The Plastic
Waste Management
Framework
White paper by Roland Berger
for the Alliance to End Plastic Waste
Executive Summary
Plastic consumption has been steadily increasing globally,
closely tracking the worldwide GDP growth rate. Approximately
460 million tonnes of plastics are introduced into the market
each year, while about 360 million tonnes of plastic waste are
generated annually. This surge in plastic waste poses a significant
global environmental challenge, given that 70% of this waste
remains uncollected, leaks into the environment, is dumped in
landfills or openly burned.
In response to this challenge, there
has been a substantial increase in
global efforts to combat plastic waste.
Both private and public entities have
been actively coordinating their
actions to address this issue.
A historic step in this endeavor
occurred in March 2022, at the
second session of the fifth UN
Environment Assembly (UNEA-5)
held in Nairobi, when 175 countries
endorsed a resolution with the aim
of putting an end to plastic pollution.
The resolution set in motion a
mulitilateral negotiating process
to create an internationally binding
agreement that encompasses the
entire lifecycle of plastics, from design
to collection, sorting and end-of-life
treatment.
For this goal to become a reality,
countries need to intensify their
efforts in dealing with plastic waste.
However, we must note that different
countries have waste management
systems at different stages of
development and varying levels of
resources. Therefore, they require
different strategies that include
enabling polices and consider
their individual needs to improve
their waste management efforts, in
particular, their plastic recycling
schemes.
The Alliance to End Plastic Waste
has pledged its support to the
development of this global
instrument. As part of its efforts to
educate and inform key stakeholders,
it has partnered with Roland Berger
to design a conceptual framework
that supports the improvement of
plastic waste management systems.
This framework defines contextually
tailored enabling policies and levers
to reduce plastic waste pollution
and increase plastic circularity in an
economically and environmentally
sustainable manner. The Alliance
hopes that this framework will serve
as a guideline for governments to take
stock of their own waste management
systems and use the proposed policy
levers to ensure the effectiveness
of their downstream measures in
dealing with plastic pollution.
The project, carried out in 2023,
relies on Roland Berger’s proprietary
frameworks, databases, domain-
specific knowledge, and expert
know-how.
ALLIANCE TO END PLASTIC WASTE
THE PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Category 1
UNDEVELOPED SYSTEMS
Countries in this category have
no regulation or infrastructure,
and the waste picker sector
plays a crucial role. These
countries can consider policies
that focus on developing basic
waste management legislation,
building institutional capacity,
and establishing comprehensive
baseline data.
Category 4
FUNCTIONAL, LARGELY
UNREGULATED SYSTEMS
Countries in this category have
functional waste management
systems, yet their recycling rates
have stabilised at around 20-25%
due to limited regulatory pressure.
Countries in this category could
introduce policies focused on
recycling targets, mandatory
EPR and incentives for waste
generators.
Category 2
INCIPIENT SYSTEMS
Countries in this category have
basic waste regulation, but only
a limited collection and end-
of-life treatment infrastructure.
These countries should consider
prioritising policies that
promote the development of
basic collection and treatment
infrastructure, including support
for waste pickers.
Category 5
ADVANCED SYSTEMS
Countries in this category are
advanced and well-regulated,
although they may still face
challenges in specific areas or
segments of the value chain.
Complex waste management
systems are firmly in place,
supported by strong expertise
and institutions. Countries in this
category can focus on recyclability,
separate collection at source, and
rigorous enforcement of Extended
Producer Responsibility (EPR).
Category 3
DEVELOPING SYSTEMS
Countries in this category have
functional waste management
systems, driven primarily by
market-based mechanisms
focused on value creation
elements. Apart from securing
funding for major infrastructure
projects, these countries could
consider pursuing policies that
foster industry-wide commitment
and support for recycling.
Category 6
DEVELOPED PERFORMING
SYSTEMS
Category 6 countries have
the most advanced waste
management systems. Their
expertise and best practices can
serve as “success story” examples.
Still, they would benefit from
policies that focus on promoting
innovation (investment and
adoption), the convenience of
waste disposal options and work
towards levelling the playing field
for relevant stakeholders.
