A CIRCULAR ECONOMY FOR PLASTIC PRODUCTS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES AND EXPERIENCE FOR VIETNAM

Viết thuê luận á, luận văn thạc sĩ, chuyên đề ,khóa luận, báo cáo thực tập
Sdt/zalo 0967538 624/ 0886 091 915 lamluanvan.net
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
FOREIGN TRADE UNIVERSITY
MASTER THESIS
A CIRCULAR ECONOMY FOR PLASTIC
PRODUCTS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES AND
EXPERIENCE FOR VIETNAM
Specialization: Master of Research in International Economics
HOANG THI HA LINH

Ha Noi, 2020
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
FOREIGN TRADE UNIVERSITY
MASTER THESIS
A CIRCULAR ECONOMY FOR PLASTIC
PRODUCTS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES AND
EXPERIENCE FOR VIETNAM
Major: International Economics
Specialization: Master of Research in International
Economics Code: 8310106

Full name: Hoang Thi Ha Linh
Supervisor: Dr. Luong Thi Ngoc Oanh
Ha Noi, 2020
ACKNOWLEDMENT
In the process of completing this thesis, I have received great deal of helps, guidance
and encouragements from teachers and friends.
First of all, I would like to express my deepest thanks to my supervisor, Dr.
Luong Thi Ngoc Oanh who given me suggestions on how to shape the study and
always been most willing and ready to give me valuable advice, helpful comments as
well as correction of my study.
Next, I would like to express my gratitude to all teachers in Foreign Trade
University – International Economics Faculty that help me much in completing this
thesis.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my family and my friends who have
always encouraged, supported and helped me to complete this thesis.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Status of Natural Resources Depletion in Viet Nam 1988-2014..............59
Figure 2: Viet Nam’s GDP Anual Growth Rate.......................................................63

Figure 3: Productivity of Asian Countries................................................................65
Figure 4: Viet Nam’s Import Structure in 2012, 2013, 2014....................................66
Figure 5: Vietnamese Consumer’s Behaviours Towards Sustainable Consumption
...................................................................................................................................70
Figure 6: Intention to Buy Eco-products...................................................................71
Figure 7: Share of Firms Doing Research on and Adapation of Technology...........72
Figure 8. Constraints on Firms’ Economic Performance..........................................76
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Ranking of African countries based on the amount of plastic imports and
consumption between 1990 and 2017................................................................40
Table 2: Plastics resin production and consumption in 8 African countries.............44
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1 1.
Rationales for the research ................................................................................1 2.
Research questions.............................................................................................3 3.
The objective of the study .................................................................................3 4.
The methodology of the study...........................................................................3 5.
Scope of research ...............................................................................................4 6.
Structure of reasearch.......................................................................................4
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ON CIRCULAR ECONOMY FOR
PLASTIC PRODUCTS ............................................................................................5
1.1. Negative impacts of plastics...........................................................................5
1.2. The definition of circular economy ...............................................................8
1.3. Circular economy as solutions for the plastic sector ...................................9
1.4. Circular Economy and Circular Solutions.................................................12
1.6. The overview of circular economy ..............................................................13
1.7. New plastics economy: a circular economy for plastic..............................16
1.7.1 The impacts of plastic product on society and enviroment.....................16
1.7.2 Novel sources, designs and business models for plastic products in a
circular economy ...............................................................................................23

1.7.3 Circular after –use pathway for plastic products ................................28
CHARPTER 2: AN ANALYSIS OF PLASTIC PRODUCT CONSUMPTION IN
SELECTED COUNTRIES AND VIETNAM .................................................36
2.1. The status of plastic product consumption in the world........................36
2.1.1 Asian countries.........................................................................................37
2.1.2 Africa.........................................................................................................38
2.1.3 Brasil .........................................................................................................47
2.2 Experience for Vietnam ................................................................................51
2.2.1 The status of plastic product consumption in Vietnam ..........................51
2.2.2 Apply the circular economy for plastic for Vietnam...............................56
2.3. Conclusions....................................................................................................77
CHAPTER 3: RECOMMENDATIONS TO BOOST CIRCULAR ECONOMY
FOR PLASTIC PRODUCTS IN VIETNAM.......................................................78
3.1. Recommendations.........................................................................................78
3.1.1 New material.............................................................................................78
3.1.2. Business models, product and service design........................................79
3.2.The Limitation of the Study..........................................................................82
REFERENCES........................................................................................................84
INTRODUCTION
1. Rationales for the research
Nowaday, plastic products is an important part of daily life. Strong, lightweight,
and moldable, plastics are used in thousands of products that add comfort, convenience,
and safety to our everyday lives. Plastics in carpets, blankets, and pillows keep us
comfortable in our homes.
Plastic products is applied popularly in many fields such as: packaging,
transportation, energy efficiency, sports, medicine, electronics... Plastic’s light weight,
strength, and ability to be molded into any form makes it an ideal packaging material.
Plastic is used for food and non-food packaging. Advances in plastic technology has
made plastic packaging more efficient: the average packaging weight for a product has
been reduced over 28 percent in the last decade. Plastic packaging is convenient for
consumers: clear plastic lets shoppers view the item they are purchasing and plastic
packaging is easy to open. Plastic packaging protects food, medicine, and other
products from contamination and germs when it is displayed and handled. Plastic also
protects consumers. Plastics make up ten percent of new vehicle’s total weight, and

over 50 percent of their volume. Steering wheels, door liners, and stereo components
are made of plastic, as are less visible parts, such as engine components. As plastic
technology advances, many car companies envision using more plastic to lighten the
weight of cars and trucks to make them more fuel efficient. For every ten percent
reduction in weight, a car or truck will save five to seven percent in fuel usage.
Reduction in vehicle weight translates into a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions:
every pound of vehicle weight that can be eliminated means 25.3 pounds of carbon
dioxide emissions are saved over the vehicle’s life.
Plastics can make your home more energy-efficient. Plastic sealants and caulks
can seal up window leaks and plastic foam weather stripping can make doors and
windows draft-free. Clear plastic sheeting for windows improves insulation and
decreases drafts in the winter. Plastic blinds, window shades, and drapes help insulate
windows by keeping out the sun in warm months to keep the house cooler and by
keeping in heat during the winter months. Plastic awnings and reflective films also help
shade the home. Many brands of high efficiency LED light bulbs are
1
made from recycled plastic. Plastic insulation in the walls, floors, attic, and roof of
your home keeps heat in during the winter and out during the summer, which saves you
energy and money on your heating and cooling. Plastic foam spray fills large and small
holes in walls, doors, and attics.
Plastic’s strength, light weight, and moldability have revolutionized electronics.
Plastic cables and cords on everything from computers to paper shredders keep
electronics powered. Plastic insulation for cables and electrical equipment keeps
equipment cool and protects users from over-heating. Household appliances, from
toasters to DVD players, use plastic to make them lightweight and affordable. The
liquid crystalline plastics in LCD flat screen televisions give beautiful pictures and save
energy, using less power than traditional cathode ray tube screens. The touch screens
on mobile phones, computers, and other electronics are made of polycarbonate film.
The tiny microphones in mobile phones are made of polymers for their shock-
resistance. Handsets and earpieces are lighter and more comfortable because of
plastics.
Plastic products consumption has been growing rapidly and impacting
negatively on enviroment, so it is necessary to find solution for this issue. A circular
economy for plastic products may be help reducing plastic pollution. The circular
economy is gaining growing attention as a potential way for our society to increase

prosperity, while reducing demands on finite raw materials and minimizing negative
externalities. Such a transition requires a systemic approach, which entails moving
beyond incremental improvements to the existing model as well as developing new
collaboration mechanisms. The challenges and opportunities posed by the current
plastics system demand fundamental change in which research and innovation (R&I),
enabled and reinforced by policymaking, play a crucial role. While plastics bring
benefits as a functional material, the current system has significant unintended
drawbacks, including economic loss of material value and environmental damage, such
as marine litter. It has become evident that the plastics economy needs to change from a
system that produces waste by design to one that preserves the value and benefits of
plastics, but eliminates these drawbacks.
2
2. Research questions
+ What is a circular economy for plastic product?
+ What are challenges and opportunities in implementing circular economy for
plastic product in developed countries?
+ What are challenges and opportunities in implementing circular economy for
plastic product in Vietnam?
3. The objective of the study
The objective of this research is to provide the plastic packaging industry and its
partners with insights and recommendations regarding public policy instruments that
can be utilized to increase the circularity of plastic packaging. Specifically, we
investigate a wide array of policy tools and their effectiveness towards improving
recycling rates and reducing plastic pollution, with a complimentary goal of developing
end markets for recycled plastic. Our analysis further identifies the economic,
regulatory, infrastructural and political factors that shape the advantages and
disadvantages of different policy options in various geographic contexts. Ultimately,
we seek to inform and expand ongoing discussions by policy, industry and NGO
stakeholders regarding global policy solutions that address plastic pollution and close
the loop on plastics at large in order to create a new plastic economy.
4. The methodology of the study
PEST, as an analysis framework of macro-environmental factors, is also referred
to as, STEP (Clulow, 2005), SEPT (Narayanan and Fahey, 1994: 199-202), or STEEP
(Voros, 2001). The constituents of PEST can be considered as macro environmental
factors and its usefulness lies in the assumption that the success of a particular

