Law and Science Make a Common Effort to Enact a Zero Waste Strategy for Beverages

LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT TO ENACT A ZERO WASTE STRATEGY FOR BEVERAGES

14

Lara Fornabaios⁎, Margherita Paola Poto†,‡, Marta Fornabaio§, Federica Sordo§ *

University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy †K.G. Jebsen Centre for the Law of the Sea, UiT, Tromsø, Norway ‡Department of Management, University of Turin, Turin, Italy §Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

14.1 Introduction When referring to smart food packaging, current social debates seem to be constantly aligned on the idea that the packages are smart in so far as they protect, store, and give information about the product in a dynamic way, by constantly changing in accordance with the changes of the product (Kerry and Butler, 2018). Such a concept suggests that growth and progress go hand in hand with the kinetic energy that develops along a linear trajectory. The fewer obstacles there are on the way, the more efficient and rapid the growth seems to be. Smart has become synonym of aerodynamic, it has been often associated with technology tools. Smart is the new cool, is associated with intelligent and advanced progress, with velocity and rapidity, and it implies that other growth and developments are not “smart.” In the field of smart growth policies, the critical voice of Wendell Cox pointed out how “smart growth strategies tend to intensify the very problems they are purported to solve” (http://www.heritage.org/ Research/SmartGrowth/Test051502.cfm). Extending such analysis to smart technologies and smart packaging, it seems that the definition of “smart” has served the purpose to emphasize the protection of quality of the product (as the smartness of a water bottle, e.g., is associated with its intrinsic capacity of preventing contamination to that water) and to enhance the rapidity of the interconnections and of the growth in general (a water bottle served the utmost purpose to drastically reduce the time spent in boiling water). Processing and Sustainability of Beverages. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815259-1.00014-8 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

495

496  Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT

In a contribution specifically dedicated to smart packaging for beverages, Maurice G. O’ Sullivan and Joseph P. Kerry reinforce the concept of the key role played by velocity in the innovative process (O’Sullivan and Kerry, 2008): they describe the beverage business as intrinsically “quick to adopt new technologies.” They highlight that there is “much activity” in adding nutrient to beverages, in “developing” beverage lines, in “optimizing” beverage appearance, for the sake of an “intense and innovative” competition, which ascribes so much value to the dynamic component of the development. The smart product delivers a quick message. Sadly, the wind sprint of a smart package risks to end up in an equally rapid lifespan, turning that smartness in anything but a sustainable solution (https://www.thebalance.com/ plastic-recycling-facts-and-figures-2877886). On a broader scenario, it seems that the plastic bottle ­production—which appears to be a glitch in the system rather than a Copernican revolution—has more or less surreptitiously contributed to expedite the progress in a linear direction, which is not necessarily smart (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/28/ a-million-a-minute-worlds-plastic bottle-binge-as-dangerous-asclimate-change). A smart strategy should rather think in a circular way, where speed is not prioritized and waste is preferably designed out (Wilson, 2016). The contribution is structured into two sections and it draws some desirable approaches to beverages’ regulation, with a special focus on bottled water: Part I illustrates the commendable actions undertaken at international and European level to disseminate and enhance the scientific thought on the circular economy theories, by concluding with complementary actions that can contribute to the establishment of a circular economy. Part II deals with the scientific innovations in the attempt to identify the most sustainable materials for the beverages industry and therefore to address the impelling need of a more sustainable production on a process level (see Sustainable Development Goal n. 12, http://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/). Some concluding remarks develop a shared base for solutions that bridge inclusive approaches.

PART I: LEGAL ACTIONS TOWARD THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY

14.2  The Legal Circle The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement, and the European Circular Economy Package of December 2015 are tightly bound.

Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT   497

On the one hand, the Agenda for Sustainable Development, come into force on the January 1, 2016, mobilizes efforts to end all forms of poverty, fight inequalities, and tackle climate change. As it is not legally binding, its success depends on countries’ own sustainable development policies. On the other hand, the Paris Agreement (http:// unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php) is built upon the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It entered into force on the November 4, 2016, aiming to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change. Till now, 170 parties have ratified out of 190 that are part of the Convention. What do they share with the European Circular Economy Package? In order to answer the connections among them have to be underlined. The use of natural resources influences climate change, addressed in the Paris Agreement, as focused as it is in keeping a global temperature rise below 2°C. The Paris Agreement is a complementary tool to reach the Sustainable Development Goals (hereafter, SDGs), meaning a set of 17 goals to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all (http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/­ sustainable-development-goals/). In particular, they are: (1) no poverty; (2) zero hunger; (3) good health and well-being; (4) quality education; (5) gender equality; (6) clean water and sanitation; (7) ­affordable and clean energy; (8) decent work and economic growth; (9) industry, innovation, and infrastructure; (10) reduced inequalities; (11) sustainable cities and communities; (12) responsible consumption and production; (13) climate action; (14) life below water; (15) life on land; (16) peace, justice, and strong institutions; and (17) partnership for the goals. As shown, among the SDGs, there are also prevention and reduction of marine pollution of all kinds, from litter to plastics. A developed plan for circular economy (hereafter, CE) would contribute to switch the take-make-consume-dispose model, by minimizing waste and turning goods at the end of their lifespan into resources. Improved waste practices would result in “avoided landfill emissions, reduced raw material extraction and manufacturing, recovered materials and energy replacing virgin materials and fossil-fuel energy sources, carbon bound in soil through compost application, and carbon storage due to recalcitrant materials in landfills” (UNEP, 2010). The climate benefits gained would foster sustainable development as well. Indeed, sustainable development cannot be achieved without climate action. Conversely, many of the SDGs are addressing the core drivers of climate change. All these issues and the mentioned provisions focused on them can be combined in a circle. In the next section, a brief outline of the EU Circular Economy Strategy will be provided, as the crucial step toward the implementation of the Paris Agreement as well as the success of the 2030 sustainable goals Agenda. It will be discussed how the inclusion of social values within the EU Circular Economy Action Plan can lead to an

498  Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT

e­ thically enriched integration of economic activities and environmental sustainability. Considering that the use of plastics within the EU kept on growing but less than 25% of collected plastic waste is recycled, special focus will be on plastic and plastic packaging as a priority area of intervention.

