shows the future paper flows through all 
the circular economy stages and depicts a more circular 
outcome than estimated 2020 flows (Figure 4.3), particularly 
with reduced waste going to landfill, a small decrease 
in virgin input and imports, increased paper recycled, 
and increased fibre used in construction, composting, 
and waste to energy. The 2030 consumption estimate is 
based on a stagnant industry outlook and 5-year market 
trend (IBISWorld, 2019b), and the outflows based on the 
National Waste Policy target of 80% recovery rate by 2030.

Figure 4.6 Sankey diagram of estimated paper flows for Australia in 2030

A summary of expected future outcomes are shown in 
Figure 4.7 for 2022, 2025, and 2030. Key activities that 
underpin outcome opportunities are also listed. A code has 
been entered at the start of each key activity in Figure 6 to 
indicate the relevant actor(s) responsible for that activity: 
G = government, I = industry, R = research, and 
C = community. As we would expect, most activities are 
either government or industry led, or some combination 
of the two. Community rarely features in this role as 
communities are generally beneficiaries of activities 
and outcomes rather than drivers of activities.

2022 

The short-term activities are extensive and used to lay 
the groundwork for establishing future improvements in 
circularity outcomes. The focus will be in four key areas: 

• Decreasing contamination of paper in recycled kerbside 
collection primarily through source separation and 
dedicated collection systems for problem contaminants 
such as glass, batteries, textiles, nappies and 
organics; packaging eco-design and labelling; and 
consumer education with consistent messaging.
• Improving sorting outcomes through upgrading 
MRFs and reviewing industry standards
• Growing end markets through increased demand for 
products with recycled content using procurement 
guidelines and education and supporting lower operating 
costs of manufacturers. Addressing end market solutions for 
low quality mixed paper through research and innovation. 
• Identifying and establishing solutions for regional Australia 
through developing collaborations and investing in 
research to test and commercialise innovative approaches


2025

The mid term is used to consolidate work commenced earlier 
and to extend the activities for growing end markets by 
implementing certification processes for recycled content, 
and the use of targets and monitoring to ensure effectiveness 
of procurement policies and plans. Data systems and metrics 
in place to support decision making and progressing the 
piloting and commercialisation of regional solutions. 
The mid term will also see a focus on developing SME 
capability to participate in the circular economy supply chain. 

2030

The longer term will see a continuation of the earlier strategies, 
but with an emphasis on embedding circular economy 
thinking into industry practices through continual building 
of industry knowledge and capability, and completion of life 
cycle assessments of products for informed decision making 
and improved outcomes. Similarly, ongoing education and 
support to inculcate sustainable consumption routines into 
procurement and use of paper including waste avoidance, 
reuse, and repair of paper products and substituting disposable 
products with reusable products. Support for ongoing research 
and innovation will continue to see Australian solutions for 
improving the circularity of paper delivering economic and 
environmental benefits to Australian cities and regions. 



Figure 4.7 Key outcomes and activities for a circular economy for paper by 2022, 2025 and 2030.
(Actors: G = government, I = industry, R = research and C = community). 

Key outcomes:

All hard to recycle packaging is obsolete

80% average resource 
recovery rate for paper

Decision making for product choices 
based on LCA information

SMEs reaching sustainability targets for 
waste reduction, resource recovery, and 
participation in the circular economy

Total paper fibre loss in the general 
waste bin reduced to 10% per person

10% paper fibre going to landfill 

Energy recovery technology 
implemented for residual paper 
unable to be recycled

Australian innovation in 
manufacturing options for low 
quality paper used internationally

Regional Australia benefiting 
economically, socially, and 
environmentally through 
improved circularity of paper

Key outcomes:

100% of packaging to be reusable, 
recyclable or compostable

70% average resource 
recovery rate for paper

50% average recycled content (post-
consumer recyclate) across packaging 

Data improved and metrics developed 
for accurately measuring paper 
flows through the supply chain

Harmonisation of targets 
across Australia

Reduced paper going to landfill 
from the general waste

Reduced loss of recovered 
paper fibre going to landfill

Food courts, takeaway food, and 
major events not generating 
fibre loss to landfill

Recovered paper manufacturing 
increasing its output to meet 
increased market demand

Key outcomes:

Reduced contamination of paper in 
kerbside recycled collection 

Improved sorting outcomes for 
mixed paper at MRFs

Packaging design supports recyclability 
and longevity of recovered fibre

Increased domestic demand and end 
markets for recovered paper products

Regional solutions for recycling and 
reprocessing fibre identified

Harmonisation of messages across jurisdictions 

Harmonisation of standards across Australia

Solutions for reprocessing 380 kt 
mixed paper post-ban identified

Improved operating conditions for 
manufacturing in Australia

2022

2025

2030

Key activities:

G/I/C: Institute source separation and collection 
of kerbside recyclables into single streams 
of paper, glass, organics and plastic

G/I: Expand collection systems for contaminants 
e.g. batteries, nappies, textiles

G/I/R: Establish consistent messaging about 
recycling across jurisdictions, including ARL labelling

G: Educate households and businesses on 
how to source separate and how to retain 
the value of paper fibre during use.

G/I: Investment in upgrading 
MRF sorting technology

G/I/R/C: Develop collaborations for 
solving regional recycling solutions

I: Increased engagement by brand owners in 
product stewardship of paper packaging

I: Deigning out difficult to recycle packaging

I/R: Develop solutions for polymer 
coated paper board

G: All levels of government adopt favourable 
procurement policy for recycled paper products 

G/I: Investment in research and innovation 
to Identify possible additional end market 
solutions for low quality mixed paper 

G: Policy and initiatives to lower operating 
costs of Australian manufacturing

Key activities:

G: Certification and standardisation 
processes implemented for 
recycled content of products

G: Monitoring of effectiveness 
of procurement policies for 
recycled paper products

G/I: Continued investment in 
collection and sorting infrastructure

G/I/R/C: Development and pilot of 
regional and niche business models for 
paper recovery and remanufacturing

G/I/R: Solutions for low quality 
mixed paper tested and ready 
for commercialisation

G/I/R: Data systems and metrics 
identified and implemented

I: Designers and brand managers 
designing packaging comprising one 
product stream – no composite packaging

G: Continued education campaigns to 
maintain improved source separation 
and the recoverability of paper fibre

G/I: SME education and programs 
to build SME capability to 
implement circular economy plans 
to achieve sustainability targets 
developed for their business

Key activities:

G/I/R: Completion of LCA 
of products to support 
informed decision making 
about substitution products 
and improved outcomes 
in the supply chain

G: Ongoing incentives and 
education programs for 
building SME capability for 
implementation of resource 
recovery activities within their 
business and participation in 
the local circular economy

G: Ongoing education of the 
Australian public to maintain 
world leading recovery rates 
and recyclability of paper fibre

G/I/R: Continued support and 
investment into research and 
innovation hubs to improve 
the circularity of paper fibre



5 TyresIn 2018–19, 465 kt of 
tyres reached their end 
of life in Australia. 
All tyres are imported to 
Australia as there is no 
tyre manufacturing in 
Australia; but retreading of 
truck tyres is still practiced 
in some jurisdictions.
In 2018–19, 55% of Australian 
used tyres were exported, 
31% disposed of and only 
14% processed for domestic 
recycling and energy use.
Most used truck and 
passenger tyres are 
exported, and the bulk 
of off-the-road tyres 
are disposed on-site.
The main recycling options 
for used tyres have been 
the production of shred, 
rubber crumb, granules 
and buffings, retreading 
and the use of tyres for 
civil engineering projects.



Key challenges• Voluntary instead of mandatory and 
regulated tyre stewardship scheme• Lack of import levies for some tyre imports• Lack of quality standards for imported tyres 
• Inconsistent policies, regulations and permitting• Disposal fees that are inconsistent and 
non-transparent to consumers• Long transport distances and disconnected supply chains• Incomplete tracking of tyre transportation and 
export, and lack of transparency on sustainability 
and safety of exported material use• High infrastructure costs for recycling, lack of available 
funding and slow permitting of tyre recyclers• Unaudited operators and an unlevel playing field• Lack of consistent standards and specifications 
for tyre-derived products and fuels• Competition of domestic tyre-derived products 
with subsidised imports and other products• Lack of knowledge and a preference for business as usualKey opportunities• Avoidance: Avoid tyre use by supporting 
distance work and replacing tyre-based 
transport with other transport modes.
• Design: Design tyres that require less materials, 
are more durable and easily remanufactured, 
recycled or safely used as fuel; and manufacture 
tyres from bio-derived renewable materials.
• Consumption: Reduce tyre consumption 
through promotion of public transport, 
carpooling, taxis, ride-sharing services, and light 
transport vehicles which have small tyres.
• Collection, transport and tracking: Improve 
collection, transport and tracking of tyres through 
implementation of collection systems for all families 
of tyres, reverse logistics to minimise transport costs 
and online tracking to ensure chain of custody.
• Remanufacturing and reuse: Increase retreading 
of used tyres and remanufacturing tyres for 
alternative uses (e.g. in civil engineering).
• Recycling: Increase recycling and energy 
recovery use of used tyres through mechanical 
and thermochemical processing.
• Use of recyclates: Increase the use of tyre-derived 
recyclates for civil engineering uses (e.g. road and rail 
works), surfaces, seals, moulded products, explosives, 
plastics and cement manufacturing, and the use of tyre 
shred, tyre-derived oil, syngas and steam as energy.
5.1 Overview of global and 
Australian landscapeTyres are essential for transporting people, animals, 
raw materials and goods by vehicle and air transport. 
Passenger car tyres account for the majority of tyre 
production. Tyres are also used for utility vehicles, 
trucks, off-road vehicles, such as agricultural, 
civil engineering, industrial, mining and airplanes 
as well as motorcycles and bicycles (Schulman, 2019). 
The composition of tyres varies depending on the use 
(e.g. vehicle, plane) and the environment (e.g. temperature, 
road quality) (Bockstal et al., 2019). Natural and artificial 
rubbers are a major part of tyres and their proportions 
depend on the type of tyres. Carbon black contributes 
to mechanical reinforcement and protects against 
abrasion. Metals act as reinforcing materials. In lighter 
tyres, metals are increasingly substituted with textiles, 
such as rayon, nylon and polyester, whereas truck tyres 
have fewer textiles because of their reinforcement 
needs. Other tyre components include vulcanisation 
agents and additives (Bockstal et al., 2019). 
Global tyre production has doubled during the last 
decade (Schulman, 2019), and tyre demand was estimated 
to reach 3 billion units in 2019 (Bockstal et al., 2019). 
The growth has been largest in areas where motorisation 
is occurring fastest, namely Asia, Oceania and the Middle 
East (141% between 2005 to 2015), followed by Central and 
South America (60%) and Russia and non-EU/European 
Free Trade Association countries (59%) (OICA, 2019). 
The average global motorisation rate in 2015 was 182 
vehicles per 1,000 inhabitants, whereas the Australian 
rate was 718 vehicles per 1,000 inhabitants (OICA, 2019). 
According to a report by the World Business Council for 
Sustainable Development, annual generation of end-of-life 
(EOL) tyres was approximately one billion units in 2008 
(World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 
2008). By now, generation has likely at least doubled 
with the increasing rate of global tyre production.



5.1.1 Tyre waste in AustraliaAustralian new tyre imports were 543 kt in 2018–19. 
Approximately 41% (by weight) of tyres sold in 2018–19 were 
passenger tyres, 36% truck tyres, and 23% off-the-road 
(OTR) tyres (e.g. those used on mining, heavy industry and 
other unregistered OTR applications) (Randell et al., 2020). 
All these tyres were imported as tyres have not been 
manufactured in Australia since 2010 (Randell et al., 2020). 
Only 26% (140 kt) of tyre imports attracted levies in 2018–19, 
as only tyres imported by the members of the voluntary 
Tyre Stewardship Australia (TSA) scheme are subject to the 
National Tyre Product Stewardship Scheme levy upon sale 
and no OTR tyre imports were levied (Randell et al., 2020). 
Tyre consumption in Australia is expected to increase at 
a rate of 1.5% per year till 2025 (Randell et al., 2020).
Average tyre lifespans have been estimated to be 3.4 years 
for passenger tyres, 1.5 years for truck tyres and 1 year 
for OTR tyres (Hyder, 2015). The generation of EOL tyres 
is determined by rates of consumption and the average 
lifespan of tyres. Australians generate 56 million EOL 
tyres annually (VAGO, 2019), totalling 465 kt in 2018–19 
(Randell et al., 2020). This does not include tyre wear losses, 
which are estimated to be 15% of tyre weight and dispersed 
as tyre dust to the environment (O’Farrell, 2019). EOL tyre 
generation in Australian jurisdictions is shown in Figure 5.1. 
Australian EOL tyres contain 27.5% steel, 21.5% natural rubber, 
17.6% synthetic rubber, 10.8% carbon black, 10.8% silica, 
1.5% nylon, 1.5% polyester, 1.5% zinc oxide, 0.86% sulphur 
and other additives (O’Farrell, 2019). Used tyre arisings are 
estimated to increase to 490 kt by 2025 (Randell et al., 2020).
Figure

 5.1: Used tyre arisings in Australian jurisdictions by tyre 
type in 2018–19

Source: data obtained from Randell et al., 2020

The fates of used passenger, truck and OTR tyres in 
Australia in 2018–19 are shown in Figure 5.2. Export was 
the dominant fate for passenger and truck tyres, whereas 
most OTR tyres were not captured for value recovery. 
The share of domestic recycling was 14% in 2018–19 
(Randell et al., 2020). The key destinations for exports 
have been India, Malaysia and South Korea. However, 
the destination countries for over half of tyre exports 
were not identifiable in Australian customs export data 
(O’Farrell, 2019). According to interviewed stakeholders 
this was due to false export declarations, for example 
being labelled as ‘rubber blocks’ instead of ‘baled 
tyres’. The major end uses for exported tyres were fuel 
applications, such as pyrolysis, furnaces, industrial and 
cement kilns and electricity generation (O’Farrell, 2019). 

Figure 5.2: Percentage of Australian end-of-life tyres ending in 
landfill, export and domestic recycling by tyre type in 2018–19

Source: data obtained from Randell et al., 2020

The fate of 206 kt of used tyres managed within Australia 
(i.e. excluding 258.9 kt of exports) in 2018–19 is shown in 
Figure 5.3. Recycling represented 30.9% of domestic tyre 
fate in 2018–19, with 32.9 kt used as crumbs, granules and 
buffings, 26.4 kt as casings and seconds, 3.1 kt for civil 
engineering uses and 1.3 kt for pyrolysis. The dominant 
domestic fate was on-site disposal for OTR tyres, landfill 
for passenger tyres, and crumbs, granules, buffings, 
casings and seconds for truck tyres (Randell et al., 2020). 
The overall tyre flows in Australia in 2018–19 are shown 
in Figure 5.4 (data from Randell et al., 2020).



Figure 5.3: Fate of Australian tyres disposed of or processed 
domestically by tyre type in 2018–19

Source: data obtained from Randell et al., 2020

Figure 5.4: Sankey diagram of tyre flows in Australia in 2018–19 

Source: data from Randell et al., 2020

Each Australian state and territory has different conditions 
for tyre recovery, depending on the regulatory framework, 
demand from consumers, proximity to international 
ports and population density (Genever et al., 2017). 
In 2018–19, the share of domestic recycling was highest 
in Queensland (QLD) and South Australia (SA) (19%), 
followed by Victoria (VIC) (15%), Tasmania (TAS) (14%), 
New South Wales (NSW) (12%), Northern Territory (NT) 
(8%), Australian Capital Territory (ACT) (5%) and Western 
Australia (WA) (4%) (Figure 5.5) (Randell et al., 2020).

Figure 5.5: The fate of tyres in Australian jurisdictions in 2018–19 

Source: data obtained from Randell et al., 2020



The capabilities for used-tyre processing and 
manufacturing of tyre-derived products and fuels in 
various Australian jurisdictions are shown in Table 5.1. 
According to National Market Development Strategy 
(Genever et al., 2017), tyre-baling capacity exists in all 
jurisdictions except for Tasmania and the ACT, whereas 
shredding capability exists in all jurisdictions except 
for the Northern Territory and the ACT. Steel and fabric 
recovery processes exist in all jurisdictions except for 
Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the ACT. Chemical 
processes for syngas, carbon black/char and fuel oil 
production have been established in Queensland, NSW, 
Victoria and Western Australia (Genever et al., 2017), 
of which notable quantities are only processed in 
Queensland (Randell et al., 2020). Crumb rubber, granule 
and/or buffings are produced in NSW, Queensland, 
South Australia and Victoria (Randell et al., 2020). 

Table 5.1: Capabilities for used-tyre processing and manufacturing of tyre-derived products and fuels in Australian jurisdictions 
indicated with blue colour 

PRODUCTS

ACT

NSW

NT

QLD

SA

TAS

VIC

WA

Casings and seconds

Baling

Civil engineering

Shredding

Crumb, granules, buffings

Steel

Nylon/rayon fabric

Chemical processing for syngas, 
carbon black/char and fuel oil

*

*

*





*As of 2020, not yet conducted at commercial scale 

Source: adapted from Genever et al., 2017 and Randell et al., 2020

Australian Tyre Recycling Association

The Australian Tyre Recycling Association (ATRA) 
was established in 2003 to represent the interests of 
the legitimate and sustainable used-tyre collection 
and recycling sector in Australia. ATRA serves the 
tyre-recycling industry in an advocacy role with the public, 
government and associated stakeholders, and promotes 
the use of recycled rubber in a range of consumer and 
industrial products. All ATRA members are subject to 
operational audits by ATRA’s independent audit firm. 
ATRA’s constitution prohibits the export of whole baled 
tyres due to concerns for the environment and human 
health. ATRA members recycle over 20 million used tyre 
units per year, which represents approximately 95% of 
Australia’s used-tyre recycling activity (ATRA, 2019).

National Tyre Product Stewardship Scheme 
and Tyre Stewardship Australia

The National Tyre Product Stewardship Scheme was 
established in 2014 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014). 
The scheme provides a government-supported industry 
framework, authorised by the Australian Competition 
and Consumer Commission, to reduce the environmental, 
health and safety impacts of EOL tyres in Australia 
(Tyre Stewardship Australia, 2019). The objectives of 
the scheme are (Tyre Stewardship Australia, 2020):

• to increase resource recovery and minimise 
environmental and human health risks 
associated with used tyres in Australia
• to develop Australia’s tyre recycling industry 
and markets for tyre-derived products.


Tyre Stewardship Australia (TSA) is a not-for-profit 
company established in 2014 to implement the National 
Tyre Product Stewardship Scheme (Genever et al., 2017). 
TSA accredits participants, including tyre retailers, 
collectors, recyclers and manufacturers who commit to 
support the objectives of the scheme. Additionally, TSA 
funds market-development initiatives, such as research, 
development and commercialisation of new uses for used 
tyres and helps to drive the transformation of used tyres 
into useful commodities (Tyre Stewardship Australia, 2020).



Regulatory framework

EOL tyre management and resource recovery are 
influenced by several international and national policies. 
Key international regulatory frameworks are the Basel 
Convention and the OECD Council Decision 2001 on the 
Control of Transboundary Movements of Wastes Destined 
for Recovery Operations. Australian national regulatory 
frameworks include the Customs Act 1901, Hazardous Waste 
(Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989, National 
Environment Protection (Movement of Controlled Waste 
between States and Territories) Measure 1998, National 
Waste Policy 2018, Product Stewardship Act 2011, Waste 
export ban 2019 and National Waste Policy Action Plan 2019. 