organisation or management solution cannot be understood without having the
information relevant to the specific business environment (Buchanan and Gibb, 1998).
Business environment could be defined as all relevant physical and social factors
outside an organization that are considered into decision-making process (Duncan,
1972). According to Ward and Rivani (2005) PEST analysis assumes that specific
external and indirect circumstances that characterize the business environment are able
to influence organisational capacity to produce value. Hence, PEST analysis provides a
“satellite view” to assess the external environment
3
(Ward and Rivani, 2005). This is particularly relevant when trying to narrow very large
business environments in order to study organisational information systems. PEST has
been conventionally used in two different ways: first, to analyse the position of a
particular organisation (e.g. Vrontis and Vignali, 2001) or industry sector (e.g.
McManus et al., 2007: 19-36) within a particular business environment; second, to
analyse the viability of general management solutions in a business environment (e.g.
ESCWA, 2005). This research proposes to use PEST to analyse the study of a specific
IS solution in a particular business environment. The purpose of the PEST analysis
proposed in this paper is to develop an in-depth understanding on the context (e.g. a
country) that is the original target of the study and subsequently identify a narrower
context (e.g. a specific region and a type of company) in which the study can generate
more in-depth and meaningful findings.
5. Scope of research
The content of the research is mainly on circular economy which involves several
aspects. However, it is necessary to identify circular economy for plastic products in
selected countries as: Asian countries, Africa, Brasil from 2010-2018 and experince for
Viet Nam to apply in manufacturing and social life.
6. Structure of reasearch
The study is divided into 4 charpter, as some details as following:
The literature review is to provide the basic knowledge about the circular
economy for plastic products. It also analyzes the importance of understanding circular
economy for plastic products consumption in the future.
An analysis of plastic product consumption in selected countries and exprience
for Viet Nam
Recommendations to boost circular economy for plastic products in Viet Nam

4
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ON CIRCULAR
ECONOMY FOR PLASTIC PRODUCTS
1.1. Negative impacts of plastics
Impacts of plastics production and use
• Conventional plastic production is highly dependent on virgin fossil feedstocks
(mainly natural gas and oil) as well as other resources, including water – it takes about
185 litres of water to make a kilogram of plastic. Plastics production consumes up to
6% of global oil production and is projected to increase to 20% by 2050 if current
consumption patterns persist . Plastics are therefore a major contributor to greenhouse
gas emissions: CO2 emissions from the extraction and processing of fossil fuel as
plastics feedstocks; and the combustion of waste plastics, emitting 390 million tonnes
of CO2 in 2012 . On current trends, emissions from the global plastics sector are
projected to increase from 1% in 2014 to 15% of the global annual carbon budget by
2050.
• Some plastics contain toxic chemical additives, which are used as plasticisers,
softeners or flame retardants. These chemicals include some persistent organic
pollutants (POPs) such as short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCP), polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), polybromodiphenyl (PBDEs including
tetrabromodiphenyl ether (tetraBDE), pentabromodiphenyl ether (pentaDBE),
octabromodiphenyl ether (octaBDE) and decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE)), as well
as endocrine disruptors such as bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalate. Chlorinated dioxins
(polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins), chlorinated furans (polychlorinated
dibenzofurans), PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), and hexachlorobenzene (HCB) are
also byproducts of the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). These chemicals have
been linked to health issues such as cancer, mental, reproductive, and developmental
diseases.
Impacts from disposal and post-disposal
• It is difficult to recycle some plastics without perpetuating the harmful
chemicals they contain. Furthermore, some plastics are very thin, for example, plastic
bags and films, or multi-layered, for example, food packaging, making them difficult
and expensive to recycle . The lack of universally agreed standards and
5
adequate information about the content and properties of some plastics also discourage
recycling. It is estimated that between USD 80 and 120 billion worth of material value

is lost to the global economy annually because of the low recycling rate of most plastic
packaging.
• Around 4900 Mt of the estimated 6300 Mt total of plastics ever produced have
been discarded either in landfills or elsewhere in the environment. This is expected to
increase to 12,000 Mt by 2050 unless action is take. The ocean is estimated to already
contain over 150 Mt of plastics or more than 5 trillion micro (less than 5mm) and
macroplastic particles. Much of this land-based discharge to the oceans originates in
five Asian countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, with
ten rivers across Asia and Africa (Indus, Ganges, Amur, Mekong, Pearl, Hai he,
Yellow, Yangtze, Nile, and Niger) responsible for transporting 88 – 95% of the global
load into the sea. The top 20 polluting rivers, mainly in Asia, release 67% of all plastic
waste into the oceans. The amount of oceans plastic could triple by 2025 without
further intervention. By 2050, there will be more plastics, by weight, in the oceans than
fish, if the current ‘take, make, use, and dispose’ model continues. Single-use plastics
contribute significantly to this leakage. About 330 billion single-use plastic carrier bags
are produced annually and often used for just a few hours before being discarded into
the environment. Single use plastics make up about half of beach litters in all four
European Regional Seas Areas – the Mediterranean, North Atlantic, Baltic, and the
Black Sea and they can now be found even in the deepest world’s ocean trench.
• Plastics stay in the environment for a long time; some take up to 500 years to
break down; this causes damage, harms biodiversity, and depletes the ecosystem
services needed to support life. After climate change, plastic is the biggest threat to the
future of coral reefs: it increases the likelihood of disease outbreaks by more than 20
times, threatening marine habitats that provide food, coastal protection, income, and
cultural benefits to more than 275 million people .
• In the marine environment, plastics are broken down into tiny pieces
(microplastics) which threaten marine biodiversity. Furthermore, microplastics can end
up in the food chain, with potentially damaging effects on human health,
6
because they may also accumulate high concentrations of POPs and other toxic
chemicals, and potentially serve as a pathway for their transfer to aquatic organisms,
and consequently human beings. There have been calls for microplastics to be
considered as POPs because of their pervasive and persistent nature. There is, however,
currently no scientific evidence that microplastics are directly harmful to human health.
• New knowledge suggests that microplastics are an emerging source of soil

pollution. The impacts of microplastics in soils, sediments and freshwater could have a
long-term damaging effect on terrestrial ecosystems globally through adverse effects on
organisms, such as soil-dwelling invertebrates and fungi, needed for important
ecosystem services and functions. Up to 895 microplastic particles per kilogram have
been found in organic fertilisers used in agricultural soils. Up to 730,000 tonnes of
microplastics are transferred every year to agricultural lands in Europe and North
America from urban sewage sludges used as farm manure, with potentially direct
effects on soil ecosystems, crops and livestock or through the presence of toxic
chemicals.
• Microplastics are an emerging freshwater contaminant which may degrade water
quality and consequently affect water availability and harm freshwater fauna. The
contamination of tap and bottled water by microplastics is already widespread, and the
World Health Organization is assessing the possible effects on human health.
• A significant proportion of disposed plastic ends up in municipal solid waste
(MSW). In many developing countries, inadequate or informal waste management
systems mean that waste is usually burned in open dumps or household backyards,
including in cities linked to the top ten rivers which transport plastic waste to the sea.
In other places, MSW is incinerated. The open burning or incineration of plastics has
three negative effects: it releases CO2 and black carbon – two very potent climate-
changing substances; burning plastics, especially containing chlorinated and
brominated additives, is a significant source of air pollution, including the emission of
unintended POPs (uPOPs) such as chlorinated and brominated dioxins, furans, and
PCBs; and burning plastic poses severe threats to plant, animal and human health,
because toxic particulates can easily settle on crops or in waterways, degrading water
quality and entering the food chain.
7
• In 2014, UN Environment estimated the natural capital cost of plastics, from
environmental degradation, climate change and health, to be about USD 75 billion
annually with 75% of these environmental costs occurring at the manufacturing stage.
A more recent analysis indicates the environmental cost could be up to USD 139
billion.
1.2. The definition of circular economy
The circular economy is an alternative to the current linear, make, use, dispose,
economy model, which aims to keep resources in use for as long as possible, to extract
the maximum value from them whilst in use, and to recover and regenerate products

and materials at the end of their service life. The circular economy
promotes a production and consumption model that is restorative and regenerative by
design. It is designed to ensure that the value of products, materials, and resources is
maintained in the economy at the highest utility and value, for as long as possible,
while minimising waste generation, by designing out waste and hazardous materials.
The circular economy applies both to biological and technical
materials. It embraces systems thinking and innovation, to ensure the continuous flow
of materials through a ‘value circle’, with manufacturers, consumers, businesses and
government each playing a significant role .
The World Economic Forum reported that material (technical and biological) cost
savings of up to $1 trillion per year could be achieved by 2025 by implementing the
circular economy worldwide64. And the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) “CEO Guide to the Circular Economy” indicates that the
circular economy could help unlock USD 4.5 trillion of business opportunities while
helping to fulfil the Paris Agreement65. Implementing the circular economy across the
energy, built environment, transport, and food sectors in Europe could reduce carbon
emissions by 83% by 2050 compared to 2012 levels66. A study by the Club of Rome
also indicates that transitioning to a circular economy across various economic sectors
in five European countries (Finland, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden) by
2030 could lead to a two-thirds reduction in carbon emissions, lower business costs,
and create up to 1.2 million jobs. While studies on developing countries are scarce,
UNDP reported that circular
8
economy strategies could help the Lao DPR achieve its climate mitigation targets,
while also developing local industries, reducing dependency on resource rents,
imported materials and products, thus helping to reduce poverty. 1.3. Circular
economy as solutions for the plastic sector
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation summarised the goals for a circular economy in
the plastics sector as follows: improve the economic viability of recycling and reuse of
plastics; halt the leakage of plastics into the environment, especially waterways and
oceans; and decouple plastics production from fossil-fuel feedstocks, while embracing
renewable feedstocks.
Recent science and innovation highlights examples of how these goals might be
achieved:
i) Produce plastics from alternative feedstocks

