What makes some European recycling systems more successful than others?
A new EU‑wide study reveals that smart fee design, strong governance, and better data drive higher recycling performance.
As the European Union steps up efforts to meet its 2030 and 2035 recycling targets, a new study sheds light on why some countries are outperforming others.
Published in June 2026 and commissioned by EUROPEN, the report by CIRCPACK by Veolia reviews packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems across all 27 EU member states. Its core takeaway is straightforward. Success depends less on how much money is collected and more on how well systems are designed and managed.
Fee design drives performance
One of the clearest findings challenges a common assumption that higher fees lead to better results. Instead, the structure of fees plays the bigger role. Countries using detailed eco-modulated fees, where easier-to-recycle packaging pays less and formats that are more difficult to recycle pay more, consistently achieve stronger results than those with simple flat fees.
According to the study, these systems deliver recycling rates more than 16 percentage points higher. The conclusion is that smart incentives influence producer behavior more effectively than simply raising costs.
Infrastructure gaps persist
The study also highlights ongoing infrastructure challenges, especially for flexible plastics. While rigid plastics are recycled at relatively higher rates, flexible materials tend to lag due to less developed collection systems, sorting limitations, and uneven recycling capacity across countries.
This is relevant for packaging formats such as mono-material PP and PE films. These materials are designed to be compatible with existing recycling streams, but their actual recycling outcomes still depend on local collection, sorting, and processing capabilities.
More broadly, no packaging material stream is currently on track to meet future EU “recyclable at scale” requirements across all member states without further investment. In short, policy ambition still exceeds operational capacity.
Governance matters most
The report also finds no single ideal EPR model. Whether systems rely on one organization, multiple competing schemes or state control matters less than how well they are run. Top-performing EPR systems share common traits, including clear roles, strong oversight, transparent reporting, and effective coordination. Belgium, Italy, Germany, and Spain all rank highly despite different system structures.
Better data, better outcomes
Another consistent pattern is the link between transparency and performance. Countries with more detailed and publicly available recycling data tend to achieve higher rates. Better data helps identify gaps, improve decision-making, and target investments where they are most needed. This will become even more important as new EU rules under the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) take effect.
No single blueprint
The study concludes there is no one-size-fits-all model, but the most successful systems share key elements. These include eco-modulated fees, strong coordination, high-quality data, and transparency.
For businesses, the message is clear. Improving packaging circularity is not just about better design. It also requires systems that can collect, sort, recycle, and track materials effectively at scale.