14.3  The EU Action Plan for the CE The EU Commission launched the Circular Economy Package at the end of 2015 in order to stimulate the transition toward a CE. It is in line with the objectives of the Resource Efficiency Roadmap (EU COM, 2011), of the 7th Environment Action Programme (Decision No. 1386/2013/EU, 2013), and of the Raw Material Initiative (EU COM, 2008). This latter sets out a strategy for tackling the issue of access to raw materials in the EU throughout the three pillars of fair and sustainable supply of raw materials from global markets, sustainable supply of raw materials within the EU, resource efficiency and supply of “secondary raw materials” through recycling. The Resource Efficiency Roadmap aims to transform European economy into a sustainable one by 2050, while the 7th Environment Action Programme guides EU environmental policy till 2020. The goal of the EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy is to develop a regulatory framework with the potential to promote and sustain the shift from the so-called linear economy to the CE. What are the reasons behind the need to shift from the linear to the CE? A linear economy is based on the take-make-consume-dispose model, thus it transforms natural resources into waste through production processes. The unsustainable methods for the removal of natural capital from the environment as well as the pollution from waste are the main negative outcomes of such an economic model. Indeed, this is a one-way system, which has also been named “cowboy economy” by Boulding (1966). The author explains the meaning of cowboy economy with the following words: “the cowboy being symbolic of the illimitable plains and also associated with reckless, exploitative, romantic, and violent behavior, which is characteristic of open societies. The closed economy of the future might similarly be called the ‘spaceman’ economy, in which the earth has become a single spaceship, without unlimited reservoirs of anything, either for extraction or for pollution, and in which, therefore, man must find his place in a cyclical ecological system which is capable of continuous reproduction of material form even though it cannot escape having inputs of energy. The difference between the two types of economy becomes most apparent in the attitude towards consumption. In the cowboy economy, consumption is regarded as a good thing and

Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT   499

­ roduction likewise; and the success of the economy is measured by p the amount of the throughput from the ‘factors of production,’ […] By contrast, in the spaceman economy […] the essential measure of the success of the economy is not production and consumption at all, but the nature, extent, quality, and complexity of the total capital stock, including in this the state of the human bodies and minds included in the system.” In this view, the CE resembles the “space economy,” as able as it is to overcome financial interests while highlighting environmental and human needs. The EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy includes revised legislative proposals on waste, establishing a set of actions for waste management, and recycling to be carried out before 2020 (EU COM, 2015). The legislative proposals on waste adopted till now regard waste (EU COM Proposal 0595, 2015); packaging waste (EU COM Proposal 0596, 2015); landfill (EU COM Proposal 0594, 2015); electrical and electronic waste, end-of-life vehicle, batteries and accumulators, and waste batteries and accumulators (EU COM Proposal 0593, 2015). The CE is structured into three pillars, and namely: (1) reduction of environmental impacts, (2) cost savings from reduced resource use, and (3) creation of new economic opportunities (Taranic et al., 2016). Indeed, the benefits of CE are not limited to sustainable development targets, they are rather linked to the main EU priorities, namely jobs and economic growth, investment and energy agenda and industrial innovation. According to the Action Plan, the goal of a clean and competitive European economy is achieved through changes within crucial stages of the products’ life. Thus, interventions will be on: (1) product design, (2) production processes, (3) consumption, (4) waste management, and (5) secondary raw materials and water reuse. Plastics; food waste; critical raw materials; construction and demolition; biomass; and bio-based products are identified as priority areas. All these challenges will be addressed on the one hand through innovation and investment—both by private and public stakeholders; on the other hand by emending relevant legislation, as the above-mentioned proposed directives show. Within this framework, the role of public regulator is to shape a fruitful environment, with the potential to foster the progress of the CE. For instance, environmental labeling might have a positive effect on consumers’ behaviors and mandatory targets regarding resource use are likely to promote energy efficiency. In light on this, the legally binding targets established by the EU waste legislation should be understood. Indeed, they played a crucial role in order to “improve waste management practices, stimulate innovation in recycling, limit the use of landfilling, and create incentives to change consumer behavior” (EU COM Proposal 0596, 2015).

500  Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT

14.4  The Proposal on Packaging and Packaging Waste Waste management policy is a pivotal element for the CE as it determines how the EU waste management hierarchy is implemented. Improved clarity in the definition of the waste targets is crucial both for the public and private sectors, while establishing the right enabling conditions within the EU is essential for the enforcement of existing legislation (Dodick and Kauffman, 2016). In 2015, the EU commission published a Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 94/62/EC (1994) on packaging and packaging waste. Such a proposal has to be coordinated with the proposal to emend Directive 2008/98/ EC (2008), on waste in general. Indeed, for the sake of greater coherence in waste legislation, the definitions set in Directive 94/62/ EC (1994) should be aligned to those of Directive 2008/98/EC, 2008. Moreover, not only the new set targets are interconnected but it is also worth examining both of them in order to understand from which provisions the Commission’s right to act derives. The proposal to amend Directive 2008/98/EC (2008) responds to the need to ensure: • full implementation of the waste hierarchy in all Member States; • a decrease in absolute and per capita waste generation; and • use of recycled waste as a major, reliable source of raw materials for the Union. The mentioned Directive itself requires the EU Commission to intervene again on the matter at Article 9, Letter (c), Article 11, Paragraph 4, and at and at Article 37, Paragraph 4. Pursuant Article 9(c) the Commission had to establish, by the end of 2014, waste prevention and decoupling objectives for 2020 based on best available practices including, if necessary, a revision of the indicators referred to in Article 29(4). Article 29, Paragraph 4, states that “Indicators for waste prevention measures may be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 39(3),” meaning the procedure established in Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC. Article 11(4) states that by December 31, 2014 at the latest, the Commission shall examine the measures and the targets referred to in paragraph 2 with a view to, if necessary, reinforcing the targets and considering the setting of targets for other waste streams. The report of the Commission, accompanied by a proposal if appropriate, shall be sent to the European Parliament and the Council. In its report, the Commission shall take into account the relevant environmental, economic, and social impacts of setting the targets. Reference is to the targets set down in Article 11, Paragraph 2, meaning a 50% target for

Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT   501

preparing for reuse and recycling of household and similar waste and a 70% target for preparing for reuse, recycling, and other material recovery of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste by 2020. Finally, under Article 37(4), in the first report that intervenes by December 12, 2014 the Commission had to verify the implementation of the Directive, assessing the existing Member States waste prevention programs, objectives, and indicators. The Commission should also assess several measures, including producer responsibility schemes for specific waste streams, targets, indicators, and measures related to recycling, as well as material and energy recovery operations that may contribute to fulfilling the objectives set out in Articles 1 and 4 more effectively. In particular, Article 1 states that the Directive 2008/98/EC “lays down measures to protect the environment and human health by preventing or reducing the adverse impacts of the generation and management of waste and by reducing overall impacts of resource use and improving the efficiency of such use.” Article 4, instead, establishes the waste hierarchy, meaning a set of actions for the management of waste that should be perpetrated in the listed way: (a) prevention, (b) preparing for reuse, (c) recycling, (d) other recovery, for example, energy recovery, and (e) disposal. With regards to the Directive 94/62/EC (1994), Article 6, Paragraph 3, requires the EU Parliament and the Council to intervene on the basis of an interim report by the Commission. The EU Parliament and the Council should examine the practical experience gained in the Member States in the pursuance of the targets and objectives laid down in paragraphs 2 and in paragraphs 1(a) and (b). Indeed, in order to comply with the objectives of the Directive 94/62/EC (1994), Member States should have taken the necessary measures no later than 5  years from the date by which the Directive had to be implemented in national law. The target Member States had to reach is between 50% as a minimum and 65% as a maximum by weight of packaging waste recovery. Moreover, Member States should have taken the necessary measures to achieve the goal of recycling 25% as a minimum and 45% as a maximum by weight of the totality of packaging materials contained in packaging waste, with a minimum of 15% by weight for each packaging material. In doing so, Member States were required to take into account the findings of scientific research and evaluation techniques. The purpose of the proposal to amend Directive 94/62/EC (1994) on packaging and packaging waste is to design a clear and long-term path for the Union’s waste management policy. Business operators and Member States would benefit from the clarity and certainty of the set objectives and would be able to plan strategies as well as investments accordingly (EU COM Proposal 0596, 2015). Taking into

502  Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT

a­ ccount the progress made by Member States toward the set targets, as well as the development of new plastics and recycling technology, the Commission can propose revised targets for plastics for 2030. The proposal for the Directive on packaging and packaging waste lists the targets at Article 6, as in the previous Directive 94/62/EC. These targets should be reached by 2025 and they have been set considering what was technically feasible at the time of the proposal (EU COM Proposal 0596, 2015). The new Article 6 will be titled “Recovery, re-use and recycling,” in place of “Recovery and recycling”. The title shows to take into account the waste hierarchy listed in Article 4, Directive 2008/98/EC, where “preparing for reuse” (defined by Article 3, Point 16, Directive 2008/98/EC, as the checking, cleaning, or repairing, recovery operations, by which products or components of products that have become waste are prepared so that they can be reused without any other preprocessing), thus reuse itself (pursuant Article 3, Point 13, Directive 2008/98/EC, “reuse” is any operation by which products or components that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for which they were conceived), stands right after prevention and before recycling. The following new targets are added: •  No later than December 31, 2025 a minimum of 65% by weight of all packaging waste will be prepared for reuse and recycling. •  No later than December 31, 2025 the target of 55% by weight of plastic contained in packaging waste for preparing for reuse and recycling will be met. •  No later than December 31, 2030 a minimum of 75% by weight of all packaging waste will be prepared for reuse and recycling. Currently, the new targets remain at a proposal level. However, as the adoption of the legislative package on waste is crucial to kickstart investments into more and better recycling across the EU, the Commission urged (EU COM, 2017), the EU Parliament, and the Council to reach an agreement by the end of 2017 (EP, EU COM, COUN, 2017). With regards to plastics, in January 2017, the Commission published a Roadmap of the Communication on Plastics in a Circular Economy (http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/ plan_2016_39_plastic_strategy_en.pdf ). The Roadmap aims at informing stakeholders about the Commission’s progressing work on the management of plastics, in order to allow them to provide feedback and to participate effectively in future consultation activities. The Commission is also expected to publish a communication, planned for December 2017, to address three interrelated issues: high dependence on virgin fossil feedstock, low rate of recycling and reuse of plastics, and significant leakage of plastics into the environment.

Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT   503

14.5  A Focus on Plastics Reasons to focus on plastics stem from the awareness that plastics and plastic packaging are not only widely used, but they also contribute substantially to the production of waste. More than 8 million tons of plastic ends up in the oceans, jeopardizing marine wildlife, fisheries and tourism, and costing at least $8 billion in damage to marine ecosystems. Indeed, up to 80% of all litter in our oceans is made of plastic (UNEP, 2017). Currently, plastic packaging represents plastic’s widest application: most of it is used only once and 95% of its value (UNEP, 2017) is lost to the economy after its initial use, meaning about USD 80–120 billion annually. Only 14% of plastic packaging is collected for recycling globally. As UN Environment data show, plastics contribute significantly to the pollution of seas and oceans: marine litter harms over 600 marine species, 15% of species affected by ingestion and entanglement from marine litter are endangered, by 2050 an estimated 99% of seabirds will have ingested plastics. Combining low costs and unrivalled functional properties, plastics became integral part of the global economy (MacArthur Found., 2017). Among the various plastic packaging applications, beverage bottles are one of the most important, representing at least 16% of the market (by weight) (Pira, 2014). Reuse systems for them can generate both environmental and economic benefits. Indeed, although single-use plastics bottles are widely collected for recycling, the material value loss after each use cycle is significant, with a loss of over 50% for PET bottles in Europe. A reuse model can represent a valuable alternative, both economically and environmentally, with a lower carbon footprint than single-use bottles. Depending on local conditions and applications, reuse models can be based on returnable (deposit) bottles or user refillable bottles. As plastic packaging perfectly fits the take-make-consume-­dispose model the environmental drawbacks it produces are s­ignificant. Hence, private and public actors are paying increasing attention on the matter, for instance introducing restrictions and bans on ­single-use plastic (carrier) bags. In Europe, examples of similar policies and private initiatives can be found in Switzerland and France. Indeed, the Swiss government shelved a project to outlaw disposable plastic bags after food retailers—Coop and Migros—agreed to start charging them by the end of 2018 (https://www.parlament.ch/ fr/services/news/Pages/20160922121207274194158159041_bsf092. aspx). In France, already in 2016 plastic cups, cutlery, and plates were banned. Implementation of good practices and standards in packaging design and after-use processes would reinforce recycling as an economically attractive alternative to landfill, incineration, and energy recovery.

504  Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT

One of the main initiatives on this issue has been launched in May 2016 by the Ellen McArthur Foundation, under the name of “New Plastics Economy.” Although not legally binding, the initiative obtained the support of 40 key stakeholders among businesses, philanthropists, cities, and governments. The New Plastics Economy fosters the adoption of a Global Plastics Protocol, in order to allow “the prioritization of changes that would most enhance recycling economics and material health” (MacArthur Found., 2017). The plan is animated by three ambitions: (1) create an effective after-use plastics economy by improving the economics and uptake of recycling, reuse, and controlled biodegradation for targeted applications; (2) reduce leakage of plastics into natural systems; and (3) decouple plastics from fossil feed stocks by exploring and adopting renewably sourced feed stocks (MacArthur Found., 2017). Governmental initiatives on the matter should enable the stakeholders to play an active role. The key actors with the potential to be engaged are numerous, from business operators, to academics, from non-government organizations (NGOs) to citizens. Stakeholders’ engagement is crucial for the transition toward a new plastic economy and, on a wider level, toward the CE. In light of this, the European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform is a valuable initiative, representing a virtual open space that facilitates policy dialog among stakeholders. On the one hand, it publicizes activities, information, and good practices on the CE; on the other hand, it enables stakeholders to take part in the Platform by participating in the annual conference and by interacting on the website.

14.6  Sustainable Development and CE The CE, considered as a system in which “the throughput of energy and materials is reduced” (Cooper, 1999), entails the achievement of a balance between economic development and environmental protection (UNEP, 2006). Since the CE aims not only at reducing pollution, but also at repairing previous damage, it can be described as a “restorative approach” (Murray et al., 2017). For these reasons, it can be easily coupled with the three pillars of sustainable development, meaning economic, environmental, and social sustainability. However, till now, the CE does not seem to take into account the social dimension of sustainable development. As outlined above, the EU Strategy for CE focuses on specific interventions along the value chain, from product design to consumption and waste management. The environmental advantages of such interventions are clarified, while no reference is made to the social benefits, such as gender, racial, religious, and financial equality. If the CE is supposed to be a tool toward sustainable development, all of its three pillars

Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT   505

have to be considered. In other words, in order to reach the goal of sustainable development, economic, environmental, and social aspects should be taken into account. Currently, the EU considers only economic and environmental issues, leaving behind the social ones. On this point, the loop cannot be closed. The question is whether the CE has the potential to lead to improved social sustainability as well. Without the social dimension, it is not possible to talk about sustainable development. In order to include societal needs as well, the definition of CE should be enriched. “Humans, their activities and their environment are all loci on the one circle, thus a circular economy recognizes this relationship. A circular economy involves entire networks of production, and there is a diffusion of responsibility throughout these networks, with the producer and consumer not remaining ethically neutral” (Murray et al., 2017). Further research should be undertaken in order to develop a new concept of CE with the potential to embed the missing human dimension.

14.7  Complementary Actions Drawn From Mistakes and Ancient Wisdom for a Full-circle Purpose: Bottled Water and Tea In order to complement the legal actions described in the previous sections, it is necessary to place the emphasis on the qualities of smart packages, other than conveying a rapidity-related message, and notably on the vision that smart solution should never turn out into a unsolvable problem. This implies that a slow—and even retrograde— motion in development should rather be encouraged, taking a leaf out of the virtuous and viable approaches to drinkable water of the past. A proactive way to revitalize the recurring cycles in history could be the reinvention of hot water, by looking at the flaws that the plastic bottles have caused in the system (see http://www.un.org/apps/news/story. asp?NewsID=56638#.WjIw4tDiZaQ) and at the generous hints toward sustainability that the thousands-year tradition of boiled water is likely to offer. Anne Leonard (2010) tells us the story of bottled water in Cleveland, in such a crisp and vivid imagery that can be seen as the synecdoche for the story of bottled water worldwide, by pointing out how bottled water has progressively taken over tap water, by means of an increased social scare for the tap and of social control and fascination for the bottle (http://storyofstuff.org/bottledwater/). The solution to the root problem of an inordinate production lies with a demand of re-prioritizing needs: trying to moderate the usage of packaged goods implies the need to revisit their essentiality.