Examples of alternative feedstocks include greenhouse gas such as CO2 and
methane, bio-based sources such as oils, starch, and cellulose, as well as naturally
occurring biopolymers, sewage sludge and food products. Some plastics can be
produced using benign and biodegradable materials. And eco-friendly alternative flame
retardants have been developed which could eliminate the use of some hazardous
chemicals in plastics manufacture.
ii) Use plastic waste as a resource
The capture and recovery of plastic waste for remanufacturing into new value
products has been widely demonstrated, for example, for making bricks and
composites, in road construction for furniture, as well as for making clothes and
footwear. Plastic waste has also been converted to liquid fuel and has been burned as
fuel in a waste-to-energy cycle, though there are downsides to the latter. Through
chemical recycling, the petrochemical components of plastic polymers can also be
recovered for use in producing new plastics, or for the production of other chemicals,
or as an alternative fuel. For example, a recent study successfully developed plastics
that can be chemically recycled and reused infinitely. Studies also suggest that
polyethylene plastic, a significant proportion of manufactured plastics globally, can be
broken down by bacteria and caterpillars, highlighting opportunities for biobased
recycling of waste plastics.
9
(iii) Redesign plastics manufacturing processes and products to improve
longevity, reusability and waste prevention, by incorporating after-use, asset recovery,
and waste and pollution prevention into the design from the outset.
This means adopting a life-cycle approach including: cleaner production;
discouraging single- and other avoidable plastics use; as well as designing products for
appropriate lifetimes, extended use, and for ease of separation, repair, upgrade and
recycling; eliminating toxic substances; and preventing the release of microplastics into
the environment by redesigning products. For example, designing clothes and tires to
reduce wear and tear, and eliminating, or using alternatives to, microplastics in
personal care products such as toothpaste and shampoo. A further example, of redesign
is the bulk delivery of cleaning and personal care products supplied with refillable
plastic containers, thereby eliminating single-use bottles. Existing applications of this
model include Replenish bottles, Petainer packaging, and Splosh. Another example is
reusable beverage bottles as an alternative to single-use bottles, for example, a
returnable bottle system and refillable bottles, which can lower material costs and

reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
(iv) Increase collaboration between businesses and consumers to increase
awareness of the need for, and benefits of, a shift from non-essential plastic use and a
throw-away culture, to encourage recycling, and to increase the value of plastic
products, for example, by using by-products from one industry as a raw material for
another (industrial symbiosis). Several analyses have highlighted the climate and
environmental benefits from plastic waste recycling through industrial symbiosis.
Households can be included in the symbiosis process, by strengthening waste collection
systems and by creating innovative and effective take-back programs. Analysis of
urban-industrial symbiosis (exchanging resources between residential and industrial
areas) in a Chinese city indicated that producing energy from plastic waste led to an
annual reduction in CO2 emissions of 78,000 tonnes while avoiding the discharge of
25,000 tonnes of waste plastics a year into the environment.
(v) Embrace sustainable business models which promote products as services and
encourage the sharing and leasing of plastic products
10
This would optimise product utilisation and increase revenue while decreasing the
volume of manufactured goods. An example of this is the leasing of water dispensers
and refillable plastic bottles to households and offices. Another example is the Lego’s
Pley system where consumers rent and return Lego sets rather than buy them.
(vi) Develop robust information platforms which provide data on the composition
of plastic products, track the movement of plastic resources within the economy,
support cross-value chain dialogue and the exchange of knowledge, and build on
experiences gained through existing global institutional networks. An example of a
global network is the RECPnet (Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production Network)
that promotes resource-efficient cleaner production and facilitates collaboration
including through the transfer of relevant knowledge, experiences and technologies.
(vii) Policy instruments including fiscal and regulatory measures to deal with the
negative effects of the unsustainable production and use of plastics Without these
measures, markets would continue to favour fossil feedstocks, especially when oil
prices are low, and the barriers to achieving the circular economy would be more
difficult to overcome. Ensuring that the costs of unsustainable production and use are
taken into account would encourage production from alternative less harmful sources,
as well as prevent waste, and stimulate reuse and recycling. Fiscal policy measures, for

example, direct surcharges, levies, carbon or resource taxes and taxes on specific types
of plastic such as plastic bags, disposable cutlery and other one-use items, may be
needed to discourage non-essential plastic use, and other unsustainable practices, while
helping to improve the uptake, financial viability and quality of plastic recycling. Other
regulatory and policy measures are needed, including recycling targets, extended
producer responsibility, container deposit legislation, mandatory requirements and
standards for circular/eco-design, public procurement policies, bans on landfilling and
incineration, and outright bans on some plastic products, for example, single-use plastic
bags.
11
1.4. Circular Economy and Circular Solutions
Following Kirchherr et al., in a circular economy, materials and products should be
reused, recycled, and recovered instead of discarded, if not reduced. Companies aiming
at becoming circular should offer solutions based on such activities. In order to decide
what solutions could be considered circular, we turned to the literature on circular
business models. In 2014, Accenture suggested five types of circular business models:
circular supplies, resource recovery, product life extension, sharing platforms, and
product as service. Later, Bocken et al.suggested the access performance model,
extending product value, classic long life, encouraging sufficiency, extending resource
value, and industrial symbiosis as circular business model strategies. In a more
systematic fashion, Lewandoski presented over 25 different business models
corresponding to the ReSOLVE (regenerate, share, optimise, loop, virtualise, and
exchange) framework by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Despite these efforts, clear
definitions of circular business models and circular value propositions are still lacking
Drawing on these findings, this review focusses on the literature addressing three types
of solutions, remanufactured products, product service systems (PSSs), the sharing
economy, and collaborative consumption (these last two are counted as one).
Remanufactured products are the result of a reuse process that repairs, replaces, or
restores components of a product that is not useful anymore and aims at ensuring
“operation comparable to a similar new product”. A PSS is “a market proposition that
extends the traditional functionality of a product by incorporating additional services.
Here, the emphasis is on the ‘sale of use’ rather than the ‘sale of product’’. Such a
model enables the reuse of products by intensifying use. There are three types of PSS:
product oriented, results-oriented, and outcome-oriented, but only one could offer

significant sustainability results according to Tukker and Tischner. With an outcome-
oriented PSS, the company has the incentive to reduce costs, including materials, thus
creating the opportunity for increased efficiency and improving sustainability. In
contrast to that, the two first groups still depend on the physical product to deliver
value; therefore, the potential for material efficiency might not be as considerable.
Companies have implemented PSSs as a strategy to commercialise
12
remanufactured products and intensify the use of goods, thus making it a strategy for
reuse, a key activity within the circular economy.
Finally, the sharing economy and collaborative consumption are both forms of
consumption that aim at intensifying the use of otherwise underutilised assets,
facilitating the reuse of products as in the case of PSSs . According to the European
Commission, the sharing economy refers to “companies that deploy accessibility
based business models for peer-to-peer markets and its user communities”. Schor
suggested four types of activities that are considered sharing: the recirculation of
goods, an intensification of use of durable goods, an exchange of services, and the
sharing of productive assets. Collaborative consumption as defined by Ertz
considers activities that involve consumers as both providers and “obtainers” of
resources. It can be based on access and ownership transfer, either online or offline. In
practice, sharing economy Sustainability 2018, 10, 2758 4 of 25 solutions and
collaborative consumption solutions aim at facilitating access to underused assets via
marketplaces, platforms, or networks. They are not restricted to community initiatives;
there are also companies that have developed solutions based on such premises.
According to Accenture, technological developments have facilitated the proliferation
of the sharing economy and collaborative consumption-based solutions, as they have
allowed organisations and peers to access broader markets and populations. However,
and although their potential to contribute to sustainability has been an argument to
promote them, there is no conclusive evidence that such a promise has been fulfilled;
on the contrary, there appear to be indications that so-called sharing companies are
increasing the demand for resources.
1.6. The overview of circular economy
The circular economy is a timely and highly relevant topic. The idea behind the
circular economy is that companies have a responsibility to uphold the environmental
and sustainable values of society and must respond to a broad set of stakeholders rather
than just their closest shareholders. This idea has resulted in research into ways

management can expand and rethink the traditional make-use
dispose business model. Despite criticism of this view and debate over whether it is
13
realistic to expect companies to venture beyond shareholders’ interests when designing
their business models to close resource loops and achieve the complete cycling of
materials, an increasing number of scholars and practitioners are hopeful that such a
transition can address what is perhaps the greatest challenge currently facing society.
Recently, discussions about the importance of the circular economy have evolved. The
focus of these discussions has shifted away from simplistic arguments about why the
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2799; doi:10.3390/su10082799
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2018, 10, 2799 2 of 19 circular
economy is good toward understanding more theoretically sophisticated justifications
for the financial outcomes of implementing circular business models. This shift is
important. The field of business management and the circular economy lacks accepted
theoretical perspectives that are substantial enough to outline and analyze empirical
evidence and align discussions in the strategy, organization, and management
literatures. The scholarly study of management may be poorly integrated with the
circular economy because the concept of the circular economy is rooted in web-articles
and text books rather than peer-reviewed scientific work. The circular economy has
received the most attention in disciplines, like industrial ecology, production
economics, and operations research. Thus, the scientific literature on the circular
economy has been developed through research conducted outside the management and
organizational theory tradition, with an overriding focus on problems, like waste
management and recycling, that have traditionally been handled by non-profit
organizations. A review of the literature reveals that few strategy, organization, or
management scholars have employed the concept of the circular economy. These
scholars have focused on describing different circular business models, circular
business model innovations, and certain challenges and uncertainties that companies
encounter when they adapt to the circular economy. Also, research on related concepts,
such as product-service systems, eco-efficient services, and business model
sustainability, has discussed the business practice implications of the circular economy.
However, the empirical evidence from research on the circular economy has not been
analyzed or synthesized from a management or organizational theory perspective,
which implies a limited focus on