Policy and regulation for waste management, including 
used tyres, has been mostly devolved down to state 
and territory governments. The state and territory-level 
governance instruments vary widely, which is a big problem 
for transboundary tyre movements. These instruments 
include acts, regulations and/or guidelines for tyre 
storage, fire safety of tyres, tyre transportation, tracking, 
disposal, reuse, recycling and energy recovery (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2: Existence of enabling acts, regulations and/or guidelines for used-tyre management across Australian jurisdictions 
indicated with blue colour 

REGULATION

ACT

NSW

NT

QLD

SA

TAS

VIC

WA

Tyre storage

Fire safety of tyres

Tyre transport

Tyre tracking

Tyre disposal

Tyre landfill levies

Tyre reuse

Tyre recycling

Energy recovery from tyres





Source: data from Randell et al., 2020

5.2 Summary of key 
challenges for tyres

The management of used tyres presents both a persistent 
challenge and a resource-recovery opportunity (Genever 
et al., 2017). If not properly managed, EOL tyres can cause 
significant risks to human health and the environment. 

Tyres are highly resistant to biodegradation and 
photochemical decomposition (Sienkiewicz et al., 2012). 
Whole tyres pose a considerable fire hazard when 
stockpiled and result in high costs and liabilities (Fattal 
et al., 2016; VAGO, 2019). If ignited, tyre stockpiles are 
difficult to extinguish (VAGO, 2019). When burned, 
tyres produce thick and toxic smoke that is dangerous 
when inhaled. Moreover, the runoff produced during 
firefighting activities can carry pollutants to surface 
water and groundwater (Genever et al., 2017). 

Stockpiled whole tyres can also attract pests, such 
as rats, and retain water which creates a habitat for 
mosquitos (Bockstal et al., 2019). There are also concerns 
about tyre-derived microplastics entering food chains 
(Pickin, 2018). Moreover, some interviewed stakeholders 
expressed concerns about the safety of people handling 
baled and other tyres in overseas destinations. 

Figure 6 shows a summary of some of the major 
challenges raised during the interview process 
relevant to the circular economy of tyres in 
light of the upcoming waste export ban. 

To address the challenges facing the tyre industry, 
it will be necessary to improve the circular economy 
for tyres. Enabling actions from a range of actors 
are specifically addressed in Chapter 6.



Figure 5.6: Summary of key challenges for tyres

1. Voluntary instead of 
mandatory and regulated 
Tyre Stewardship Scheme

Voluntary Tyre Stewardship Scheme does not capture 
all operators which leads to an unlevel playing field and 
insufficient funds to support the recycling of used tyres.

2. Lack of import levies 
for some tyre imports

Some imported tyres are not subject to import levies, which undermines 
producer responsibility and decreases viability of tyre recycling industry.

3. Lack of quality standards 
for imported tyres

A lack of control over the quality of imported tyres results in low-quality 
and non-retreadable tyres entering Australia’s supply chain and 
reduces the potential for domestic tyre retreading and reuse.

4. Inconsistent policies, 
regulations and permitting

Inconsistent policies, regulations and permitting (e.g. on-site disposal of 
OTR tyres) leads to tyre waste landfilling, illegal stockpiling and on-site 
disposal of used tyres and reduces the capture of tyres for value recovery. 

5. Inconsistent and 
non-transparent disposal 
fees for used tyres

Inconsistency and non-transparency of disposal fees lead to 
an unlevel playing field, undervaluing of tyres as a resource 
and insufficient portion of the fees going to tyre recyclers.

6. Long transport distances and 
disconnected supply chains

Long transport distances and disconnected supply chains 
hinder the capturing of tyres for value recovery.

7. Incomplete tracking of tyre 
transportation and export

Incomplete tracking of tyre transports leads to illegal 
stockpiling, dumping and exports and lack of transparency 
on the sustainability and safety of exported material use. 

8. High infrastructure costs, lack 
of available funding and slow 
permitting of tyre recyclers

High infrastructure costs, lack of available funding and slow permitting 
hinder the building of tyre recycling capacity in Australia.

9. Unaudited operators

Some tyre operators have not been audited and accredited, 
which decreases accountability and leads to an unlevel playing field.

10. Lack of consistent standards 
and specifications for tyre-
derived products and fuels

Lack of consistent standards and specifications for tyre-derived products 
and fuels across Australian jurisdictions discourages tyre recyclers and 
slows down the uptake of recycled products due to risk avoidance.

11. Competition of domestic 
tyre-derived products 
with subsidised imports 
and other products

Tyre-derived products need to compete with subsidised imports 
and products that are typically produced at much larger scale 
reducing market demand of domestic recycled products.

12. Lack of knowledge and 
preference for business as usual

Lack of knowledge on the benefits of using tyre-derived products 
and fuels and the preference for business as usual decrease 
commitment and slow down value recovery and recyclate uptake.







5.3 Opportunities for circularity

This section highlights the opportunities across the 
circular economy system by breaking these into the 
following stages: avoidance, design, consumption, 
collection, transport and tracking, remanufacturing 
and reuse, recycling and recyclate use. 

5.3.1 Avoidance

Although tyres are an essential part of the transportation of 
people, animals, raw materials and goods, there are several 
ways to avoid the use of tyres. Distance work and replacing 
face-to-face meetings with virtual ones can help reduce the 
need for transport. Tyre-based vehicle transport can also to 
some extent be replaced with other transportation forms 
such as rail-based trams, metros and trains (Figure 5.7). 

Investment in fast internet infrastructure and technologies 
for online meeting can reduce the need for people to 
travel for meetings and thus avoid the use of tyres. 
Similarly, investment in non-tyre-based transport 
infrastructure, such as a rail-based transport network, 
can decrease the reliance on tyre-based vehicle transport 
that generates EOL tyres while also decreasing carbon 
emissions. Education can impact the choices people 
make in their everyday lives and thus help with avoidance 
of EOL tyre generation. For example, education can 
equip people to use virtual meeting technologies and 
encourage them to minimise tyre-based vehicle use.

Governance instruments can support the avoidance of 
tyre use by allowing distance work and implementing 
targets to replace face-to-face meetings with virtual ones. 
Government can also set targets for the accessibility 
to non-tyre-based transport modes. The markets for 
enabling technologies for EOL tyre avoidance can be 
developed by government procurement of fast internet 
and virtual meeting technologies and promotion of 
non-tyre-based transport in infrastructure planning 
and procurement. Investment in research, development 
and innovation can also support the identification of 
further pathways for avoiding EOL tyre generation.

Figure 5.7: Examples of ways to avoid and minimise the use of tyres

5.3.2 Design

The design of tyres can influence their lifespan, the 
ease of repair and the possibilities for reuse, recycling 
and energy recovery from used tyres. The development 
of tyres that require less materials, have higher tread 
wear resistance (Volodina et al., 2001) and are not 
easily punctured can help reduce EOL tyre generation 
(Figure 5.8). Many ingredients that improve the longevity 
and resistance to abrasion during on-road life, also 
contribute to the effectiveness of recycled tyre materials in 
down-stream products and applications (Shulman, 2019). 
Moreover, the use of biologically produced renewable 
chemicals, such as isoprene, can reduce the reliance 
on petrochemicals in rubber production and tyre 
manufacturing (Hayden, 2011). However, further research 
is needed to make bio-derived tyres a mainstream product. 

Figure 5.8: Designing tyres that require less material, have a higher tread wear resistance and are not easily punctured can help to 
reduce end-of-life tyre generation 



Design can also affect repairability and remanufacture 
of tyres for reuse, whether the materials in tyres can 
be separated easily for recycling and whether tyres are 
safe to use as a fuel. Design is also a key element of 
research and development for new ways of recycling 
tyres. As there is no tyre manufacturing in Australia, 
all tyres used in Australia need to be imported. Hence 
the ability to influence tyre designs used in Australia is 
somewhat limited. However, international collaboration 
and governance instruments, such as minimum quality 
standards for imported tyres and banning the import 
of poor-quality tyres may help to influence tyre designs 
towards more durable tyres and tyres that can be retreaded. 
Investment in research and evaluation of the durability 
and recyclability of various tyre designs could inform 
the development of such governance instruments. 

Investment in infrastructure for innovation parks that 
bring together research organisations and industry 
partners can fast track the technology readiness of new 
innovations. Moreover, investing in infrastructure for 
business incubators can help start-ups to increase the 
market readiness of new tyre-derived products (TDPs) 
and tyre-derived fuels (TDFs). Design can also play a role 
in the market development of the tyre-recycling sector. 
An example of this would be the development of new 
market models, where tyres are leased instead of sold. 
This could potentially ensure that tyres (e.g. OTR tyres) 
would be returned for recycling instead of disposed on 
site. The design and use of eco-labels for tyres could also 
encourage the use of more durable and recyclable tyres.

5.3.3 Consumption

Correct tyre pressure and tyre rotation can reduce tyre 
wear and thus postpone EOL tyre generation. Choosing 
carpooling or public instead of private transport reduces 
the number of private vehicles on the roads and thus 
need for passenger tyres. The ownership of passenger 
cars may also be reduced through car rental and the 
use of taxis or ride-sharing services (Figure 5.9). 

Infrastructure investment in self-service stations for 
checking and adjusting tyre pressures and rotating 
tyres provide opportunities for reducing tyre wear 
and thereby increase the lifespan of tyres. Moreover, 
investment in public transport infrastructure and light 
transport vehicle options reduce the number or size 
of tyres needed and hence EOL tyre generation. 

Education can increase consumer awareness on the 
importance and impact of using correct tyre pressures and 
rotating tyres in vehicles to reduce tyre wear. Moreover, 
education campaigns could be organised to promote 
public transport, car share and light transport options, 
such as cycling to reduce the number of private vehicles. 

Targets for public transport accessibility is an example of a 
governance instrument that can support the reduction of 
tyre consumption by decreasing the reliance of households 
on private vehicles. Government procurement practices 
can facilitate reduced tyre consumption (e.g. by mandating 
that tyre replacements in fleet vehicles are based on 
actual wear instead of tyre age). Procurement can also 
promote public transport to reduce the number of tyres. 

Investment in the research and development of more 
durable tyres that minimise tyre wear under Australian 
conditions can reduce tyre consumption and thereby EOL 
tyre generation. Moreover, investment in the development 
of innovations, such as phone applications, that allow 
flexible car sharing can also reduce tyre consumption.

Figure 5.9: Choosing public transport or taxis over passenger cars can help reduce the consumption of tyres and thus end-of-life 
tyre generation



5.3.4 Collection, transport and tracking

Collection of used tyres is essential for efficient value 
recovery (Figure 5.10). A disposal or recycling fee is 
normally collected by tyre retailers when EOL tyres are 
returned. Interviewed stakeholders expressed concerns 
that the disposal fees vary widely and are not transparent 
to consumers, and only a small portion of the fees are 
directed to tyre recycling activities. In 2019, disposal fees for 
passenger tyres were $1–6 per unit or $125–750 per tonne, 
for truck tyres $5–20 per unit or $125–500 per tonne and for 
OTR tyres $165–600 per tonne depending on the location 
(e.g. metro, regional or rural area) (Randell et al., 2020). 

Mandatory, consistent, transparent and increased recycling 
fees should be included in the price consumers pay for new 
tyres to cover the true recycling costs, provide a level field 
for operators and achieve consumer accountability for tyres. 
A consistent, higher portion of the recycling fee should be 
mandated to go to recyclers (e.g. a sliding scale with more 
paid to those processors that achieve a better environmental 
outcome of value-added products). The value of used tyres 
as a resource could be emphasised with a small, consistent 
and transparent refund to customers for returned used 
tyres, similar to the refund schemes used for other products 
(e.g. CDSs for bottles and cans in some jurisdictions). 
This would encourage consumers to return tyres for recycling 
and discourage illegal dumping. The capture of tyres for 
collection could be further increased by banning landfill and 
on-site disposal, stockpiling and dumping of whole tyres.

Further opportunities need to be developed for the 
capture of OTR tyres for value recovery. Alternative market 
models may be able to address some of these challenges. 
For example, leasing of OTR tyres could increase the 
return of tyres for recycling. Also, if tyre collectors were 
paid only when they bring tyres to a legitimate recycler, 
they would be less likely to dump tyres illegally. 

Adoption of technology that enables automated weighing, 
loading and unloading of tyres reduces risks related to 
manual handling of EOL tyres and ensures a chain of 
custody. Similarly, covered storage facilities minimise 
the build-up of rainwater in used tyres and hence risks 
related to spreading of diseases carried by mosquitos.

Used-tyre transportation logistics can be optimised 
through tools such as the Transport Network Strategic 
Investment Tool (TraNSIT) which helps to minimise transport 
distances and hence costs (CSIRO, 2019). Transport costs 
can also be reduced through market platforms that support 
reverse logistics and collaboration between companies that 
transport goods to remote locations. Moreover, modular 
size reduction/processing units that can be taken to EOL 
tyre generation sites can help to reduce tyre volumes, 
and hence increase transportation efficiency. Transport 
distances could also be considered in the calculation 
of the support provided by the federal government to 
state and local governments for waste management to 
make tyre recycling more feasible in remote locations.

Figure 5.10: Efficient end-of-life tyre collection schemes, transport logistics and tracking systems are essential for enabling value 
recovery and reducing illegal dumping and export



Accurate tracking of collected, transported and exported 
tyres is important for monitoring the fate of tyres, reducing 
illegal dumping and export, and ensuring that tyres are 
handled in a sustainable and safe way both in Australia 
and overseas. Electronic, GPS-based tracking systems can 
help with online tracking of tyre movements. Mandatory 
online tracking of tyres should be implemented across 
Australian jurisdictions and globally to ensure consistent 
coding, zero balance reporting by all operators and reliable 
data collection. Permits should be renewed only for 
operators who can demonstrate zero balance tyre tracking 
and reporting, where all tyre flows are accounted for.

There should also be harmonised and compulsory 
auditing and accreditation of all tyre operators in 
Australia and overseas to ensure that their facilities and 
business processes are environmentally sustainable and 
not causing risks to human health. TSA has developed 
a global platform to verify the final disposition of 
EOL tyres to mitigate against the exploitation of 
workers (Tyre Stewardship Australia, 2020).

5.3.5 Remanufacturing and reuse

Remanufacturing rebuilds a product to specifications 
of the original or new manufactured product using 
a combination of used, repaired and new parts. It 
requires the repair or replacement of damaged or 
worn out components that affect the performance or 
the expected life of the whole product. In the case of 
tyres, remanufacturing includes retreading of used 
tyres by replacing the outer tread on used tyres. 

Retreading reduces tyre costs per km and consumption 
of oil and energy in manufacturing as compared to new 
tyres, thus decreasing CO2 emissions and ecological 
footprint and ensuring the efficient use of resources 
(Bandag, 2019). Australia’s current retreading capacity 
has been estimated to be 32 kt, of which 24 kt has been 
in use (Gonzalez and Hughes, 2019). Infrastructure exists 
for retreading truck casings in most Australian capital 
cities, and there is casings market demand in Asia and 
Africa. However, the domestic market for passenger-
tyre retreading has declined as consumers are moving 
away from passenger-tyre retreads (O’Farrell, 2019). 



The import of cheap, less-durable tyres has decreased 
tyre retreading in Australia, as people often default 
to buying new cheap tyres instead of retreading old 
ones. Implementing minimum quality standards for 
imported tyres, financial incentives (e.g. rebates or 
lower recycling fees) and procurement policies for the 
use of retreaded tyres could potentially reinvigorate 
tyre retreading in Australia. If the export of whole 
tyres for retreading is allowed, permit requirements 
for exporters should include showing proof that tyres 
are shipped to an accredited retreading facility.

Reuse refers to the use of tyres for the purpose for which 
they were originally made, including use as retreaded tyres 
and second-hand tyres. The structure of tyres can also 
be used to manufacture new products such water tanks, 
floating devices for reducing evaporation from water storage 
dams and modules used in civil-engineering projects.

5.3.6 Recycling

Recycling transforms used tyres into a raw material 
that will be reintegrated into the economic stream as 
a resource in substitution for virgin resources, thereby 
reducing the need of virgin materials, energy usage and 
pollution. In the case of used tyres, recycling includes 
the modification of used tyres for civil-engineering 
applications and the manufacturing of TDPs. Whole 
tyres and TDPs can also be used directly as a fuel 
substitute or as a feedstock for the production of TDFs.

Mechanical processing uses a series of shredders, screens 
and granulators to reduce particle size, separate materials 
and manufacture various products without significantly 
changing the chemical structure of the material. Initial size 
reduction is often done at ambient temperature, whereas 
low-temperature cryogenic processing can be used to 
produce finer particles and remove metals and textiles 
(Schulman, 2019). The major products from mechanical 
processing include tyre shred (50–150 mm), rubber granules 
(2–15 mm), buffings (<2 mm), crumb rubber (<1 mm), 
steel, nylon and polyester fabrics (Genever et al., 2017). 

Australia’s total shredding capacity has been estimated to 
be approximately 299 kt, but the utilisation has been only 
approximately 187 kt. Crumbing capacity has been estimated 
to be 58.5 kt of which 39.5 kt has been estimated to be in 
use (Gonzalez and Hughes, 2019). A key barrier to further 
recycling has been the distance of processing facilities 
from the location of EOL tyre generation as tyre processing 
capacity varies widely across Australian jurisdictions.

Chemical processing changes the chemical 
structure of the material. Pyrolysis and gasification 
are examples of thermochemical processes which 
utilise elevated temperature to change the chemical 
composition. During pyrolysis, used tyres are thermally 
decomposed in the absence of oxygen, whereas 
gasification is conducted with a controlled amount 
of oxygen and/or steam to prevent combustion. 

Thermochemical processing generates various products, 
such as syngas, oil, steam, steel and carbon black or 
char (Genever et al., 2017). Although pyrolysis has been 
used in some countries that import Australian EOL tyres, 
industry bodies have questioned the cost effectiveness 
of pyrolysis in Australia. Some interviewed stakeholders 
reported that pyrolysis was not a commercially viable 
option due to transport costs, sourcing a continuous 
supply of feedstock, strict environmental legislation 
and under-developed markets for end products.

The recycling of fibres from used tyres is still very low. 
Steel fibres recovered from used tyres can be used as 
reinforcement in concrete (Aiello et al., 2009) and textile 
fibres can increase the stability of bitumen used in 
asphalt (Bartl et al., 2005). Possible other tyre-derived 
materials include silicon carbide (SiC) nanofibre/particle 
composites (with e-waste glass), activated carbon, carbon 
black and SiC/Si3N4 nanocomposites (UNSW, 2017). 

The demand for virgin rubber can be decreased by 
reclaiming rubber from used tyres through devulcanisation 
using thermo-mechanical or mechano-chemical, microwave, 
ultrasonic or supercritical water or CO2 processing. 
Devulcanising breaks carbon–sulfur linkages (Shulman, 2019) 
and allows the recovery of rubber with physico-chemical 
properties similar to those of virgin rubber, depending on 
the devulcanising process. The conventional devulcanisation 
processes can be modified to be more environmentally 
friendly and improved (e.g. in terms of devulcanising 
agents and operating conditions) (Bockstal et al., 2019). 
However, interviewed stakeholders indicated that the 
devulcanization processes are not yet economical and 
further research is needed to improve their feasibility.



