India – Australia Industry and Research 
Collaboration for Reducing Plastic Waste

National Circular Economy 
Roadmap for Reducing 
Plastic Waste in India



Acknowledgments

The National Circular Economy Roadmap for Reducing 
Plastic Waste in India has been developed with input 
from industry, government and community participants 
who we thank for sharing their information and thinking 
on how to progress India’s endeavour for a circular 
economy for plastics. We thank the Australian Federal 
Department of Industry, Science and Resources for the 
financial support. We thank the Indian Government 
for their interest in our research and their engagement 
in the effort to facilitate greater circularity of plastics. 
The comprehensive partnership between Australia and 
India created the means for this Roadmap and allowed 
for a collaboration of Indian and Australian research 
partners led by the CSIRO and including The Energy 
and Resources Institute in New Delhi, the National 
Environmental Engineering Research Institute of CSIR 
in Nagpur, Development Alternatives in New Delhi, the 
University of New South Wales and the University of 
Technology Sydney. We are grateful for the support of 
the leadership of the six research institutes and special 
thanks to the over 50 researchers from India and Australia 
who collaborated on this research. We also thank Josh 
Dowse for advising the storyline of the summary, Karin 
Hosking and Jacqui Meyers for editorial services.

Citation

Dhodapkar R, Bhattacharjya S, Niazi Z, Porter NB, 
Retamal M, Sahajwalla V and Schandl H (2023) 
National Circular Economy Roadmap for Reducing 
Plastic Waste in India. CSIRO, Australia.

ISBN 978-1-4863-1802-5 (Print) | 978-1-4863-1803-2 (Online)

Copyright

© Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 
Organisation 2023. To the extent permitted by law, all rights 
are reserved, and no part of this publication covered by 
copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by 
any means except with the written permission of CSIRO.

Important disclaimer

CSIRO advises that the information contained in this 
publication comprises general statements based on 
scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to 
be aware that such information may be incomplete or 
unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance 
or actions must therefore be made on that information 
without seeking prior expert professional, scientific 
and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, 
CSIRO (including its employees and partners) excludes 
all liability to any person for any consequences, 
including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, 
expenses and any other compensation, arising directly 
or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in 
whole) and any information or material contained in it.

CSIRO is committed to providing web accessible content 
wherever possible. If you are having difficulties with 
accessing this document, please contact csiro.au/contact

This report is current as of April 2023. CSIRO continues 
to actively undertake research into the circular 
economy both internationally and for Australia.

The India – Australia Industry and Research Collaboration for Reducing Plastic Waste is a three-year collaboration 
with partners in both India – the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Development Alternatives and 
The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) – and Australia – the University of New South Wales (UNSW), the University of 
Technology Sydney (UTS) and CSIRO. Through key activities, this collaboration works closely with industry, government 
and community stakeholders to evaluate the economic and policy implications of transitioning to a circular economy 
for plastics.



Abbreviations

ABS Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene

ASSOCHAM Associated Chambers of Commerce 
and Industry of India

BAU Business as usual

BIS Bureau of Indian Standards

CBM Circular Business Model

CII Confederation of Indian Industry

CPCB Central Pollution Control Board

CPMA Chemicals and Petrochemicals 
Manufacturers’ Association

CSIR-NEERI Council of Scientific & Industrial 
Research – National Environmental 
Engineering Research Institute

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and 
Industrial Research Organisation

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

EFP Environmentally friendly packaging

EPR Extended Producer Responsibility

EPS Expanded polystyrene

FICCI Federation of Indian Chambers 
of Commerce & Industry

HDPE High-Density Polyethylene

IoT Internet of Things

IPWM Improved plastic waste management

ISO International Organization for Standardisation

LCA Life cycle analysis/assessment

LDPE Low-Density Polyethylene

MFA Material flow account/analysis

MoCI Ministry of Commerce and Industry

MoE Ministry of Education

MoEFCC Ministry of Environment, Forest 
and Climate Change

MoF Ministry of Finance

MoHUA Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs

MoMSME Ministry of Micro, Small and 
Medium Enterprises

MoSDE Ministry of Skill Development 
and Entrepreneurship

MoSPI Ministry of Statistics and 
Programme Implementation

MoST Ministry of Science & Technology

MRF Material Recycling Facility

Mt Million tonnes

NASSCOM National Association of Software 
and Service Companies

NGO Non-Government Organisation

NIF National Indicator Framework

NITI Aayog National Institution for Transforming 
India (NITI) Aayog, Government of India

NSW New South Wales 

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development

OPTOCE Ocean Plastic Turned into an 
Opportunity in Circular Economy

PE Polyethylene

PET Polyethylene terephthalate

PIBO Producers, Importers and Brand Owners

PP Polypropylene

PRO Producer Responsibility Organisation

PS Polystyrene

PVC Polyvinyl Chloride

PWM Plastic Waste Management

PWP Plastic Waste Processor

QCI Quality Council of India

SDG Sustainable Development Goals

SPCB State Pollution Control Board

SUP Single-Use Plastic

TERI The Energy and Resources Institute

ULB Urban Local Body

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UT Union Territory

WtE Waste-to-Energy

WtO Waste to oil



Preface

Dr Deborah Lau, 
CSIRO Ending Plastic 
Waste Mission Lead

The problem of plastic pollution has become an urgent 
global issue, with an estimated 8 million metric tons 
of plastic entering our oceans annually. This massive 
scale of plastic waste is increasing every day and has 
devastating consequences for marine ecosystems 
and the environment at large and international 
collaboration is vital to address this crisis effectively.

India and Australia are actively participating in the 
negotiations towards a UN Global Plastics Treaty which 
aims to encourage a circular economy for plastics. 
It will promote a systemic shift in the way plastics 
are designed, produced, consumed, and managed at 
the end of use. This treaty provides a framework for 
participating countries to coordinate their actions, share 
best practices, to drive global change and reduce plastic 
pollution. Through this instrument, both countries 
aim to leverage their respective strengths in waste 
management, recycling policies, and environmental 
initiatives to foster a circular economy that prioritizes 
resource efficiency and environmental protection.

CSIRO, Australia’s National science agency, has launched 
the Ending Plastic Waste (EPW) Mission to address the 
plastics issue. The mission has a goal of reducing plastic 
waste in the Australian environment by 80% and adopts 
a holistic approach, fostering collaboration among 
industry, government, and community stakeholders 
to tackle plastic pollution at its source. Through such 
partnerships, CSIRO aims to generate actionable insights, 
develop innovative technologies, and promote behavioural 
change among consumers and businesses alike.

The National Circular Economy Roadmap for Reducing 
Plastic Waste in India will be instrumental in helping 
India reduce plastic waste by providing a strategic 
framework and a clear course of action to tackle the 
issue. Through specific goals, milestones, and timelines, 
it serves as a reference point for all stakeholders involved. 
This enables organisations to align their efforts, monitor 
progress, and adapt their strategies as needed. It has 
established clear targets for plastic waste reduction, 
recycling rates, and sustainable materials usage, 
allowing India to track its progress and evaluate the 
effectiveness of its strategies. It will also provide guidance 
for developing and strengthening policy frameworks 
ensuring a more coordinated and comprehensive 
approach to addressing plastic waste issues.