14
profitability and competitive advantage. Indeed, recent reports have indicated that very
few companies have managed to transform their businesses to compete with what is
discussed in the circular economy literature. So, why are firms unable to transform
themselves to compete with business models that are based on the circular economy,
and could such a transformation lead to differences in behavior and profitability? To
stimulate research in this area, we first define and afterwards review what we know
about the circular economy based on diverse literature perspectives. Based on these
insights, we outline the fundamentals of circular business models and provide a range
of perspectives to explain why circular business models can be profitable and how it
can influence competitive advantages. We explore our research question by
acknowledging six theoretical perspectives to explaining differences in firms’ behavior
and the potential for economic returns and profitability:
(1) Contingencies and the importance of firms’ fit with the environment to exploit
and create market opportunities from the circular economy; (2) transaction costs and
contracting between partners involved in creating the circular economy;
(3) differences in firms’ resources and capabilities;
(4) differences in network position and path-dependence logics; (5) industry and
structural differences in terms of competition and barriers to entry; and (6) agency
issues, contractual design, and customer relationships. Accordingly, the goal of the
business model shifts from making profits through the sale of products or artifacts to
making profits through the flow of resources, materials, and products over time,
including reusing goods and recycling resources. This reasoning implies that
companies can reduce negative impacts on the environment by delivering and capturing
value through this alternative value proposition. However, undertaking such ambitious
transformation requires close collaboration and coordination between industrial
network actors to achieve close or slow material loops. Based on these insights, we
propose a circular business model definition to explain how an established firm uses
innovations to create, deliver, and capture value through the implementation of circular
economy principles, whereby
15
the business rational are realigned between the network of actors/stakeholders to meet
environmental, social, and economic benefits. Laws have been introduced by, for
example, the European Union (EU) and the Chinese government to stimulate a
transition towards a circular economy. In Europe, a Circular Economy Package has

been approved in 2018 by the European Parliament that includes a range of policy
measures and actions to reduce waste across Europe. For EU member states, targets
have been set for the recycling of material, including packaging, plastic, wood, ferrous
metals, aluminum, glass, paper, and cardboard. Likewise, in China, a Circular
Promotion Law has been passed in 2009 that promotes the efficient use of resources to
protect and improve the environment We argued that several research areas and
theoretical perspectives are necessary to understand the complex tasks that companies
and business practitioners face when transitioning to the circular economy. Overall, our
theory review suggests that companies that enter the circular economy with innovative
business models to address sustainability concerns face a highly uncertain environment.
In this environment, customers and customer behaviors are sometimes unknown or
undefined, and the needs of product attributes are uncertain. Furthermore, there is no
clear or established value chain or value delivery mechanism based on what has been
widely researched and propagated under the traditional make-use-dispose business
model. In light of this uncertainty, we suggest that companies interested in circular or
sustainable business models will be at or near the forefront and will have enormous
potential to stake a claim on their markets, which could lead to profits and long-term
competitiveness.
1.7. New plastics economy: a circular economy for plastic
1.7.1 The impacts of plastic product on society and enviroment The benefits of
plastic are undeniable. The material is cheap, lightweight and easy to make. These
qualities have led to a boom in the production of plastic over the past century. This
trend will continue as global plastic production skyrockets over the next 10 to 15 years.
We are already unable to cope with the amount of plastic waste we generate. Only a
tiny fraction is recycled. About 13 million tonnes of plastic leak into our oceans every
year, harming biodiversity, economies and, potentially, our own health.
16
The world urgently needs to rethink the way we manufacture, use and manage
plastic.
Plastics have transformed everyday life; usage is increasing and annual
production is likely to exceed 300 million tonnes by 2010. In this concluding paper to
the Theme Issue on Plastics, the Environment and Human Health, we synthesize
current understanding of the benefits and concerns surrounding the use of plastics
and look to future priorities, challenges and opportunities. It is evident that plastics
bring many societal benefits and offer future technological and medical advances.

However, concerns about usage and disposal are diverse and include accumulation of
waste in landfills and in natural habitats, physical problems for wildlife resulting from
ingestion or entanglement in plastic, the leaching of chemicals from plastic products
and the potential for plastics to transfer chemicals to wildlife and humans. However,
perhaps the most important overriding concern, which is implicit throughout this
volume, is that our current usage is not sustainable. Around 4 per cent of world oil
production is used as a feedstock to make plastics and a similar amount is used as
energy in the process. Yet over a third of current production is used to make items of
packaging, which are then rapidly discarded. Given our declining reserves of fossil
fuels, and finite capacity for disposal of waste to landfill, this linear use of
hydrocarbons, via packaging and other short-lived applications of plastic, is simply not
sustainable. There are solutions, including material reduction, design for end-of-life
recyclability, increased recycling capacity, development of bio-based feedstocks,
strategies to reduce littering, the application of green chemistry life-cycle analyses and
revised risk assessment approaches. Such measures will be most effective through the
combined actions of the public, industry, scientists and policymakers. There is some
urgency, as the quantity of plastics produced in the first 10 years of the current century
is likely to approach the quantity produced in the entire century that preceded.
1.7.1.1 Accumulation of plastic products waste in the natural enviroment Substantial
quantities of plastic have accumulated in the natural environment and in landfills.
Around 10 per cent by weight of the municipal waste stream is plastic (Barnes et al.
2009) and this will be considered later in §6. Discarded plastic
17
also contaminates a wide range of natural terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats,
with newspaper accounts of plastic debris on even some of the highest mountains.
There are also some data on littering in the urban environment (for example compiled
by EnCams in the UK; http://www.encams.org/home); however, by comparison with
the marine environment, there is a distinct lack of data on the accumulation of plastic
debris in natural terrestrial and freshwater habitats. There are accounts of inadvertent
contamination of soils with small plastic fragments as a consequence of spreading
sewage sludge (Zubris & Richards 2005), of fragments of plastic and glass
contaminating compost prepared from municipal solid waste (Brinton 2005) and of
plastic being carried into streams, rivers and ultimately the sea with rain water and
flood events (Thompson et al. 2005). However, there is a clear need for more research
on the quantities and effects of plastic debris in natural terrestrial habitats, on

agricultural land and in freshwaters. Inevitably, therefore, much of the evidence
presented here is from the marine environment. From the first accounts of plastic in the
environment, which were reported from the carcasses of seabirds collected from
shorelines in the early 1960s (Harper & Fowler 1987), the extent of the problem soon
became unmistakable with plastic debris contaminating oceans from the poles to the
Equator and from shorelines to the deep sea. Most polymers are buoyant in water, and
since items of plastic debris such as cartons and bottles often trap air, substantial
quantities of plastic debris accumulate on the sea surface and may also be washed
ashore. Monitoring the abundance of debris is important to establish rates of
accumulation and the effectiveness of any remediation measures. Most studies assess
the abundance of all types of anthropogenic debris including data on plastics and/or
plastic items as a category. In general, the abundance of debris on shorelines has been
extensively monitored, in comparison to surveys from the open oceans or the seabed. In
addition to recording debris, there is a need to collect data on sources; for plastic debris
this should include discharges from rivers and sewers together with littering behaviour.
Here, the limited data we have suggest that storm water pulses provide a major
pathway for debris from the land to the sea, with 81 g m–3
of plastic debris during high-
flow events in the USA (Ryan et al. 2009). Methods to monitor the abundance of
anthropogenic debris (including
18
plastics) often vary considerably between countries and organizations, adding to
difficulties in interpreting trends. As a consequence, the United Nations Environment
Programme and the OSPAR Commission are currently taking steps to introduce
standardized protocols (OSPAR 2007; Cheshire et al. 2009). Some trends are evident,
however, typically with an increase in the abundance of debris and fragments between
the 1960s and the 1990s (Barnes et al. 2009). More recently, abundance at the sea
surface in some regions and on some shorelines appears to be stabilizing, while in other
areas such as the Pacific Gyre there are reports of considerable increases. On shorelines
the quantities of debris, predominantly plastic, are greater in the Northern than in the
Southern Hemisphere (Barnes 2005). The abundance of debris is greater adjacent to
urban centres and on more frequented beaches and there is evidence that plastics are
accumulating and becoming buried in sediments (Barnes et al. 2009; Ryan et al. 2009).
Barnes et al. (2009) consider that contamination of remote habitats, such as the deep
sea and the polar regions, is likely to increase as debris is carried there from more
densely populated areas. Allowing for variability between habitats and locations, it