Investment implications for increasing 
the circularity of tyres 

Investment costs vary significantly depending on the 
type of processing facility for tyres. Based on stakeholder 
interviews, a processing facility for converting used tyres 
to construction material for civil engineering requires 
as little capital investment as $3M and could process 
approximately 22.5 kt of tyres per year. Shredding is the 
next attractive processing form for used tyres in terms of 
capital investment (operating cost and land acquisition 
cost not included). A shredding facility with an investment 
of $2.5M could enable the shredding of approximately 
15 kt of used tyres per year. A tyre crumbing facility would 
have a capital investment cost of $3.7M and would allow 
nearly 8 kt of tyres to be crumbed each year. The current 
capital cost of a pyrolysis facility is approximately $30M 
for processing 18 kt of used tyres per annum. A marginal 
abatement cost curve for tyres based on one of each type of 
above-mentioned processing facilities is shown in Figure 5.11. 
The cumulative weight of used tyres abated (i.e. not going 
to landfills) in a year would be almost 70 kt, and the total 
investment cost $40M. Construction of more facilities 
would increase the cumulative weight of used tyres abated 
and the investment cost. On average, the investment cost 
to process used tyres is $133/t for construction, $160/t for 
shredding, $480/t for crumbing and $1,660/t for pyrolysis. 
In terms of employment, tyre baling typically employs 
0.2 people/kt of tyres processed annually. In comparison, 
shredding, crumbing and retreading employed 0.4, 1.2 and 
10.4 people/kt, respectively (Gonzalez and Hughes, 2019). 
Based on the interviews, the use of tyres for civil engineering 
could employ 6-7 people/kt and pyrolysis 1-2 people/kt. 

Figure 5.11: Cumulative investment cost and used tyre abatement per year if one 
facility is constructed for civil engineering, shredding, crumbing and pyrolysis. 

The profits or losses from used tyre recycling vary 
significantly depending on the process used and 
the fate of the used tyres (Randell et al., 2020). 
Restrictions in India on pyrolysis processes and major 
trade disruptions due to COVID-19 have also caused 
market fluctuations in the past year. The market of 
baled tyres has been very volatile. In 2019, baling and 
transporting used tyres to a port for export could 
provide $30/t or result in a loss of $20/t. The loss from 
tyre shredding ranged $70-100/t, $100/t and $180/t for 
passenger, truck and OTR tyres, respectively. Granule, 
buffings and crumb production resulted in a loss of 
$500/t, $500/t and $400-600, respectively when the 
products were sold for approximately $600/t, $700/t 
and $400-650/t, respectively. For comparison, disposal 
of tyres to landfills in jurisdictions where it was still 
allowed costed $600-1,900/t. The used tyre processing 
financials will change upon the implementation of 
the export ban for used whole and baled tyres in 2021. 
Unless tyre recycling fees are increased to support tyre 
processing and recycling, the risk for stockpiling and 
dumping of tyres increases (Randell et al., 2020).



5.3.7 Use of recyclates

Tyre-derived products and fuels can be used for a wide 
range of applications, examples of which are listed in 
Table 5.3. The structure of tyre casings or baled tyres can 
be used to provide strength in various civil-engineering 
applications, such as safety barriers, retaining walls, 
water-retention basins and soil stabilisation/erosion control 
(Genever et al., 2017; Bockstal et al., 2019). Steel fibres 
recovered through mechanical processing can also serve 
as reinforcement in concrete (Pilakoutas et al., 2004). 
Tyre-derived rubber products are good for protecting 
against impact and improving the durability of various 
surfaces, whereas tyre shred can increase gas and water 
permeability in engineering applications (Genever et al., 
2017). The Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) has 
conducted research into the use of crumb rubber in road 
surfaces (ARRB, 2020), and is developing a national standard. 

Tyre shred can also be used as an alternative energy source 
to replace fossil fuels such as gas, coal and oil in industrial 
applications such as cement kilns and electricity and heat 
generation. The energy content of tyres is higher than that 
of brown coal and black coal, but lower than that of fuel oil 
and natural gas per tonne of fuel. The use on 1 tonne of tyre 
shred would replace 3.02 tonnes of brown coal, 1.14 tonnes 
of black coal, 780 L of fuel oil or 784 m3 of natural gas, 
and reduce CO2 emissions by 40%, 35% or 24% when 
replacing brown coal, black coal or fuel oil, respectively 
(Kelman, 2017). The strong international demand for 
TDFs has somewhat limited the domestic consumption of 
recyclates from tyre processing (Genever et al., 2017).

Table 5.3: Examples of uses for tyre-derived products and fuels

TYPE OF 
PROCESSING

TYRE-DERIVED 
PRODUCT

USES

Mechanical

Tyre casings and 
baled tyres

• Civil-engineering applications: safety barriers, retaining walls, water retention basins, 
artificial reefs, fluvial reinforcement, sound barriers, landfill engineering, seismic isolation, 
soil stabilisation/erosion control


Tyre shred

• Fuel in cement kilns, pulp and paper facilities and other industrial boilers
• Civil-engineering projects: lightweight fill or backfill to improve drainage, insulation or 
compaction properties around water pipes and sewers, fences or buildings, and in landfill 
construction as backfill in gas venting and leachate collection systems and as daily covers


Rubber granules

• Soft-fall surfaces, synthetic sport fields, playground bases, athletic tracks, solid wheels, 
animal mattresses


Rubber buffings

• Soft and equestrian surfaces, paving blocks, roofing or carpet underlays, rubber matting, 
moulded products such as furniture, posts, fences, bollards 


Rubber crumb

• Rubber-modified spray seals and other sealants, binders, glues, adhesives, polymers, 
elastomers, coatings
• Road surfacing, rubberised concrete in roads and rail sector, rubberised lightweight 
concrete, bitumen crumb rubber asphalt
• Playground and soft-fall applications 
• Explosives
• Plastics production


Textile

• Increase the stability of bitumen used in asphalt
• Fuel production


Physical/ 
chemical

Steel

• Melting and reforming into steel billet to use for producing rods, bars and wire
• Use of steel fibres as reinforcement in concrete


Chemical

Syngas

• Combusted to generate electricity


Oil

• Low-grade ship oil, bunker oil
• Further refined into higher-quality diesel products and explosives


Steam

• Heating or electricity generation


Carbon black/char 

• Manufacturing new tyres and as a colour pigment in paints and plastics
• Nanocomposites
• Activation to produce activated carbon for gold recovery and as a purification agent for 
water, wastewater and gas
• Soil additive to improve moisture retention








Syngas and steam from thermochemical tyre processing can 
be used for electricity generation and oil as low-grade ship 
oil or further refined into higher-quality diesel products. 
Carbon black generated in thermochemical processing can 
be used as a pigment or feedstock for nanocomposites 
(Rajarao et al., 2015; Genever et al., 2017). Lower-grade char 
can be activated for use as activated-carbon sorbent used 
in gold extraction, electrode material (Antoniou et al., 2014) 
or soil amendment to retain moisture (Genever et al., 2017).

In the National Market Development Strategy for Used 
Tyres, Genever et al. (2017) estimated potential market sizes 
for various tyre-derived products (Figure 5.12). In the short 
and medium term, the biggest opportunities for Australia 
are the use of crumb rubber in spray seals, binders, 
glues, adhesives, playground and soft-fall applications. 
In the long term, largest growth is expected in the use 
of tyre-derived shred as lightweight fill and tyre-derived 
drainage aggregate, and oil and carbon from tyre pyrolysis 
followed by the use of crumb rubber in explosives. 

Other growth areas are expected to be rubberised 
structural concrete in the road and rail sector, rubberised 
lightweight concrete, bitumen crumb rubber asphalt, whole 
tyres in civil works, use of crumb rubber in permeable 
pavements, and rubber products and vibration dampening 
in the rail sector. On the other hand, growth in the use of 
crumb rubber as infill in sport fields, in steelmaking, and 
the use of tyre-derived fuel in domestic cement kilns and 
electricity generation were estimated to have less growth 
opportunities (Genever et al., 2017). For example, Australian 
cement kilns already use other alternative energy sources.

Figure 5.12: Potential market size of tyre-derived product opportunities 

Source: data from Genever et al., 2017



5.3.8 Summary of opportunities for tyres 

Key opportunities for EOL tyre avoidance, design, consumption, collection, transport, 
tracking, remanufacturing, reuse, recycling and energy recovery are listed in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: Opportunities for tyres in the circular economy

STRATEGY

OPPORTUNITIES

Avoidance

• Implement distance work and replace face-to-face meetings with virtual ones
• Replace tyre-based transport with other transportation forms where possible


Design

• Design tyres that require less materials, are more durable and easily remanufactured, recycled or safely 
used as fuel
• Manufacture tyres from bio-derived renewable materials


Consumption

• Encourage public transport systems, carpooling, taxis, ride-sharing systems
• Invest in light transport vehicles which have small tyres 


Collection, transport 
and tracking

• Develop collection systems for all families of tyres (including e.g., OTR, motorcycle and bike tyres)
• Reverse logistics to minimise transport costs
• Develop software to optimise transport logistics 
• Implement online tyre tracking across the country and include exported tyres


Remanufacturing 
and reuse 

• Retread tyres for reuse 
• Remanufacture used tyres to innovative alternative uses, such as water tanks, evaporation control devices 
and modules for civil engineering


Recycling

• Use tyre casings or tyre-bales for civil-engineering applications 
• Use mechanical processing of EOL tyres to produce shred, rubber granules, buffings and crumb, 
textile and steel
• Use thermochemical processing of EOL tyres to syngas, oil, steel, carbon black and/or char


Use of recyclates

• Use tyre-derived products in civil engineering, surfaces, seals, moulded products, explosives and plastics
• Use tyre shred, tyre-derived oil, syngas and steam as energy






5.4 The road forward – tyres

A possible future state of tyre flows for year 2030 is 
presented in Figure 5.13. Figure 5.14 shows a summary of 
key activities recommended for tyre management and 
expected outcomes for 2022, 2025 and 2030 time frames.

2022

In the first part of the transition, national mandatory 
and regulated or co-regulated tyre stewardship scheme 
will help to capture all tyre operators. Implementing 
minimum quality standards for imported tyres will ensure 
that tyres are more durable and can be retreaded. 

Harmonising and mandating increased levies for all 
tyre imports, mandating consistent, transparent and 
increased recycling fees for tyres, and channelling a 
larger part of the fees to go to recyclers will help build 
tyre recycling capacity. Moreover, implementing a small 
refund to go to customers upon returning used tyres 
would emphasise the value of tyres as a resource. 

Financial support for investing in processing infrastructure 
and fast permitting of operators are important for 
increasing the capacity of tyre recycling and energy 
recovery. Investment is also needed to support research, 
innovation, demonstration and scale up of technologies, 
and testing the performance of TDPs and TDFs. This 
will provide the next wave of technologies and reduce 
perceived risk associated with using TDPs and TDFs. 
Education of all levels of government, tyre operators and 
consumers is also required to increase understanding 
and build commitment to recover value from tyres.



2025

In the second phase of the transition, harmonising 
policies, regulations and permitting for tyre management 
and recycling will provide a level playing field for 
operators across the country. Harmonised banning 
of dumping, stockpiling, landfill and on-site disposal 
of whole tyres and tyre-derived materials will help to 
increase the capture of tyres for value recovery. 

Compulsory auditing and accreditation of all tyre retailers 
and operators will ensure compliance. Mandatory online 
tracking of tyres, TDPs and TDFs across the country 
and overseas to legitimate processing facilities will 
ensure chain of custody and improve data reliability. 

Harmonising standards and specifications for TDPs and 
TDFs across Australian jurisdictions will increase the 
confidence for producing and using TDPs and TDFs. 
Procurement policies and financial incentives to encourage 
the use of retreaded tyres and TDPs and TDFs in relevant 
applications can further help to develop markets and 
increase uptake of retreaded tyres, TDPs and TDFs. 

2030

In the third phase of the transition, investment in fast internet, 
virtual meeting technologies and non-tyre-based transport 
modes will reduce the reliance on tyres and used tyre arisings. 
International collaboration across the tyre value chain will be 
important for providing a level playing field across countries. 

Investment in innovation parks and business incubators will 
support the generation of next-generation innovations and 
start-ups for tyre recycling and energy recovery. Investing 
in market platforms to enable reverse logistics and linking 
tyre recyclers to end users will help to optimise tyre 
transports and realise industrial ecology opportunities. 

Support for setting up consortia or communities of 
practice for tyre operators will help to share best 
practise. Finally, commitment of all stakeholders to a 
more circular economy for tyres is required to achieve 
100% of used tyres to be captured for value recovery.

A code has been entered at the start of each key activity in 
Figure 5.14 to indicate the relevant actor(s) responsible for 
that activity: G = government, I = industry, R = research, 
and C = community. As we would expect, most activities 
are either government or industry led, or some 
combination of the two. Community rarely features in 
this role as communities are generally beneficiaries of 
activities and outcomes rather than drivers of activities.

Figure 5.13: Sankey diagram of estimated tyre flows for Australia in 2030

Estimated flows are based on projected end-of-life tyre generation (extrapolated from 1.5% annual increase from O’Farrell, 2019) if all tyres 
are captured for value recovery, and existing shredding (Gonzalez and Hughes, 2019) and retreading capacity is fully utilised (Data received 
in conjunction with interviews), capacity to produce rubber crumb, granule and buffings and the use of tyres for civil works are increased to 
anticipated domestic market demand, pyrolysis capacity is increased to 30% of anticipated domestic market demand (extrapolated based on 
Genever et al., 2017), export of whole tyres is stopped and export of tyre shred is increased to compensate for part of stopped whole tyre export.



Figure 5.14: Key outcomes and activities for a circular economy for tyres by 2022, 2025 and 2030. 
(Actors: G = government, I = industry, R = research and C = community). 

Key outcomes:

All tyre operators captured under 
tyre stewardship scheme

Imported tyres more durable 
and suitable for retreading

Levies and recycling fees directed to 
building tyre recycling and energy recovery 
capacity, and tyres valued as a resource

Increased infrastructure capacity to 
recycle and recover energy from tyres

New innovations and technologies 
available for value recovery from tyres

Perceived risks associated with 
using TDPs and TDFs reduced

Increased understanding to support 
commitment for recovering value from tyres

Key outcomes:

Level playing field for tyre 
operators across the country

Capture of tyres for value 
recovery increased

All tyre retailers and tyre operators 
compliant, audited and accredited

All tyre, TDP and TDF transports captured 
with online tracking to ensure chain of 
custody and improve data reliability

Confidence for use of TDP 
and TDF increased

Markets developed and uptake increased 
for retreaded tyres, TDPs and TDFs

Key outcomes:

Reliance on tyre-based transport 
and used tyre arisings reduced

Level playing field through 
international collaboration

Next generation innovations available 
and start-ups for tyre recycling 
and energy recovery established

Tyre transports optimised 
and industrial ecology 
opportunities realised 

Efficient sharing of best practices 
among tyre operators

100% of used tyres captured 
for value recovery

2022

2025

2030

Key activities:

G: Implement national mandatory 
and regulated or co-regulated 
tyre stewardship scheme

G: Implement minimum quality 
standards for imported tyres

G: Harmonise mandatory and increased 
levies for all tyre imports

G/I: Harmonise transparent and higher 
recycling fees to the price of new tyres, 
higher % of fee going to recyclers and 
consumers to receive a small refund 
when returning tyres for recycling

G/I: Invest in tyre processing infrastructure 
and implement fast permitting for operators

G/I/R: Invest in research, innovation, 
demonstration and scale up of tyre recycling 
and energy recovery technologies

G/I/R: Invest in testing the performance 
of TDP and TDF applications

G/I/R: Educate all levels of government, 
tyre operators and consumers

Key activities:

G: Harmonise policies, regulations 
and permitting for tyre management 
and recycling across the country

G: Harmonise banning of on-site 
disposal, dumping and landfilling of 
whole tyres and tyre-derived materials

G/I: Implement compulsory 
auditing and accreditation of all 
tyre retailers and tyre operators

G/I: Implement mandatory online 
tracking of tyre, TDP and TDF 
transports across the country 
and overseas to legitimate 
processing facilities

G/I: Harmonise standards and 
specifications for TDPs and TDFs 
across Australian jurisdictions

G/I: Implement procurement 
policies and financial incentives to 
encourage the use of tyre retreads; 
and minimum % of domestic TDPs 
and TDFs in relevant applications

Key activities:

G/I: Invest in fast internet, virtual 
meeting technologies and non-tyre-
based transport infrastructure

G/I: Collaborate internationally 
across tyre value chain

G/I/R: Invest in innovations that 
enable a more circular economy 
for tyres and innovation parks 
and business incubators

G/I/R: Invest in market platforms 
to enable reverse logistics and 
link tyre recyclers to end users

G/I/C: Support the set up 
consortia/community of 
practice for tyre operators 

G/I/R/C: Commit to advance a 
more circular economy for tyres



6 Strategies for a circular 
economy transition of plastics, 
glass, paper, and tyres

This section presents strategies clustered into five key 
groups that address fundamental challenges limiting 
the circularity of plastics, glass, paper and tyres in 
Australia. Implementing these strategies will help 
unlock opportunities to drive a circular economy across 
each of the material streams. Figure 6.1 shows how 
these key strategies reflect improvements to product 
design, collection and sorting outcomes; reprocessing 
and recycling infrastructure; growing end markets for 
recycled products; providing consistency in governance 
and education; and achieving system-level changes to 
embed the circular economy approach in Australia. 

Figure 6.1: Strategies for unlocking the circular economy of plastics, glass, paper and tyres

IMPROVING 
PRODUCT 
DESIGN, 
COLLECTION, 
AND SORTING 
OUTCOMES

Aim: Retain 
the quality 
and value of 
source materials 
and prevent 
material loss

Achieve cleaner 
material streams 
and improved 
systems for 
collection

Maximise material 
recovery through 
improved sorting

BUILDING 
CAPACITY FOR 
REPROCESSING 
AND 
MANUFACTURING 
OF RECYCLED 
PRODUCTS 
NATIONALLY

Aim: Increase 
national recycling 
infrastructure

Increase 
infrastructure 
capacity to 
reprocess plastics, 
paper and tyres

Implement regional 
and niche recycling 
solutions

MARKET 
DEVELOPMENT 
AND INNOVATION 
TO GROW THE 
CIRCULAR 
ECONOMY

Aim: Boost market 
demand for 
recycled products 
and develop 
innovative 
solutions

Grow markets for 
recycled products 

Innovate and 
design for the 
circular economy

HARMONISING 
STANDARDS, 
REGULATIONS, 
AND MESSAGING 
ACROSS 
JURISDICTIONS

Aim: Provide 
consistency in 
governance, 
messaging, 
and education

Harmonise 
standards and 
governance 
mechanisms across 
jurisdictions

Harmonise 
messaging to 
consumers, 
industry, and 
all levels of 
government

ENABLING 
THE CIRCULAR 
ECONOMY VISION

Aim: Facilitate 
system-level 
changes that 
foster sustainable 
consumtpion 
and production

Implement system-
level strategies to 
support industry 
participation in a 
circular economy 
and sustainable 
consumption 
practices

Build a broader 
committment 
to Australia’s 
circular economy



Each key strategy has been developed in response to the challenges identified in previous 
sections and reflects a range of actions that combined will help deliver circular economy 
outcomes. These will facilitate increased resource recovery, increased use of recycled material, 
reduced use of virgin materials, and reduced disposal to landfill. Table 6.1 summarises the five 
key strategies and aims, and the underpinning sub-strategies and range of actions involved. 