SIX DISTINCT CATEGORIES HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED
For each of these categories,
Roland Berger has analysed
the characteristics in terms of
stakeholders, infrastructure,
legislation framework and operational
models. Following this, Roland Berger has
derived specific policies and levers needed
for system and performance improvement at
each stage of the plastic waste collection and
recycling value chain.
Key Highlights
ALLIANCE TO END PLASTIC WASTE
1. As different countries have
varying abilities to tackle the
problem of plastic pollution,
tailored strategies that
consider a country’s national
circumstances, infrastructure
capacities and resources, are
crucial to improving plastic
waste management systems
across the globe.
2. Developed together with
Roland Berger, this framework
encompasses strategies and
policy levers that countries
can adopt, while also
acknowledging countries’
national contexts and plans.
The range of measures discussed
in this framework, from
overarching policies to specific
infrastructure and operational
enhancements, highlights the
multifaceted approach needed
to combat the problem of plastic
waste.
3. Six distinct development
categories have been
identified based on country
characteristics, namely,
stakeholders, infrastructure,
legislation framework and
operational models.
Categories 1 (“Undeveloped
Systems”) and 2 (“Incipient
Systems”) have limited or lack
waste management infrastructure
and legislation. Categories
3 (“Developing Systems”)
and 4 (“Functional, Largely
Unregulated Systems”) have
waste management infrastructure,
market-based system and limited
regulatory pressure. Categories
5 (“Advanced Systems”) and 6
(“Developed Performing Systems”)
have both infrastructure and
regulation frameworks, stream
diversification and advanced
policies and systems.
4. Case studies have been used
to illustrate specific success
factors and policies that can be
leveraged in other geographies.
These factors include both
infrastructural and systemic
elements such as collection-
sorting-treatment infrastructure,
a comprehensive incentivising
policy framework and the need
for stakeholder engagement.
Processes to mobilise capital
and funding, capability
building schemes and other
forms of innovation serve as
complementing enablers.
5. Waste pickers play an integral
role in contributing to plastic
waste reduction and circularity.
This is particularly prominent in
(but not limited to) Categories 1,
2 and 3.
Ultimately, policies to support,
integrate and fund waste pickers’
contributions and activities will
go a long way in driving collection
and by extension, plastic waste
recycling rates. In addition, by
ensuring that waste pickers
have proper working and living
conditions, and are fully integrated
into the larger community, they
will continue to make significant
contributions to tackle the
problem of plastic pollution.
6. Extended Producer
Responsibility is one of the most
effective policy instruments for
increasing recycling rates.
Under EPR, the responsibility for
achieving certain (well defined,
typically gradually increasing)
recycling rates lies with waste
generators. The implementation
of EPR systems requires an
alignment across the entire value
chain (brand owners, waste
collectors, recyclers, municipalities
and government/ regulators), thus
developing an EPR framework
should be a collaborative effort
with industry, achieved through
an iterative process. The typical
implementation of EPR systems
spans approximately 4-6 years.
7. The Deposit Refund System
(DRS) is a policy tool commonly
used for beverage packaging,
and it has been successfully
implemented in developed
systems.
The primary focus is typically on
non-alcoholic beverages and
beer, with occasional inclusion
of spirits. DRS systems include
PET bottles and aluminium
cans; some systems go further
and also include other types of
packaging like one-way glass and
beverage cartons. Determining the
appropriate deposit amount is key,
as it strongly influences the return
rates; the take-back strategy is also
a critical factor.
8. There are caveats to how
uniformly this framework can
and should be applied.
We must remain sensitive to
the fact that there are distinct
factors that can affect how
systems transition through
categories and their overall
evolution pathways. This system
evolution framework is primarily
built on empirical observations
and analyses conducted at the
individual system level, often
corresponding to specific
countries. In certain federal
systems, individual system entities
can be represented by states or
provinces within these countries
and may have full autonomy
over environmental legislation,
processes and timelines. Similarly,
system evolution, stakeholder
alignment and determination at
a transnational level (e.g., global
or regional, such as the European
Union) can also act as catalysts to
accelerate the timeline or allow
states to leap-frog the evolutionary
process.