506  Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT

Several studies conducted on the comparison between tap and bottled water (Baumgartner, 2017; Doria, 2006) show that bottled water is not necessarily perceived as cleaner or tastier than the tap water, but that there is rather quite a general confusion in the public on the effective health benefits of bottled water (Ward et  al., 2009; Olson, 1999). The general conclusion seems to favor tap water to bottled water, at least for countries in the North-Western hemisphere: regulation of bottled water appears to be less stringent than tap water’s in the United States (http://storyofstuff.org/bottledwater/), and ­regulated in an equally stringent way in Europe, with the result of a majority of states in the EU with potable and safe tap water (http:// www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/96943/1.2.-Accessto-improved-water-sources-EDITED_layouted_V3.pdf ). If this is the case, and considering the impact that bottled water has on the environment, it is necessary from a policy and law-making perspective, to rethink about the use and spread of bottled water in general and to encourage the spread of campaigns on the use of tap water and on the reduction of bottled water to the limited cases where it is absolutely necessary. Not to mention, that in most cases where access to drinkable tap water is still a chimera, access to bottled water is a fortiori not affordable to the majority of the population. In the Southern and Eastern hemispheres (Latin America, Africa, and most of Asia), and anywhere people have not gained access to drinking water yet, a doable solution for the policymakers would be to encourage and reconsider, in a sustainable and circular perspective, traditional practices that do not hinder the access to drinkable water. Making a wise use of tap water, by boiling it, to obtain one of the most widespread, ancient, safe, and tasty drinks in the world: tea. The history of tea spreads across multiple cultures over the span of thousands of years. The first record of tea drinking dates to the 3rd century AD, in a medical text written by Hua To (Ceresa, 2008). Two curious elements in the history of tea stimulate the reflection on the need to reevaluate the key role played by tea in granting a general and affordable access to water: first and foremost, it seems that tea has been cultivated by the indigenous communities in the south-­ eastern part of the world (particularly in China) and therefore, drinking hot water is a well-rooted practice that does not need additional effort to be implemented. Second, according to a popular Chinese legend, it was Shennong, the legendary Emperor of China and inventor of agriculture and Chinese medicine that was reported as the first drinker of boiled water with some leaves, in compliance with his decree to boil water before drinking it around 2737 BC. To corroborate the argument on the safe and even healing power of boiling water, a variant of the legend tells that the emperor tested the medical properties of various herbs, and found tea to work as an antidote of poisoning.

Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT   507

Similar practices to make use of tea as a resourceful solution to the lack of drinking water access are traceable in Africa, where the first use of rooibos tea was reported by the Khoisans, the indigenous people of the small Cederberg region of South Africa, in the mountains just north of Capetown, that harvested and fermented the wild rooibos plant over 300 years ago. More recently, the tea consumption spread around in India, where its cultivation was initiated by the British in the 19th century and has accelerated to the point that today India is the world leading producer (John and James, 2000). There is a common denominator in the different practices of making the best use of water, and it is deeply grounded in the traditional knowledge that secures the access to fundamental rights, such as the right to life, health, and to water. Practices that hinder such an access and disrupt virtuous millenary mechanisms, in the name of rapidity, not only do not respond to the concept of sustainability, but also they also risk to distort and diverge the circular trend of economy that is highly encouraged as the key solution to environmental threats.

PART II: RESEARCH AND INNOVATIONS The transition toward a CE requires a long-term plan with the potential to address a systemic change. From this viewpoint, it is ­essential to create the right enabling conditions for CE initiatives to flourish and financial sources to be invested (EU COM, 2015). Innovation will play a pivotal role: in order to rethink our ways of producing and consuming, “we will need new technologies, processes, services and business models which will shape the future of our economy and society. Hence, support of research and innovation will be a major factor in encouraging the transition” (EU COM, 2015). In light of this, Part II will be devoted to the discussion of major innovations in plastic research. In particular, the main focus will be on plastic bottles. As they are considered one of the most polluting sources for land and oceans, some solutions will be addressed. After giving reasons for the current massive employment of the PET polymer in the production of bottles for beverages, two sustainable innovations already in use will be discussed. Two others, still in the developing phases, will be briefly outlined.

14.8 Background Polyethylene terephthalate (hereafter, PET) has become the most favorable packaging material worldwide for water and soft drinks bottles. Nowadays, PET bottles are used for soft drinks, mineral water, energy

508  Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT

drinks, ice teas as well as for more sensitive beverages, like beer, wine, and juices. As declared by the ELIPSO association, globally 389 billion of PET bottles had been produced in 2010, 46% of which were for water packaging (ELIPSO, 2012). Reasons for this success stem from the PET excellent material properties. On the one hand, it stands out due to its unbreakability and the very low weight of the resulting bottles, compared to glass bottles of the same filling volume. On the other hand, in comparison with other packaging polymers, it is characterized by high clarity as well as good barrier properties toward moisture and oxygen. Historically, PET was patented in 1941 by John Rex Whinfield (Whinfield and Dickson, 1941), then in 1973 the patent regarding the first PET bottle was deposited by Nathaniel Wyeth and consequently in 1976 (Wyeth, 1976) it was introduced for the first time in the market in Japan as soy sauce container. From a chemical point of view, PET is formed by the polymerization reaction (more specifically, polycondensation reaction) between the monomers ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid (or terephthalic acid methyl ester). In order to obtain properties required for processing, such as viscosity, PET undergoes to further condensation reactions at higher temperature (around 280°C) and under vacuum. Finally, at the end of the polymerization reactions, the molten PET can be extruded into PET pellets that reach the crystalline state through a solid-state post-condensation reaction. Once PET pellets are obtained, bottles are manufactured through stretch blow molding process. This process consists in a first injection molding of PET to obtain the shape of a long, thin tube (parison) that, in a second step is heated and inflated with highly pressurized air in bottle-shaped mold and consequently quickly cooled down. Thanks to the chemistry behind, PET shows good chemical resistance and good barrier properties that allow its extensive use in beverage packaging. However, such stability is also responsible for its high resistance to environmental degradation: one PET bottle left in nature can last around 500  years, causing numerous and varied environmental concerns for both terrestrial and marine areas, as discussed above (Fitzgerald, 2011). Therefore, in the following paragraph, we will describe two major innovations to use plastic in a way more respondent to sustainability concerns—it is the case of bottle-to bottle recycling—rather than to develop petroleum-free materials, such the case of polylactic acid (PLA) and polyethylene furanoate (PEF) polymers. The following definitions aim to help the reader in the understanding of the following paragraph: • Degradability: it refers to a deterioration of a polymer or polymerbased material properties (mechanical strength, shape, color, etc.) due to the interaction with external factor such as chemicals, heat,

Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT   509

or light, bringing to the products cracking and chemical disintegration. The deliberate degradation of polymers is used to lower their molecular weight for recycling purposes. • Biodegradability: it refers to a particular case of polymers “degradation” mechanism, where the action of microorganisms is responsible for the progressive chemical disintegration of the material. • Recyclability: is the process of converting waste materials into new materials and objects.