Table 6.1: Summary of the circular economy strategies for plastics, glass, paper, and tyres

KEY STRATEGIES AND AIMS

UNDERPINNING SUB-STRATEGIES FOR PLASTICS, GLASS, PAPER, AND TYRES

1. Improving product design, 
collection, and sorting 
outcomes


AIM: Retain the quality and value 
of source materials and prevent 
material loss

Achieve cleaner material streams and improved systems for collection

Reduce contamination; improve source separation; eco-design of products; simplify 
packaging to one-material stream; have dedicated collection systems for materials that cause 
cross-contamination; use consistent messaging, consumer education; use of reverse logistics; 
and ban dumping, stockpiling, landfill and onsite disposal of tyres 

Maximise material recovery through improved sorting

Upgrade MRFs through investment in improved technology and sorting processes; implement 
changes to industry standards and contractual arrangements; improve data collection

2. Building capacity 
for reprocessing and 
manufacturing of recycled 
products nationally


AIM: Increase national recycling 
infrastructure

Increase infrastructure capacity to reprocess plastics, paper, and tyres

Support strategic recycling infrastructure investment guided by state and territory infrastructure 
plans; streamline new infrastructure approval processes; support industry innovation in novel 
infrastructure

Implement regional and niche recycling solutions

Support local uses of recyclate; hub approaches with reverse logistics; industry and business 
precincts committed to circular economy approaches; microfactories; composting and 
waste-to-energy solutions

3. Market development and 
innovation to grow the 
circular economy


AIM: Boost market demand for 
recycled products and develop 
innovative solutions

Grow markets for recycled products 

Government procurement of recycled products; guidelines for forward commitment procurement; 
enable a second life of tyres; research, education, and awareness raising of novel products; new 
product standards for Australian products made from recycled content 

Innovate and design for the circular economy

Develop mission-oriented policy and coordinated, flexible innovation programs; design for 
circularity; develop novel solutions for niche problems

4. Harmonisng standards, 
regulations, and messaging 
across jurisdictions


AIM: Provide consistency in 
governance, messaging, and 
education

Harmonise standards and governance mechanisms across jurisdictions

Introduce and harmonise standards for collection and waste levies; harmonise policy for single-use 
plastic products; harmonise regulatory settings for tyre recycling; implement national standards 
for recycled materials used in construction and other applications; remove duplicated burden 
of compliance 

Harmonise messaging to consumers, industry, and all levels of government

Ensure consistency in labelling, recycling instructions, and education messages; target households, 
commercial and government; promote sustainable purchasing, consumption and recycling routines; 
encourage waste avoidance and reuse behaviours

5. Enabling the circular 
economy vision


AIM: Facilitate system-level 
changes that foster sustainable 
consumption and production 

Implement system-level strategies to support industry participation in a circular economy and 
sustainable consumption practices

Enable a smooth transition to a circular economy through grandfathering existing contracts; 
promote a culture of material responsibility; promote waste avoidance, and product reuse and 
repair including life-cycle assessments; enable end-to-end efficacy for resource recovery; enable 
broader participation in the circular economy supply chain

Build a broader commitment to Australia’s circular economy

Develop national targets, data, and metrics for a circular economy; increase engagement with 
packaging product stewardship; link with international initiatives; build national manufacturing 
resilience to deal with system shocks; multi-tiered education to support a circular economy 
culture shift







6.1 Improving product design, 
collection, and sorting outcomes

6.1.1 Achieve cleaner material streams 
and improved systems for collection

Retaining and maintaining the quality of source 
materials so that products can be easily recycled and 
effectively reused in another product is a critical step 
in the circularity of plastic, glass, paper, and tyres. 
This includes decisions made at the time of product 
and packaging design, and the way the material is 
collected for recycling. It involves changes to industry 
infrastructure and technology through designing out 
problem materials, simplifying packaging to one-material 
stream, and changing collection systems to preserve 
high-value recyclables and to prevent contamination 
particularly through glass fines, batteries, electronic waste, 
nappies, textiles, food waste, and other organic waste. 

Options such as multiple bins for source separation, 
container deposit schemes, and reduced compaction during 
kerbside collection would reduce contamination. Education 
programs, changes to industry standards and contracting, 
procurement policies that promote purchase of recyclable 
products, enforced labelling systems and other regulatory 
measures are also needed to support cleaner waste 
streams. Finally, innovation, particularly in food packaging 
and expansion of collection systems for dedicated 
materials, such as batteries, nappies, textiles, REDCycle, 
and high-value products such as cardboard, office paper, 
and hard plastic, will support ongoing improvements 
over time. Collection systems for specific situations 
such as multi-unit developments (MUDs) and education 
programs that are consistent in their messaging yet fit-
for-purpose, including meeting the needs of culturally 
and linguistically diverse residents, are all required to 
improve the quality of collected materials and facilitate 
their recovery for reprocessing and ultimately reuse. 

In the case of tyres, mandatory collection, and banning 
of dumping, stockpiling, landfill, and onsite disposal 
would improve recovery of used tyres. In addition, 
refund schemes, harmonised and transparent recycling 
fees, the use of reverse logistics for transport, and 
mandatory online tracking would also facilitate 
value recovery. Consistent regulations and education 
programs targeting the supply chain and end users 
would further promote improved collection outcomes. 

6.1.2 Maximise material recovery 
through improved sorting

Optimising sorting processes in conjunction with 
cleaner waste streams will increase the quality and 
quantity of materials recovered from the co-mingled 
recyclables in municipal solid waste. Material recycling 
facilities (MRFs) across Australia have varying capacity 
and capability to sort co-mingled recyclables collected 
from the kerbside. Upgrading MRFs and achieving best 
practice outcomes will result in increased value from 
recovered materials and less recyclables going to landfill.

A range of actions are required to achieve higher-quality 
outcomes in sorting facilities. These include investment 
in improved technology and sorting processes, such as 
optical sorting, slowing throughput, increased manual 
sorting, and potential for a ‘positive sort’ to target 
desired recyclable products. In addition, changes to 
industry standards, and contractual arrangements that 
demand a higher-quality sorting outcome will facilitate 
improvements along with more robust data collection. 

However, interview data indicated mixed views as to 
the relative value of investment in sorting compared 
to investment in improved collection systems including 
source separation supported by single-stream collection 
systems. The significant investment in scale and technology 
required to deliver a high-quality sorting outcome 
means fewer of these facilities exist and in limited 
(mostly Eastern) locations. Simpler collection strategies 
lead to more contaminated waste flows, more flows to 
landfill, or the need for transportation to complex sorting 
facilities. Alternatively, more complex collection modes 
allow for simpler and more distributed sorting options. 
Even so, if investment is made in improved sorting 
technology there are potentially still efficiency benefits 
to be realised through improving collections systems that 
enable source separation and reduce contamination. 



6.2 Building capacity for 
reprocessing and manufacturing 
of recycled products nationally

6.2.1 Increase infrastructure capacity 
to reprocess plastics, paper, and tyres

There is an urgent need to increase Australia’s domestic 
reprocessing capability for plastics, paper and tyres. 
Note that glass does not require additional infrastructure as 
the same furnaces that take virgin material to manufacture 
glass, can also take recycled cullet as input. These facilities 
currently have spare capacity to accept more recycled 
glass cullet as an input. The limiting steps for waste glass 
recovery are upstream of reprocessing. Contrastingly, 
plastics processing capacity must increase by at least 150% 
to process plastic waste that was exported in 2018–19. 

Moreover, the current level of 12% recovery rate for plastics 
and 63% for paper must increase to meet the national target 
of 80% recovery by 2030. In addition, only 36% of used tyres 
(excluding export of whole or baled tyres) are processed for 
domestic or overseas recycling with the capacity to recycle 
tyres varying widely across Australia. Significant increases 
in recycling capacity are required for both the short term, 
to meet material export bans, and the long term to prevent 
loss of secondary materials from the Australian economy to 
landfill or through onsite disposal, stockpiling, or dumping.

Support strategic recycling infrastructure investment 
guided by state and territory infrastructure plans 

Infrastructure needs should be supported by clear 
state and territory government infrastructure plans to 
match increased demand trends with local government 
strategies and private industry investment. There is lack 
of clarity in some states over what waste infrastructure is 
needed, mostly attributable to plans yet to be published 
and states at different stages of their infrastructure 
planning. Local councils are responsible for determining 
infrastructure needs for their regions and often own 
and operate landfills, MRFs and transfer stations. 
Council decisions and industry investment should be 
compatible with state government infrastructure plans 
and greater coordination on recycling infrastructure 
between state and local government is needed. Specific 
examples of infrastructure needs are investment in paper 
reprocessing capacity particularly in Western Australia, 
plastic recycling capacity particularly to produce hot-wash 
flake and rPET, infrastructure to process low-value 
mixed plastics and paper, and infrastructure to produce 
crumb, rubber, granules and buffings from used tyres. 

National data on material recycling infrastructure might 
benefit from being compiled into an accessible, dynamic, 
real-time and updatable system. Such data would 
support planning and investment decisions through 
identification of future gaps in infrastructure capacity. 
Local governments can support the establishment of 
resource-recovery facilities by allocating dedicated 
areas away from residential housing with recommended 
buffer zones and where recyclers can access and 
operate their materials in sufficient volumes. 

Streamline new infrastructure approval processes

Companies indicated in the interviews that the years 
needed for approval for new recycling infrastructure 
projects represent a major cost to business. The need for 
streamlining approval process and requirements was also 
recognised in the COAG response strategy. The application 
process should be reviewed to remove any unnecessary 
delays to streamline and accelerate the infrastructure 
planning process. This is particularly important as Australia 
addresses the gap in plastics recycling infrastructure. 
In addition, addressing, managing and mitigating 
community concerns associated with the location of 
new waste management infrastructure is essential.

Support industry innovation in novel infrastructure

Federal, state and local governments can provide financial 
incentives for investing in recycling infrastructure and 
the Australian Government has demonstrated its support 
for plastics processing industry investment through 
various schemes and funding programs. In July 2020 the 
Morrison government commited dollar 190 million to a 
new Recycling Modernisation Fund to generate dollar 
600 million of recycling investement and to drive a billion 
dolloar transformation of Australia’s waste recycling 
capacity. Grants and funding that support development 
from proof of concept, pilot, through to first commercial 
plant are further required for infrastructure that processes 
materials, in the absence of energy generation. In addition, 
subsidies and support for industry operating expenses 
such as insurance and energy costs would indirectly assist 
recycling businesses to innovate. Private investment in novel 
infrastructure for feedstock recycling could be attracted 
through incentives (e.g. tax deductions) that are proportional 
to the investment necessary at industrial scale. For paper 
processing, there is a desire to investigate novel processing 
methods to create value-added products (COAG, 2020). 
Investment, innovation and lean manufacturing principles 
may also be applied to make existing infrastructure 
more efficient and improve their processing capacity. 



6.2.2 Implement regional and niche 
recycling solutions

Regional Australia experiences difficulties in finding 
recycling solutions for plastic, glass, paper, and tyres 
because of a lack of accessible infrastructure and low 
recyclate volumes that limit the economic viability of 
traditional recycling options. However, opportunities exist 
to utilise a circular economy approach to help manage these 
difficulties by applying a regional-scale perspective, reverse 
logistics, and identifying cross-industry-sector solutions. 

Support local uses of recyclate 

Using the circular economy principle of local solutions for 
locally generated waste applies to regional communities 
where volumes of recycled materials may be low. 
In these instances, finding local uses to minimise any 
transport of recovered materials is necessary if diversion 
from landfill is to be achieved. Industrial precincts 
that incorporate a commitment to circular economy 
approaches could help leverage local solutions and 
building the capacity of local small and medium-sized 
enterprises (SMEs) to implement resource-recovery plans. 

Hub approach

A hub approach to planning the location of any new 
reprocessing facility is one solution for regional Australia, 
using larger centres located at nodes of strategic transit 
corridors as the hub. Fostering collaboration among groups 
of local government areas or using existing functional 
groups such as Regional Organisation of Councils (ROCs) to 
partner together in co-designing solutions for plastic, glass, 
paper, and tyre recyclates would leverage the effectiveness 
of an individual local government. For example, a ROC 
could increase the volumes of potential procurement and 
use of recyclate in road base and create a viable business 
case for industry investment. In addition, the use of 
reverse logistics to maximise the efficiency of transport 
could be considered as another collaborative approach 
to managing long-distance issues common to regions. 

Industry and business precincts committed 
to circular economy approaches

Industrial and business precincts that incorporate a 
focus on circular economy initiatives are being trialled 
in regions across Australia, for example Yarrabilba in 
South East Queensland and Wagga Wagga and Parkes 
in NSW. Such precincts are developing as greenfield 
sites with infrastructure to support circular economy 
solutions not only in waste management but also in the 
use of water and energy resources. Scope exists to extend 
processes for facilitating local material flows among 
the regions’ various industries and to build capacity 
within local SMEs to implement resource-recovery plans. 
These precincts can also function as test beds for new 
ideas and innovative solutions for resource recovery 
and benefit from a champion, a long-term horizon, 
metrics for measuring impact, and collaboration with 
local councils and regional development networks. 

Microfactories 

Microfactories are possible solutions for waste management 
in remote regions and have been proposed as an alternative 
to traditional large-scale manufacturing sites. Microfactories 
are small decentralised systems that can be mobile and 
operate in regional sites, near to where waste is generated. 
Microfactories can also operate as pre-processing facilities 
where waste is initially processed to make transportation 
options more viable. Microfactories can be applied 
to a range of materials, including plastics and glass.

As possible solutions for low-volume materials, 
microfactories could be used to address challenges of 
specific industry sectors, such as hospitals, or provide 
solutions for high-value niche waste materials such as 
high calorific plastics from e-waste to produce high-
end goods (Sahajwalla and Gaikwad, 2018). The mobile 
nature of microfactories could also be well suited to 
providing niche enterprise outcomes for local SMEs.

Composting and waste-to-energy solutions 

Industrial organic composting solutions or anaerobic 
digestors could provide decentralised solutions for 
reprocessing compostable plastic and paper products 
in regional areas where there are vast distances to 
other recycling infrastructure. Such solutions are 
preferable to landfill and could become part of a 
regionally based circular economy where compost 
is used to fill mine voids and energy generated used 
in local agricultural industry activities. However, 
these end-of-life solutions should be used judiciously 
where no other solutions present beyond landfill. 



6.3 Market development 
and innovation to grow 
the circular economy

6.3.1 Grow markets for recycled products 

It is well recognised that Australia lacks market demand for 
products containing recycled content and this problem is 
consistent across plastic, glass, paper, and tyres. Recycled 
products may contain percentages of recycled material or 
be entirely recycled, or in the case of tyres remanufactured 
for reuse (retreading). Recycled products have a variety of 
markets such as civil and construction projects (e.g. roads, 
park benches, bollards, acoustic noise panels), agriculture 
and aquaculture (e.g. plastic film and structures). Where 
new recycled-content products look to displace or compete 
with existing virgin products, they can sometimes be at 
a disadvantage due to higher prices. A higher market 
price is often indicative of more expensive processed 
secondary materials, which in the case of plastic is unlikely 
to compete with cheap virgin materials. However, a higher 
price might be offset by lower maintenance costs, and 
this should also be considered during procurement 
processes. In some applications, such as tyres, the use of 
recyclates in manufacturing processes requires specific 
infrastructure when compared to traditional feedstocks 
and may require additional infrastructure to mitigate 
any environmental hazards, for example when using 
tyre-derived fuels. Five main strategies that improve 
demand for recycled products are discussed below.

Government procurement of recycled products

Government procurement can drive demand for recycled 
products and the federal government announced changes 
to their procurement guidelines during the National 
Plastic Summit, March 2020. All federal government 
agencies will need to consider environmental sustainability 
and recycled content as part of their procurement 
guidelines. This approach can also be adopted by state 
and territory governments by implementing guidelines 
to encourage recycled product procurement. State 
governments could also create large-scale markets for 
products by identifying ‘sinkhole’ projects for major 
infrastructure. These projects have the potential to 
purchase large quantities of recovered waste material 
such as plastic in railway sleepers or glass and tyres in 
road base. These actions require regulatory barriers to 
be removed and project guidelines to be updated to 
promote recycled content. Procurement should be tracked 
and reported to ensure policy changes are effective.

Local governments also have a key role in procuring 
recycled products. This approach is already occurring 
voluntarily, for example, in South Australia where nine 
councils signed a memorandum of understanding in 
2019 to commit to the procurement of products with 
recycled content. This commences with the purchase 
of plastic material equivalent to 10% of the weight of 
plastic collected in their council region. This will increase 
to 50% over the next few years. This initiative was 
supported with a grant from the state government. 

There are also options to increase adoption of recycled 
products by mandating targets. Procurement policies 
could for example be harmonised to mandate minimum 
percentages of recyclates in relevant applications 
(e.g. road and rail works), in a similar way that biofuels 
have been mandated in some states. However, this 
approach has a risk for perverse outcomes where 
products aren’t locally available or are cost prohibitive for 
smaller councils. Moreover, ‘forcing’ councils to procure 
products they are not comfortable with may also result 
in risk-averse behaviours. Rather, state governments 
might take an incentive-based approach to encourage 
local governments or ROCs to partner together for 
recycled-product procurement. This approach means 
that market opportunities grow through ‘working with 
the willing’ to increase demand in civil projects for 
products made from recycled content. Procurement 
practices could also promote tyre replacements to be 
based on tyre wear instead of age to increase the life 
span of tyres used in government fleet vehicles. 

Guidelines for forward commitment procurement

Forward commitment procurement is a public sector 
process for securing innovative goods and services that 
reduce perceived risk. It is a mechanism for the public 
sector to create space for private sector innovation for 
products that meet or exceed existing standards while 
also containing recycled content (Whyles et al., 2015). 
An example of forward commitment procurement in 
practice is from Geelong, Victoria, where a tender was 
put to market for a zero maintenance 100-year lifetime 
recreational bridge (City of Greater Geelong, 2020). 
It is a transparent process where products that are 
novel or first to market can be tested, monitored and 
verified within a procurement process that is clear about 
tender conditions. Forward commitment procurement 
provides clarity on the testing framework and standards 
required of an innovative product. This strategy can be 
employed by well-resourced, innovative local or state 
governments as part of their procurement plans. 



Enable the second life of tyres 

The domestic market for passenger-tyre retreading 
has declined as consumers are moving away from 
passenger-tyre retreads (O’Farrell, 2019). Education 
campaigns on the benefits of tyre retreading could 
potentially revive the retreading market in Australia. 
Tyre retailers and retreaders could also be informed 
on the available technologies and opportunities for 
retreading tyres. Investment in retreading infrastructure 
in each Australian jurisdiction could also increase the 
capacity for domestic retreading for both trucks and other 
vehicles and reduce the need for export of tyres to be 
retreaded overseas. Financial incentives in the form of 
grants or tax offsets can help industry with infrastructure 
investment, and rebates for using retreaded tyres would 
encourage consumption. Procurement policies could 
also help grow the retread market by mandating the 
use of retreads on government fleet vehicle tyres. 