9. The challenge, of course, lies
in implementing, funding, and
continuously monitoring and
adapting these strategies.
THE PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
1. Material Recovery Facility, Nairobi, Kenya
2. Waste collection service, Bali, Indonesia
3. Community waste collection, Argentina
4. Material Recovery Facility, Bali, Indonesia
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ALLIANCE TO END PLASTIC WASTE
The Plastic
Waste Management
Framework
1. Plastic Waste: Global Context
7
2. The Plastic Waste Management Framework
12
The Plastic Recycling Maturity Categories Global Overview
16
Category 1 - Underdeveloped Systems
20
Category 2 - Incipient Systems
24
Category 3 - Developing Systems
28
Policy Deep-Dive: Waste Picker Intergration
32
Case Study: Enhancing Waste Picker Productivity and Data Transparency
34
Category 4 - Functional, Largely Unregulated Systems
36
Developing Awareness Through School Programmes and Education
40
Category 5 - Advanced Systems with Challenges
42
Policy Deep-Dive: Extended Producer Responsibility
46
Category 6 - Developed Performing Systems
50
Policy Deep-Dive: Deposit Refund System
54
Conclusion
55
3. Appendix - Enabling Policies Glossary: Policy, Components, Effects
56
4. Appendix - List of Countries by Categories
61
THE PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
1. Plastic Waste:
Global Context
ALLIANCE TO END PLASTIC WASTE
Plastic Waste: Global Context
Of the ~360 million tonnes of plastic waste generated annually,
approximately 50% consists of plastic packaging, 30% comes
from construction, industry, and agricultural plastic waste, while
the remaining waste includes from electronics and electrical
waste (WEEE), textiles, and consumer products.
Plastic remains popular due
to its convenience, lightweight,
functionality, versatility in product
design, utility in sterile environments,
and its lower carbon footprint in
comparison with other materials used
for the same purposes.
Plastic consumption is expected to
steadily increase, with economic and
demographic growth as the primary
drivers. Asia accounts for the largest
share of plastics introduced to the
market, approximately 40% (in 2021),
with a compound annual growth rate
(CAGR) of 5% between 2011 and 2021
(Diagram 1).
It is followed by North America and
Europe, which account for 19% and
14% of the total plastics introduced to
the market, respectively. Both regions
are undergoing a reduction in the
per unit weight of plastic packaging,
resulting in lower volumes per capita
introduced to the market over the
past decade. However, a downside of
this weight reduction is the increasing
use of composites, which today are
more difficult to recycle (design for
recycling guidelines are addressing
these challenges).
In 2021, at the global level,
approximately 50% of total plastic
waste was sent to landfills, 20% was
littered or openly burned, and 20%
was incinerated. 10% of plastic waste
was recycled, with the recycling rate
growing by 3% over the last decade
(Diagram 2).
363
420
461
+2.4%
10%
5%
4%
8%
14%
19%
40%
10%
5%
4%
8%
15%
20%
38%
11%
5%
4%
8%
16%
23%
33%
2011
2016
2021
2%
3%
3%
2%
1%
1%
5%
Other regions
Middle East &
North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
South & Central
America
European Union
North America
Asia
Diagram 1 - Source: OECD, Plastics Europe, Roland Berger
PLASTIC PUT-ON-MARKET
BY REGION, 2011-2021
[million tonnes]
COMPOUND ANNUAL
GROWTH RATE,
2011-2021
THE PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Open burning, littering, and
landfilling are all end-of-life options
with significant negative impacts
on the environment and health.
Therefore, they need to be addressed
through diversion, reduction, circular
solutions, and policies, which are the
focus of this study.
Europe stands as the global leader
in plastic waste recycling, with a
recycling rate of approximately 15%
in 2021. This percentage is expected
to rise further as the European Union
strengthens its regulatory efforts
to combat pollution and waste,
while setting ambitious targets for
packaging and other waste categories
such as WEEE and textiles.
In Asia, while rising living standards
and improved waste handling
infrastructure are evident, waste
management development remains
uneven. In 2021, 12% of plastic waste
was recycled across the continent.