Furthermore, The National Circular Economy Roadmap 
for Reducing Plastic Waste in India identifies priority 
areas for research and innovation, facilitate stakeholder 
collaboration, encourage public awareness and 
engagement, and identify funding and investment 
opportunities. The collaborative approach fostered by 
the Roadmap can help India leverage the expertise, 
resources, and capabilities of different sectors, 
including the government, industry, academia, and 
civil society, to tackle plastic waste more effectively. 

It is clear that international collaboration is crucial to 
solving the plastics issue, as it enables nations to share 
expertise, resources, and innovative solutions. The Global 
Plastics Treaty, the collaboration between India and 
Australia, and the partners, CSIRO, CSIR-NEERI, Development 
Alternatives, TERI, SMaRT Centre UNSW and UTS-ISF, 
who have joined to develop the Roadmap all exemplify 
the power of collective action. This comprehensive 
Roadmap can further guide these efforts, ensuring that 
we move closer to a world free of plastic pollution.

. 



Dr Atul N. Vaidya, 
Director CSIR-NEERI

India, in the last five years, has witnessed a two-fold 
increase in per capita plastic waste generation, owing to 
increased population and rapid urbanization. Detrimental 
impacts of waste plastic on environment are ever 
increasing and evident, seeking significant media and 
public attention. The obvious imbalance or mismatch 
between exponential rise in plastic consumption and 
recycling and disposal calls for all-inclusive efforts from 
the community to global level are required to address 
this global issue, necessitating urgent establishment 
and proliferation of circular economy for plastics.

Government of India has launched several policies and 
funding schemes for plastic waste management, such as 
Swachh Bharat Mission, Swachh Survekshan, Extended 
Producer Responsibility (EPR), plastic waste (handling 
and management) rules 2016, and ban on the use of 
single use packaging plastics. Despite these regulatory 
mechanisms, the transition from linear to circular 
economy for plastics, warrant immense efforts from 
all stakeholders across the entire plastic value chain. 

The industry and research collaboration between India 
and Australia predominantly aims to foster this transition 
to circular economy for plastics keeping with the clarion 
call made by Governments of Australia and India to reduce 
the plastic waste. Honourable Prime Ministers of both 
the countries, in a joint statement, specifically mentioned 
and welcomed the initiative for the Roadmap leading 
to cooperation in plastic waste reduction and circular 
economy. The National Circular Economy Roadmap for 
Reducing Plastic Waste in India will be a very effective 
tool and shall serve as a blueprint for implementation 
of a circular economy in India by virtue of rich overview 
and in-depth analysis of the barriers and enablers of 
circular economy as it has been developed based on 
the inputs from stakeholder engagements, illustrations 
drawn from a range of interviews, field survey, high 
level round table meetings and brainstorming sessions 
with representatives of the plastic value chain. 

The interesting insights provided in the Roadmap can 
serve as a logical framework for green innovations, 
enhancing recycling rates and strengthening policies. 
The timelines and milestones provided in the Roadmap 
shall facilitate establishing a clear target for all the 
stakeholders to strengthen the efforts towards the 
circular economy transition. The recommendations 
delineated in the study - incentives, increased financial 
support, green public procurement and quality 
standards to name a few - will enable overcome 
the challenges for circular economy barriers. 

This comprehensive Roadmap can further serve as a 
formidable response to the needs of Global Plastic 
Treaty, that will motivate more inclusive circular 
economy for plastics, attainment of sustainable 
development goals and net-zero targets. The research 
Collaboration between India and Australia partnering 
CSIR-NEERI, Development Alternatives, and TERI, from 
India and CSIRO, SMaRT Centre UNSW and UTS-ISF 
from Australia, is viewed as an exemplary collaborative 
research of two countries developing sustainable 
solutions to a shared problem of the world.

. 



Roadmap authorship

Coordinating lead authors

Rita Dhodapkar, Souvik Bhattacharjya, Zeenat 
Niazi, Natasha Porter, Monique Retamal, 
Veena Sahajwalla and Heinz Schandl

Summary

Lead Authors: Josh Dowse and Heinz Schandl

Contributing Authors: Zeenat Niazi, 
Rita Dhodapkar, Souvik Bhattacharjya, 
Nargessadat Emami and Natasha Porter

Chapter 1 Data transparency

Lead Authors: Souvik Bhattacharjya 
and Nargessadat Emami

Contributing Authors: Timothy M Baynes, 
Trinayana Kaushik, Mandavi Singh

Chapter 2 Policy frameworks for a 
circular economy for plastics in India

Lead Authors: Sherine Thandu Parakkal and 
Simran Talwar 

Contributing Authors: Monique Retamal, Zeenat Niazi

Chapter 3 Circular business models 

Lead Authors: Monique Retamal and 
Aparajita Amita Mathew

Contributing Authors: Sudhir Sah, Ashwini Pai 
Panandiker, Simran Talwar, Sarah King

Chapter 4 Plastic recycling technologies

Lead Authors: Rita Dhodapkar, Debishree 
Khan and Sushma Pardeshi

Contributing Authors: Radhika Sharma, Katherine Locock

Chapter 5 Uptake of secondary materials in 
manufacturing and infrastructure

Lead Authors: Rumana Hossain

Contributing Authors: Veena Sahajwalla, Smitirupa Biswal

Chapter 6 Community and industry led local 
initiatives

Lead Authors: Laure-Elise Ruoso and Alpana Gupta

Contributing Authors: Gitika Goswami, Monique 
Retamal, Ashwini Pai Panandiker

Chapter 7 Behaviour change

Lead Authors: Andrea Walton and Aakriti Uttam

Contributing Authors: Murni Po, Taryn Kong, Anisha 
Gupta, Zeenat Niazi, John Gardner, Sorada Tapsuwan



Contents
Abbreviations..........................................................................................................................................................i

Preface......................................................................................................................................................................iiWhy a circular economy roadmap for plastics is needed for India.............................................4Summary: A circular economy for India’s plastics ..............................................................................7Overview...............................................................................................................................................................281 Data transparency.......................................................................................................................................311.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................311.2 What is working well so far?.............................................................................................................................................311.3 Data across the polymer value chain................................................................................................................................321.4 Challenges and needs for data transparency, metrics and indicators, and targets (current gaps, global best practice)...351.5 Barriers to implementation in India ...............................................................................................................................361.6 Possibilities in the Indian context ...................................................................................................................................381.7 The way forward ..............................................................................................................................................................392 Policy frameworks for a circular economy for plastics in India.............................................412.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................412.2 Methodology.....................................................................................................................................................................432.3 Current policy landscape..................................................................................................................................................432.4 Gaps in current policy ......................................................................................................................................................462.5 What could be done to further the circular economy?..................................................................................................492.6 What would work in India?..............................................................................................................................................492.7 Recommendations............................................................................................................................................................503 Circular business models.........................................................................................................................533.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................................533.2 What is working well?.......................................................................................................................................................543.3 Current challenges and opportunities ............................................................................................................................563.4 Which possibilities should be implemented in India?....................................................................................................593.5 Recommendations and timeframe .................................................................................................................................604 Plastic recycling technologies...............................................................................................................634.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................634.2 Overview of recycling technology in India.....................................................................................................................644.3 Overview of gaps in current recycling ............................................................................................................................654.4 Opportunities to drive greater plastic recycling ...........................................................................................................684.5 Barriers to implementation of potential solutions.........................................................................................................724.6 Recommendations to drive innovation...........................................................................................................................735 Uptake of secondary materials in manufacturing and infrastructure................................755.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................................755.2 Sustainable asphalt roads with waste plastic .................................................................................................................765.3 Waste plastic as fine aggregate in cementitious composites.......................................................................................775.4 Iron and steel manufacturing...........................................................................................................................................78

