91直播

Solutions to the plastic waste crisis are often pitched using words that can skew value judgements, new research argues.

The , authored by the Sustainable Materials Innovation Hub at The University of Manchester, explores the consequences of terminology choices on end-of-life solutions for plastic waste. While recycling has long been touted as a solution for plastic sustainability - it comes in many forms, and can sometimes serve as a smokescreen for genuine discussions around sustainability.

The researchers, Seiztinger, Lahive, and Shaver, find directional terms - such as 鈥榰pcycling鈥� and 鈥榙owncycling鈥� - to be poorly defined as value propositions, and that their use can skew perceptions of the benefits, potentially posing barrier to circularity.

鈥楧owncycling鈥�, for instance, implies the production of a less favourable or 鈥榣ess good鈥� material as the end product of the recycling process, while 鈥榰pcycling鈥� has positive connotations. However, despite what these terms suggest, a 鈥榙owncycled鈥� stream may produce a high value product, while an 鈥榰pcycled鈥� path may have a greater negative environmental impact than alternative routes.

Using these terms assigns disproportionate value to certain end-of-life plastic solution strategies, and can be used by supporters or detractors of different recycling technologies to obscure genuine evaluation of their environmental impact.

The study, published in the journal , suggests that plastic waste solutions consistently fail to live up to their marketed messaging, and that clearer communication of the true value of the product from a recycling process is essential to drive investment in proper plastic waste management. Corresponding author, Professor of Polymer Science at The University of Manchester, said: 鈥淭he confused terminology surrounding the fate of waste plastic often lacks a consideration of value and unintended consequences. As these terms are now being used to promote technologies outside of a sustainable system, we felt it important to argue for clarity and caution when presuming quality from this directional terminology.鈥�

The researchers argue that no single solution offers a quick fix, and that it is wrong for the terminology to suggest otherwise. They call for greater clarity over how we value end-products. They suggest a 鈥榮piral system鈥� of reuse, in which plastic materials are treated as complex mixtures that, like crude oil, can be chemically deconstructed at the end of their life and transformed to become a huge range of longer-lasting products over their lifetime.

For example, a yoghurt pot could be reconstituted into car parts, and then after that into a park bench. Ultimately, after many years of service, it could be chemically deconstructed, and turned back into a yoghurt pot. As the polypropylene in such simple packaging is already used in cars, hard shell suitcases, garden furniture, appliances, and plumbing, a cross-sector approach to reuse of plastic waste could generate more value than an approach focused solely on single-use packaging.

By moving away from direction-loaded terminology, researchers suggest that plastic waste solutions can be judged on the measurable environmental and economic value of the end-products, rather than an assumed or subjective value based on language, that is not always supported by full life-cycle assessment or economic analysis.

Dr Claire Seitzinger added: 鈥淏uilding a circular plastics economy means looking at the whole system, not isolated solutions pitched against each other. Policy, industry, innovation and collaboration across sectors are essential for a sustainable future. The next time you eat a yoghurt, where do you want the pot to end up? Should it become another yoghurt pot? A park bench? A car? What is best? And what should you, the packaging producer, or the government do to make that to happen?鈥�

Paper details:

Journal: Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 

Full title: Up, down and back again: Value judgements in polymer recycling

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/plc.2026.10041.pr1