Research, education and awareness 
raising of novel products

Great variability exists across councils and companies 
for their acceptance of products with recycled content. 
Challenges include perceptions that recycled content is not 
of high quality, risks to health and safety, a lack of awareness 
of product performance and a lack of understanding of 
where to source products with recycled content. Research 
to understand concerns will support targeted information 
to overcome any misconceptions or prejudices that exist 
for recycled materials. Evidence provided by third-party 
laboratory or field trials is an important part of validating 
a product is fit for purpose. These data are necessary 
to counter risk-averse behaviour and business-as-usual 
purchasing approaches by providing confidence to uptake 
a recycled product and support education and market 
awareness of new products. Education that provides 
clear guidance on where recyclates can be safely used 
to ensure fit-for-purpose applications and the benefits 
of using recyclates would support wider adoption. Case 
studies on successful trials should be developed and shared 
nationally to increase awareness of product specifications 
and quality. Case studies on new products (e.g. moulded 
paper fibre in packaging or compostable products) support 
market awareness. Broader marketing and eco-labels can 
also help to increase the uptake of recycled products.

New product standards for Australian 
products made from recycled content 

It is important to set expectations for the market for the 
quality and specifications for recycled-content products. 
Manufacturers of products made from recycled content would 
like to ensure they are not competing against lower-cost 
products manufactured offshore, derived from non-Australian 
waste. A standard for recycled products might work in 
combination with a campaign similar to ‘Buy Australian 
Made’, to support consumption of and preferences for 
Australian-manufactured products. Considerations for 
developing an Australian recycled-content standard might be:

• manufactured in Australia
• Australian-sourced waste material 
• the percentage of post-consumer recycled content
• that the product is recyclable at end of life.


6.3.2 Innovate and design for the 
circular economy 

Innovation has an important role in the transition to a 
circular economy. Innovation is described as a new or 
improved product or process made available internally 
for business use or externally for the market. 

Mission-oriented policy and coordinated, 
flexible innovation programs

The challenge with a transition to a circular economy 
is that traditional policy approaches are less useful for 
addressing market transformation. Australia can learn 
from the UK through the application of mission-oriented 
policy. Missions are oriented to solve national challenges 
and stimulate collaborative innovation (Australian 
Government, 2020). The CSIRO research strategy includes 
a mission to End Plastic Waste with a goal of reducing 
plastic waste into the environment by 90% by 2025.

It is important that research systems and funding models 
are aligned and accelerated to support Australia’s 
packaging-waste targets to 2025 and national waste targets to 
2030. To that end, a model with an overarching coordination 
body and funding that allows smaller, nimble projects to 
proceed while also having an appropriate screening and 
reporting framework in place might be more appropriate for 
the challenges in resource recovery and reuse. Examples might 
be for APCO to coordinate plastics research beyond their remit 
of packaging and in the case of tyres for the TSA to coordinate 
research on tyre recycling. National coordination of research 
grants and initiatives aimed at addressing a circular economy 
for plastics, paper, glass and tyres helps to reduce duplication 
between jurisdictions. This can be achieved with greater 
collaboration between governments (Australian Government, 
2020). Industry peak bodies also have a key role in coordinating 
collaboration across the supply chain and it is important that 
policy initiatives do not neglect or exclude Australian SMEs.



Design for circularity 

Designing products or packaging for circularity sits 
at the heart of realising the circular economy. Design 
arguably has the greatest influence over a product 
moving from a linear to a circular economy. Peak 
bodies have a role to play in supporting companies to 
consider their design (e.g. the APCO PREP Tool), and 
in the case of tyres an audited labelling system being 
developed by the TSA. Design concepts also include:

• design for sustainability (e.g. bio-derived raw 
materials), durability, reusability and recyclability 
• design for disassembly, design for 
environment, cradle-to-cradle design
• new business models for reuse 
• development and access to design guides 
• design solutions for problematic materials
• phase out single use products or non-
recyclable products and packaging
• eco-labels to indicate sustainable designs.


Develop novel solutions for niche problems 

Some ‘problem’ products require niche approaches. 
Multi-layer packaging is particularly challenging as it 
typically isn’t recyclable. This requires innovation to 
develop a recyclable solution or developing recycling 
processes to accept multi-layer packaging. An example of 
the latter is the plan to implement recycling technology 
for the multi-layer Tetra Pak packaging in Australia. 
Once implemented, Australia has opportunities to either 
take novel technologies into neighbouring countries or 
accept waste processing from those countries. Australia 
needs solutions for low-value mixed, or contaminated 
materials. Feedstock or chemical recycling or waste 
to energy are both viable options. Funding is required 
for further research and development of novel value 
recovery technologies, including investment to evaluate 
the performance and safety of new technologies, 
create standards accordingly, and to upscale and 
commercialise innovations. In the case of tyres, research 
into high-value applications, such as binders for roads 
and explosive-resistant buildings, has the potential to 
generate significant new sales for the tyre-recycling 
industry (National Waste and Recycling Taskforce, 2019).

6.4 Harmonising standards, 
regulations, and messaging 
across jurisdictions

6.4.1 Harmonise standards and governance 
mechanisms across jurisdictions 

Whether it is consumers who want to know about how 
recyclable a product is, MRF operators expecting a certain 
quality of supply, or recyclers trying to comply with road 
construction material specifications, there is a need for 
consistency and clarity in governance, standards and 
education across all the stages of the circular economy. 

Additionally, it would be useful to harmonise standards 
across jurisdictions to ease the burden of compliance for 
businesses, and disable waste and recycling problems being 
re-located rather than being addressed, for example, in the 
practice of re-locating stockpiles to deal with local regulatory 
limits or avoiding levies (see also recommendations 
and notes of The Australian Senate Environment and 
Communications References Committee (2018)).

There are genuine local differences in the capacity to 
treat waste and recover resources. Harmonisation does 
not mean the exact same details in standards. Common 
principles, intended outcomes, classifications, definitions 
and measurement of thresholds, can all enable cross-
government and cross-jurisdiction coordination.

Introduce and harmonise standards 
for collection and waste levies

The standard of collection services is highly varied 
across businesses and local governments. Minimum 
and harmonised standards for collection would provide 
certainty in the sector and raise the quality of material 
to downstream stages and operators. This could also 
place more burden on local government and rate payers 
(LGNSW 2020) and needs to be used in tandem with the 
practice of seeking lowest-priced bidders for waste collection 
contracts, ensuring that best value is achieved for the whole 
recycling chain. This also addresses the reported perverse 
effect of the same contractor delivering different levels 
of services and having to treat the combined recyclable 
flows at the level of the lowest common denominator.

Related to this are the differentials in waste levies across 
jurisdictions that have created a levy avoidance industry, 
both legal and illegal, resulting in recyclable material 
ending up in landfill (Serpo and Read, 2019). A first step 
in addressing this would be a national coordination of 
waste levies removing inter-jurisdictional inconsistencies.



Harmonise policy for single-use plastic products

Each jurisdiction has a different approach to implementing 
single-use plastic policy. There are opportunities 
to harmonise policies and programs across states 
and territories to reduce confusion for households. 
Moreover, as Tasmania and Victoria are in the planning 
stages for their container deposit schemes (CDSs) there 
may be opportunities to look for harmonisation with 
existing schemes (e.g. in South Australia or NSW). 
The South Australian Government is leading national 
work regarding CDS harmonisation opportunities. 

Harmonise regulatory settings for tyre recycling

The lack of consistent regulations, standards and 
specifications for tyre recycling across Australian 
jurisdictions hinders the growth of end markets and 
results in tyre loss either through illegal stockpiling, 
dumping, or export overseas. Harmonising regulations, 
policies and enforcement of tyre recycling including a 
national mandatory and regulated or co-regulated tyre 
stewardship scheme would support improved recycling 
outcomes. Ensuring all tyre imports attracted levies and 
that the cost of recycling is included in the purchase price 
of the product rather than being a cost at the end of 
the product’s life would support the viability of the tyre 
recycling industry. Moreover, a mandatory tyre stewardship 
scheme and auditing would ensure all operators act in 
accordance with best practice. In addition, harmonising 
the standards and specifications for tyre-derived products 
(TDPs) and tyre-derived fuels (TDFs) across Australian 
jurisdictions would reduce perceived risks of recyclate 
use, increase uptake of TDPs and TDFs, and support 
improved safety and environmental outcomes. 

National standards for recycled materials used 
in construction and other applications

Potential terminal use of recycled materials in the 
construction industry involves substantial volumes and 
this market could be expanded by paying specific attention 
to construction material standards. Although the needs 
are not the same as for recycled packaging (e.g. colour 
separation of glass), there are still specific standards to 
meet the engineering requirements of the construction 
industry and regulatory specifications. One obstacle to 
recycled material accessing road construction material 
markets is where performance criteria are met but the 
recycled material cannot be used because it does not 
meet prescribed specifications (Bond, 2020). National 
standards for recycled material in road construction are 
specific recommendations in COAG’s response strategy 
to phasing out exports of waste plastic, paper, glass and 
tyres (Council of Australian Governments, 2020, pp25–26)
companies and individuals all have a role in working to 
reduce waste where possible and making productive 
use of our waste as resources where we can’t avoid 
itsgeneration.In August 2019 a decision was made by the 
Council of Australian Governments (COAG. Performance-
based standards are used nationally in the Building Code 
of Australia and similar principles could be translated 
to the use of (non-standard) recycled materials. 

Government and industry peak bodies can facilitate the 
harmonisation of standards and specifications that are 
based on minimum percentages of recycled content to 
boost the use of recyclates in various applications, such 
as road and rail works, and closely monitor achieving 
those targets for recycled content. Developing national 
specifications and standards would also reduce perceived 
risks associated with using recycled materials by providing 
specific conditions that need to be met in order to attain 
an approved level of performance and increase confidence 
for suppliers and consumers operating across jurisdictions. 
Specifications that prescribe material types, qualities 
and dimensions, could include requirements related to 
recyclates (National Waste and Recycling Taskforce, 2019).

Remove duplicated burden of compliance

The burden of compliance could be eased considerably, 
not by lowering standards but by coordinating them, 
removing duplication of compliance for recycled 
products so that standards and compliance are 
recognised across jurisdictions. From interviews with 
industry, other hindrances to entering the recycled-
material market are compliance of recycling operations 
with environmental standards for waste handling 
and landfill; and burden of compliance to standards 
that move slower than the policy changes intended 
to enable the circular economy. For example, one-off 
grants30 to encourage entry into the recycling sector 
are incommensurate with the cost of environmental 
compliance that conflates waste industries with resource 
recovery and takes many months or years to respond to.

30 See Recommendation 9: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/ips/files/government-response-hor-building-up-moving-out-may-2020.pdf 
(accessed 14 July 2020)





6.4.2 Harmonise messaging to consumers, 
industry, and all levels of government

Harmonising messages to consumers through consistency 
in labelling, recycling instructions, and education 
messages will underpin effective behaviour change 
in household, commercial, and industry purchasing, 
consumption and recycling routines. This will help 
ensure reduced waste generation, cleaner recyclables are 
collected, more efficient sorting outcomes are achieved, 
and end markets for recycled products are sustained. 

Even though some differences exist among jurisdictions 
there are sufficient improvements to be made in 
strengthening consumer purchasing choices and achieving 
more effective recycling behaviours that warrant a national 
or statewide consistency in messages. Opportunities 
for national awareness and education campaigns 
would leverage the effectiveness of social approaches 
to facilitate change and achieve national targets.

For example, messaging around the value of purchasing 
products in eco-designed packaging, how to correctly 
follow labels for recycling, how to prevent contamination 
of recyclables, how to present products for recycling, 
and how to purchase products with recycled content 
would all be beneficial. In addition, education about 
waste avoidance and different ways to reuse and repair 
products will encourage waste reduction. Furthermore, 
consistent messaging around targets and goals and 
feedback on target achievement will also support 
social processes for promoting behaviour change.

Education targeting the industry sector and end users of 
recyclates would also be beneficial, and utilising peak 
industry bodies for knowledge sharing and establishing 
communities of best practice would help promulgate a 
circular economy approach to business. Education is also 
required to prepare a skilled workforce for eco-design of 
products, recycling occupations, and manufacturing of 
recycled products using innovative technologies. The role 
of government at all levels is to facilitate the collaboration 
needed to harmonise messaging and roll out fit-for-
purpose education programs across all jurisdictions. 

6.5 Enabling the circular 
economy vision

6.5.1 Implement system-level strategies 
to support industry participation in 
a circular economy and sustainable 
consumption practices 

Constraints and enablers for different parts of the circular 
economy are not always proximal. In other words, there 
may be key enablers or inhibitors upstream or downstream 
from a given stage. Some system-level considerations 
for both inside and outside the resource-recovery 
industry to improve resilience of the sector and broader 
participation in the circular economy are discussed below. 

Enable a smooth transition to a circular economy 
through grandfathering existing contracts

One structural–institutional consideration is the usual 
duration of contracts that local government and business 
have with collection contractors. This is often 3–7 years 
(Allan, 2019) and, from interviews with industry and 
local government, usually greater than 5 years. Similar 
contract duration occurs in the stages between material 
recovery and consumers of recyclate. To avoid uncertainty 
in the sector, and opaque legal implications for local 
government, any policy intervention on the waste 
collection and resource-recovery sector with shorter time 
frames, needs to allow for grandfathering of existing 
contractual arrangements as part of a smooth transition 
to activities that align with a circular economy approach.

Promote a culture of material responsibility

Developing a culture of civic environmental responsibility 
has been an important feature in countries with higher 
recovery rates. For example, Germany progressively reduced 
allowed flows to landfill until 2005 when operators were 
banned from sending any untreated waste directly to 
landfill (Fischer, 2013). This process was difficult, but the 
cultural change has stuck, and the strategy has survived 
through several changes in government over more than 
20 years. The long transition period to a challenging 
target allowed businesses to adjust but also engendered 
a national culture of responsibility for material recovery.

In Australia, recovery rates from MUDs are conspicuously 
low, and many residents do not fully understand what is 
and what is not recyclable due to the lack of a consistent 
and sustained approach to education (Victorian Auditor-
General’s Office, 2019). MUDS are an increasing proportion 
of the dwelling stock and any effective planning and policy 
interventions here will have increasing impact over time.



Enable end-to-end efficacy for resource recovery

A number of key issues were identified through the 
literature review, submissions to various government 
enquiries, and interviews conducted across the waste 
and resource-recovery sector. Supporting one part 
of the recycling sector does not mean there will be 
a contract for source-separated collection, a market 
for the recycled material, or regulatory acceptance of 
novel materials (e.g. for road construction). Actions are 
required at each stage of the circular economy cycle and 
it is important to recognise key synergies for these to 
be effective. Possible actions include the following: 

• Improving the quality of collected material requires 
simultaneous implementation of product design that 
enables easy separation at source, standardised labelling 
on recyclability, and consumer education on labelling 
and separation-at-source behaviours. These have to 
work together and only result in more high-quality 
recovery if there are concurrently improved collection 
systems and greater capacity to re-process material.
• Burden of compliance can be addressed with material 
and cross-jurisdictional standards to improve certainty 
and reduce duplication (see also Section 6.4). This 
also has to work with key drivers of the market: 
government procurement of collection services 
and procurement planning, and increased capacity 
to supply compliant quality recycled material.
• For transport and logistics, the COAG Response Strategy 
(2020)companies and individuals all have a role in 
working to reduce waste where possible and making 
productive use of our waste as resources where we 
can’t avoid itsgeneration.In August 2019 a decision was 
made by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG 
suggests targeted locations for additional recycling 
capacity, to reduce transport costs. This should work with 
state infrastructure plans and the small-scale, regional 
actions of Section 6.2.2, where there are opportunities 
to engage SMEs and region-specific markets for 
recycled products. It would also help to coordinate 
waste levies to discourage transfer of waste problems.


Enable broader participation in the 
circular economy supply chain

• The margins for resource recovery can be small, 
markets few and concentrated. Under such conditions, 
certainty of supply and end use for recovered 
materials is of a premium value. To enable this, there 
is a need for broad acceptance and participation 
of many sectors in the circular economy:
• reduce the risk to other business in adopting 
a circular economy approach, for example, 
support for innovation in product development 
that uses recycled materials as inputs
• build SME capability to develop resource-recovery plans 
and participation in a circular economy supply chain
• retaining quality and value in recycled material 
flows, enables a more distributed resource-recovery 
sector at smaller scales that are accessible to SMEs
• regional and niche solutions such as 
reuse mentioned in Section 6.2.2
• scaling up chemical or ‘feedstock recycling’ where 
waste plastic is depolymerised to monomers that can 
be used as feedstock into many different applications
• institutional changes to incentivise the circular economy. 
For example, recycled material for construction is often 
needed in large volumes over a short time period 
(~months) to effectively substitute for virgin material. 
Some state-level regulations restricting stockpiling 
are a friction to this market unless recyclers can work 
collectively or more stockpiling at ‘clean’ MRFs is possible
• investment in technology for virtual hubs that 
connect producers, collectors, transporters, 
recyclers and end users to enable timely information 
exchange, the identification of circular economy 
opportunities and facilitate efficient use of resources. 
An example of such a platform is ASPIRE, which 
intelligently matches businesses with potential 
remanufacturers, purchasers or recyclers of waste 
resources (ASPIRE, 2019; King et al., 2020).




Promote waste avoidance, and 
product reuse and repair

A fundamental premise to the circular economy is the 
avoidance and prevention of waste generation. This takes 
place not only during the production of a product where 
eliminating waste and reducing the use of natural resources 
such as water and energy is critical, but also, during the 
way a product is consumed. Substitution of a disposable 
product with an alternate reusable product, eliminating 
unnecessary transport, packaging and purchases, instituting 
a paperless office, and avoiding single-use products such 
as single-use glass and plastic are all ways to avoid waste 
generation. Public education and procurement guidelines 
and policies that stipulate waste reduction as a criterion for 
purchase and encourage product attributes such as product 
durability, and minimal packaging would encourage waste 
reduction. In addition, reuse and repair of products along 
with different models of consuming products such as 
through leasing and purchasing of second-hand goods, 
would also reduce waste generation and prolong the 
use of valuable materials. To ensure product substitution 
decisions and other changes to the consumption system 
don’t inadvertently shift the problem to a less sustainable 
solution, undertaking comparative life-cycle assessments 
are recommended to ensure the best solution is identified. 

6.5.2 Build a broader commitment to 
Australia’s development of a circular 
economy

Further develop national targets, data, 
and metrics for a circular economy

Australia has clear targets within the National Waste 
Policy. Embedding those targets within state and territory 
policy and plans will support a coherent approach to 
sustainable waste management and resource-recovery 
solutions and a circular economy. However, metrics that 
are used to measure Australia’s progress towards these 
targets are underdeveloped. While some progress has been 
made to establish circular economy metrics, there are no 
internationally agreed metrics that Australia might apply. 
An opportunity exists for Australia to develop a national set 
of circular economy metrics for plastics, paper and glass that 
connect concepts such as design and adoption of circular 
business models with macro-economic material flows 
through the supply chain, uptake of recycled products, and 
track Australia’s progress towards an 80% resource-recovery 
rate. In addition, a focus on improving the quality and extent 
of waste data, data across the supply chain, and tracking of 
material flows across jurisdictions is necessary to provide an 
evidence base, for decision making and informing actions 
and initiatives including information to support business 
cases for new innovation and investment opportunities.