5.5 Power generation..............................................................................................................................................................805.6 Other construction products............................................................................................................................................815.7 Recommendations to increase the uptake of waste plastics.........................................................................................826 Community- and industry-led local initiatives..............................................................................856.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................................856.2 What is working well?.......................................................................................................................................................876.3 What are the current challenges?....................................................................................................................................896.4 Recommendations............................................................................................................................................................917 Behaviour change.......................................................................................................................................937.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................937.2 What are current practices and what is working well to enable 4 R behaviours?.......................................................947.3 What are the barriers?......................................................................................................................................................977.4 What are the enablers?.....................................................................................................................................................997.5 Recommendations..........................................................................................................................................................102References..........................................................................................................................................................104Appendix A Methods......................................................................................................................................112Appendix B Collaboration Research Team.........................................................................................120Appendix C Organisations who engaged with the Roadmap development......................122

Figures

Figure S.1 The MFA of plastics in India, 2019.............................................................................................................................9Figure S.2 The MFA of plastics in India under BAU and IPWM scenarios until 2035..............................................................10Figure S.3 The Seven Elements of India’s circular economy for plastics.................................................................................13Figure 1.1 Formal and informal ideal waste value chain in India...................................................................................................36Figure 2.1 Municipal Waste Management in India..........................................................................................................................42Figure 4.1 Gaps in current plastic waste recycling technologies in India......................................................................................66Figure 7.1 Three types of system-wide factors required for driving behavioural change in a social system..............................93Figure 7.2 Household management of different types of plastic waste in India...........................................................................95Figure 7.3 The types of household waste management information received by households....................................................96Figure 7.4 Factors that were significantly different between high and low circularity households............................................96Figure 7.5 Summary of barriers to households practising 4 R behaviours....................................................................................97Figure 7.6 Summary of enablers to households practising 4 R behaviours...................................................................................99
Tables

Table S.1 Different types of plastic, and of waste......................................................................................................................7Table 1.1 Pedigree table of data sources for the Upstream Stage of the plastic value chain........................................................32Table 1.2 Pedigree table of data sources for the Production Stage of the plastic value chain ...................................................33Table 1.3 Pedigree table of data sources for the Use Stage of the plastic value chain.................................................................34Table 1.4 Pedigree table of data sources for the End-of-life and Waste stage of the plastic value chain...................................34Table 2.1 Adapted framework based on Dovers and Hussey (2013)................................................................................................41Table 2.2 Stakeholder roles for EPR in India ....................................................................................................................................42Table 2.3 Stakeholders interviewed in this research........................................................................................................................43Table 3.1 Circular business model framework..................................................................................................................................53Table 6.1 Types of activities conducted by community- and industry-led local initiatives...........................................................86Table 7.1 Frequency of circularity practices reported by the different households......................................................................94Table A.1 Overview of interview methods .....................................................................................................................................114Table A.2 Breakdown of interviews by domain group including combined interviews.............................................................114Table A.3 Number of interviews by stakeholder type....................................................................................................................114Table A.4 Circular business model framework...............................................................................................................................116

Why a circular economy 
roadmap for plastics is 
needed for India

The Government of India’s commitment to address plastic 
waste challenges and consequential human health and 
ecological impact concerns has been a key motivation 
for the development of a Roadmap to help drive the 
transformation of the plastic waste economy in India into a 
circular economy. Management of plastics has historically 
been dealt with by governments at State and Municipal 
levels, through regulatory strategies of bans and fines, 
and by education and awareness campaigns led by civil 
society actors. These interventions have mainly been from 
a waste management perspective, directed predominantly 
at individual behaviour shifts and with some success.

In 2016, India acknowledged the scale and complexity 
of the plastic waste problem and its interconnectedness 
with global ocean plastic pollution and global warning 
concerns. A raft of measures directed at municipal, 
industry, residential and commercial actors have since 
been introduced. These measures, led by the Plastic Waste 
Management (PWM) Rules, have ranged from bans, fines, 
municipal and social enterprise models for collection, 
segregation and recycling, education and awareness 
campaigns across a range of stakeholders, to rules for 
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and tracking 
and monitoring the problem at the municipal level. Most 
operational interventions are directed at end-of-use of 
plastic and some gaps exist between policy intent and 
policy design, which are compounded by multiple barriers 
at implementation level. These include gaps in data flow 
and data transparency posing a barrier for tracking and 
design of effective strategies, technological limitations 
in recycling, remanufacture and green manufacture, 
inadequate infrastructure for collection of products at 
the end-of-life, market and price barriers for secondary 
plastic-based products and alternatives to single-use 
plastics, knowledge capacities across stakeholders, and 
business models that do not include the potential of the 
large informal recycling sector. The roadmap, therefore, is 
motivated by the need for a comprehensive view of the 
entire value chain of the plastics economy and to provide 
systemic recommendations for addressing the challenge.

The other side of any challenge is opportunity. The 
Roadmap is designed with a motivation to unlock 
opportunities in the transition to greener more 
inclusive and circular economy as a strategy to achieve 
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and net zero 
targets. For India, as in other emerging economies this 
is an opportunity to leap over the trade-offs between 
development and the environment, and between losers and 
winners in the transition. These opportunities range from 
enhancing resource security through recovery of materials, 
accelerating industry and market shifts to low embodied 
carbon products through innovations, to creating new 
economic opportunities and green jobs through inclusive 
business models. This promotes good health and 
sustainable living in line with strategic action for the LiFE – 
Lifestyles for Environment intervention of the Government 
of India as introduced in COP26 on 1 November, 2021.

This Roadmap recognises that the problem is dynamic 
and while some responses are required urgently other 
solutions and strategies will evolve and emerge over 
time and through engagement of stakeholders from 
across the ecosystem of the plastics economy. The 
motivation for a Roadmap is therefore to create a living 
framework document supported by robust research and 
recommendations for policy and industry strategies, 
technology interventions, and community and social 
action. The document acknowledges the active unfolding 
of the plastics economy in India and provides guidance 
for systematically navigating it, with an objective of 
multiple wins across climate, resources, pollution and 
livelihood challenges at global, national and local levels.

Finally, the Roadmap can support the Government 
of India and industry associations in responding to 
the requirements of the Global Plastics Treaty that is 
expected to be in force by 2024. The Roadmap identifies 
systematic actions that need to be taken by different 
stakeholders in the short, medium and long terms so 
that environmental and human health concerns in the 
plastics economy can be addressed comprehensively. 
Technical, business and industry wide solutions successful 
in India have huge potential for informing and replicating 
in emerging economies of the Asia Pacific, Africa 
and Latin America, thus the Roadmap can stimulate 
and lead transformative change at global scale.



