Warning Signal to Brussels: The European Plastics Industry Calls for Urgent Action

On 7 September 2026, a joint letter landed on the desk of Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission. The signatories – polymer producers, converters, waste management operators and recyclers – represent the entire value chain of the European plastics industry, and their message fits into a single sentence: the EU must take concrete, coordinated decisions while there is still something left to save. According to the letter, the window for action is closing fast.

What happened: one letter, more than thirty signatories

A year earlier, in September 2025, 34 European organisations put forward six strategic recommendations for a more resilient and circular plastics value chain. The new letter does not add fresh demands. Instead, the same players state that last year’s recommendations have not become outdated – they have become more urgent, and the forthcoming Circular Economy Act is the moment when they could finally turn into law.

The letter is addressed to the Commission President, with copies to Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera (Clean, Just and Competitive Transition), Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné (Prosperity and Industrial Strategy), Commissioner Jessika Roswall (Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive Circular Economy) and Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič (Trade and Economic Security).

The signatory list includes the major European associations – among them Plastics Europe, Plastics Recyclers Europe, EuPC, FEAD, Recycling Europe, Petcore Europe, VinylPlus, EERA, EPRO and CEFLEX – together with close to twenty national federations. Hungary is represented by the Hungarian Plastics Industry Association (MMSZ), alongside German, Italian, Spanish, French, Polish, British, Dutch and Nordic partners.

The numbers behind the closed plants

The letter backs up its urgency with a handful of figures that speak for themselves:

• 1.1 million tonnes. That is the combined capacity of the plastics recycling companies forced to close between 2023 and the second quarter of 2026 – not because the technology failed, but because market conditions became unsustainable.
• 54.6 million tonnes. European plastics production stagnated at this level in 2024, meaning growth has been absent for years.
• 25% → 12% → 7%. Europe’s share of global plastics production stood at a quarter in 2006, fell to 12% by 2024, and is forecast to shrink to 7% by 2034.

Behind all of this sits the persistently high cost of energy in Europe, which the letter describes as a structural disadvantage: not a single bad year, but a built-in cost gap compared with producers elsewhere in the world.

Last year’s letter went as far as naming individual sites: the 225,000 tonnes of annual PVC capacity at Vynova Beek in the Netherlands, and two Veolia plants in Germany where the processing of 70,000 tonnes of HDPE and PET waste per year came to a halt. Lost capacity rarely comes back. Recycling plants have long investment cycles, and a line that has been shut down cannot be restarted in a few weeks.

Why is a growing market losing its producers?

At first glance the situation makes no sense. Legislation demands ever more recycled content, so the market is expanding – yet recyclers keep closing. The explanation rests on a few straightforward mechanics.

Producing recycled plastic is labour- and energy-intensive: the material has to be collected, sorted, cleaned, shredded, washed, dried and pelletised. Virgin plastic, by contrast, is the end product of a single petrochemical process, and when oil prices are low it is simply cheaper. Add low-priced recyclate, semi-finished goods and finished products arriving from world markets, and the European plant is squeezed from both sides: higher production costs than the importer, with no price premium to compensate.

This, the signatories argue, is the blind spot in the current framework. The European producer is inspected, audited and fined, while recycled-content claims attached to imported material are often practically unverifiable. Strict rules then fail to protect the compliant operator and instead reward the competitor who is hardest to check.

Six things the sector is asking Brussels for

The letter renews six strategic priorities. In plain terms, they mean the following:

1. Restore fair competition and promote circular plastics made in Europe. The signatories call for so-called mirror measures on imported recycled polymers and plastic products: whoever wants to sell into the EU should meet the same requirements as an EU producer. The list also includes targeted support for collection and sorting infrastructure, exploring a “green VAT”, bonuses within Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) fees, uniform design-for-recycling criteria, public procurement reform in favour of European recyclates, and cutting the incineration and landfilling of plastic waste – because anything burned or buried has left the loop.

2. Cut energy costs. The request is that recycling, masterbatching, compounding and converting become eligible for the EU support frameworks normally reserved for energy-intensive industries. A separate proposal is that revenues linked to plastics – such as those from the Emissions Trading System and the EU’s plastics-based own resource – be channelled back into a dedicated fund serving the circularity of the sector.

3. Close the loopholes in verification and enforcement. This requires properly staffed and equipped authorities, strong customs controls and digital traceability. A key element is introducing separate customs codes for fossil-based feedstocks and for bio-based, recycled and carbon-captured ones: as long as everything enters under the same code, nobody can even see in the statistics what is actually arriving.