Increase industry engagement with 
packaging product stewardship 

Interview feedback indicated that Australia’s voluntary 
packaging product stewardship would benefit from 
mandatory involvement in order to realise the 2025 targets. 
This would reduce the problem of ‘free rider’ companies 
operating outside of the APCO 2025 targets, which 
jeopardises Australia’s broader commitment to achieving 
resource efficiency and the circular economy. However, 
should APCO continue as a voluntary product stewardship 
initiative then there is a need for new initiatives that 
target participation by companies that are eligible to join, 
but choose not to. An example is to improve recruitment 
messaging to companies and build incentives and 
advantages for companies who are members of APCO.

Link with international initiatives

The issue of imported materials not being subject to APCO 
targets was raised as a concern by a number of interview 
participants. This is particularly an issue for plastics and 
paper where imported packaging may not be recyclable. 
There are challenges in monitoring imported packaging 
materials for consistency with APCO targets and the 
Australian Government is unlikely to take a regulatory 
approach to managing imported materials. Instead, imported 
packaging might be addressed thorough connection with 
international initiatives and organisations such as the 
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), The UK Plastics Pact, 
the UN Environment Programme, and the UN Sustainable 
Development Goals. Much of this coordination, particularly 
for plastics is via Australia’s peak industry body, APCO who 
announced the ANZPAC Plastics Pact in March 2020. This 
arrangement connects Australian companies with the EMF 
and multinationals who service global supply chains. By 
connecting to international initiatives, Australian imports 
of packaging may benefit from regulation and initiatives 
in other countries, such as the UK 2022 tax on imports of 
non-recyclable packaging. Multinational brands delivering 
to the UK may also deliver to Australia and therefore 
Australian imported packaging may indirectly benefit from 
increased regulation for packaging in other markets.

Another reason to link to international initiatives is that 
waste challenges are shared and extend beyond Australian 
borders. This is particularly the case with addressing 
marine plastic pollution and therefore international 
coordination on efforts to combat marine waste is a 
priority. Australia can also provide regional leadership on 
innovation initiatives, for example, the Indonesia–Australia 
Systemic Innovation Lab on Marine Plastic Waste.



In the case of tyres, international research collaborations 
have addressed solutions for sustainable outcomes for 
the different stages of the tyre life cycle. For example, the 
World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s 
Tire Industry Project is a global initiative undertaken by 
leading tyre-manufacturing companies that drives research 
on potential human health and environmental impacts of 
tyres throughout their life cycle. Together, Tire Industry 
Project member companies work towards sustainable 
solutions on topics such as sustainable natural rubber, tyre 
and road-wear particles, and end-of-life tyre management 
(World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2020). 

Build national manufacturing resilience 

The experience of the COVID-19 global pandemic has 
been far reaching. It is important that Australia emerges 
with a more resilient and diverse economy including 
recognition of the essential service provided by the waste 
management and recycling sector. The record low cost 
of virgin plastics is disrupting global plastics recycling 
by making it uneconomic31 to recycle, and similarly, 
global cardboard businesses have warned of a shortage32 
because of interruptions to kerbside recycling collection 
services. Such impacts could also be experienced in 
Australia, particularly effecting the Australian plastics 
recycling market as these companies also compete 
with virgin materials and international markets. 

Building manufacturing reprocessing capability requires 
support for SMEs, and coordination of manufacturing, 
waste, and industry policy to bring about a supportive 
environment for investment into new business that 
reprocess materials. This is also necessary to move from a 
linear recycling mindset, to a circular economy. Investment 
in research and innovation are also essential to enable 
industrial ecology and a more circular economy.

Education to support a circular economy culture shift

A circular economy requires a shift in the way waste is valued 
as a resource and how material cycles can be made more 
circular. This warrants a multi-tiered education program 
that extends across all levels: primary, secondary, tertiary, 
adult (including university-level education) to support the 
circular economy. Moreover, education and developing 
capability in industry, particularly in SMEs, to undertake 
planning and implementation of circular economy initiatives 
would support such a shift. Government programs and 
involvement of industry peak bodies would be instrumental 
in brokering new learnings and knowledge and building 
this type of capability for embedding a circular economy. 



31 https://packagingeurope.com/european-plastics-recycling-industry-warns-of-shut-down/ (accessed 14 July 2020)

32 https://packagingeurope.com/european-industry-organisations-warn-of-cardboard-shortage/ (accessed 14 July 2020)



Concluding remarks

This industry and innovation roadmap is the result of an 
in-depth review of existing knowledge and engagement 
with industry and government stakeholders in Australia 
to identify a way forward for unlocking the potential of 
a circular economy for four waste materials – plastic, 
glass, paper and tyres. It identifies opportunities for 
increased circularity in the material supply chains of these 
materials starting with the substituting and phasing 
out materials that have no clear path for recycling and 
the redesigning of materials, products and processes to 
enable reuse and recycling. In the process, the research 
team, together with stakeholders, have focused on 
such opportunities that can be implemented in the 
Australian economic context and are supported by the 
existing economic and governance arrangements.

The objective of the roadmap was to address the short-
term needs of the upcoming waste export ban, including 
the creation of infrastructure and markets for increased 
domestic processing of waste, and the long-term 
opportunities for new industries and business models 
based on circularity. The main advantage of the circular 
economy concept is that it is a genuinely economic 
framework. It helps identify economic opportunities 
based on research and development and innovative 
approaches, achieving significant and sometimes very 
large environmental co-benefits of resource conservation, 
resource productivity and waste minimisation. The fact that 
the circular economy aligns economic and environmental 
objectives has made it a powerful tool, now employed in 
many parts of the world. It is a process driven by industry 
and the innovation system and supported by policy.

In the roadmap we have identified a way forward for 
reducing the amount of plastic, glass, paper and tyres 
that ends up in landfill or leaks to the environment that 
is achieved through a strategy implemented over the 
next decade. The roadmap includes five main elements 
which align practical opportunities to improved 
governance. The five key clusters of strategies include

• retaining the quality of materials at all stages of 
the material supply chain, from cradle to grave
• upscaling and innovating recycling technologies and 
enabling the digital and technological innovations 
required for waste minimisation and increased circularity
• boosting market development and creating 
demand for secondary materials
• achieving nationally consistent governance through 
shared institutions and national standards
• enabling the circular economy vision in industry, 
government and the community at large.


Retain quality of materials

From the viewpoint of creating a circular economy, it 
is important to keep materials in circulation for longer 
and more often. This allows replacing additional needs 
for virgin materials with secondary materials and helps 
resource conservation, it also reduces waste going to 
landfill and allows value-adding to the same material 
multiple times. It requires avoiding the mixing of 
materials from design to collection and creating products 
that can easily be disassembled, collected, sorted, and 
graded by quality. Improving the quality of materials 
throughout the life cycle, and avoiding contamination, 
helps avoid material loss and secures clean feedstock 
for recycling and high-quality secondary materials.

Upscale and innovate 
recycling technologies

While there are many medium-term to long-term 
opportunities for new materials, products and processes 
that avoid unsustainable material supply chains, there is an 
immediate need to grow the national recycling capability 
in Australia to manage compounding amounts of waste 
materials and stockpiles. There is a need to increase the 
recycling infrastructure for plastics, glass, paper and tyres 
through strategic investment by industry in alignment 
with public investment by federal and state government 
programs. Building the Australian recycling infrastructure 
will benefit from streamlined approval processes for new 
facilities and science–industry collaboration, which will 
ensure that innovation can be readily implemented. 

Depending on their size, recycling facilities will depend 
on a continuous quantity and quality of waste materials 
and there will be an opportunity to create regional 
facilities that can support regional economic development 
whilst attaining waste reduction objectives. Regional 
recycling facilities will enable local uses of recyclate, will 
create waste and recycling hubs with reverse logistics, 
and can aim towards industry and business precincts 
committed to circular economy approaches. There are 
good examples of microfactories, composting facilities 
and waste-to-energy solutions that can operate at a 
smaller scale and can contribute to regional, local and 
community-based solutions, especially in places where 
transport infrastructure is an important constraint.



Boost market development and 
demand for secondary materials

The growing supply of secondary materials from domestic 
recycling facilities will require growth in markets for 
these materials – for reuse either in manufacturing or 
construction – to make the supply chains truly circular. 
In many circumstances, this market development will 
benefit from changes in product standards made to 
accommodate the use of secondary materials. There is a 
role for government procurement to drive market demand 
for recyclables. Industry can contribute through forward 
commitment procurement with the large potential in 
the construction industry to absorb substantial amounts 
of secondary materials. A focus on manufacturing 
may also help reviving the Australian manufacturing 
industry and can create employment and revenue. 

An important aspect of developing markets is 
innovation and design for the circular economy. Such 
an approach will benefit from a coordinated effort by 
the Australian innovation system. Design innovation 
programs that can be operated by government could 
bring together science and industry and allow for 
shorter paths to implementation for new technologies 
and business models. Experimentation will play a role 
in designing new materials, products and processes, 
and creating new market demand for such products.

Nationally consistent governance 
(institutions and standards)

Unlocking the potential of the circular economy and 
transitioning from the current take–make–dispose 
economic model to circular material supply chains will 
benefit from and be enabled by nationally consistent 
expectations and rules and an even economic context 
that creates favourable conditions for industry 
participation in the circular economy. Harmonising 
standards and governance mechanisms can be achieved 
by the different jurisdictions working together with 
the Australian Government taking the lead. 

Harmonisation will include common standards for 
collection and waste levies, harmonised policy for single-
use plastic products, harmonised regulatory settings 
for tyre recycling and a national standard for recycled 
materials used in construction and other applications. 
Well-designed policy guidance and governance 
mechanisms will remove duplication of effort and 
bring about a shifting of burdens and responsibilities. 
A nationally uniform set of rules will help reduce the 
burden of compliance for industry participants.

Consistency in labelling, recycling instructions, and 
messaging for households and for commercial and 
government purchasing will complement government 
efforts to facilitate the circular economy transition 
in Australia. This will help develop practices and 
routines in private and corporate consumers to 
engage in waste avoidance and reuse behaviours.



Enable the circular economy vision

The circular economy needs to become a national project, 
built on policy and investment priorities that support 
industry participation and sustainable consumption 
practices. Policy, governance mechanisms and incentives 
that support circularity and sustainable materials 
management will need to work hand in hand with 
infrastructure investment and research and development 
to create new opportunities in the circular economy. The 
success of a circular economy will crucially depend on the 
capacity for innovation and experimentation, the ability to 
develop new skills and train or retrain existing employees, 
and the scope for changing consumer expectations.

Industry and government stakeholders agree that it 
will be important to build a broad commitment to 
Australia’s circular economy. The transition will benefit 
from developing national targets, data, and metrics for 
a circular economy to measure progress, by increasing 
engagement with packaging product stewardship 
and from linking with international initiatives. By 
embracing the circular economy, Australia can build 
national manufacturing resilience to deal with system 
shocks and provide multi-tiered education to support 
a circular economy shift in investment, expectations 
and practice that will support Australia’s next wave of 
innovation and industrial and manufacturing growth.

Research and development

Research and development will be required to support 
this strategy, generating the next wave of innovation for 
creating wealth from waste. Industry and the innovation 
community will need to work together to address the 
needs of a circular economy and enable innovative 
approaches to become the new best practice in industry, 
in government and in guiding responsible consumption. 
CSIRO will use its core position in the Australian innovation 
system to act as a catalyst for creating the next wave of 
innovation with industry, to support a transition to a 
circular economy and to unlock the environmental and 
economic benefits that come with that transition. 

Metrics, data and indicators

Understanding the progress of the circular economy in 
Australia will require new metrics, data and indicators 
that allow us to measure policy effectiveness and industry 
and community success in increasing the circularity of 
material flows. The metrics and indicators will address 
all aspects of the circular economy, which include the 
energy sector and technical and biological material supply 
chains. The measures need to cover materials that are 
managed domestically and products that are imported 
to Australia, allowing for a production and footprint 
perspective on circularity. Comprehensive datasets and 
indicators need to be made available for industry, local 
communities, state and federal governments. This will 
allow us to measure Australia’s progress on its way to a 
circular economy, creating the technologies and business 
models that will underpin the economic prosperity 
and environmental sustainability of our future. 



References

ABS. (2019). “Waste Account Australia, Experimental 
Estimates, 2016-17 Cat: 4602.0.55.005.” Canberra, 
Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Access Economics (2009). Employment in waste 
management and recycling. Australian 
Government. Canberra, Australia.

ACOR (2019) ACOR submission in response to “Discussion 
paper on implementing August 2019 decision of 
Council of Australian Governments (COAG)”. Canberra. 
Available at: https://www.environment.gov.au/
protection/waste-resource-recovery/coag-waste-
export-ban-consultation (Accessed: 20 July 2020).

Advanced Circular Polymers. (2020). Our process: ACP 
runs Australia’s largest polymer identification 
and flake manufacturer plant. Retrieved from 
https://www.acpolymers.com.au/our-process/

AFPA. (2018). Australian Forest Production Association. 
The 2018 National pulp & paper sustainability 
report. Retrieved: https://ausfpa.com.au/
wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2018-National-
Pulp-and-Paper-Sustainability-Report.pdf

Aiello, M.A., Leuzzi, F., Centonze, G., Maffezzoli, A. 
(2009) Use of steel fibres recovered from waste 
tyres as reinforcement in concrete: Pull-out 
behaviour, compressive and flexural strength. 
Waste Management 29(6): 1960-1970. 

AIHW (2019) Hospital resources 2017–18: Australian 
hospital statistics, Australian Institute of Health 
and Welfare. Available at: https://www.aihw.
gov.au/reports/hospitals/hospital-resources-
2017-18-ahs/contents/hospitals-and-average-
available-beds (Accessed: 27 April 2020).

Allan, Peter (2019). Assessment of Australian Recycling 
Infrastructure - Glass Packaging. Sustainable 
Resource Use Pty Ltd. Victoria, Australia.

Almeida, J., Pellec, M. L. and Bengtsson, J. (2018) 
Reusable coffee cups life cycle assessment and 
benchmark, Edge Environment. Sydney, Australia. 

Alvarez, J. V. L., Larrucea, M. A., Bermúdez, P. A., 
& Chicote, B. L. (2009). Biodegradation of paper 
waste under controlled composting conditions. 
Waste Management, 29(5), 1514-1519. 

AMCOR. (2019). “Amcor launches new recyclable packaging, 
making progress towards its 2025 pledge.” https://
www.amcor.com/media/news/amcor-launches-
new-recyclable-packaging-making-progress-
towards-2025-pledge (Accessed: 10 July 2020).

Andersen, M. S. (2007). An introductory note on 
the environmental economics of the circular 
economy. Sustainability Science, 2(1), 133-140. 

Antoniou, N., Stavropoulos, G., Zabaniotou, A. 
(2014) Activation of end of life tyres pyrolytic 
char for enhancing viability of pyrolysis – 
Critical review, analysis and recommendations 
for a hybrid dual system. Renewable & 
Sustainable Energy Reviews 39: 1053-1073. 

APCO (2018). Business and Government Unite to Tackle 
Waste Challenge, APCO Website. Available at: 
https://www.packagingcovenant.org.au/news/
business-and-government-unite-to-tackle-
waste-challenge (Accessed: 15 July 2019).

APCO (2019a). Biodegradable compostable 
packaging. Sydney, Australia: APCO.

APCO (2019b). Expanded Polystyrene Working Group 
2018. Sydney, Australia: Australian Packaging 
Covenant Organisation. Available at: https://
www.packagingcovenant.org.au/documents/
item/2176 (Accessed: 16 July 2019).

APCO (2019b). Packaging Consumption & Recycling 
– 2017-18 Baseline Data. https://www.
packagingcovenant.org.au/documents/item/3164.

APCO (2019c). Single-Use, Problematic and Unnecessary 
Plastic Packaging. Sydney, Australia.

APCO (2019d). Soft Plastic Packaging. Sydney, Australia: 
APCO. Available at: https://www.packagingcovenant.
org.au/news/2018-working-groups-key-findings-
now-available (Accessed: 15 May 2019).

APCO (2020a). Considerations for Compostable 
Plastic Packaging. Sydney, Australia. Available 
at: https://www.packagingcovenant.org.au/
documents/item/3222 (Accessed: 13 May 2020).

APCO (2020b). Our Packaging Future - a collective 
impact framework to achieve the 2025 national 
packaging targets. Sydney, Australia. Available 
at: https://www.packagingcovenant.org.au/
documents/item/3214 (Accessed: 2 April 2020).

APCO. (2019a). “Glass Working Group 2018.” https://www.
packagingcovenant.org.au/documents/item/2177.

ASPIRE. (2019) ASPIRE. Available at: https://
aspiresme.com/ (Accessed 1.12.2019). 

ATRA. (2019). ATRA. Available at: https://
atra.org.au/ (accessed 2.12.2019). 

Australasian Bioplastics Association (2020) 
Bioplastics Explained. Available at: https://
www.bioplastics.org.au/bioplastics/bioplastics-
explained/ (Accessed: 27 April 2020).

Australian Government. (2018a). 2018 National Waste Policy: 
less waste more resources. Retrieved from https://
www.environment.gov.au/protection/waste-resource-
recovery/publications/national-waste-policy-2018





Australian Government. (2019a). Assessment of Australia’s 
recycling and remanufacturing capability. 

Australian Government. (2019b). Australian 
waste exports, 2018-19. 

Australian Government. (2019c). National 
Waste Policy. Retrieved from https://www.
environment.gov.au/protection/waste-
resource-recovery/national-waste-policy

Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation. (2019a). 
Biodegradeable & compost packaging working 
group 2018. Retrieved from https://www.
packagingcovenant.org.au/documents/item/2175

Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation. 
(2019b). Polymer coated paperboard working 
group 2018. Retrieved from https://www.
packagingcovenant.org.au/documents/item/2178

Australian Road Research Board (ARRB). 2020. Traffic 
test for crumb rubber asphalt mixes. Accessed 
26.6.2020 from: https://www.arrb.com.au/news/
traffic-test-for-crumb-rubber-asphalt-mixes 

Bandag. (2019). Think environment! Available 
at: https://www.bandag.eu/en/think-environment/
think-environment/ (accessed 7.12.2019) 

Bartl, A., Hackl, A., Mihalyi, B., Wistuba, M., Marini, 
I. (2005) Recycling of fibre materials. Process Safety 
and Environmental Protection 83(B4):351-358. 

Beltrán, A., Guardefto, L. M., Hortal, M., Calvo, T., & 
Aucejo, S. (2014). Development of a biodegradable 
coating based on seaweed extracts and 
starch for food packaging applications.

Berg, P. a. L., O. (2019). Pulp, paper, and packaging 
in the next decade: Transformational change 
Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/
industries/paper-forest-products-and-packaging/
our-insights/pulp-paper-and-packaging-in-
the-next-decade-transformational-change

Better Buds (2020) Better Buds. Available at: https://
www.betterbuds.org.au/ (Accessed: 20 July 2020).

Blue Environment Pty Ltd. (2019). ABS waste data export 
from Australia for February 2020 Retrieved from: 
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/
resources/1a4bbcf3-e449-4ee8-95b9-f54e8ea58530/
files/abs-waste-data-export-australia-february2020.xlsx

Blue Environment Pty Ltd. (2018). National Waste Report 
2018. Melbourne, Australia. https://www.environment.
gov.au/protection/waste-resource-recovery/national-
waste-reports/national-waste-report-2018.

Bockstal, L., Berchem, T., Schetz, Q., Richel, A. 
(2019) Devulcanisation and reclaiming of tires 
and rubber by physical and chemical processes: 
A review. Journal of Cleaner Production 236: 117574. 