The Roadmap audience 

The Roadmap has been co-developed with researchers, 
industry, government and community in India. Several 
key stakeholders have been identified to take ownership 
of the Roadmap as India drives to transform its plastic 
waste economy into a circular economy for plastics.

NITI Aayog, as the public policy think tank of the 
Government of India, has the responsibility to coordinate 
with various ministries to streamline policy development and 
implementation and could be a key champion of the roadmap. 

The Roadmap is directed at the policy design community, 
to enable transition management and track monitoring and 
evaluation of the implementation of current and new policies. 

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate 
Change (MoEFCC) & Central Pollution Control Board 
(CPCB) are the implementing agencies for formulation 
and preparation of guideline manuals and codes related 
to practices in solid waste management. They are also 
responsible for dissemination of relevant information. 

The ministries directly responsible for the initiation of 
policies like Atmanirbhar Bharat (Self-Reliant India), Smart 
cities and Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India), such as 
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), would 
benefit from supporting implementation of the Roadmap 
as it represents principles and practical information 
for the management of end-of-life plastics in India. 

The Roadmap can be a device for plastic manufacturers 
and plastic product manufacturers, who connect with 
the waste management agencies at industry levels. 
Environmental Social Governance compliance is challenging 
and voluntary contribution as delineated in the Roadmap 
is one way of fulfilling moral and ethical leadership.

The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has a flagship 
initiative for the start-up ecosystem in India and can 
identify innovations in technology and circular business 
models (CBMs) in this ecosystem that can address 
the gaps and barriers identified in the roadmap.

Finally, the findings and recommendations of the 
Roadmap are directed to anyone interested in promoting 
or addressing the plastic waste problem in India, and 
globally to initiate a change process by which waste is 
avoided from the get-go, valuable materials are kept 
in circulation and primary resources are conserved.



Summary: A circular economy 
for India’s plastics 

The need to solve India’s 
plastics problem 

Plastic, one of the great inventions of the 20th century, 
is now seemingly indispensable. However, its lifestyle 
and economic benefits come at a steep cost, making 
it one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. 

Despite several initiatives, India continues to confront the 
enormous challenge of an essentially linear ‘take-make-
waste’ industry. India generates nearly 26,000 tonnes of 
plastic waste each day (CPCB, 2020), 3.46 million tonnes 
(Mt) per year, more than any economy except the USA and 
European Union.1
1 However, according to the estimates provided by CPCB in the Annual Report on Implementation of PWM Rules, 2016, India ranks 5th in the total quantum of 
plastic waste.

 Three-quarters of this waste consists 
of three polymers, polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), 
and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), the rest stems from the other 
members of the polymer family listed in Table S.1. Packaging 
dominates consumption, with a share of 59%, followed 
by building and construction (13%) and agriculture (9%).

Before this report, India was thought to recycle 
around half of its plastic, but this research radically 
reduces that estimate. A significant share of household 
waste is plastic, with 50% to 80% of that plastic 
being collected, and only 40% of that segregated for 
resource recovery. The rest is either incinerated or 
dumped and can find its way into water bodies and 
become part of the food chain for humans, marine and 
terrestrial life (Issac and Kandasubramanian, 2021).

While good government, corporate and community 
initiatives can be found, the overall sector is plagued 
with problems. It is challenged by mixed streams of 
plastic waste, waste contamination, poor segregation 
and lack of technology investment. Regulations and 
organisational norms guide larger businesses, but they 
are a relatively small part of the picture. Most of India’s 
waste is handled either by small businesses or workers 
in the informal sector, with their material flows being 
fragmented and difficult to track. As a result, the sector 
is dominated by low skilled labour, manual segregation, 
uncertain pay and lack of social security, weak medical 
and human health support, and weak environmental 
protections against leaching into soil, air and water. 

Likewise, while producers, importers and brand owners 
(PIBOs) have extended producer responsibilities (EPRs), 
many of them are yet to register for compliance. A 
lack of publicly available data hinders both innovation 
and tracking of policy implementation. As well, the 
July 2022 government ban on single-use plastics 
only covers about 10% to 15% of plastics used. 

The alternative is to strive for a circular economy of 
plastics, one that retains the value of materials or products 
within the economy as long as possible (Geissdoerfer et 
al., 2018). A circular economy would use as little virgin 
plastic as possible and maximise the use of recycled 
material. It would substitute its use with alternative 
materials, extend the use of plastic materials, collect waste 
and end-of-life plastic and recycle it for its next use. 

Table S.1 Different types of plastic, and of waste

NAME 

TYPE

USE EXAMPLES

Polypropylene (PP)

Soft or hard

Straws, food containers, tape and diapers

Polyethylene (PE)

Soft 

Bags, films, geomembranes

Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)

Hard

Pipes, toys, credit cards and medical equipment

Polystyrene (PS) 

Soft

Cups, takeaway food, packaging, insulation

High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE)

Hard

Toys and pipes

Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE)

Soft

Bags, wraps, cartons, tubing

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)

Hard

Drink bottles and food jars







Transitioning to a circular economy for plastics 
is critical for India. The opportunities and 
benefits are social, environmental, economic 
and international. A circular economy can:

• Divert dry waste from landfill, leading to a cleaner 
environment, 20% to 50% less greenhouse emissions 
(d’Ambrières, 2019; Lai et al., 2022), improved air quality, 
and reduced microplastics in the food chain.
• Integrate the informal sector into the formal economy 
by recognising their role, enabling their access to 
government services and benefits and supporting them 
in developing their own business ventures in the sector. 
• Support a cultural shift, away from ‘use and throw’, to one 
that leads future generations to value resources and care 
for the environment even as they develop their economy.
• Create new secondary markets for used plastics in 
construction and manufacturing, and new primary 
markets for alternative, eco-friendly products.
• Accelerate India’s progress on the SDGs and its 
commitments under the Global Plastics Treaty (2024).
• Offer an example for emerging economies of the 
Asia Pacific, Africa and Latin America, to support 
transformative change at global scale.


Securing the benefits of a circular economy are within 
India’s reach if all parties in the plastics value chain, 
with support from government, share a clear, new 
framework for action. The shift from traditional linear 
business models is a significant change for businesses 
and consumers. A circular framework is likely to need 
support as institutions and systems adapt over time. 

Relaunching efforts for a 
circular economy in plastics

Plastic pollution has been a concern to Indian governments 
and citizens for over three decades, with multiple local 
campaigns directed mainly at individual behaviour 
shifts. A stronger response followed with the Plastics 
(Manufacture, Usage and Waste Management) Rules in 
2009, with broader responses from municipal, industry, 
residential and commercial actors accelerating from 2016. 

Now, this major research effort has been launched as a 
collaboration between six premier research organisations, 
three in India and three in Australia, as part of the 
Australia-India Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. It 
has engaged directly with stakeholders along the plastics 
value chain; evaluated recycling technologies; reviewed 
all available data, reports and working papers; identified 
gaps, challenges, opportunities and barriers for action; 
and made well supported recommendations for policy 
makers, regulatory authorities and industrialists. 