seems inevitable, however, that the quantity of debris in the environment as a whole
will continue to increase—unless we all change our practices. Even with such changes,
plastic debris that is already in the environment will persist for a considerable time to
come. The persistence of plastic debris and the associated environmental hazards are
illustrated poignantly by Barnes et al. (2009) who describe debris that had originated
from an aeroplane being ingested by an albatross some 60 years after the plane had
crashed.
1.7.1.2 Effects of plastic products debris waste in the enviroment and on wildlife
There are some accounts of effects of debris from terrestrial habitats, for example
ingestion by the endangered California condor, Gymnogyps californianus (Mee et al.
2007). However, the vast majority of work describing environmental consequences of
plastic debris is from marine settings and more work on terrestrial and freshwater
habitats is needed. Plastic debris causes aesthetic problems, and it also presents a
hazard to maritime activities including fishing and tourism (Moore 2008; Gregory
19
2009). Discarded fishing nets result in ghost fishing that may result in losses to
commercial fisheries (Moore 2008; Brown & Macfadyen 2007). Floating plastic debris
can rapidly become colonized by marine organisms and since it can persist at the sea
surface for substantial periods, it may subsequently facilitate the transport of non-native
or ‘alien’ species (Barnes 2002; Barnes et al. 2009; Gregory 2009). However, the
problems attracting most public and media attention are those resulting in ingestion and
entanglement by wildlife. Over 260 species, including invertebrates, turtles, fish,
seabirds and mammals, have been reported to ingest or become entangled in plastic
debris, resulting in impaired movement and feeding, reduced reproductive output,
lacerations, ulcers and death (Laist 1997; Derraik 2002; Gregory 2009). The limited
monitoring data we have suggest rates of entanglement have increased over time (Ryan
et al. 2009). A wide range of species with different modes of feeding including filter
feeders, deposit feeders and detritivores are known to ingest plastics. However,
ingestion is likely to be particularly problematic for species that specifically select
plastic items because they mistake them for their food. As a consequence, the incidence
of ingestion can be extremely high in some populations. For example, 95 per cent of
fulmars washed ashore dead in the North Sea have plastic in their guts, with substantial
quantities of plastic being reported in the guts of other birds, including albatross and
prions (Gregory 2009). There are some very good data on the quantity of debris
ingested by seabirds recorded from the carcasses of dead birds. This approach has been

used to monitor temporal and spatial patterns in the abundance of sea-surface plastic
debris on regional scales around Europe (Van Franeker et al. 2005; Ryan et al. 2009).
More work will be needed to establish the full environmental relevance of plastics
in the transport of contaminants to organisms living in the natural environment, and the
extent to which these chemicals could then be transported along food chains. However,
there is already clear evidence that chemicals associated with plastic are potentially
harmful to wildlife. Data that have principally been collected using laboratory
exposures are summarized by Oehlmann et al. (2009). These show that phthalates and
BPA affect reproduction in all studied
20
animal groups and impair development in crustaceans and amphibians. Molluscs and
amphibians appear to be particularly sensitive to these compounds and biological
effects have been observed in the low ng l–1
to µg l–1
range. In contrast, most effects in
fish tend to occur at higher concentrations. Most plasticizers appear to act by
interfering with hormone function, although they can do this by several mechanisms
(Hu et al. 2009). Effects observed in the laboratory coincide with measured
environmental concentrations, thus there is a very real probability that these chemicals
are affecting natural populations (Oehlmann et al. 2009). BPA concentrations in
aquatic environments vary considerably, but can reach 21 µg l–1
in freshwater systems
and concentrations in sediments are generally several orders of magnitude higher than
in the water column. For example, in the River Elbe, Germany, BPA was measured at
0.77 µg l–1
in water compared with 343 µg kg–1
in sediment (dry weight). These findings
are in stark contrast with the European Union environmental risk assessment predicted
environmental concentrations of 0.12 µg l– 1
for water and 1.6 µg kg–1
(dry weight) for
sediments.
Phthalates and BPA can bioaccumulate in organisms, but there is much variability
between species and individuals according to the type of plasticizer and experimental
protocol. However, concentration factors are generally higher for invertebrates than
vertebrates, and can be especially high in some species of molluscs and crustaceans.
While there is clear evidence that these chemicals have adverse effects at
environmentally relevant concentrations in laboratory studies, there is a need for further
research to establish population-level effects in the natural environment (see discussion
in Oehlmann et al. 2009), to establish the long-term effects of exposures (particularly
due to exposure of embryos), to determine effects of exposure to contaminant mixtures
and to establish the role of plastics as sources (albeit not exclusive sources) of these

contaminants (see Meeker et al. (2009) for discussion of sources and routes of
exposure).
1.7.1.3 Effects on humans: Epdemiological and experimental evidence Turning to
adverse effects of plastic on the human population, there is a growing body of literature
on potential health risks. A range of chemicals that are used in the manufacture of
plastics are known to be toxic. Biomonitoring (e.g.
21
measuring concentration of environmental contaminants in human tissue) provides an
integrated measure of an organism's exposure to contaminants from multiple sources.
This approach has shown that chemicals used in the manufacture of plastics are present
in the human population, and studies using laboratory animals as model organisms
indicate potential adverse health effects of these chemicals (Talsness et al. 2009). Body
burdens of chemicals that are used in plastic manufacture have also
been correlated with adverse effects in the human population, including reproductive
abnormalities (e.g. Swan et al. 2005; Swan 2008; Lang et al. 2008). Interpreting
biomonitoring data is complex, and a key task is to set information into perspective
with dose levels that are considered toxic on the basis of experimental studies in
laboratory animals. The concept of ‘toxicity’ and thus the experimental methods for
studying the health impacts of the chemicals in plastic, and other chemicals classified
as endocrine disruptors, is currently undergoing a transformation (a paradigm
inversion) since the disruption of endocrine regulatory systems requires approaches
very different from the study of acute toxicants or poisons. There is thus extensive
evidence that traditional toxicological approaches are inadequate for revealing
outcomes such as ‘reprogramming’ of the molecular systems in cells as a result of
exposure to very low doses during critical periods in development (e.g. Myers et al.
2009). Research on experimental animals informs epidemiologists about the potential
for adverse effects in humans and thus plays a critical role in chemical risk
assessments. A key conclusion from the paper by Talsness et al. (2009) is the need to
modify our approach to chemical testing for risk assessment. As noted by these authors
and others, there is a need to integrate concepts of endocrinology in the assumptions
underlying chemical risk assessment. In particular, the assumptions that dose–response
curves are monotonic and that there are threshold doses (safe levels) are not true for
either endogenous hormones or for chemicals with hormonal activity (which includes
many chemicals used in plastics) (Talsness et al. 2009).
Despite the environmental concerns about some of the chemicals used in plastic

manufacture, it is important to emphasize that evidence for effects in humans is still
limited and there is a need for further research and in particular, for
22
longitudinal studies to examine temporal relationships with chemicals that leach out of
plastics (Adibi et al. 2008). In addition, the traditional approach to studying the toxicity
of chemicals has been to focus only on exposure to individual chemicals in relation to
disease or abnormalities. However, because of the complex integrated nature of the
endocrine system, it is critical that future studies involving endocrine
disrupting chemicals that leach from plastic products focus on mixtures of chemicals to
which people are exposed when they use common household products. 1.7.2 Novel
sources, designs and business models for plastic products in a circular economy
1.7.2.1 New materials
This chapter focuses on the development of new materials, discussing fossil and
renewable feedstock where appropriate. Novel plastics made from the latter often
provide an insightful example of the challenges encountered. Renewable feedstock is
mostly used to refer to bio-based feedstock, i.e. biomass, biomass
derived by-products, or carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane derived from biological
processes. In this report, the term is also used to denote chemicals from CO2 or
methane captured through artificial carbon capture and utilisation processes (e.g. from
industrial-emissions gas or atmospheric carbon). A more in-depth look into bio-based
feedstocks is given in Chapter 4. The future of innovation in new materials is driven by
a few key present-day insights:
-- Plastics are synthetic alternatives to natural materials. Plastics have been on the
world stage since the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century (Morawetz,
1995). The rapid growth of plastics as everyday materials
Was driven by a need to replace natural product shortages, e.g. ivory and shellac
(Pretting & Boote, 2010). Such replacement reflects Thomas Malthus’s hypothesis that
(unchecked) population growth always exceeds the growth of the means of subsistence
(Malthus, 1798). Since its formation in 1968, the Club of Rome has presented and
updated a similar hypothesis on the dwindling of the earth’s resources its and
consequences for a growing global population (Randers, 2012 and Meadows, Randers
& Meadows, 2004). To date, plastics have systematically replaced and prevented or
helped avoid unsustainable use of natural
23