Asia also has the largest share of
ocean pollution.
In North America, roughly 75%
of plastic waste is landfilled and
5% recycled. While the USA has
historically faced less regulatory
pressure in this regard, several
states have recently taken steps
to implement plastic waste policy
frameworks.
Efforts to establish effective waste
management systems are ongoing in
Africa and South America. On these
continents, waste management
needs to become a strategic priority,
akin to other essential utilities – this
will help reduce plastic waste leakage
and improve plastic circularity.
Material Recovery Facility, Vietnam
ALLIANCE TO END PLASTIC WASTE
10
Plastic Waste: Global Context
NORTH
AMERICA 1
80
[million tonnes]
18%
5%
74%
4%
5% 8%
52%
35%
REST OF
THE WORLD 2
100
[million tonnes]
[m
42%
15%
PLASTIC WASTE END-OF-LIFE
BY REGION, 2021
[million tonnes]
Diagram 2 - Source: OECD, Plastics Europe, StatsCan, US EPA, Roland Berger
1) United States and Canada 2) Africa, South and Central America, Middle East, Oceania, Non-EU Europe, Eurasia
LEAKED/UNCOLLECTED
LANDFILLED
WASTE TO ENERGY/FUEL
RECYCLED
THE PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
11
GLOBALLY
360
[million tonnes]
19%
10%
49%
22%
ASIA
130
[million tonnes]
21%
30%
36%
12%
EUROPE
50
million tonnes]
39%
5%
ALLIANCE TO END PLASTIC WASTE
12
2. The Plastic Waste
Management
Framework
THE PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
13
The Plastic Waste Management
Framework: General Introduction
The Plastic Waste Management Framework has been developed
by drawing upon empirical observations and analyses of various
systems worldwide, as they have evolved over time.
This framework serves a dual purpose.
First, to provide a conceptual tool
for understanding the distinct
characteristics and outcomes of
systems within diverse contexts and
at different stages of maturity. Second,
to outline the policy levers, actions,
investments, and the complementary
enablers required for each maturity
category or stage.
The framework has been constructed
around five key dimensions:
collection, treatment, wider waste
management legislation framework,
specific plastic (waste) policy
framework and enablers (which
encompass factors such as the
stakeholder ecosystem, awareness
and communication efforts, and
innovation).
All five dimensions must be
addressed simultaneously during
each maturity stage. The optimal
combination of actions, investments,
and policies defines the enabling
policy framework for each specific
maturity category.
The framework outlines six distinct
maturity categories and assumes that,
as these steps are implemented, they
will help systems progress towards a
higher level of maturity over time.
Drawing from empirical observations
and analyses spanning the last 50
years, the framework also presents
an estimated timeline for the
evolution of systems and indicative
performance metrics (utilising the
widely accepted KPI of plastic waste
recycling). These quantitative proxies,
along with the specific timing of
policies, actions and investments,
should be interpreted within the
broader context of the framework.
Any deviations from these metrics or
the timing of policies and actions will
be assessed on a case-by-case basis
for each individual system.
Plastic waste
mismanagement represents
one of the most important
environmental challenges of
the 21st century, affecting
numerous ecosystems
across the globe directly and
indirectly.
The purpose of the
study is to describe the
characteristics of plastic
waste management systems
at various stages of their
development, outline the
stages in their evolution
and the required policy
framework and specific
policy levers to drive such
evolution.
The study also outlines
a selection of specific
examples and best
practices for particular
topics or policies. These
examples illustrate the key
success factors and the
challenges faced during the
implementation of different
policy frameworks.