14.9  Innovations for Sustainability 14.9.1  Bottle-to-Bottle Recycling Bottle-to-bottle recycling is by definition “A production system in which the recollected postconsumer PET bottles are used in the production of new PET beverage bottles by use of so-called super-clean recycling processes” (Welle, 2011). Consumers are used to the idea of recycling, after consumption, glass bottles and jars as well as metal cans. However, recycling of postconsumer packaging materials into food packaging applications was, so far, not feasible due to several issues about the packaging materials contamination due to beverages as well as hazardous compounds from potentially misused containers for storage of household cleaners or garden chemicals that might be absorbed into the polymer. Therefore, on one hand, it is important to know the “history” of the packaging polymer and its contamination during first use and/or recollection. On the other hand, technology has to be developed enough to investigate decontamination efficiencies of recycling processes. Thanks to the development of sophisticated decontamination processes—so-called super-clean recycling processes, nowadays, even highly contaminated PET bottles can be used as an input for the recycling processes, giving rise to the so-called r-PET (recycled PET) polymer. Such a solution has been adopted in France for the first time more than 20 years ago and since then has been highly successful. The first recycling process for postconsumer PET in direct food contact applications has been approved in the United States in 1991. In 2010, France reached a recycling rate of 51%, and around 30% of this collected PET can currently be used to produce food grade r-PET quality (Orset, et al., 2017). Furthermore, the increasing amounts of recollected PET bottles available as well as ecological concerns and marketing campaigns by soft drink and mineral water companies have encouraged the development of bottle-to-bottle recycling concepts. Together with machinery manufactures, these bottle-to-bottle recycling concepts had been

510  Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT

introduced into the market worldwide. Today, PET bottles with up to 50% postconsumer PET recyclates are in the market in some regions, such as in Europe (Welle, 2011).

14.9.2  Bio-based Polymers The second solution prospected here, is the development of new plastics, particularly of bio-based (plant-derivative) plastics. In order to be selected as beverage packaging, material should guarantee the following properties: clear and optically smooth surfaces for oriented films and bottles, excellent barrier to oxygen, water, and carbon dioxide, suitable mechanical properties such as high impact capability and shatter resistance, excellent resistance to most solvents, and capability for hot filling. Those properties have to withstand during the production stages as well as during the distribution stages. Furthermore, elements such as cost, weight, transport, esthetic, and processing have to be considered. The reason why biopolymers can represent a promising alternative to petroleum-based plastics depends on their compostability attribute. While recycling is energy expensive, by biological degradation such polymers can act as fertilizers and soil conditioners producing only water, carbon dioxide, and inorganic compounds (Siracusa et al., 2008). The two most known and promising biopolymers for beverages packaging are PLA and PEF derived, both, from renewable biomass sources. With regards to PLA, it is realized from the controlled depolymerization of the lactic acid monomer, obtained from the fermentation of sugar feedstock, corn, or other renewable resources readily biodegradable (Cabedo et al., 2006). The commercial PLA is generally a copolymer between poly (l-lactic acid) and poly(d-lactic acid): depending on the l-lactide/ d-lactide enantiomers ratio, the PLA properties can vary considerably from semicrystalline to amorphous state. It is a versatile polymer, recyclable and compostable, with high transparency, high molecular weight, good processability, and water solubility resistance. Unfortunately, it suffers of low barrier properties with regards to gases and vapor, and poor mechanical properties (brittleness). Indeed, currently it is used in food packaging application only for short shelf life products. Several studies have been conducting with the aim of enlarging its application field, among which the incorporation of nanoparticles to PLA or its blending with other polymers. As examples, Cabedo et al. (2006) studied the blend of PLA with polycaprolactone (PCL), which is also a biodegradable semicrystalline polymer, in order to increase

Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT   511

the gas permeability. They also studied the effect of the incorporation of kaolinite to PLA to give rise to nanocomposites, so to decrease PLA inherent rigidity. PLA compostability was instead studied by Kale (2006) by comparing three commercially available PLA packages, namely water bottles, trays, and deli containers. The properties breakdown of these packages exposed to compost conditions have been analyzed by several experimental procedures. It involves gel permeation chromatography (GPC), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA), and visual inspection. They conclude that PLA packages will compost in municipal or industrial facilities but, since the PLA degradation is driven by hydrolysis, higher temperatures are needed and a completely compost will be difficult to obtain. Moreover, as highlighted by La Mantia et al. (2012), PLA degradation is a source of methane, thus a source of a very powerful greenhouse effect gas. Regarding, its recyclability and related processes, many studies are still in progress but, as proved by Galatic (http://www.loopla.org), at the moment it seems hard to obtain 100% recyclability of PLA waste. In addition, since the introduction of PLA in PET process recycling can lead to problems concerning PET recycling quality, few recycling companies are investing in PLA recycling. Despite the above drawbacks, the life cycle environmental performance of PLA drinking water bottles with respect to that of PET bottles, for the same functional unit, resulted to be much better in terms of global warming, reduction of dependency on fossil energy, and human toxicity. The research has been undertaken by Paponga (2014), aiming at evaluating and quantifying the energy and environmental consequences associated with PLA. The PLA study includes the cassava cultivation and harvesting, starch production, glucose production, production of lactic acid, lactides and PLA, water bottle production, and disposal. In addition, it was shown that improving cassava starch process by combining with biogas production and utilization is likely to lead to further significant reduction in global warming potential and eutrophication potential. Referring to PEF, this polymer is the esterification product of ­ethane-1,2-diol and furan-2,5-dicarboxylic acid (FDCA). Although the latter monomer is not commonly found in nature, it can be derived from fructose and glucose. In a two-step process, sugars are dehydrated to 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) which can be subsequently converted into FDCA through three oxidative steps (Dikman et al., 2014). Compared with PET, PEF presents excellent barrier properties (barrier properties are greater than those of PET with respect to O2, CO2, and H2O; https://polymerinnovationblog.com/polyethylene-furanoate-pef100-biobased-polymer-to-compete-with-pet/) significant reductions