materials (e.g. metals, ceramics and wood), and the production and use of plastics have
grown exponentially in the last decades. Between 1950 and 2015 an estimated 8.3
billion tonnes of plastics were produced, of which 6.3 billion tonnes are considered as
waste (Geyer, Jambeck & Law, 2017).
Fossil-based plastics are present all over the world. The prominent role of plastics,
however, is being critically assessed as an integral part of the functioning of society
(Geyer, Jambeck & Law, 2017). Today’s production volumes are enabled by massive
capital investments in gigantic infrastructures and operational mechanisms, rendering
plastics cheap materials for mass consumption (Aftalion, 2001; Lokensgard, 2010 and
Freinkel, 2011). Plastics production is part of the chemical industry that globally
represents EUR 3.36 trillion in sales, with a European share of 15.1 % in 2016 down
from 32.5 % in 1996 (CEFIC, 2018). The industry is fuelled by readily available and
relatively cheap oil (Figure 8) and has moved from Western Europe and USA to Asia,
mainly China (Fi gure 9). As explained in Chapter 1, not only has plastics production
been globalised, but also the challenges, which is an important aspect when considering
EU-wide policy.
-- Large plastics waste streams globally are associated with the packaging sector.
A user trend towards more convenience combined with an increase in the living
standard of a growing number of people has had a magnifying effect on plastic
production. In particular, single-use packages have become a major global
environmental burden (Geyer, Jambeck & Law, 2017). Packaging is the largest plastics
application, currently representing 26 % of the total volume of plastics used globally
and up to 40 % in Europe (World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and
McKinsey & Company, 2016 and PlasticsEurope, 2018). As packaging items typically
have very short lifespans (Figure 10) and are directly visible to all in everyday life
(Figure 11), the significant amount of plastic waste observed has become a global
concern. Obviously, the economic loss and environmental damage linked to plastics go
beyond packaging applications.
Accordingly, the (manufacturing) industry is trying to address the systemic issues
of plastics in a number of ways, including R&I in new materials, scaling up new
technologies and innovating the processing and handling of plastics.
24
1.7.2.2 Biological feedstock
The transition of a fossil-based economy to a biobased economy is one of the
biggest industrial challenges of the 21st century. One of the prerequisites to achieving

this transition and decoupling society from fossil feedstock is the development of
chemicals and materials from renewable sources, in a way that does not lead to
irreversible depletion of natural capital or other negative externalities. In addition, the
use of renewable raw materials and resources that today are considered waste is an
important part of the broader transition towards a circular economy (FP7 SPLASH and
H2020 ReTAPP). Research on bio-based chemicals and plastics has increasingly been
carried out in Europe, in line with the 2012 EU bioeconomy strategy, and its 2018
update, and with several bioeconomy strategies from Member States (European
Commission, 2012 and European Commission, 2018a). The potential to use chemicals
or materials derived from biological feedstock has already been introduced in Chapter
3. This chapter explores the availability of such feedstock, what particular precursors
and materials can be derived from it, and the prospects for its products on the market,
with a particular focus on plastics. Throughout this report, the term ‘bio-based’ refers
to any polymer, chemical or product that is made of biomass, biomass-derived by-
products or CO2/methane derived from biological processes. In this way, bio-based
feedstock is considered a subcategory of renewable or alternative feedstock, which
would, for example, also include CO2 or methane captured through artificial carbon
capture and utilisation process
More generally, in the next few years the production capacity for bio-based
platform chemicals is expected to grow faster than for bio-based plastics. Between
2017 and 2022, the estimated annual global production capacity growth rate is 5-6 %,
exceeding the estimations for bio-based polymers (3-4 % per year). Estimates from
EU-funded projects indicate that the market potential for building blocks like fructose,
succinic acid, itaconic acid and 2,5 furandicarboxylic acid (FDCA) is increasing (FP7
BIOCONSEPT, H2020 ReTAPP, FP7 TRANSBIO and FP7 SPLASH). Other recent
developments in the bio-based chemical area include alternatives for the
25
The market demands that the generally higher price of bio-based plastics
compared to those based on fossil feedstock be justified by added value, for example
better performance or environmental benefits (H2020 BIO4PRODUCTS and H2020
COSMOS). While there are exceptions, such as PEF and certain polyamides, many of
the currently available bio-based plastics often struggle to meet the key requirements
set for conventional plastics. This especially concerns barrier properties needed for
food packaging (FP7 WHEYLAYER2). In addition, limitations in the mechanical

properties are typical of some bio-based plastics (FP7 FORBIOPLAST and FP7
LEGUVAL). Moreover, there is often limited information on the differences (or
similarities) in environmental or social advantages of specific bio-based polymers and
chemicals compared to fossil-based counterparts. Hence, more knowledge is needed on
the production of biobased polymers and chemicals with the potential to be adopted for
industrial use in large-volume applications, such as food packaging and mulching film
(H2020 FUNGUSCHAIN).
Develop EU-wide strategic planning for scaling biorefineries related to plastics and
chemicals production. Stimulate collaboration or consolidation to create cost efficient
chemicals and plastics producing units integrated in a circular economy. This
collaboration also needs to include farmers to ensure a consistent supply.
Provide information for business on the differences and similarities in
performance of biobased polymers and chemicals compared to fossil-based
counterparts. This information would enable better decision-making and the
justification of possibly higher costs.
Set up an oversight organisation to track existing and expected inventories of non-
fossil-based feedstock. In order to understand the potential and feasibility of
developing bio-based platform chemicals and plastics at scale, the current and expected
inventorie
1.7.2.3 Business model, product and service design
In a wider perspective, materials – including plastics – are used to create products
which serve the aims of a business model. Hence, to understand thoroughly how the
plastics system works today, and how it could work in the future, one has to consider
the related business models and product design:
26
-- Business models can be defined as the rationale of how an organisation creates,
delivers and captures value in economic, social, cultural or other contexts (Osterwalder,
Pigneur & Smith, 2010). There is a broadening understanding of the limitations of an
extractive, linear economy, such as resource scarcity, coupled to an acceleration of
technological disruptions. In this context, it becomes increasingly important to
understand how the interactions between stakeholders are designed and can be
redesigned more consciously. The process of business model construction and
modification is also called business model innovation and forms part of the business
strategy (Geissdoerfer, Savaget & Evans, 2017). This process is most relevant and
effective when given a leading role within strategic design. The interactions described

within a business model often define its innovative or even disruptive character. The
business models of companies such as Netflix, AirBnB, InterfaceFLOR, Tony’s
Chocolonely, Uber and Facebook are disruptive not because of a technological
advantage (which they rarely have), but because they changed a very specific
interaction within an existing market, using technology as a tool rather than a goal.
-- Product design encompasses the development of products and services,
covering a range of aspects that includes technical, economic (e.g. cost calculation,
marketing and branding), human-centred (e.g. usability, ergonomics and aesthetics) and
environmental ones. Modern design processes typically aim to develop new products
and services that are meaningful and sustainable, and enhance human interactions. All
kinds of products are developed using such an integrated product development
approach, ranging from consumer goods, such as toys, to industrial products, such as
medical equipment.
A circular economy pushes designers to take into account a wider spectrum of
environmental, economic and social aspects of product development, which can be
understood through the lens of ecodesign. While principles for ‘sustainable design’
have been around for over 30 years (TUDelft & UNEP, 2011), they have recently
received a boost due to the increasing interest in circular economy and ecodesign
guidelines. The ecodesign discipline aims to make all design considerations systemic,
including the impact of all stages of a product life – from the extraction of
27
raw materials (e.g. oil, biomass or recycled material) to the after-use phase, and the
generation of energy required along the way. The materials and energy needed are then
part of production, packaging, distribution, use, maintenance, and finally reuse, repair,
recycling, or disposal options. Hence, when implementing ecodesign, the designer
relates all choices during the development of a product to the environmental impact for
the complete life cycle of a product. By adopting such a holistic perspective on product
design, ecodesign guidelines are thus aligned with the principles of a circular economy
(ISO/TR 14062:2002, 2002 and Van Doorsselaer & Dubois, 2018). This close
connection between ecodesign and the circular economy is also reflected in the EU
action plan for the Circular Economy (European Commission, 2015b).
1.7.3 Circular after –use pathway for plastic products
1.7.3.1 Collection and sorting
In 2016 plastics demand in Europe was 50 million tonnes, of which roughly 40 %
were used in packaging (PlasticsEurope, 2018). This total demand is made up of 80 %

thermoplastics such as PP, PE and PET, 15 % thermosets that cannot be remoulded or
reheated, such as polyurethane (PU), epoxy resins, and phenolics, and 5 % of other,
specialised materials. There is a well-established impression that the after-use
collection, sorting and recycling systems of most, if not all, of these materials are
underperforming. Often this is attributed to the increased material diversity and
complexity, especially in comparison to other more homogeneous materials such as
metals or glass (Esbensen & Velis, 2016 and Deloitte Sustainability, 2017). The rate of
collection for recycling varies considerably across Europe, even within the same
polymer type. For example, this rate ranges from 0 % for PET household films to 80 %
for PET household bottles. As collection and sorting are crucial for after-use
reprocessing, this chapter aims to provide further insights into this situation.
1.7.3.2. Collection and sorting across different regions
The capacity for collection, sorting and recycling differs across Europe and is
insufficient to transition towards a circular economy for plastics. While collection and
sorting are essential requirements to retain the value of products and materials,
28
the existing infrastructure is insufficient in several places, or it needs to be modernised
to enable high-quality recycling (European Commission, 2018j). As reflected in recent
policymaking, separate collection of different material streams and investment in
further sorting and recycling capacity are considered important, while avoiding
infrastructural overcapacity for processing mixed waste, e.g. incineration (European
Commission, 2018h and European Commission, 2018j).
Collection and sorting performance depends on a complex and continuously
evolving plastics landscape. There are thousands of different plastics and additives, and
there is increasing consensus that this complexity, especially in packaging, hinders
effective source separation. Citizens seem to be puzzled about the many materials and
formats, such as plastics films which are often not collected for recycling. In addition,
the materials landscape is evolving constantly due to both established and emerging
socioeconomic and material-level innovation trends, including (see also Section 5.4):
-- Lightweighting. Examples include the replacement of metals (e.g. steel and or
aluminium) with composites that are lighter, cheaper and can be formed into more
complex shapes, and the replacement of glass beer bottles with plastic ones due to
convenience and shatter-resistance (Farmer, 2013). Another example is the use of
thinner PET water bottles, reducing resource use and greenhouse gas emissions, but
also making recycling less attractive.