Category 1:
UNDEVELOPED SYSTEMS
Category 2:
INCIPIENT SYSTEMS
Category 3:
DEVELOPING SYSTEMS
Category 4:
FUNCTIONAL, LARGELY
UNREGULATED SYSTEMS
Category 5:
ADVANCED SYSTEMS
Category 6:
DEVELOPED PERFORMING
SYSTEMS
The six plastic recycling maturity
categories identified are:
ALLIANCE TO END PLASTIC WASTE
14
The Plastic Waste Management
Framework
Diagram 3 - Source: Roland Berger
Focus of the project
Single material/ polymer collection
Collection
infrastructure
Waste picker collection (street picking, landfills)
Integration
Supporting tools
and
enablers
Funding in form of
subsidies per tonne
Waste picker sector value chain
integration and social inclusion
Collection and treat
Waste
processing and
end-of-life
infrastructure
Manual sorting facilities/ platforms
(Semi) automated sorting facilities m
Mechanical recycling (1 stage
recycling, mainly flaking)
Export of feedstock
Sorting
Recycling
WtE1)
Co-processing, waste to energy or waste to fuel
Specific plastic and
packaging waste
regulation
Voluntary industry
(widely set ta
Leading FMCG producers' individual
commitments
Category 1
Category 2
Categ
Core waste legislation framework
& municipal collection
Managed disposal sites/
landfill development
General waste
legislation and
institutional
framework
Recovery & landfill div
Control of
disposal
Landfill gate fees,
taxes
5%
<3%
8%
Estimated timeframe
(cumulated)
8-12 years
5 years
B2B collection in the commercial-industrial stream
THE PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
15
Multi-material/ polymer collection
Bring
Curbside
Formalisation/ integration
into formal collection
ment infrastructure funding
Technology funding
Digitalisation, digital traceability
Communication/ awareness at generator level (C&I and HH)
Infrastructure co-funding with private sector,
municipalities and financial investors
mixed waste sorting facilities
Specialised (2nd stage) sorting facilities
Mechanical recycling
(full scale, C&I feedstock first)
Full-fledged recycling of both C&I and HH
Advanced recycling (mech., chem.)
agreements
argets)
EPR pilots
Specific targets (collection,
recycled content)
Volume reduction targets
Eco modulation
Reusability targets
EPR (targets &
enforcement)
Taxes,
bans
PRN2)/
Plastic credits
Mandatory
DRS
gory 3
Category 4
Category 5
Category 6
version targets
Incineration fees & bans
Targets and enforcement for municipalities
Pay-as-you-throw principle
for generators
Standards, guidelines, collaborative
monitoring & reporting
Capacity building
>40%
15%
20%
15-30+ years
12-20 years
2-stream collection
(wet & dry)
Take back/ DRS
schemes (voluntary/
mandatory)
Separate HH & SME collection
at source (multi-material fractions)
1) Indicative (total) plastic waste recycling rates, as % of plastic waste put on market/ generated per year. Recycling rate for
different plastic waste categories, which are at times also highlighted in the report, can be different (e.g., plastic packaging
recycling rates are typically higher than total plastic waste recycling rates)
ALLIANCE TO END PLASTIC WASTE
16
The Plastic Waste Management
Framework
PLASTIC RECYCLING MATURITY CATEGORIES
GLOBAL OVERVIEW1
Category 1
UNDEVELOPED SYSTEMS
Category 5
ADVANCED SYSTEMS WITH CHALLENGES
Category 2
INCIPIENT SYSTEMS
Category 4
FUNCTIONAL, LARGELY UNREGULATED SYSTEMS
Category 3
DEVELOPING SYSTEMS
Category 6
DEVELOPED PERFORMING SYSTEMS
Diagram 4 - Source: World Bank, Roland Berger
1) Individual country level data provided in appendix
THE PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
17
ALLIANCE TO END PLASTIC WASTE
18
The Plastic Waste Management
Framework
Category 1
UNDEVELOPED SYSTEMS
This category encompasses countries that either lack or have very basic waste management systems. These
countries often lack essential utilities such as clean water, sewage systems, and power, and grapple with
security and safety issues. Many of these countries are relatively small and located in regions across Africa,
Asia, and various islands. However, some larger nations like Nigeria and Kenya also fall into this category.
These countries are expected to experience significant demographic growth, greater economic development
and by extension, an increase in plastic consumption per capita. With a proper waste management policy
framework and investment, they stand to benefit from significant reduction in plastic waste and its associated
environmental impact.
