ALPLA: a circular economy takes more than recyclability

Austrian company ALPLA, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of plastic packaging, has set out its view of packaging’s real environmental impact and of how a circular economy should work in a three-part series called “Packaging Fact Check: Materials, Impact, Recycling”. The core message is simple, yet it often gets lost in public debate: packaging does not become circular just because it is recyclable in theory. Whether it actually does is decided along its entire life path – from raw material extraction through production and transport to the collection bin and, finally, a new product.

In short: According to ALPLA, a circular economy does not begin with a “recyclable” label but at the point where packaging is actually collected, sorted, processed and turned into new products. Packaging materials should therefore be compared by their full life cycle and the function they serve, not by their image.

Why a material’s image can mislead

Most of us carry an unspoken ranking in our heads. Glass is natural, paper is renewable, aluminium is valuable, and plastic is suspicious by default. The first part of ALPLA’s series challenges exactly this shortcut: a single label – “natural”, “renewable”, “fossil-based” – says too little about how heavy a burden a given package places on the environment.

The questions that really matter are different: what job does the packaging have to do, how much material does that take, how far and at what weight does it have to travel, how much recycled content does it contain, can it be reused, and what happens to it after use? Product protection belongs on that list too, and it is especially important for food – we covered this in more detail in our article on the packaging paradox, which shows that food spoiled by weaker protection often does more damage than the packaging itself.

Compare function, not kilograms

A common mistake is to compare packaging materials per kilogram. But the amount of material needed to pack the same volume of a drink or milk varies widely between systems: a glass bottle can weigh many times more than a PET bottle of the same size. A meaningful life cycle assessment therefore compares packaging that performs the same function and looks at the whole life path – from filling, distribution and transport to recycling or disposal.

ALPLA’s own examples – different packaging options for a 0.5-litre soft drink and a 1-litre carton of milk on the German market – show that results can differ considerably even within a single material group. The share of recycled content matters, and so does whether the system is single-use or refillable. The question “glass, aluminium, paper or plastic?” is therefore too broad. First we need to be clear about what the packaging is for and under what conditions it will be used.

Where the environmental impact arises

The second part of the series looks at production. Each material has its own hotspot, where most of the environmental burden is generated – and where the biggest improvements can be made.

Glass: the furnace is the biggest factor

Container glass is made mainly from quartz sand, soda ash, limestone or dolomite, and recycled cullet. The mixture has to be heated to around 1,600 degrees, which makes melting extremely energy-intensive and the source of a large share of production emissions. The more high-quality cullet is used, the less raw material and energy is needed. Glass’s drawback is its weight: heavy packaging means more fuel and more emissions in transport.

Aluminium: a costly start, excellent recycling

Primary aluminium starts with bauxite mining, followed by alumina refining and electrolysis to produce the metal. This process consumes vast amounts of electricity, so its environmental impact depends heavily on the energy source. In return, aluminium allows very thin, light packaging with strong barrier properties – although in many cases it needs an inner plastic coating.

Paper: renewable fibre, complex processing

Paper and board packaging is made from virgin wood fibre, recovered paper or a mix of both. The fibres have to be pulped and cleaned, inks removed in the case of recovered paper, and the very wet pulp pressed and dried – the drying step being particularly energy-hungry. Coatings, dyes and additives can provide important barrier functions, but they can also make later recycling harder.

PET and HDPE: purpose-made raw materials

ALPLA stresses that PET and HDPE are not worthless by-products of oil refining but are made from purpose-produced petrochemical building blocks. HDPE is made by polymerising ethylene; PET from ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid. Their fossil origin is a real factor, but these materials offer high stability at low weight, so less material is needed per package and transport is less demanding. Mechanical recycling is a mature technology for both plastics, and recycled material can replace virgin plastic.

The takeaway: a material’s origin alone does not determine its environmental impact. What matters is how resource- and energy-efficiently it is turned into packaging, and whether it can then go back into the loop.

Collection is not yet recycling

The third and final part of the series focuses on the end of a package’s life – which is also the start of a new material cycle. Even packaging that is technically easy to recycle can end up as waste if one of the links fails: collection, sorting, processing or the actual use of the recovered material.

Glass illustrates the difference well. In 2023, 80.8 per cent of glass packaging in the European Union was collected for recycling, while the recycling rate reported by Eurostat for the same year was 74.9 per cent. A high collection rate is a precondition for recycling, but it is not the same thing.

A few further figures highlighted by ALPLA in the series:

• Melting down aluminium scrap takes up to 95 per cent less energy than producing primary aluminium. The recycling rate for European beverage cans reached 76.3 per cent in 2023 (covering the EU plus the UK, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, and beverage cans only).
• Paper fibres can be recycled several times, but they get shorter and weaker in the process, so fresh fibre is always needed as well. In 2024, 75.1 per cent of the paper and board consumed in Europe was recycled – though this includes graphic and tissue paper.
• In 2023, 42.1 per cent of plastic packaging waste in the EU was recycled. PET beverage bottles perform far better: thanks to deposit return schemes, return rates exceed 95 per cent in many countries.