Bunce, S. (2010) Seychelles incinerator sustainability 
preliminary study. Sustainability for Seychelles. 
Mahé, Seychelles. Available at: http://www.
s4seychelles.com/uploads/6/1/6/7/6167574/
incinerator.eia_s4s.pdf (24 July, 2020)

Centre for International Economics. (2019). 
“Microeconomic Analysis of Waste Industry 
Supply Chains.” Sydney, Australia.

Chamas, A. et al. (2020) ‘Degradation Rates of 
Plastics in the Environment’, ACS Sustainable 
Chemistry and Engineering, 8, pp. 3494–3511. 

Choice (2020) Breaking down plastic, Choice. Available 
at: https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/packaging-
labelling-and-advertising/packaging/articles/
biodegradable-plastic#label (Accessed: 20 March 2020).

CIE. (2020). Final Report: Costs and Benefits of Banning 
Exports of Waste. Retrieved from Sydney, Australia

Close the Loop (2020). TonerPave. Available at: https://www.
closetheloop.com.au/tonerpave/ (Accessed: 28 May 2020).

Closed Loop Partners (2019) Accelerating Circular 
Supply Chains for Plastics. Available at: https://
www.closedlooppartners.com/wp-content/
uploads/2020/01/CLP_Circular_Supply_Chains_
for_Plastics.pdf (Accessed: 11 March 2020).

COAG (2020) Phasing out exports of waste plastic, 
paper, glass and tyres. Canberra. Available at: 
https://www.coag.gov.au/sites/default/files/
communique/phasing-out-waste-exports-response-
strategy.pdf (Accessed: 14 March 2020).

Coca-Cola Amatil (2019) ‘Coca-Cola Australia and Coca-Cola 
Amatil announce a major increase in recycled plastic’, 
Coca-Cola Amatil, 16 April, pp. 10–12. Available at: 
https://www.ccamatil.com/-/media/Cca/Corporate/
Files/Media-Releases/2019/Coca-Cola-Australia-
and-Coca-Cola-Amatil-announce-a-major-increase-
in-recycled-plastic.ashx (Accessed: 24 July 2020)

Commonwealth of Australia. (2014) Factsheet—Product 
stewardship for end-of-life tyres, Commonwealth of 
Australia. Available at: https://www.environment.gov.
au/system/files/resources/c9bd576e-d8d0-4e12-9351-
f1ee8ba27ce0/files/35159-fs-tps.pdf (accessed 16.7.2020). 

Council of Australian Governments. (2020). “Phasing 
out Exports of Waste Plastic, Paper, Glass and 
Tyres.” Canberra, Australia. https://www.coag.
gov.au/sites/default/files/communique/phasing-
out-waste-exports-response-strategy.pdf.

CSIRO. (2019) Transport Network Strategic Investment 
Tool (TraNSIT). Available at: https://www.
csiro.au/en/Research/LWF/Areas/Landscapes/
Transport-logistics-TRANSIT (accessed 1.12.2019) 

Cuthbertson, D. (2018). How the MCG got ahead of 
the recycling game. Sydney Morning Herald. 
Retrived: https://www.smh.com.au/environment/
sustainability/how-the-mcg-got-ahead-of-the-
recycling-game-20180503-p4zd5f.html

Dayman, I. (2017) ‘SA plastics recycling business closes 
due to $100k hike in power bills’, ABC News, June. 
Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-
27/sa-recycling-business-power-bills-rise-causing-
closure/8654638. (Accessed: 24 July, 2020)

de Jesus, A., & Mendonça, S. (2018). Lost in Transition? 
Drivers and Barriers in the Eco-innovation Road to the 
Circular Economy. Ecological Economics, 145, 75-89. 





DEE (2019a) Australian waste exports, 2018–19. 
Australian Government. Canberra: Department 
of the Environment and Energy, Australia.

DEE. (2019b). ‘National Waste Policy Action Plan 
2019.’ Canberra: Department of Environment 
and Energy. https://www.environment.gov.au/
system/files/resources/5b86c9f8-074e-4d66-
ab11-08bbc69da240/files/national-waste-policy-
action-plan-2019.pdf (accessed 9 July 2020).

DELWP (2020) Recycling Victoria A new economy. 
Victoria State Government. Melbourne, Australia.

Department of Environment and Energy. (2018). Analysis 
of Australia’s municipal recycling infrastructure 
capacity October 2018. Australian Government.

Department of Environment and Energy. (2019). Recycling 
market development review. Sustainable Resource Use. 

Department of the Environment and Energy. (2018). 
“Analysis of Australia’s Municipal Recycling 
Infrastructure Capacity.” Canberra, Australia: 
Commonwealth Department of the Environment 
and Energy. https://www.environment.gov.au/
system/files/resources/f0196d2e-9040-4547-8cb6-
8b433923b53d/files/waste-stocktake-report.pdf.

Deshwal, G. K., Panjagari, N. R., & Alam, T. (2019). An overview 
of paper and paper based food packaging materials: 
health safety and environmental concerns. Journal of 
Food Science and Technology, 56(10), 4391-4403. 

DeSilver, D. (2016). Perceptions and realities of recycling vary 
widely from place to place. Retrieved from https://www.
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/07/perceptions-and-
realities-of-recycling-vary-widely-from-place-to-place/

Dilkes-Hoffman, L. S. et al. (2019) ‘Public attitudes 
towards plastics’, Resources, Conservation 
and Recycling, 147(January), pp. 227–235. 

Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment and 
Ministry of Economic Affairs (2016). Government of the 
Netherlands, Available at: https://www.government.nl/
documents/leaflets/2016/09/22/a-circular-economy-
in-the-netherlands-by-2050 (Accessed, 24 July, 2020)

ECORoads (2020) Eco Roads. Available at: https://
www.roads.eco/ (Accessed: 28 May 2020).

Edwards, C. and Fry, J. (2011) Life Cycle Assessment 
of supermarket carrier bags: a review of 
the bags available in 2006. Bristol. 

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2016) The New Plastics 
Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics & Catalysing 
Action, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes, UK. 

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013). Towards the 
Circular Economy Vol 1: economic and business 
rationale for accelerated transition. Cowes, UK.

Environment and communications references committee. 
(2018). Never waste a crisis: the waste and recycling 
industry in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia Retrieved 
from https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/
Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/
WasteandRecycling/~/media/Committees/ec_ctte/
WasteandRecycling/Report/report.pdf

EPA NSW. (2010). Environmental Benefits of Recycling. 
Sydney, Australia: NSW Environment Protection 
Authority. https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-
environment/recycling-and-reuse/business-government-
recycling/recyculator/benefits-of-recycling.

Esposito et al. (2018). Introducing a Circular Economy: 
New Thinking with New Managerial and Policy 
Implications. Calif. Manage. Rev. 60, 5–19.

European Commission (2018) A European Strategy 
for Plastics in a Circular Economy. Brussels. 

European Commission. (2014). Flash Eurobarometer 388 
“Attitudes of Europeans towards Waste Management and 
Resource Efficiency”. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.
eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_388_en.pdf

European Environment Agency (2016). Circular economy 
in Europe: Developing the knowledge base. 
Luxembourg, European Environment Agency.

European Parliament Directive (2008). Directive 2008/98/
EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 
November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. 
Official Journal of the European Union L, 312(3).

Evans, S. (2020, 19 February 2020). Pact bets on plastics 
recycling with Cleanaway and Asahi. Financial Review. 
Retrieved from https://www.afr.com/companies/
manufacturing/pact-group-bets-on-plastics-recycling-
with-cleanaway-and-asahi-20200218-p5420p

Ezeudu, O. B., Agunwamba, J.C., Ezeasor, I.C., and Madu, C.N. 
(2019). Sustainable Production and Consumption of Paper 
and Paper Products in Nigeria: A Review. Resources, 8, 23. 

Fattal, A., Kelly, S., Liu, A., Giurco, D. (2016) Waste 
fires in Australia: cause for concern? Prepared 
for: Department of the environment Australia 
Government by Institute for Sustainable Futures 
(ISF) of the University of Technology Sydney. 

Flood, Michael, Tanmay Bhat, Everson Kandare, Liam Fennessy, 
Simon Lockrey, Areli Avedano, and Judith Glover. 
(2018). Glass Fines Final Report. Melbourne, Australia: 
RMIT University School of Architecture and Design.

Fraile-Garcia, E., Ferreiro-Cabello, J., Pernia-Espinoza, 
A., & Martinez-de-Pison, F. J. (2019). Technical-
economic assessment of redesigned reinforced 
concrete pre-slabs: Incorporating corrugated 
cardboard. Structural Concrete, 20(4), 1340-1349. 

Garcia, J. and Robertson, M. (2017) ‘The future of plastics 
recycling’, Science, 358(636), pp. 870–872. 

Garside, M. (2019). Paper industry - statistics & facts. Statista. 
Retrieved: https://www.statista.com/topics/1701/
paper-industry/#dossierSummary__chapter1

Gea, T., Artola, A., & Sánchez, A. (2005). Composting of de-
inking sludge from the recycled paper manufacturing 
industry. Bioresource Technology, 96(10), 1161-1167. 

Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J., 
(2017). The Circular Economy – A new sustainability 
paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143, 757–768. Gigli, S., Landi, D., 
& Germani, M. (2019). Cost-benefit analysis of a circular 
economy project: a study on a recycling system for end-
of-life tyres. Journal of Cleaner Production, 229, 680-694. 



Genever, M., O’Farrell, K., Randell, P., Rebecchi, J. (2017) 
National market development strategy for used tyres. 
Final strategy. Randell Environmental Consulting, 2017. 

Gitlitz, J. (2013) Bottled up: Beverage container recycling 
stagnates (2000-2010), Container Recycling Institute. 
Culver City, CA. Available at: http://www.container-
recycling.org/images/stories/PDF/BottledUp-
BCR2000-2010.pdf (Accessed: 29 November 2019).

Gonzalez, R., Hughes, E. (2019). Tyre recycling capacity and 
change. A submission to Australian Tyre Recyclers 
Association, a division of the Australian Council 
of Recyclers (ACOR). MRA Consulting Group. 

Gray, D. (2020). Pact plugs into plan for $30m plastic 
recycling plant in Albury. The Sydney Morning 
Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/
business/companies/pact-plugs-into-30m-plastic-
recycling-plant-in-albury-20200219-p5429j.html

Haggith, M., Kinsella, S., Baffoni, S., Anderson, P., Ford, J., 
Leithe, R., Neyroumande, E., Murtha, N. and Tinhou, B. 
(2018). The state of the global paper industry. Retrieved 
from https://environmentalpaper.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/04/StateOfTheGlobalPaperIndustry2018_
FullReport-Final-1.pdf

Hannam, P. (2019) ‘“Game-changer”: NSW scheme 
collects 2 billion containers in 19 months’, The 
Sydney Morning Herald, 1 July. Available at: https://
www.smh.com.au/environment/sustainability/
game-changer-nsw-scheme-collects-2-billion-
containers-in-19-months-20190701-p52303.html.

Harder, Joachim. (2018). “Glass Recycling – Current 
Market Trends.” Recovery, 2018. https://www.
recovery-worldwide.com/en/artikel/glass-
recycling-current-market-trends_3248774.html.

Hardesty, B. D. et al. (2014) Understanding the effects of 
marine debris on wildlife. CSIRO. Hobart, Australia.

Hayden, E.C. (2011). Renewable rubber hits the 
road. Nature 30 September 2011. doi:10.1038/
news.2011.568. Available at: http://www.
nature.com/news/2011/110930/full/
news.2011.568.html (accessed 10.6.2020) 

Hazell (2017). Getting it right from the start - 
Developing a circular economy for novel 
materials. The Green Alliance Trust, London.

Heriyanto, Farshid Pahlevani, and Veena Sahajwalla. 
(2018a). “From Waste Glass to Building Materials 
– An Innovative Sustainable Solution for Waste 
Glass.” Journal of Cleaner Production 191: 192–206. 

Heriyanto, Farshid Pahlevani, and Veena Sahajwalla. 
(2018b). “Synthesis of Calcium Silicate from Selective 
Thermal Transformation of Waste Glass and Waste 
Shell.” Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 3019–27. 

Hla, S. S., Cousins, A. and Roberts, D. (2014) 
Waste to Energy. Melbourne. CSIRO

Hong, D., Lee, H., Yan, Y., & Suk, H.-J. (2019). 
Design Attributes for a More Eco-friendly 
Takeout Cup Using Conjoint Analysis. Archives 
of Design Research, 32(2), 57-69. 

Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R. and Kosior, E. (2009) ‘Plastics 
recycling: Challenges and opportunities’, 
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: 
Biological Sciences, 364(1526), pp. 2115–2126. 

Huang, Y., Mei, L., Chen, X., & Wang, Q. (2018). 
Recent developments in food packaging based 
on nanomaterials. Nanomaterials, 8(10). 

Hubbe, M. A., Nazhad, M., & Sánchez, C. (2010). Composting 
as a way to convert cellulosic biomass and organic waste 
into high-value soil amendments: A review. Bioresources, 
5(4), 2808-2854. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.
com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-80053218563&partnerID=40&md5=4a091526bf249d4805c8153dd7af66fa

Hubbe, M. A., Rojas, O. J., & Venditti, R. A. (2006). Control 
of tacky deposits on paper machines - A review. 
Nordic Pulp and Paper Research Journal, 21(2), 154-
171. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/
record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-33745625074&partnerID=40&md5=7233719453c314b75c4481039cf0d2a7

Hutner, P., Helbig, C., Stindt, D., Thorenz, A., & Tuma, 
A. (2018). Transdisciplinary Development of a Life 
Cycle–Based Approach to Measure and Communicate 
Waste Prevention Effects in Local Authorities. 
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 22(5), 1050-1065. 

Hutner, P., Thorenz, A., & Tuma, A. (2017). Waste prevention 
in communities: A comprehensive survey analyzing 
status quo, potentials, barriers and measures. 
Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 837-851. 

Hyder. (2015) Stocks & fate of end of life tyres – 
2013–14 study, Melbourne: Report prepared 
by Hyder Consulting on behalf of the National 
Environment Protection Council. 

IBISWorld. (2019a). Global paper & pulp mills. Industry 
report C1511-GL. Retrieved: https://my.ibisworld.
com/gl/en/industry/c1511-gl/key-statistics 

IBISWorld. (2019b). Pulp, paper and paperboard 
manufacturing in Australia. Industry report 
C1510. Retrieved: https://my.ibisworld.com/au/
en/industry/c1510/industry-performance

IBISWorld. (2019c). Corrugated paperboard container 
manufacturing in Australia. Industry report 
C1521B. Retrieved: https://my.ibisworld.
com/au/en/industry/c1521b/about

IndustryEdge. (2019). Assessment of Australian paper 
& paperboard recycling infrastructure and 2018-19 
exports, including to China. Report for the Australian 
Government, Department of Agriculture, Water 
and the Environment. Retrieved from Australian 
Government website: https://www.environment.
gov.au/protection/waste-resource-recovery/
publications/assessment-australian-paper-paperboard-
recycling-infrastructure-2018-19-exports

Infrastructure Victoria (2019) Recycling and 
resource recovery. Melbourne.

International Labour Orgnisation. (2016). What is a green 
job? Retrieved from http://www.ilo.int/global/topics/
green-jobs/news/WCMS_220248/lang--en/index.htm





Jeevahan, J., & Chandrasekaran, M. (2019). Influence 
of nanocellulose additive on the film properties 
of native rice starch based edible films for food 
packaging. Recent patents on nanotechnology. 

Kelly, Anthony. (2019). “Glass and Glass Product 
Manufacturing in Australia - Industry Report.” 
Melbourne, Australia: IBISWorld. https://www.
ibisworld.com.au/industry-trends/market-research-
reports/manufacturing/non-metallic-mineral-
product/glass-product-manufacturing.html.

Kelman, R. (2017). Carbon value proposition: 
Resource recovery using tyre derived fuel (TDF). 
Report prepared for Australian Tyre Recyclers 
Association (ATRA). Available at: https://atra.
org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/TDF-
GHG-Report-final.pdf. (accessed 12.12.2019). 

King and Boxall (2019). Lithium battery recycling in 
Australia: defining the status and identifying 
opportunities for the development of a new 
industry. J. Clean. Prod. 215, 1279–1287.

King, S. et al. (2016). ‘Sustainable regional development 
through networks - The case of ASPIRE (Advisory 
System for Processing, Innovation and Resource 
Efficiency) to support industrial symbiosis 
for SMEs’, in Seventh Regional 3R Forum in 
Asia and the Pacific. Melbourne: UNCRD.

King, S. et al. (2020). ‘Industrial symbiosis in Australia: 
The social relations of making contact in a 
matchmaking marketplace for SMEs’, Journal of 
Cleaner Production. Elsevier Ltd, 270, p. 122146. 

King, S., Lusher, D., Hopkins, J., Simpson, G.W. (2020) 
Industrial symbiosis in Australia: The social 
relations of making contact in a matchmaking 
marketplace for SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production 
(in press). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122146. 

Kosier, E. et al. (2016). ‘Plastic packaging recycling 
using intelligent separation technologies 
for materials (PRISM)’, 23rd International 
Display Workshops in conjunction with Asia 
Display, IDW/AD 2016, 3, pp. 1888–1891.

Lavers, J. L. et al. (2019). ‘Significant plastic accumulation 
on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Australia’, 
Scientific Reports. Springer US, 9(1), pp. 1–9. 

Leising, E., Quist, J., Bocken, N., (2018). Circular Economy in 
the building sector: Three cases and a collaboration 
tool. J. Clean. Prod. 176, 976–989. LGNSW. 2020. 
“LGNSW Submission on the Consultation Regulatory 
Impact Statement – Phasing out Certain Waste 
Exports.” Sydney, Australia. http://www.environment.
gov.au/submissions/coag-waste-export-ris/lgnsw.pdf.

Licella (2019). Inquiry into Australia’s Waste 
Management and Recycling Industries Submission. 
Canberrra. Available at: https://www.aph.gov.
au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=3b9ed9f3-49bb-
466d-ad07-f024a659e29a&subId=674630.

Lieder and Rashid, (2016). Towards circular economy 
implementation: A comprehensive review in context 
of manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 115, 36–51.

Lifecycles (2017). The potential benefits of a circular 
economy in South Australia. Government of 
South Australia. Adelaide, Australia.

Locock, K. E. S. et al. (2019) The Recycled Plastics Market: 
Global Analysis and Trends. Melbourne: CSIRO, 
Australia. Available at: https://www.csiro.au/en/
Research/MF/Areas/Chemicals-and-fibres/plastic-
recycling-analysis (Accessed: 10 July 2019).

Luo, Y., Zelenika, I., & Zhao, J. (2019). Providing immediate 
feedback improves recycling and composting accuracy. 
Journal of Environmental Management, 232, 445-454. 

LyondellBasell (2019). LyondellBasell Announces 
Construction of New Small-Scale Molecular Recycling 
Facility, LyondellBasell. Available at: https://www.
lyondellbasell.com/en/news-events/products-
-technology-news/lyondellbasell-announces-
construction-of-new-small-scale-molecular-
recycling-facility/ (Accessed: 20 July 2020).

Madden, B, and N Florin. (2019). “Characterising the 
Material Flows through the Australian Waste Packaging 
System.” Sydney: Institute for Sustainable Futures, 
University of Technology Sydney. https://www.
packagingcovenant.org.au/documents/item/2171.