Category 2
INCIPIENT SYSTEMS
The waste management systems in this category are typically found in undeveloped or emerging economies
which have prioritised waste management in their strategic roadmaps. In these systems, high-value plastic
waste, such as PET and HDPE bottles, is collected and either recycled locally or exported. As such, they are
able to achieve recycling rates of up to 30-40% for these polymers (but under 5% for total plastic waste). These
countries hold significant potential for reducing plastic waste through “quick wins” because they already have
the basic legislative framework and infrastructure in place, making it feasible to achieve total plastic waste
recycling rates of 5-8% in the mid- term.
Category 3
DEVELOPING SYSTEMS
This category is widespread globally and encompasses countries ranging from emerging economies to
highly developed countries. These systems are characterised by a lack of regulations and mandatory targets.
Recycling rates within these systems are primarily influenced by market-based mechanisms along the value
chain. These countries, home to some of the world’s largest populations, are major contributors to plastic
waste. They also have the potential to significantly increase their recycling volumes if they are developing
both a comprehensive policy framework and the required collection-sorting-recycling infrastructure for plastic
waste.
Category 4
FUNCTIONAL, LARGELY UNREGULATED SYSTEMS
Countries in this category are generally developing or advanced economies which typically have a relatively
developed waste infrastructure and some related policies in place. However, they have less effective or strict
enforcement mechanisms, which are often the result of limited policy intervention.
Despite the absence of a comprehensive regulated waste management system, they have managed to achieve
average plastic waste recycling rates of around 15-20%, primarily due to market-driven mechanisms. However,
any further increase in these recycling rates would be difficult without stricter policies, because any marginal
increases would stem from addressing the lower-value waste streams, which are not economically attractive
in a market-only based policy framework. Such systems can have a significant contribution to the increase
of the global recycling rate due to their size and future growth prospects, coupled with the already existing
infrastructure and stakeholder awareness on the matter.
THE PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
19
Category 5
ADVANCED SYSTEMS WITH CHALLENGES
Many European countries belong to this category, together with selected countries in Eastern Asia. These
nations have established advanced waste management systems and implemented comprehensive policy
frameworks, being able to reach overall plastic waste recycling rates in the range of 20% to 30% (with higher
rates for plastic bottles and rigid packaging). However, these systems have substantial room for improvement
as they have the potential to at least double their plastic waste recycling rates. This can be achieved through
specific policies and incentives targeting plastic waste streams that are not currently (fully) addressed, along
with increasing incentives for the stakeholders involved. Rigorous enforcement of their policy frameworks, at
all levels, combined with the adoption of innovation and technology along the entire value chain, are essential.
Countries with such systems possess the potential to significantly boost global recycling rates, thanks to their
overall size and untapped opportunities, especially in plastic waste categories like non-packaging and flexible
packaging.
Category 6
DEVELOPED PERFORMING SYSTEMS
This category consists of a select group of best practice waste management systems in developed economies
(including Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and South Korea). Their success in waste management is
attributed to a comprehensive policy framework which creates the right incentives for all plastic waste streams
and stakeholders participating in the value chain. Infrastructure in these countries is also well-developed,
and well-distributed across the territory, optimally covering the plastic waste volumes generated with proper
treatment solutions. Policies are enforced strictly and consistently, at all levels of authority, and there is a
high level of awareness and education on the matter across all categories of waste generators (households,
businesses, institutions). Due to these characteristics, such well-performing systems can achieve high plastic
waste recycling rates beyond 40%. Some specific plastic waste categories or streams even achieve recycling
rates surpassing 90%, thus reaching full circularity, with minimal environmental impact.
Material Recovery Facility, Brazil
ALLIANCE TO END PLASTIC WASTE
20
The Plastic Waste Management
Framework
CATEGORY 1 - UNDERDEVELOPED SYSTEMS
EXAMPLES OF COUNTRIES
CATEGORY 1:
CONGO (DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF)
IRAQ
UZBEKISTAN
GUYANA
KENYA
TANZANIA (UNITED REPUBLIC OF)
Diagram 5 - Source: World Bank, Roland Berger
The full list of countries in the category can be found in the appendix