Its ambition is to guide all participants who want to or 
need to be part of India’s circular economy of plastics, 
progressively reducing the amount of virgin materials 
made from natural resource extraction, and the pollution 
we give back. 

This Roadmap traces the current successes and urgent 
needs for India’s plastics industry and sets out a path 
for it to become a leading sector in India’s circular 
economy, addressing fundamental environmental 
issues and fostering a positive economic evolution. 

It offers: 

• A comprehensive review of the entire plastics value chain.
• A living framework for policy and industry strategies, 
technology interventions and community and social 
action, supported by robust research.
• Clear recommendations to build a circular flow of 
plastic materials through production, consumption 
and recycling, supported by action to build financial 
sustainability, awareness and readiness, essential 
infrastructure and consistent compliance.
• A Roadmap of actions in the short, medium and long term 
to comprehensively address environmental and human 
health concerns in line with the Global Plastics Treaty.
• Clear roles for participants in the plastics circular 
economy, spanning the public, household, private and 
non-profit sectors.
• Practical guidance for leaders at municipal and community 
levels, in both the formal and informal economy.


The India-Australia Industry and Research Collaboration 
for Reducing Plastic Waste present this Roadmap as an 
essential step on India’s path to a sustainable plastic waste 
management strategy.



The current and potential future 
of India’s plastic value chain

India often reports recycling rates for plastics of 60% 
to 70% (CPCB, 2020; CSE, 2020; Kapur-Bakshi et al., 
2021; Mohanty, 2017; Sikka, 2007), which may be true 
of some valuable plastics. However, the comprehensive 
material flow account (MFA) of plastics undertaken 
for this study determined a total circularity rate of 8% 
in 2019 – that is, only 2.0 Mt of the 24.1 Mt of plastic 
consumed is returned to another use (Figure S.1).

We have considered two scenarios: one without any 
significant policy ambition beyond what is already in place 
(a “business as usual” or BAU scenario), and another where 
there are significant policies and targets (an “improved 
plastic waste management” or IPWM scenario). 

Business as usual (BAU)

If historical trends continue, Indian use of plastics will 
grow to around 39 Mt by 2025 and 70.5 Mt by 2035 
(OECD, 2019). The resulting waste, already unsustainable 
at 15.2 Mt, would rise to 45.7 Mt. As India’s per capita 
plastic use is still relatively low by international 
standards, further growth can be expected beyond 
2035, leading to further environmental damage. 

Improved plastic waste management 
(IPWM)

In the IPWM scenario, we explored the potential 
implications of several measures on the material flow 
of plastics in India. The first measure considered was a 
potential ban on single-use plastic to reduce the demand 
for virgin plastic. The government of India is pushing 
towards developing affordable substitutes/alternatives 
to single use of plastics (CPCB, 2020; Kapur-Bakshi et al., 
2021; Schandl et al., 2020). Other measures would be to 
support businesses that are seeking to comply with existing 
plastic waste management legislation, including the 
implementation of Extended Producer Responsibilities (EPR) 
and collection and resource recovery targets (CSE, 2020).

The potential changes in the main streams under 
the IPWM scenario are provided below: 

• single-use plastics could be reduced by 20% by 2025, then 
50% by 2030, and be phased out completely by 2035; 
• recycling rates would increase from 13% in 2025 to 67% 
in 2035;
• landfill could be reduced by 10% in 2025, then 30% by 
2035; and
• mismanaged or untracked waste streams could be 
reduced by 30% in 2025 and up to 80% by 2035, with 
coherent collection systems and large-scale behaviour 
change in businesses and households. 


Taken together, overall plastics use would be limited to 53 
Mt in 2035, or 17 Mt less than the BAU scenario. Two thirds 
of all plastic end-of-life materials would be captured by the 
recycling system, reducing landfill and incineration to only 
6% combined. 

.Mtonnes annualconsumption
% Recycled
% Landll
% Mismanaged 

% Stock 
Production (
%) 
imports (%)
Plastics 2019Incinerated% 
Exports
Figure S.1 The MFA of plastics in India, 2019



Figure S.2 The MFA of plastics in India under BAU and IPWM scenarios until 2035

 2025

BAU a

.Mtonnes annualconsumption
% Recycled
% Landll

% Mismanaged 
% Stock 
Production 
imports 
Plastics 2025ExportsIncinerated% 


IPWM d

.Mtonnes annualconsumption
% Recycled
% Landll
% Mismanaged 


% Stock 
Production 
imports 
Plastics 2025ExportsIncinerated% 








 2030

BAU b

.Mtonnes annualconsumption
% Recycled
% Landll

% Mismanaged 

% Stock Production 
imports 
Plastics 2030ExportsIncinerated% 


IPWM e

% 
.Mtonnes annualconsumption (est.)

% RecycledProduction 
imports 
Plastics 2030Land
ll
% Mismanaged

% Stock 
ExportsIncinerated
% 






 2035

BAU c

.Mtonnes annualconsumption
% Recycled
% Landll
% Mismanaged 

% Stock Production 
imports 
Plastics 2035ExportsIncinerated% 


IPWM f

% .Mtonnes annualconsumption (est.)

% RecycledProduction 
imports 
Plastics 2035
% StockLandllExportsIncinerated% 








The seven elements of the circular 
economy for plastics in India

Any steps towards a circular economy will improve plastic 
waste management in India. Planning these steps must 
take into account a clear framework for the plastics circular 
economy in India. In our framework, there is a clear flow 
of materials through three broad stages, supported by 
four primary enablers. Each of these elements are depicted 
in Figure S.3 and described in full below. In a circular 
economy, all these elements would be developing at once, 
each supporting the others as a true system. We can only 
attempt to describe it in a linear fashion. It is a simplified 
system, but it needs to be if we are to understand how 
the many dimensions of this problem fit together.

The inner material flow elements represent what 
happens to the plastic itself. Products that use plastic 
would be designed to be recycled. Their manufacture 
would incorporate recycled ‘secondary source’ stock 
rather than virgin material. Any waste from that 
manufacture would be continually collected and 
reprocessed, ready for a later manufacturing run.

Given a choice, homes and businesses that consume 
plastic products would choose those from the circular 
economy over any linear economy alternative. In their use 
and re-use of the product and its ultimate disposal, they 
would be conscious of the need to extend the life of its 
raw material. At end of life, the item becomes part of the 
recycling stream, being collected, sorted and processed, 
ready to become part of its next manufacturing. 

None of this physical flow can happen, however, 
without the four sets of enablers, and it is here that 
the Roadmap for India’s circular economy of plastics 
would focus. Any business or physical asset needed 
for production and recycling must be commercially 
viable, able to attract capital and government 
incentives to operate in a sustainable market. 

Those businesses must operate with the support of digital, 
research and planning infrastructure that enables to them 
to become part of a circular system, without having to 
invent one. Any business owner or plastics user must be 
engaged on the issues, with the information and, where 
appropriate, the training available to them. And so that 
their efforts have the impact they seek, the plastic materials 
and its treatments must be subject to consistent compliance, 
with appropriate standards, monitoring and enforcement. 

 infrastructureSupportive 
Commercial 
viability 
Awareness 
and readiness 
Consistent 
complianceRECYCLINGPRODUCTIONCONSUMPTIONEnablersMaterial flowCircular 
Economy 
for Plastics
Figure S.3 The seven elements of India’s circular economy 
for plastics



Collaborative production

Consider all aspects of the value chain. Substitute 
virgin plastics with recycled and alternative 
materials. Design to minimise material, avoid low-
value and hard-to-abate plastics, and aid end-of-life 
decomposition. Design for recyclability by reducing 
multi-material composites, where possible. Avoid 
unnecessary plastic packaging. Manufacture efficiently, 
capturing all waste streams for reuse or recycling. 