Madden, B. & Florin, N. (2019) Characterising the 
material flows through the Australian waste 
packaging system. Report for Australian Packaging 
Covenant Organistation. Institute for Sustainable 
Futures, University of Technology Sydney.

Madden, B. and Florin, N. (2019) APCO Packaging Material 
Flow Analysis 2018. Sydney, Australia: APCO. Available 
at: https://www.packagingcovenant.org.au/news/new-
report-identifies-challenges-and-opportunities-for-the-
australian-packaging-ecosystem (Accessed: 15 July 2019).

Meloni, M., Souchet, F., Sturges, D., (2018). Circular Consumer 
Electronics: an initial exploration. Ellen MacArthur 
Foundation, London.Miafodzyeva, S., & Brandt, N. 
(2013). Recycling behaviour among householders: 
synthesizing determinants via a meta-analysis. 
Waste and Biomass Valorization, 4(2), 221-235.

Miafodzyeva, S., & Brandt, N. (2013). Recycling 
behaviour among householders: synthesizing 
determinants via a meta-analysis. Waste and 
Biomass Valorization, 4(2), 221-235.

Mirabella, N., Rigamonti, L., & Scalbi, S. (2013). Life cycle 
assessment of Information and Communication 
Technology application: a case study of 
dematerialization in the Italian Public Administration. 
Journal of Cleaner Production, 44, 115-122. 

Miranda, R., Monte, M. C., & Blanco, A. (2013). 
Analysis of the quality of the recovered paper 
from commingled collection systems. Resources, 
Conservation and Recycling, 72, 60-66. 

Mitchell, S. (2019) ‘How CCA plans to combat plastic’, 
Financial Review, 15 November. Available at: 
https://www.afr.com/companies/manufacturing/
how-cca-will-take-on-plastic-20191115-p53aue.





MRA. (2018). China National Sword: The role of 
federal government. A discussion paper prepard 
for the Australian Council of Recycling (ACOR). 
Retrived: http://www.mraconsulting.com.au/
PDFs/MRA_China_National_Sword.pdf

NZ Herald. (2020). “Countdown goes plastic-free in 
trial in Auckland supermarkets.” https://www.
nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_
id=3&objectid=12303604 (accessed 10 July 2020).

O’Farrell, K. (2018) 2016-17 Australian Plastics Recycling 
Survey. Canberra: Department of Environment and 
Energy. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.
au/system/files/resources/c8dd95af-c028-4b6e-
9b23-153aecbf8c3c/files/australian-plastics-recycling-
survey-report-2016-17.pdf (Accessed: 10 July 2019).

O’Farrell, K. (2019) Tyres flows and recycling analysis. 
Report prepared for Department of the 
Environment and Energy. Envisage Works. 

O’Farrell, K. (2019a). 2017-18 Australian Plastics Recycling 
Survey. Available at: https://www.environment.
gov.au/system/files/resources/3f275bb3-
218f-4a3d-ae1d-424ff4cc52cd/files/australian-
plastics-recycling-survey-report-2017-18.pdf.

O’Farrell, K. (2019b). Plastics Infrastructure Analysis 
Update. Department of Agriculture, Water 
and Environment. Melbourne, Australia.

OICA. (2019) International Organization of Motor Vehicle 
Manufacturers. Available at http://www.oica.net/
world-vehicles-in-use-all-vehicles-2/ (accessed 1.12.2019) 

Onishi, N. (2005). How do Japanese dump trash? Let us 
count the myriad ways. Retrieved from https://www.
nytimes.com/2005/05/12/world/asia/how-do-japanese-
dump-trash-let-us-count-the-myriad-ways.html

Owens Illinois. (2017). “Submission 56 on Waste 
and Recycling Industry in Australia to the 
Senate Standing Committee on Environment 
and Communications.” https://www.aph.gov.
au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/
Senate/Environment_and_Communications/
WasteandRecycling/Submissions?main_0_
content_1_RadGrid1ChangePage=2_20.

Pickin, J., Randell, P., Trinh, J., and Grant, B. (2018). 
National Waste Report 2018. Retrieved from 
Department of the Environment and Energy; 
Blue Environment Pty Ltd. Victoria, Australia. 

Pilakoutas, K., Neocleous, K., Tlemat, H. (2004) 
Reuse of tyre steel fibres as concrete 
reinforcement. Proceedings of the ICE - 
Engineering Sustainability, 157 (3): 131-138. 

Pivnenko, K., Eriksson, E., & Astrup, T. F. (2015). Waste paper 
for recycling: Overview and identification of potentially 
critical substances. Waste Management, 45, 134-142. 

Pivnenko, K., Laner, D., & Astrup, T. F. (2016). Material 
Cycles and Chemicals: Dynamic Material Flow Analysis 
of Contaminants in Paper Recycling. Environmental 
Science & Technology, 50(22), 12302-12311. 

Planet Ark. (2019a). Business recycling. Retrieved from 
https://planetark.org/campaigns/businessrecycling.cfm

Planet Ark. (2019b). Cardboard – Waxed. 
Retrieved from https://businessrecycling.
com.au/recycle/cardboard-waxed

Plastic Forests Pty Ltd, (2020). Agricultural- Currently 
there is a waiting list for receiving films. Available 
at: https://plasticforests.com.au/plastic-from-the-
agricultural-industry/ (Accessed: 10 August, 2020).

Poortinga, W., & Whitaker, L. (2018). Promoting the Use 
of Reusable Coffee Cups through Environmental 
Messaging, the Provision of Alternatives and 
Financial Incentives. Sustainability, 10(3). 

Queensland Tissue Products (2020). Our recycled tissue 
manufacturing process. Queensland Tissue Products 
website: Retrieved https://qtp.com.au/manufacturing/ 

Rahimi, A. R. and Garciá, J. M. (2017). ‘Chemical recycling 
of waste plastics for new materials production’, 
Nature Reviews Chemistry, 1, pp. 1–11. 

Rajarao, R., Farzana, R., Khanna, R., Sahajwalla, V. (2015). 
Synthesis of SiC/Si3N4 nanocomposite by using 
automotive waste tyres as resource. Journal of 
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 29: 35-38. 

Randell, P., Baker, B., O’Farrell, K. (2020). Used tyres 
supply chain and fate analysis. Prepared for Tyre 
Stewardship Australia by Randell Environmental 
Consulting in association with Envisage Works 
and Brock Baker Environmental Consulting. 

Ranta, V., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Ritala, P., & Mäkinen, 
S. J. (2018). Exploring institutional drivers and 
barriers of the circular economy: A cross-regional 
comparison of China, the US, and Europe. Resources, 
Conservation and Recycling, 135, 70-82. 

Recovered Resources Market Bulletin (2019a). Bulletin 
March 2019. Retrieved https://www.sustainability.
vic.gov.au/Business/Investment-facilitation/
Recovered-resources-market-bulletin

Recovered Resources Market Bulletin (2019b). 
Bulletin April–May 2019. Retrieved https://www.
sustainability.vic.gov.au/Business/Investment-
facilitation/Recovered-resources-market-bulletin

Recovered Resources Market Bulletin (2019c). 
Bulletin November 2019. Retrieved https://www.
sustainability.vic.gov.au/Business/Investment-
facilitation/Recovered-resources-market-bulletin

Recovered Resources Market Bulletin (2020). Bulletin 
February 2020. Retrieved https://www.sustainability.
vic.gov.au/Business/Investment-facilitation/
Recovered-resources-market-bulletin

Redcycle (2020) Redcycle FAQs. Available at: https://www.
redcycle.net.au/faqs/ (Accessed: 26 May 2020).

Redling, Adam. (2018). “Optical Sorters vs. Robots: Choosing 
Theright Systems in a MRF.” Waste Today, June 
2018. https://www.scsengineers.com/wp-content/
uploads/2018/06/Optical-sorters-vs-robots_-Choosing-
the-right-systems-in-a-MRF-Waste-Today.pdf.



Rita, T., Dev, N. S., Kumar, G. P., Arvind, K., & Mathur, R. 
M. (2013). Stickies audit in recycled mills - CPPRI’s 
Approacn. IPPTA: Quarterly Journal of Indian Pulp 
and Paper Technical Association, 25(3), 121-126. 
Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/
record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84883481166&partnerID=40&md5=291e28abe841e5c2a2ad0572dabfc130

Schuyler, Q. et al. (2018) ‘Economic incentives reduce 
plastic inputs to the ocean’, Marine Policy. 
Elsevier Ltd, 96(February), pp. 250–255. 

Seadon, Jeff. (2019). “How Recycling Is Actually 
Sorted, and Why Australia Is Quite Bad at It.” 
The Conversation. 2019. https://theconversation.
com/how-recycling-is-actually-sorted-and-
why-australia-is-quite-bad-at-it-121120.

Secchi, S., Asdrubali, F., Cellai, G., Nannipieri, E., Rotili, 
A., & Vannucchi, I. (2016). Experimental and 
environmental analysis of new sound-absorbing 
and insulating elements in recycled cardboard. 
Journal of Building Engineering, 5, 1-12. 

Shulman, V.L. (2019) Tire recycling. Chapter 26 
in “Waste” Edited by Letcher, T.M., Vallero, 
D.A. Elsevier. Pp. 489-515. https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815060-3.00026-8. 

Sienkiewicz, M., Kucinska-Lipka, J., Janik, H., Balas, A. (2012) 
Progress in used tyres management in the European 
Union: A review. Waste Management 32: 1742-1751. 

Singh, J. and Ordoñez, I. (2016) ‘Resource recovery 
from post-consumer waste: important lessons 
for the upcoming circular economy’, Journal of 
Cleaner Production. Elsevier, 134, pp. 342–353. 

Sitra (2016). Leading the cycle - Finnish road map 
to a circular 2016-2025. Available at: https://
circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/
sites/default/files/selvityksia121.pdf

Stafford, M., Tilley, S. and Britton, E. (2018). The 
New Sustainability: Regeneration. New York. 
Available at: https://www.jwtintelligence.
com/trend-reports/the-new-sustainability-
regeneration/ (Accessed: 22 November 2019).

State Government of Victoria (2020) PVC Recycling in 
Australia. Available at: https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/
hospitals-and-health-services/planning-infrastructure/
sustainability/waste/pvc (Accessed: 27 April 2020).

Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental 
behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. 
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317.

Sustainability Victoria. (2018). Resource Recovery 
Technology Guide. Melbourne, Australia: 
Sustainability Victoria. https://www.sustainability.
vic.gov.au/About-Us/Publications/RRE009-
Resource-Recovery-Technology-Guide

Sustainability Victoria. (2019a). “Recovered Resources 
Market Bulletin #1 March 2019.” Melbourne, Australia. 
https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/-/media/
SV/Publications/Business/Investment-facilitation/
Resource-Recovery-Market-Bulletins/Resources-
Recovery-Market-Bulletin-March-2019.pdf.

Sustainability Victoria (2019b). “Recovered Resources Market 
Bulletin #8 November 2019.” Melbourne, Australia. 
https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/-/media/
SV/Publications/Business/Investment-facilitation/
Resource-Recovery-Market-Bulletins/Recovered-
Resources-Market-Bulletin-November-2019.pdf

Sustainability Victoria (2020). Recovered Resources Market 
Bulletin - February 2020. Melbourne. Available at: 
https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/Business/
Investment-facilitation/Recovered-resources-
market bulletin?utm_source=Recovered+resources+market+bulletin&utm_campaign=5e2fa606e7-
EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_03_27_04_53&utm_
medium=email&utm_term=0_1c2101aede-
5e2fa6 (Accessed: 20 April 2020).

Sustainability Victoria (2020a). How recycled plastic is 
being used to make railway sleepers, Sustainability 
Victoria. Available at: https://www.sustainability.vic.
gov.au/Grants-and-funding/Research-Development-
and-Demonstration-grants/Recycled-plastic-
railway-sleepers (Accessed: 20 July 2020).

Sustainability Victoria (2020b). Projects funded by Research, 
Development and Demonstration grants. Available 
at: https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/Grants-and-
funding/Research-Development-and-Demonstration-
grants/Projects-funded-by-Research-Development-
and-Demonstration-Grants (Accessed: 20 July 2020).

Sustainability Victoria. (2018a). Waste management and 
recycling in multi-unit developments: Best practice 
guide. Retrieved: https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.
com/hdp.au.prod.app.vic-engage.files/2015/4326/1480/
Better_Practice_Guide_for_Waste_Management_and_
Recycling_in_Multi-unit_Developments_-_26.11.18.pdf

Sustainability Victoria. (2018b). Resource recovery 
technology guide. Retrieved: https://www.
sustainability.vic.gov.au/About-Us/Publications/
RRE009-Resource-Recovery-Technology-Guide

Sustainability Victoria. (2019). Australia’s largest recycling 
plant for plastics opens in Victoria. Retrieved from 
https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/About-us/
Latest-news/2019/07/01/00/31/Australias-largest-
plastics-recycling-plant-opens-in-Victoria

Sustainability Victoria. (2014). “Market Summary – 
Recycled Glass Fact Sheet.” Melbourne, Australia. 
https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/-/media/SV/
Publications/Government/Waste-and-resource-
recovery/Recycled-materials-in-pavement/
Market-Analysis-Glass-Sept-2014-PDF.pdf?la=en.

SWRRP. (2018). Statewide Waste and Resource 
Recovery Infrastructure Plan Victoria 2018. 
https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/swrrip 

Taniguchi, I. et al. (2019). ‘Biodegradation of PET: 
Current Status and Application Aspects’, 
ACS Catalysis, 9(5), pp. 4089–4105. 

Tayeb, A. H., Hubbe, M. A., Tayeb, P., Pal, L., & Rojas, O. J. 
(2017). Soy Proteins As a Sustainable Solution to 
Strengthen Recycled Paper and Reduce Deposition 
of Hydrophobic Contaminants in Papermaking: 
A Bench and Pilot-Plant Study. ACS Sustainable 
Chemistry and Engineering, 5(8), 7211-7219. 



Terzon, E. (2020). Car seat manufacturers pledge to recycle 
to help cut down on waste. ABC News. Retrieved from 
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-09/car-seat-
manufacturers-pledge-to-join-recycle-effort/11944220

Tran, D. and McIver, D. (2018). Rubbish is being transformed 
into roads, thanks to one Melbourne company, ABC 
News. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-
05-29/melbourne-company-rubbish-recycling-plastic-
bag-road/9812450 (Accessed: 13 August 2019).

Tullo, A (2019). Plastic has a problem; is chemical recycling 
the solution?, Chemical and Engineering News. 
Available at: https://cen.acs.org/environment/
recycling/Plastic-problem-chemical-recycling-
solution/97/i39 (Accessed: 10 Ausust, 2020).

Tyre Stewardship Australia. (2019) Tyre Stewardship 
Australia. Available at: https://www.
tyrestewardship.org.au/ (accessed 1.12.2019). 

Tyre Stewardship Australia. (2020). TSA Strategic Plan 
2020-23. Available at: https://www.tyrestewardship.
org.au/about-tsa/strategy/ (Accessed 10.6.2020) 

UNEP (2019). The New Plastics Economy Global Commitment 
2019 Progress Report. Retrieved from https://www.
unenvironment.org/resources/report/new-plastics-
economy-global-commitment-2019-progress-report

United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 
agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved 
from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/
post2015/transformingourworld/publication

UNSW. (2017) Waste tyres. Available at: http://www.
smart.unsw.edu.au/green-manufacturing/
waste-tyres (accessed 5.12.2019). 

Van Ewijk, S., & Stegemann, J. A. (2016). Limitations 
of the waste hierarchy for achieving absolute 
reductions in material throughput. Journal 
of Cleaner Production, 132, 122-128. 

Victorian Auditor-General’s Office. (2019) Recovering 
and reprocessing resources from waste. Independent 
assurance report to Parliament 2018-19:27. 

Victorian Auditor-General’s Office. (2019). Recovering 
and reprocessing resources from waste. Retrieved 
from https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/
files/2019-06/060619-Waste-Resources.pdf

Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office. (2019). “State 
of Glass Recycling in Victoria: Processes, Facilities 
and Potential End Products.” Melbourne, Australia. 
https://pbo.vic.gov.au/files/PBO_advice_-_Current_
state_of_glass_recycling_in_Victoria.pdf.

Vinall, F. (2019). Envorinex soft plastic recycling plant opens 
at Bell bay. The Examiner. Retrieved from https://
www.examiner.com.au/story/6108282/tasmanian-
first-soft-plastic-recycling-plant-opens-at-bell-bay/

Vince, J. and Hardesty, B. D. (2017). ‘Plastic 
pollution challenges in marine and coastal 
environments: from local to global governance’, 
Restoration Ecology, 25(1), pp. 123–128. 

Volodina, T.N., Gorskaya, L.P., Gladkikh, S.A., Kalinkovskii, 
V.S., Putankin, K.S., Trofimov, S.A. (2001) Modern 
methodology for tyre design. Kauchuk I Rezina 2, 33-38. 

Walton, A., McCrea, R., & Jeanneret, T. (2019). Changes in 
Victorian attitudes and perceptions of the waste and 
resource recovery sector: 2016 to 2019. CSIRO. Australia

WEF, 2016. World Economic Forum. Design 
and managemnt for cirularity – the case of paper. 
White paper for the World Economic Forum. 
Retrieved: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/
WEF_Design_Management_for_Circularity.pdf

Willis, K. et al. (2018). ‘How successful are waste abatement 
campaigns and government policies at reducing 
plastic waste into the marine environment?’, 
Marine Policy. Pergamon, 96, pp. 243–249. 

Wong, J. W. C., Karthikeyan, O. P., & Selvam, A. (2017). 
Biological nutrient transformation during composting 
of pig manure and paper waste. Environmental 
Technology (United Kingdom), 38(6), 754-761. 

World Business Council for Sustainable Development 
(2020) About the Tire Industry Project. 
Accessed 2.7.2020 from: https://www.wbcsd.
org/Sector-Projects/Tire-Industry-Project/
Resources/About-the-Tire-Industry-Project. 

World Business Council for Sustainable Development 
(2008). Managing End-of-life Tires. Accessed 
2.7.2020 from: https://docs.wbcsd.org/2018/02/
TIP/End_of_Life_Tires-Full-Report.pdf. 

World Wildlife Fund. (2019). Pulp and paper. 
Retrieved from https://www.worldwildlife.
org/industries/pulp-and-paper

Wu, C. and Williams, P. T. (2010). ‘Pyrolysis–
gasification of plastics, mixed plastics and 
real-world plastic waste with and without Ni–
Mg–Al catalyst’, Fuel, 89, pp. 3022–3032.

Wu, W. M., Yang, J. and Criddle, C. S. (2017). ‘Microplastics 
pollution and reduction strategies’, Frontiers of 
Environmental Science and Engineering, 11(1), pp. 1–4. 7.

Zacho, K. O., & Mosgaard, M. A. (2016). Understanding 
the role of waste prevention in local waste 
management: A literature review. Waste 
Management and Research, 34(10), 980-994. 

Zhang, L., & Sun, X. (2018). Influence of sugar beet pulp 
and paper waste as bulking agents on physical, 
chemical, and microbial properties during green waste 
composting. Bioresource Technology, 267, 182-191.



For further information

Land and Water

Dr Heinz Schandl
+61 2 6246 4345 
heinz.schandl@csiro.au