-- New materials and manufacturing techniques. Lighter or new materials are
often a result of new production technologies, including additive manufacturing, a
combination of advanced composite materials with computational-aided engineering
for structural property optimisation, and other novel approaches (Zhu, Li & Childs,
2018). There are continuous efforts in the direction of new materials. For example, in
the case of polyolefins where HDPE provides new possibilities for lightweighting of
blow-moulded rigid packaging (Sherman, 2014). Innovation trends affecting packaging
include nanotechnology, active and intelligent packaging (e.g. indicating food
freshness) and bio-based and/or biodegradable plastics. Other factors are
decentralisation, localisation and down-scaling of manufacturing trends such as 3D-
printing, and the emergence of wearables creating a new category of
29
complex products, i.e. electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) incorporated into
clothes (Farmer, 2013).
-- New business models and societal trends. Changing food production, evolving
cooking and eating lifestyles, international shipments and e-commerce, augmented
reality and quick response codes; all these things introduce new needs for packaging. In
addition, the aging European population, migration, urbanisation and adoption of
global consumer values about what constitutes prosperity and well
being, all impact the type of plastics produced, used and disposed of. -- Global trade.
Increased manufacturing outside Europe and imports, and international fast-moving
consumer goods (FMCG) introduce increased challenges and questions on how to
control waste material flows (Farmer, 2013). These developments may affect plastic
waste composition in a combination of ways. In the case of packaging, i.e. the largest
plastics application in Europe and globally, the consumer goods and retail sectors play
a critical role in the selection of materials. These sectors use packaging beyond
preservation of content, and extend its function to communication and advertisement.
There is, however, clear evidence that in settings lacking specific (financial)
incentives for citizens, such as deposit-refund schemes, most material is captured by
variations of commingled collection (Palmer, Ghita, Savage & Evans, 2009). In
addition, detailed studies on Dutch PET recycling have found major differences in the
composition of PET bottle products sourced from different collection systems (van
Velzen, Brouwer & Molenveld, 2016). The deposit-refund schemes achieved higher-
quality recyclate in comparison to separate collection and mechanical recovery
schemes. Indeed, Dutch PET bottle products that originated from separate collection

and mechanical recovery contained more contaminants and non-food PET flasks,
barrier bottles, opaque PET bottles and non-bottle PET. In general, PET bottle products
from Dutch deposit-refund systems contained few contaminants. This is attributed to
the fact that the design of nearly all the bottles complied with the European PET Bottle
Platform design guidelines and the products were subject to few sorting faults.
1.7.3.3.Improving collection and sorting through innovation
30
State of Play Extended producer responsibility schemes for plastic products are in
place across Europe, but implementation and scope differ widely. EPR schemes extend
the producer responsibility to the after-use stage of a product’s life cycle (see also
Section 5.2). Such schemes exist, for example, for vehicles, electronic equipment and
packaging. However, multiple non-standardised implementation schemes apply, with
substantial differences between countries and sectors. There is experience with
additional and/or narrower waste streams in certain countries. For example, only eight
countries cover agricultural plastic films, Belgium covers disposable kitchenware and
France covers textiles and furniture (Deloitte, 2014). Producer responsibility of the
industries required to take part in EPR schemes is typically implemented as collective,
rather than individual, via the setting up of collective producer responsibility
organisation (PRO) schemes (Deloitte, 2014). The fees contributed by the PROs tend to
cover all or a substantial part of the waste collection and reprocessing system as a net
separate collection and treatment cost. Over time, their scope has extended well beyond
financial and cash flow management into operational interventions, including data
management, organising operations, launching bids and communication campaigns.
Processing technology for after-use product handling is mainly focused on
existing fossil-fuel-based plastic products. The driver of this focus seems to be dealing
with the existing after-use products. Among the many projects, a few are FP7
POLYMARK, which aims to facilitate plastic waste identification for easier sorting,
FP7 SUPERCLEANQ, which is developing quality control procedures for plastic
waste, and FP7 ULTRAVISC, which is developing an ultrasonic detection technology.
New methods can increase the performance of separation, enabling sorting of
materials currently out of scope in most markets. Novel systems can reach the (current)
benchmark for separation accuracy up to 5-6 kg/m3 (FP7 W2Plastics). However, if the
feed rate exceeds what a particular device is designed for, quality drops sharply and
this affects the quality of the subsequently recycled material. Cross-contamination can
therefore be significant, e.g. 4-5 % HDPE in PP and 8-10 % PP in HDPE (FP7

W2Plastics). Improving the spectroscopic methods (e.g.
31
through infrared, Raman or UV-VIS spectroscopy) can increase accuracy and help
increase the types of polymers in scope for automated sorting
1.7.3.4. Mechanical Recycling
There is untapped potential in the current recycling system, and with technical
improvements the ability to process used plastics can even increase and generate
further benefits. However, high-quality mechanical recycling is impaired by the
increasing complexity of the material and products landscape. For example, recycling
challenges are posed by composites, thermosets, multilayers, inks, labels and
adhesives. Furthermore, multiple grades and the presence of additives mean that below-
virgin quality is an inherent property of mechanically recycled polymers. This lower
quality makes it difficult for mechanically recycled plastics to compete with virgin
feedstock or to fulfil regulatory requirements. R&I can help to overcome this barrier,
for example, by designing materials and products better suited for recycling, and by
developing and piloting high-quality recycling and decontamination technologies.
In addition, the price difference between virgin and recycled plastics is a crucial
challenge. One reason for this situation is the underdeveloped European market for
recycled plastics – a result of the past reliance on exports of after-use plastics. This
could be partly addressed by growing the market for recycled plastics with active
efforts to identify new outputs and applications based on better matching of quality and
demand. However, even if the market develops and scale increases, mechanical
recycling faces a cost challenge as long as externalities are not accounted for. Fiscal
measures addressing the costs of negative externalities, such as greenhouse gas
emissions, could help to overcome the price challenge. Policymakers can further
support a well-functioning secondary materials market through facilitating
matchmaking (e.g. EU-wide standard for recycled grade qualities), harmonising
existing legislation (e.g. on legacy additives), ensuring sufficient sorting and recycling
capacity, and developing a favourable regulatory framework (e.g. mandatory level of
recycled content for certain applications while safeguarding health). R&I should focus
on understanding the mechanisms, routes
32
and systemic reasons for the successful use of recycled plastics in certain applications,

and its replication potential.
1.7.3.5 Chemical recycling
Solvent-based purification and depolymerisation are two reprocessing
technologies that use chemical agents or processes that directly affect either the
formulation of the plastic or the polymer itself. They can complement mechanical
recycling because they produce (near) virgin-grade polymers from after-use plastics.
Since they can remove additives and contaminants and generate ‘as-new’ polymers,
they could play a role in creating an effective after-use economy for plastics. Most
efforts are still at research or pilot stage, however, and more insight is needed into how
competitive they will be at industrial scale, what the environmental impact would be,
and how to best integrate them into the existing collection and recycling infrastructure.
Pyrolysis and gasification transform plastics and most of its additives and
contaminants into basic chemicals, which can be refined into new materials using the
existing petrochemical industry infrastructure. Their main advantage is that they can
handle mixed and contaminated input, which in the current plastics system is produced
in high volumes (e.g. as rejected residue in plastics recycling facilities). However, there
is no guarantee that the output chemicals will be converted to new materials, given the
environmental considerations such as energy requirements. In fact, the output from
pyrolysis can also be used as a fuel, which is mostly how it is used today. In this case,
pyrolysis and gasification, if scaled-up, would only propagate a linear fossil-based
plastics economy, including several of the challenges faced today. This prompts a
systemic assessment of the potential role of these technologies in the after-use system,
and providing innovation support according to its findings.
In general, in a plastics economy that generates a large amount of materials that
are difficult to treat with mechanical recycling, chemical recycling technologies can be
complementary for two main reasons. Firstly, they are able to generate virgin-quality
recycled materials. Secondly, they can process material streams
33
which are mixed, contaminated or of unfeasibly low volume (e.g. novel materials).
However, many questions remain about how to make chemical recycling work at scale,
from a market, infrastructure and legislative perspective, and what the overall
economic, environmental and social impacts are. To gain clarity, policymakers should
stimulate further innovation and revise the regulatory landscape, including the legal
status of different output materials, based on an impact analysis compared to

alternatives. As with all after-use options, the performance of chemical recycling and
the extent of value creation are subject to the design and material choice of plastic
items put on the market – an insight that reinforces the importance of the upstream
design of and innovation in new business models, products and materials.
1.7.3.6. Organic recycling and biodegradation
Composting and other organic recycling, such as anaerobic digestion, fit into a
circular economy through the idea of closing the biological loops. Compostable plastics
can support the organic recycling of biowaste, if the material has the right
biodegradation properties and adequate infrastructure is present (e.g. collection of food
leftovers). Under the assumption there is a clear link to environmental safety,
biodegradable plastics could play a role in particular applications. Hence, rather than
being widely applicable, general solutions for waste treatment, compostability and
biodegradability should be considered for specific situations and applications,
generating particular benefits.
There is still confusion and lack of understanding about compostable and
biodegradable plastics, and their possible role in a circular economy. Policymakers
could create clarity for citizens and business alike by enforcing correct communication,
validated by third parties, and providing guidance on applications where the use of
compostable or biodegradable plastics would be appropriate. Furthermore,
understanding can be improved by communication about and further development of
test methods and international standards on how to determine compostability and
biodegradability in specific environments, and across different environments. The
organisation of such standards should be harmonised, and could explore using a
horizontal method (i.e. one standard for all products in a specific
34
environment). Adequate collection and sorting infrastructure is another requirement to
avoid cross-contamination with other recycling routes. In addition, different policy
measures, including legislation, should be harmonised to provide a clear direction for
R&I in, and implementation of, compostable or biodegradable materials.