Priorities

Aim: To design products that can be easily and efficiently 
recycled, with minimal contamination, to reduce waste 
and promote a circular economy – by using materials 
that are widely accepted for recycling, minimising the 
use of additives, designing products for disassembly, 
and providing clear instructions for recycling.

Action focus:

Design: Currently, new and compound materials enter 
the Indian market with little consideration of their 
end-of-life. Despite SUP bans across India, single-use 
polyethylene bags are rampant. Alternatives are either 
expensive or inconvenient, and more collaboration is 
needed between academia, finance and industry to 
commercialise technical solutions for reducing plastic use. 

Investment is needed for products that incorporate 
plastic materials to be designed for end-of-life 
disassembly and recyclability, with low-quality 
single-use plastics phased out entirely.

Manufacturing: Currently, the use of re-processed 
plastics as a feedstock for a next cycle of manufacturing 
is limited by the lack of enabling infrastructure. This 
includes uniform standards for re-processed plastics, 
as well as quality management to achieve those 
standards and facilities to test stock against those 
standards. As a result, recycled plastic stock has limited 
commercial viability as an alternative to virgin material. 
Investment is needed to remove those barriers, as well 
as reduce the use of non-recyclable composites and 
manufacturing practices such as over-moulded silicone.

Waste collection: Currently, India has more than 10,000 
collection units, most operated by unregulated bodies. 
To accelerate waste collection and reuse, the 2020 
MoEFCC framework set three models for PIBOs based 
on fees, producer responsibility organisations and 
plastic credits. The PWM Rules set targets for PIBOs to 
take back 100% of their plastics by 2023–24, but the 
targets assume that collection systems are already in 
place, and there is little guidance on how PIBOs can 
achieve these targets. Investment is needed in:

• better regulation for waste collection and sorting to 
secure a consistent supply of waste plastic, and 
• technology to collect that plastic waste from micro-
systems and convert them into plastic ‘nuggets’ that may 
be either reused or combusted for energy.


Staged priorities

2025: 

• Establish a plastics innovation Hub to drive technology 
development for designing out waste and use of 
secondary materials in the manufacturing and 
construction sectors.
• Pilot level implementation of automated sorting 
techniques based on colour, gravity, and polymertype 
that are less labour intensive and more accurate when 
compared to manual sorting.
• Setting targets for replacement of certain polymers with 
sustainable alternatives.
• Standards for plastic recycling to be laid out and any 
directives to use recycled plastic should be considered in 
the context of food and health safety.


2030: 

• Significant scaled up production of alternatives to 
plastics and used across selected sectors; faster adoption 
due to competitive prices and better availability.
• Review the operation of the innovation Hub based on 
successful inventions delivered by start-ups, SMEs and 
larger enterprises.
• Implement green public procurement and circular 
procurement strategies at the national, state and local 
levels.


2035: 

• Every state should have a plastics innovation centre or 
hub co-funded by industry and government to support 
material and technology R&D, provide education and 
knowledge resources for better waste management, 
skills training and business support to transition to a 
circular economy.


 infrastructureSupportive 
Commercial 
viability 
Awareness 
and readiness 
Consistent 
complianceDesign – Manufacture – WasteRECYCLINGPRODUCTIONCONSUMPTIONMaterial flowCircular 
Economy 
for Plastics

Sustainable consumption

Choose products with minimal plastics and reject 
unnecessary plastic packaging. Reuse wherever possible; 
materials that are kept in circulation are valuable twice 
over as they reduce the need for virgin materials and 
reduce waste going to landfill. Reduce plastic consumption 
and introduce policy, programs, and initiatives that 
support and enable avoidance of single-use and low-
value plastics. Choose products that are recyclable and 
made with recycled content. Reject SUP packaging and 
switch to reusable materials. Reuse wherever possible 
and provide financial and technology support for 
business models that encourage sharing and second-
hand markets. Dispose responsibly. Segregate into 
different types of waste streams after use and expand 
collection systems of all kinds. Work with the informal 
sector for the efficient collection of waste materials.

Priorities

Aim: For consumers to avoid single-use plastics, choose 
products with extended lifetimes, reuse plastics, 
choose products made with recycled plastic, and 
segregate plastic at end-of-life to facilitate recycling.

Action focus: Extend knowledge and awareness of 
circular economy practices to all education and income 
groups, promote a culture of resource value and match 
local campaigns with necessary infrastructure. Potential 
solutions to foster sustainable consumption practices span 
informed and responsible choices for consumption through 
social processes, a ‘rebranding’ for enhanced value of 
resources in use, and accessible infrastructure for recycling. 

Informed Choice: Household behaviour follows the 
4 Rs of purchasing, use and disposal of products. The 
extent of adoption of the 4 R behaviours by consumers 
is not commensurate with the many programs to raise 
awareness. Increasing availability of and access to 
affordable alternatives to SUPs must support interventions 
on social and cultural attitudes to hygiene and ‘purity’ 
to foster behaviour shifts. Education and awareness 
must be extended to include households with lower 
access to information and supported with leveraging 
appropriate messaging and demonstrated action 
by social leaders and influencers in campaigns. 

Use with care: Despite frugal consumption being part 
of Indian culture, rising income levels and consumption 
patterns, bolstered by e-commerce, are fostering a ‘use and 
throw’ culture. Campaigns to shift consumer perceptions 
about the quality of recycled plastics and eco-friendly 
packaging, likening them to the quality and cleanliness of 
valuable cutlery and crockery, and disassociating them from 
‘unclean’, unhygienic or lower-status images are needed. 

Responsible disposal behaviours: Upon purchase 
or use, most people do not consider the impacts of 
plastic pollution on the environment and human 
health. Education and awareness programs need to 
be supported by infrastructure for waste segregation 
and disposal to enhance and extend to rural areas and 
in local languages. Targets for recycling at domestic 
levels supported with recognition, awards, incentives 
and disincentives will reinforce desired behaviours.

Staged priorities

2025: 

• Information, knowledge and training portals for citizens, 
businesses and students are operational and running 
with clear targets of outreach and engagement.
• Consumers engage with novel waste collection systems 
established in urban centres and collection rates have 
expanded to 40%.


2030: 

• Every household, institutional and commercial 
establishment has access to segrated waste disposal 
facility and is using it.
• Products with initially 30% and up to 50% recyled content 
conforming to heath and quality standards are available 
and affordable with competive market positioning.