4. Implement and enforce EU law. Member States differ significantly in how they interpret and enforce identical rules. The signatories want EU-wide End-of-Waste criteria, predictable legal interpretation, simpler permitting and lighter administration – including a faster approval route for recycled plastics in food-contact applications.

5. Unlock innovation and private investment. Alongside better collection, advanced sorting technologies and support for recycling processes, the crucial word here is predictability: investment only happens in a regulatory environment that does not change several times within the payback period.

6. Enhance EPR for a fair circular market. The signatories want harmonised EU EPR rules, consistent definitions and genuinely eco-modulated fees that reward recyclable design and recycled content on a material-neutral basis – and that prevent the system from competing itself down to the lowest possible fee.

What this means on the ground, including in Hungary

Two dates make this letter worth reading well beyond Brussels.

The first is 21 November 2026, when EU exports of plastic waste to non-OECD countries come to an end. Material that used to leave the continent will have to be processed here – at exactly the moment when processing capacity is shrinking. If there is no offtake, the balance shifts quickly towards incineration and landfill, which costs money for public services and EPR systems alike.

The second is the Circular Economy Act, a significant part of which will deal with harmonising EPR rules and building a single market for secondary raw materials. For a Hungarian converter, that would mean more predictable access to recyclate; for a collection and sorting business, it would mean that better-quality material actually commands a better price.

Separate collection only makes sense if someone buys the material that comes out of it. Ultimately, that is what this letter is about.

The Circular Economy Act: the next real opportunity

The Commission has scheduled its Circular Economy Act proposal for the second half of 2026 – the third quarter, according to European Parliament briefings – after which the text goes to the Parliament and the Council. Its stated aim is to create a single EU market for secondary raw materials, increase the supply of high-quality recycled material and generate real demand for it.

The letter does acknowledge progress: the Commission’s earlier communication on boosting the circularity of plastics, work on EU-wide End-of-Waste criteria, the relaunch of the Circular Plastics Alliance and the discussions on customs codes all point in the right direction. According to the signatories, however, none of this has yet reached day-to-day operations. Low-priced imports, high energy costs, legal uncertainty and fragmented national rules are all still in place.

Why this matters even outside the industry

Because the circular economy does not happen in legislation – it happens in plants. If those 1.1 million tonnes of capacity are not rebuilt, part of the plastic we separate at home ends up as fuel or as landfill volume rather than as a new product. The coming months are therefore about more than the competitiveness of one industry. They are about how much the decision we make at the bin each morning is actually worth.

Frequently asked questions about the European plastics industry letter

Why is the European plastics industry in crisis?

According to the signatories, three factors hit at once: persistently high European energy prices, low-priced imports and fragmented, unpredictable rules across Member States. Producing recycled plastic is labour- and energy-intensive, so it costs more than virgin material, yet producers receive no price premium for it. Operations therefore became loss-making even as regulatory demand kept growing.

How much recycling capacity has closed in Europe since 2023?

The letter states that between 2023 and the second quarter of 2026, plastics recycling companies representing roughly 1.1 million tonnes of capacity were forced to close because market conditions became unsustainable. Over the same period European plastics production stagnated at 54.6 million tonnes, and Europe’s share of global production fell to 12% from 25% in 2006.

What do mirror measures on imported recycled plastic mean?

Mirror measures would apply the same requirements to recycled polymers and plastic products entering the EU as to European producers: verified recycled content, checkable quality and identical chemical rules. The signatories argue that European plants are audited today while claims attached to imports often cannot be meaningfully verified, which creates a competitive disadvantage for compliant EU operators.

When is the Circular Economy Act expected?

The Commission has scheduled the proposal for the second half of 2026, with European Parliament briefings pointing to the third quarter. The text then has to be negotiated by the European Parliament and the Council, so the final rules will apply later. The Act aims to create a single EU market for secondary raw materials and strengthen real demand.

Why does this matter for national waste management?

From 21 November 2026 the EU can no longer export plastic waste to non-OECD countries, so material that used to leave the continent must be processed within Europe. If domestic and European capacity keeps shrinking at the same time, more waste goes to incineration or landfill, adding costs for public services and extended producer responsibility schemes.

Sources:

joint letter of 7 September 2026 (Brussels); Strategic Recommendations for a Resilient and Circular Plastic Value Chain in Europe (2025); Plastics Europe and Plastics Recyclers Europe data (EU-27+3); European Parliament briefing on the Circular Economy Act; European Commission communication on accelerating the circularity of plastics.