35
CHARPTER 2: AN ANALYSIS OF PLASTIC PRODUCT
CONSUMPTION IN SELECTED COUNTRIES AND
VIETNAM
2.1. The status of plastic product consumption in the world
The significant increase in plastics consumption is also observed in other regions
of the world. For example, rapid industrialization and economic development in
Singapore have caused a tremendous increase in solid waste generation. The yearly
disposed solid waste increased from 0.74 million tonnes in 1972 to 2.80 million tonnes
in 2000. It is estimated that solid waste generation in Singapore has amounted to about
4.5–4.8 million tonnes per year. Plastics accounts for 5.8% of the total solid waste,
positioning himself at the third position after food waste (38.3%) and paper/cardboard
(20.60%). Taking into account that plastic bags and bottles have become one of the
major solid waste stream, using waste plastics to manufacture polymer concrete and
developing biodegradable plastics have received much attention in recent years.
In Australia, the annual plastics consumption has increased from 1,336,386 in
1997 to 1,476,690 tonnes in 2011–2, whereas the total recycling rate of plastics has
increased from 7.0% to 20.5%. A total of 302,635 tonnes of plastics were sent for
recycling, either locally or via export in 2011–12.
In China, along with urbanization, population growth and industrialization, the
quantity of municipal solid waste generation has been increasing rapidly. MSW
generation in China has increased rapidly in the past 30 years, from 31,320 thousand
tons in 1980 to 178,602 thousand tons in 2014, with an annual average growth rate
(AAGR) of 5.5% [10]. As well as MSW generation in 2014 is 5.7 times than that in
1980. A slight decline is observed during the five consecutive years of 2006–10, which
could be attributed to the revision of the ‘Law on Solid Waste’ in 2004. MSW
generation per capita increased rapidly until the early 1990s. After that, the MSW
generation per capita showed an unsteadily decline from 913.0 to 653.2 g/per/day
during between 1994 and to 2014. It was explained that the rate of urban population is
increasing faster than the rate of MSW generation.
36
2.1.1 Asian countries
Collection and management of MSW in Asian countries are part of the problems
whose solution has always rallied around sustainability based on the implementation of

the 3Rs (reduction, reuse and recycling) technologies. Solid waste generated in Asian
countries has risen to almost an equal amount to those generated in the developed
countries at 0.7–0.8 kg/person/day.
Municipal solid waste management constitutes one of the most crucial health and
environmental problems facing countries in the Arabian Gulf. It is estimated that 120
million tons of waste is produced per year in Gulf Cooperation Council states, of which
little is recycled or even managed; 60% is from Saudi Arabia, 20% from the United
Arab Emirates.
(UAE) and the rest is from Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain. According to Qatar
MSW organization, Qatar reached 1,000,000 tons of solid municipal waste annually
corresponding to a daily solid waste of about 3,000 tons/day. About 60% of MSW is
organic material. Polymers account for about 14% of the total waste volume (5% by
weight) produced by the municipal sector. Only 1–2% of this is being recycled, while
the amount of polymers waste is expected to increase to 50% by the year 2020 from
2009 waste tonnage figure of 1,900 tons.
Environmental problems including disposal of municipal solid waste are
recognized in Korea due to its limited carrying capacity. The population in Korea is
481 people per km2
, ranking the third-highest in the world. In Korea, the total MSW
per person per day changed from 2.3 kg per day per person in 1991 to 1.04 kg per day
per person in 2008. In 1995, the Korean government implemented a volume
based waste fee system (unit pricing system) that required every household to purchase
certified plastic bags for waste disposal.
In Japan a detailed analysis of the composition of household waste was carried
out for more than 30 years in Kyoto city. It was reported that packaging waste
accounted for 60% more than other household waste in volume ratio, and this pointed
out that measures to deal with packaging waste were vital to reduce household waste.
On average, each person in Japan uses 1.1 plastic shopping bags and 2.2. plastic
packages daily.
37
2.1.2 Africa
The per capita plastic consumption in Africa in 2015 was 16 kg for a population of
1.22 billion. Based on this, the estimated plastic consumption for the entire continent
for 2015 was 19.5 Mt. For the 33 countries considered and assessed in more detail in
this study because they had consistent plastic import data in the Comtrade database
(Table 1), the 2015 cumulative population was 856,671,366 (i.e. 70.22% of African

population in 2015). Considering the above per capita plastic consumption (16
kg/year), the 33 countries used approximately 13.71 Mt of plastics in the year 2015.
Consumption by the other 21 mostly smaller African countries (out of 54 countries)
was approx. 3–6 Mt in 2015.
Available literature shows that GDP has a strong impact on plastic consumption, which
can also be seen for African countries. For instance, the yearly per capita plastic
consumption for 2009–2015 in Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana was 4.4– 8 kg/year; while in
Algeria, Egypt and Morocco, it was 13–19 kg/year, and 24.5 kg/year in South Africa.
As mentioned earlier, synthetic fibres (polyester, nylon, polyamide) imported as
textiles and carpets into Africa were not assessed by import statistic. The current
estimate from a textile fibre industry association is that Africa had a consumer demand
of 5 kg synthetic fibres per person in 2014, which would amount to 6.08 Mt for entire
Africa. Due to the contribution of synthetic fibres to micro-plastic pollution in water, a
more detailed assessment is needed for this category in future.
Estimate of total historic consumption of plastic (1990–2017)
The total volume of plastic importation for the selected 33 African countries was
approximately 117.6 Mt (translating to $194.6 billion), consisting of approximately
86.14 Mt of polymers (all polymers in categories HS 3901–3914) and 31.50 Mt as
plastic products (categories HS 3915–3926), spanning a period from 1990 to 2017
(approx. 27 years). Recalculating from the 33 countries to the continental level shows
that roughly 172 Mt of plastics (consisting of 126 Mt of primary and 46 Mt plastic
products) were imported between 1990 and 2017.
One general observation is that plastics are imported at higher amounts in primary form
than as finished products. This implies that the rates of plastic
38
processing and production activities using imported primary polymers are high in many
countries of Africa.
It needs to be stressed that plastic components of products such as cars, electronics, and
sport equipment were not considered although these plastic sources contribute
significantly to national consumption. For example, in Nigeria, these sources accounted
for approximately 5.55 Mt for the years 1996–2014 compared to 17,620 Mt of primary
plastics and plastic products imported for the same period. Since there are insufficient
data for the robust estimation of these uses in many African countries, a brief
discussion of this is presented in the section on the relevance of “secondary plastic”.
The current study shows massive plastic consumption (virgin polymers and finished

plastic products) in Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia (in
decreasing order). These six countries have contributed a significant share of the
continental consumption. This observation is in agreement with the data reported for
recent years by EUROMAP (see Table 2). However, the EUROMAP import estimates
for Nigeria and Egypt did not reflect the particularly high import data for selected years
as observed in the Comtrade database. This may indicate that the exceptionally high
data reported for some years in the Comtrade database might have higher uncertainties.
Weight data are more prone to uncertainties compared to the monetary value of
imports, since national customs are more interested in the later.
39
Table 1 Ranking of African countries based on the amount of plastic imports and
consumption between 1990 and 2018 From: Ensuring sustainability in plastics use in
Africa: consumption, waste generation, and projections
Country Populatio
n (2018)a
Import
period
Plastic in
primary form
(tonnes)
Plastic as
plastic product
(tonnes)
Total
plastics
(tonnes)
Egypt 94,408,000 1994–2018 17,690,897 4,007,894 21,698,7
Nigeria 173,000,000 1996–2018 15,765,771 4,099,822 19,865,5
South Africa 54,956,900 2000–2018 9,672,413 4,020,752 13,693,1

A CIRCULAR ECONOMY FOR PLASTIC PRODUCTS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES AND EXPERIENCE FOR VIETNAM

A CIRCULAR ECONOMY FOR PLASTIC PRODUCTS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES AND EXPERIENCE FOR VIETNAM

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A CIRCULAR ECONOMY FOR PLASTIC PRODUCTS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES AND EXPERIENCE FOR VIETNAM

Similar to A CIRCULAR ECONOMY FOR PLASTIC PRODUCTS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES AND EXPERIENCE FOR VIETNAM (20)

More from lamluanvan.net Viết thuê luận văn

More from lamluanvan.net Viết thuê luận văn (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A CIRCULAR ECONOMY FOR PLASTIC PRODUCTS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES AND EXPERIENCE FOR VIETNAM