2035: 

• Single-use plastics including low-value packaging have 
been phased out, supported by EPR, community and 
consumer behaviour change.
• Affordable alternatives ranging from no packaging to 
alternative biodegradable options are available widely 
and are the consumer option of choice.


 infrastructureSupportive 
Commercial 
viability 
Awareness 
and readiness 
Consistent 
complianceChoice – Use – DisposalRECYCLINGPRODUCTIONCONSUMPTIONMaterial flowCircular 
Economy 
for Plastics

Effective recycling

Radically improve India’s recycling capability, with 
government-finance-research-industry collaboration. 
Build sorting facilities with artificial intelligence (AI) 
capabilities, and advanced mechanical and chemical 
processing infrastructure in proximity to source for 
efficient recycling. Push for reverse logistics and 
state-of-the-art recycling technology to sit alongside 
industry and commerce in a distributed model, 
with smaller-scale community-based solutions.

Priorities

Aim: To promote closed-loop recycling and chemical 
upcycling technologies, to retain plastic in the material 
loop for longer, and so reduce dependency on virgin 
resources and the environmental impact of plastic waste.

Action focus: to stimulate the awareness, collaboration 
and technologies needed for a closed-loop system 
where plastic waste is collected, sorted and processed, 
ready to be transformed into new products.

Collection: Collection of waste plastics is mostly handled 
by the informal sector, as most plastics have very low 
economic value. The inadequate collection of flexible and 
rigid packaging waste and SUPs in particular leads to low 
recycling rates for these types of plastic. 

Further inclusion of marginalised communities as formal 
waste collectors in a businesslike manner is needed. 
Infrastructure can be delivered by the Smart City and 
Swachh Bharat (Clean India) Missions for liveable and 
sustainable cities. Further investment is also needed in EPR, 
including enhancing EPR categories, targets and value chain 
adoption and monitoring impacts of EPR on designing 
products for recyclability and investments by producers in 
recycling infrastructure.

Sorting: Sorting of plastic waste is often performed 
manually. Established technologies for sorting include 
zigzag or air-classifier separation, air tabling, ballistic 
separation, density separation, magnetic separation, 
dry and wet gravity separation (or sink-float tank), froth 
flotation, and electrostatic separation (or triboelectric 
separation). Newer sensor- and AI-based technologies 
include plastic colour sorting, X-ray spectroscopic and near-
infrared (NIR) sorting (MoHUA, 2019), but these are rare due 
to their high cost. 

Further investment is needed to incentivise waste 
segregation at source, including extended producer 
responsibility programs, and to scale up advanced sorting 
methods to reduce their cost. 

Processing: Waste plastic is easier to process if it is 
consistent, clean, undegraded, has no or minimal additives, 
and is properly sorted. Presently PET, HDPE and LDPE are 
widely recycled plastic types, with further research needed 
for sustainable recycling of PVC, Acrylonitrile butadiene 
styrene (ABS), nylon and polycarbonate. Chemical recycling 
technologies are at the nascent stage, with the few players 
concentrating on using plastic waste as fuel.

Further investment is needed to track international 
innovation in waste processing, to exhibit available 
technologies on an accessible and updated platform, to 
create standards for recycling plastic waste, to digitally 
monitor the flow chain of polymer, and to certify recyclates 
and their use in ecolabels or codes for recycled content in 
plastic products.

 infrastructureSupportive 
Commercial 
viability 
Awareness 
and readiness 
Consistent 
complianceMaterial flowRECYCLINGPRODUCTIONCONSUMPTIONCircular 
Economy 
for Plastics 
Collection – Sorting – Processing

Staged priorities 

2025: 

• Investment by government and private sector players 
through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for 
recycling and sorting infrastructure in vicinity of source.
• Exhibition/ expo/ workshop of technologies promoting 
Make in India Campaign. 


2030: 

• Recycling capacity has substantially grown to manage 
18.8 Mt of end-of-life plastics that are retuned for 
another use. 
• Compendium of technologies and interactive consumer 
forum is avalaible.
• There is a regular and adequate resource allocation/
funding for recycling/upcycling technologies .
• A healthy pipeline of innovations in machineries for 
optimal resource utilisation is set-up. 
• Digitalization of flow chain of polymers are mandatory 
and applied. 


2035: 

• 35.2 Mt of materials now recycled through a regional 
network of up-to-date recycling facilities. 
• Secondary plastics with ascribed value and mechanisms 
for industrial applications are available.
• Product certification and secure traceability across 
production consumption and recycling is set-up. 




Commercial viability

Draw on government and CSR funds both for start-
ups and for those at next-stage commercialisation 
who find it hard to attract capital on manageable 
terms. Use incentives to preference circular economy 
businesses. Develop markets for high quality secondary 
material, with government agencies and sustainable 
corporations seizing the opportunity to ‘buy recycled’. 

Priorities

Aim: For small businesses and industries who want a part 
in the circular economy, who need a financially viable 
path to get there, with finance available, markets to sell 
to, and preferential incentives to build their businesses. 

Action focus: Create more coordinated, dedicated finance 
and incentive streams, with deep understanding of the 
plastics industry, to open and access new markets for CBMs.

Finance: Circular economy businesses need advance capital 
to establish their systems, but to access finance, they need 
evidence of returns: ‘it’s always egg or hen first’. Recycling 
businesses often need major capital investment before they 
sign long-term contracts with municipalities. Innovative 
businesses fostering circular products and practices often 
find it difficult to access finance. The informal sector does 
not have the product sales data or proof of contracts to 
gain finance. Pilot schemes often do not have funding to 
transition to commercial applications. Actions to open 
finance for the circular economy for plastics include:

• Pooling of government and CSR funding to open finance 
as well as provide legitimacy and recognition. 
• Pooling funds to create incubators and accelerators that 
can offer finance, connect people, trigger mentoring and 
training, and engage with community-level initiatives.
• Exploring social investment platforms (peer-to-peer 
lending) for financial inclusion and empowerment of 
workers in the informal waste management sector.
• Developing credit products that prioritise the circular 
economy and informal sector workers.
• Setting up funds that are geared to assess the potential 
of circular economy businesses and technology, 
including a Viability Gap Fund (Kapur-Bakshi et al., 
2021) to cover high start-up expenses and shorten 
long payback periods, and a Revolving Fund to invest 
in next-stage circular business with an expectation of 
commercial returns.


 infrastructureSupportive 
Commercial 
viability 
Awareness 
and readiness 
Consistent 
complianceStandards – Monitoring – EnforcementRECYCLINGPRODUCTIONCONSUMPTIONMaterial flowCircular 
Economy 
for PlasticsEnablers

Markets: Material and energy recovery in the informal 
sector is one of the most established CBMs in India. 
Local markets for second-hand goods in metropolitan 
cities are central to it, and e-commerce platforms are 
stimulating trade. There are now around 91 start-ups 
working to formalise roles beyond the second-hand 
trade.2
2 https://www.recyclingstartups.org/country/India/

 However, the markets for materials and processes 
in the recycled plastics supply chains are extremely 
fragmented, with little data and uncertain volumes. As 
one business explained, ‘it’s a lot of figuring out what 
is the right application, industry, feedstock and who 
will buy the next product that comes out’. Bioplastic or 
renewable fibre substitutes for single-use and packaging 
plastics are also emerging; however, many may actually 
increase emissions according to the United Nations 
Environment Programme (UNEP) Life Cycle Analysis (LCA).