An important caveat: these figures are not a ranking. They refer to different years, geographies, material definitions and calculation methods – some to all packaging of one material, some to a single packaging type, and some to material streams that go beyond packaging. They show how effective existing systems are, but not which material is the best choice for a specific product.

What makes a circular economy work?

In ALPLA’s vision, a circular economy is achieved when four things happen at once. First, packaging has to be designed from the start so that after use it can be identified, sorted and processed at a reasonable cost – the principle of “Design for Recycling”. (The guidelines keep evolving; you can read about RecyClass’s latest update here.) Second, functioning collection systems are needed. Third, sufficient recycling capacity. And fourth, reliable demand for secondary raw materials – because if nobody buys the recyclate, the chain breaks at the very end.

What happens when these players do not work in step is something we covered in detail in our article on the “recycling for nothing” paradox: despite major investment, system failures can cancel out the results. Regulation is pushing the market in the same direction: under the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), all packaging placed on the market must be recyclable by 2030 – see our article on the PPWR guidance for details.

According to ALPLA, this interplay is especially visible for PET and HDPE: they are lightweight and material-efficient, their mechanical recycling is established practice, and well-run collection systems prove that very high return rates are achievable. The company’s closing thought is that no packaging material causes the lowest environmental impact in every situation. The most sustainable packaging is not necessarily the one with the best reputation, but the one that does its job with as few resources as possible and keeps its material in circulation for as long as possible.

What does this mean for Hungarian consumers?

Since 2024, Hungary has had a mandatory deposit return scheme for PET bottles, beverage cans and single-use glass bottles. This is precisely the collection link ALPLA describes: thanks to the deposit, most bottles and cans come back as a clean, easy-to-sort material stream. We reported on the system’s growing capacity in an earlier article.

In everyday terms, a few simple rules follow:

• Look not only at what a package is made of, but how much material it uses and whether you can get it back into the loop.
• Return deposit bottles and cans – it is the most direct route for the material to become a bottle again.
• Put clean, empty packaging made of a single material into separate collection bins wherever possible. Multi-layer, composite packaging is much harder to recycle – we covered the challenges of flexible plastics in our article on the InFACT project.
• Where a working refillable system exists, it is worth choosing – but only if transport distances and return logistics genuinely work.

Editor’s note: read it with a critical eye

ALPLA’s series is well structured, easy to follow and professionally sound on many points: the “compare function, not material” principle and the emphasis on the gap between collection and recycling rates are genuinely important and often missing from public debate. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that the author is a plastic packaging manufacturer, so the conclusions highlighting the advantages of PET and HDPE also reflect a business interest.

The life cycle examples are the company’s own, based on the conditions of one specific (German) market. It is also telling that, of the figures quoted in the series, the EU recycling rate for plastic packaging is the lowest. And reuse – which ranks above recycling in the waste hierarchy – appears in the articles mostly as a side note.

The most important lesson, however, holds regardless of material: recyclability is only a promise. A circular economy becomes reality when design, collection, processing and the use of recycled material are genuinely connected.

Frequently asked questions about the circular economy and packaging

Why is it not enough for packaging to be recyclable?

Because recyclability is only a theoretical possibility. A circular economy is achieved when packaging is actually collected, sorted and processed, and the recycled material is then used in new products. If any of these links fails, even packaging that is technically easy to recycle still ends up as waste.

How can packaging materials be compared fairly?

By the function they perform, not per kilogram. A meaningful life cycle assessment compares packaging that does the same job and looks at the whole life path: production, filling, transport, the share of recycled content, the potential for reuse, and what happens to the packaging after it has been used.

What is the difference between collection and recycling rates?

The collection rate shows how much packaging is collected, while the recycling rate shows how much material is actually recycled. In 2023, 80.8 per cent of glass packaging in the European Union was collected for recycling, but the recycling rate was 74.9 per cent. Collection is a precondition for recycling, but not the same thing.

Which packaging material is the most environmentally friendly?

No material is the best in every situation. According to ALPLA, the most sustainable packaging is the one that does its job with the fewest resources and keeps its material in circulation for as long as possible. This depends on the amount of material needed, product protection, transport weight, recycled content and the local collection system.

What does it take for packaging circularity to work?

Four conditions must be met at the same time: packaging designed for recycling (Design for Recycling), a functioning collection system, sufficient recycling capacity and reliable demand for secondary raw materials. PET beverage bottles are a good example: in many countries, deposit return schemes enable return rates of over 95 per cent.

This article is based on ALPLA’s “Packaging Fact Check” series:

• More than just the material: Why the life cycle matters (20 August 2026)
• From raw materials to packaging: where the environmental impact arises (2 September 2026)
• Recyclability is not enough: the path to a truly circular economy (18 September 2026)