512  Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT

in nonrenewable energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. PEF shows interesting mechanical properties, namely higher glass transition temperature, lower melting temperature, and higher elastic modulus. Unfortunately, like PET, PEF is fully recyclable but at the same time also poorly biodegradable. Nowadays, more than 2.5 billion plastic bottles are made of biopolymers and are in use around the world. However, they only represent less than 1% of global production, due to costrelated issues (Orset et al., 2017). As a conclusion of the previous section, Table 14.1 summarizes the main environmentally related features of the discussed materials together with their chemical structures.

14.9.3  Innovations in Progress Private stakeholders are putting increasing efforts on the development of new sustainable technologies. For this reason, this paragraph is dedicated to two examples of industry-led and citizen-driven innovations. Despite not being implemented yet, similar endeavors show renovated sensibility on environmental issues and helps to think to a greener future. First, it is worth mentioning the case of NaturALL Bottle Alliance, launched in March 2017 by Danone, Nestlé, and Origin Materials, a startup based in Sacramento, California. The aim of NaturALL Bottle Alliance is to develop a PET plastic bottle made from bio-based

Table 14.1  Environmentally Related Features of PET, PLA, and PEF Polymers and Their Chemical Structures Material

Chemical Structure

Bio-based

Recyclability

Biodegradability

PET

X

✓

X

PEF

✓

✓

X

PLA

✓

✓X

✓

Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT   513

material, thus 100% sustainable and renewable. No resources are diverted from human food or animal feed production, as the bottles are created using biomass feedstocks, such as previously employed cardboard and sawdust. The production of the first samples of 60+% bio-based PET will start in 2018, under the initial goal of bringing 5000 metric tons of biobased PET to the market. Advancement in this research is expected to be quite rapid, with at least 75% bio-based PET plastic bottles at commercial scale in 2020, scaling up to 95% in 2022. The ultimate goal is to increase the level of bio-based content till the threshold of 100%, extending the availability of such a technology from the beverage industry to the food one as well. The second noteworthy innovation has been brought forward by Paper Water Bottle, a social created by Jim and James Warner. The product they designed is made of a pulp material comprised of organic and sustainable combinations of plant-based fibers. The novelty of Paper Water Bottle is the combination of specialized materials and manufacturing processes and a high level of compostable performance specifications. Indeed, the waste of paper bottles can be simply used as compost by each consumer, as the materials are supposed to decompose completely in a composting environment.

14.10  Concluding Remarks The contribution has offered two complementary scenarios confronting the research in different disciplines around the common central dilemma that a smart progress poses, when it comes to environmental threats and access to fundamental rights. The general trend of the policymakers, at international and European level, seems to firmly set its course toward a low-carbon future, which implies a reasoned use of the resources, a drastic cutoff of the waste production, and a general common understanding that CE solutions are to be encouraged and fostered. Likewise, material scientists seem to be focused on the elaboration of the best innovative solutions that can solve the problem of an excessive production of waste materials. In order to foster innovation, there are two broad policy-making strategies that can help the CE to scale-up (MacArthur Found., 2015). The first is to address market and regulatory failures. The second is to actively stimulate market activity by, for instance, changing public procurement policy and providing financial or technical support to businesses. One approach does not leave out the other: depending on local circumstances as well as on specific sector’s features, actions can emphasized the most fructuous ways to support the shift toward the CE. Moreover, due to cross-border value chains, national and

514  Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT

EU policies should be complementary. As the level of circularity already achieved as well as the resources available differ from country to country, each Member State will need to adapt actions to local circumstances. Nonetheless, objectives and priorities should be shared. In any case, a tight collaboration between policymakers and business operators—SMEs especially—should be endorsed. As many CE opportunities offer unique chances for business, companies are driving the shift toward the CE, thanks to investments in research and innovations. Coordination with the public actors is crucial in order to focus not only on the achievement of business goals, but also on the pursuit of wider societal ambitions. The vulnerability of this study lies on timing feasibility, and, more precisely, on the time frame that the civil society will need to abandon the accepted and comfortable practice of a quickly and easily consumed product, to the benefit of innovative and sustainable solutions. The protection of the environment does not allow further delays.

References Baumgartner, M., 2017. Study: Bottled Water No Safer Than Tap Water. Available from: http:// abcnews.go.com/Business/study-bottled-water-safer-tap-water/story?id=87558. Boulding, K.E., 1966. The economics of coming spaceship earth. In: Jarret, H. (Ed.), Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, pp. 7–8. Cabedo, L., et al., 2006. Optimization of biodegradable nanocomposites based application on a PLA/PCL blends for food packaging application. Macromol. Symp. 233, 191–197. Ceresa, M., 2008. Tea: a very short history. In: Leese, D. (Ed.), Brill’s Encyclopedia of China. Brill, Leiden. Cooper, T., 1999. Creating an economic infrastructure for sustainable product design. J. Sustain. Des. 8, 7–17. Declaration of the European Parliament, 2017. Council and Commission on the EU’s legislative priorities in 2017, in which the priority of waste policy was agreed. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/jointdeclaration-eus-legislative-priorities-2017_en. Dikman, W.P., et al., 2014. Enzyme-catalyzed oxidation of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural to Furan-2,5-dicarboxylic acid. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 53, 6515–6518. Dodick, J. and Kauffman, D., 2016, A review of the European Union’s circular economy policy, Report of the Route to the Circular Economy Project. Doria, M.F., 2006. Bottled water versus tap water: understanding consumers’ preferences. J. Water Health 04 (2), 271–276. ELIPSO, 2012, Plastic and flexible packaging, 14. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015. Delivering the CE. A toolkit for policymakers. Ellen McArthur Foundation, 2017, The new plastics economy: catalysing action. Fitzgerald, E., 2011, Pacific ocean plastic waste dump. John, W., James, C., 2000. III, 11, Tea. In: Kiple, K.F., Ornela, K.C. (Eds.), The Cambridge World History of Food. Cambridge University Press, pp. 712–720. https://doi. org/10.1017/CHOL9780521402149.081. Kale, et al., 2006. Degradation of commercial biodegradable packaging under real composting and ambient exposure conditions. J. Polym. Environ. 14, 317–334.

Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT   515

Kerry, J., Butler, P. (Eds.), 2018. Smart Packaging Technologies for Fast Moving Consumer Goods. Wiley, UK. La Mantia, F.P., et al., 2012. Effect of small amounts of poly(lactic acid) on the recycling of poly(ethylene terephthalate) bottles. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 97, 21–24. Leonard, A., 2010. The story of bottled water. Available from: http://storyofstuff.org/ bottledwater/. Murray, A., Skene, K., Haynes, K., 2017. The circular economy: an interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. J. Bus. Ethics 140, 369–380. O’Sullivan, M.G., Kerry, J.P., 2008. Smart packaging technologies for beverage products. In: Kerry, J., Butler, P. (Eds.), Smart Packaging Technologies for Fast Moving Consumer Goods. John Wiley & Sons, UK, pp. 212–231. Olson, E., 1999. Bottled Water, Pure Drink or Pure Hype? Available from: http://www. nrdc.org/water/drinking/bw/bwinx.asp. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), New York. Orset, C., Barret, N., Lemaire, A., 2017. How consumers of plastic water bottles are responding to environmental policies? Waste Manag. 61, 13–27. Paponga, S., 2014. Comparative assessment of the environmental profile of PLA and PET drinking water bottles from a life cycle perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 539–550. Pira, S., 2014. Demand for PET packaging material to reach USD 60 billion by 2019. Available from: http://www.smitherspira.com/news/2014/april/demand-for-petpackaging- material-in-2019. Siracusa, V., et al., 2008. Biodegradable polymers for food packaging: a review. Trends Food Sci. Techonol. 19, 634–643. Taranic, I., Behrens, A. and Topi, C., 2016, Understanding the circular economy in Europe, from resource efficiency to sharing platforms: the CEPS framework, CEPS Special Report N. 143. Available from: https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/SR%20 No143%20Circular%20Economy_0.pdf. UNEP, 2006. Circular Economy: An Alternative for Economic Development. UNEP DTIE, Paris. United Nations Environment Programme—Division of Technology, Industry and Economics International Environmental Technology Centre Osaka/Shiga, 2010. Waste and Climate Change. Global Trends and Strategy Framework. Available from: http://www.unep. or.jp/ietc/Publications/spc/Waste&ClimateChange/Waste&ClimateChange.pdf. UNEP. Ward, L.A., Cain, O.L., Mullally, R.A., Holliday, K.S., Wernham, A.G., Baillie, P.D., Greenfield, S.M., 2009. Health beliefs about bottled water: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health 9, 196. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-196. Welle, F., 2011. Twenty years of PET bottle to bottle recycling—an overview. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 865–875. Whinfield, J.R. and Dickson J.T., 1941, Improvements Relating to the Manufacture of Highly Polymeric Substances, UK Patent 578,079, Polymeric Linear Terephthalic Esters, U.S. Patent 2,465,319. Wilson, S., 2016, Let’s design out waste for a real circular economy. Available from: https://www.euractiv.com/section/sustainable-dev/opinion/lets-design-outwaste-for-a-real-circular-economy/. Wyeth, N.C. 1976, Biaxially oriented poly(ethylene terephthalate) Bottle, US Patent 3733309.

Legislation Decision No. 1386/2013/EU, 2013. Decision No. 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 20, 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 “Living well, within the limits of our planet” (Text with EEA relevance). Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013D1386.

516  Chapter 14  LAW AND SCIENCE MAKE A COMMON EFFORT

Directive 2008/98/EC, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 19, 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance), OJEU L312/3, 22.11.2008. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098. Directive 94/62/EC, 1994. European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/ EC of December 20, 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, OJEC L365/10, December 31, 1994. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ ALL/?uri=CELEX:31994L0062. EP, EU COM, COUN, 2017. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee, and the committee of the regions on the implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan, Brussels, January 26, 2017 COM(2017) 33 final, 3. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/implementation_report.pdf. EU COM, 2008. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. The raw materials initiative: meeting our critical needs for growth and jobs in E urope {SEC(2008) 2741}, /* COM/2008/0699 final */. Available from: http:// eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52008DC0699. EU COM, 2011. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee, and the committee of the regions Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, /* COM/2011/0571 final */. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0571. EU COM, 2015. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee, and the committee of the regions, Closing the loop—An EU action plan for the Circular Economy, Brussels, 2.12.2015 COM(2015) 614 final. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa. eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:8a8ef5e8-99a0-11e5-b3b7-01aa75ed71a1.0012.02/ DOC_1&format=PDF. EU COM Proposal 0593, 2015. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the council amending Directives 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/ EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment, COM/2015/0593 final—2015/0272 (COD). Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015PC0593. EU COM Proposal 0595, 2015. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste, COM/2015/0595 final—2015/0275 (COD). Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015PC0595. EU COM Proposal 0596, 2015. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the council amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, COM/2015/0596 final—2015/0276 (COD). Available from: http://eur-lex.europa. eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015PC0596.