Actions that will accelerate markets for the 
plastics circular economy include: 

• Incorporating plastic waste as a secondary source 
material for applications such as bitumen binding, 
coke substitute in steel manufacturing, pet coke 
substitute in cement manufacturing and in other 
construction products like sand brick, recycled plastic 
lumber and tiles.
• Enhancing EPR regulations to incorporate the informal 
sector, building on initiatives of online marketplaces 
to connect actors in the waste and recycling value 
chain or social enterprises that act as Producer 
Responsibility Organisations (PROs) on behalf of 
corporate businesses, technology parks and resident 
welfare associations. 
• Develop standards, certification and verification 
mechanisms based on the scientific analysis of 
lifecycle costs of products including as a basis for 
product and service taxation and public procurement 
to enable development of markets for recycled and 
other secondary products from plastic waste.
• Promote and strengthen waste exchange platforms 
and marketplaces that reduce recovery and 
transportation costs for companies generating and 
collecting waste.


Incentives: Policies to add incentives for the plastics 
circular economy include:

• An environmental tax on producers to encourage 
better product design, reduce planned obsolescence, 
and enforce the traceability of end-of-life waste. 
• Lower taxation on recycled products and materials in 
comparison to virgin polymers, overcoming taxation 
for informal businesses to formalise.
• Incentives for municipal corporations such as green 
credits in Swachh Bharat Mission (Clean India) to offset 
high local sorting and recycling costs for plastic waste.
• Incentives for capital investment in efficient, modern 
collection, sorting and processing technologies to 
encourage entrepreneurship in the circular economy and 
phase out inefficient high-waste facilities. 
• Listing of waste management initiatives by the private 
sector to be eligible for claiming tradeable green credits, 
under newly announced schemes.


Staged priorities

2025: 

• Develop a compendium of commercially proven 
technological solutions of varying investment range 
(from low to high) and automation (from manual to fully 
automatic) for management of plastic waste. 
• Promote and strengthen waste exchange platforms and 
marketplaces that reduce recovery and transportation 
costs for companies generating and collecting waste 
while also making it more affordable for users to seek for 
what they need.
• Encourage public-private-community partnerships for 
innovation in business model and financing strategy for 
investment in waste management infrastructure.


2030: 

• Agree on new financial support and credit facilities 
for implementing circular business models and novel 
approaches to design, recycling and manufacturing of 
secondary materials to reduce end-of-life plastics. 
• Introduce fiscal and tax incentives for development and 
promotion of plastic waste-based products and uptake 
of such businesses; amend public procurement policy to 
preference circular businesses.
• Develop standards, certification and verification 
mechanisms to enable development of markets for 
recycled and other secondary products from plastic 
waste. 
• Explore social investment platforms (peer-to-peer 
lending) for financial inclusion and empowerment of 
workers in the informal waste management sector. 
• Develop credit products that prioritise circular economy 
and meet entrepreneurial aspirations of informal sector 
workers.


2035: 

• Create an effective waste collection and management 
system assisted by technology-based processes for 
tracking the quality and quantity of material and 
products across the plastic waste value chain.




Awareness and readiness

For a true ‘zero waste’ culture, practices must change 
in industry, in offices, and at home. The channel of 
schools, universities and other educational institutions 
should be used to raise awareness and build readiness 
and selective curricula on waste management that can 
be included as a part of study curriculum. Similarly, 
waste management policies in industry, administrative 
and commercial establishments could drive practices at 
work and industry premises. That readiness includes the 
desire to change practices, and ultimately support for 
the infrastructure and materials needed. Broad national 
principles should be interpreted into India’s multiplicity 
of communities and languages, with a focus on simple 
tools that are available on phones and devices, digital 
information portals, and multi-layered training. 

Priorities

Aim: For communities and industry to play their 
roles in the plastics circular economy, we need 
systematic engagement strategies to raise awareness, 
open-access platforms to share information, and 
opportunities for skills and innovation training.

Action focus: Align engagement, information and training 
efforts – separately in industry and the community - so that 
people are ready to shift to circular economy practices.

Engagement: The Swachh Bharat Mission and Swachh 
Survekshan carry India’s main efforts to drive citizen 
engagement and awareness. Standout efforts have been 
led in Alappuzha (Kerala), Panjim (Goa) and Indore (Madhya 
Pradesh). However, more extensive efforts are needed to:

• Educate the public on the environmental and health 
impacts of plastic waste, what they can do to reduce it, 
how to read packaging labels to make better choices 
when they buy, how to dispose end-of-life plastics 
responsibility and the policies and regulations that apply 
every day.
• Communicate in all languages and through effective 
channels, especially with informal workers (ragpickers, 
waste collectors and shopkeepers) as the primary 
source of information for households, as well as school 
programs and colleges, and improved digital options for 
locating local recycling partners.
• Establish institutional mechanisms / solutions exchange 
platforms to link local governments with community-
based local initiatives to enable support as well as learn 
from local innovations and community actions. 
• Establish and support networks and solutions platforms 
for circular business models and links with support 
services for start-ups, SMEs and cooperatives /collectives 
of informal workers. 


 infrastructureSupportive 
Commercial 
viability 
Awareness 
and readiness 
Consistent 
complianceEngagement – Information – TrainingRECYCLINGPRODUCTIONCONSUMPTIONMaterial flowCircular 
Economy 
for PlasticsEnablers

Information: Where does one go currently for 
industry information? Initiatives to improve the 
information available to industry should include:

• An online compendium of recycling technologies, of 
low-to-high costs and low-to-high automation for 
management of plastic waste, with recent innovations, 
contact details for technology providers, forums to share 
experiences and best practices, and ‘problem solvers’ to 
help communities. 
• Comprehensive data on the volume of polymers 
produced, traded, consumed and disposed of, and on 
impacts due to plastic pollution available online and in 
popular media for public in different languages from 
time to time. 
• Expand Swachh Survekshan with a systematic 
monitoring, evaluation and learning mechanism of 
circular management of plastics through the value 
chain with recommendations for policy, planning and 
practice actions.


Training: The Ministry of Education’s online portal, 
Swayam, provides PWM education for university 
students and professionals. The Swachh Bharat Mission 
offers administrative and technical training to Urban 
Local Body (ULB) staff, also leveraged by NGOs and 
community service organisations for the informal 
sector, with states such as Goa having comparable 
training. These initiatives should be enhanced with:

• On the ground training on data collection for 
municipalities and connected stakeholders, leading 
to better evidence-based solutions, and training to 
communities and other stakeholders in circular economy 
and waste, co-funded by industry and government.
• Targeted and progressive training for the informal 
sector, both to raise awareness of the health hazards 
of plastic waste, and to prepare them to communicate 
with households. 
• A knowledge platform for shared learning highlighting 
success stories and innovative work by local community 
groups, start-ups, municipalities and private 
partnership-based projects that address plastic waste, 
market recycled plastic products and uses, include the 
informal sector and marginalised communities, and 
promote CBMs. 


Staged priorities 

2025: 

• Online platforms for education and training 
including a compendium of recycling technologies, 
communication platforms to promote CBMs, and real-
time data on plastics material supply chains are set up. 


2030: 

• Evidence-based monitoring, evaluation and learning 
mechanisms at municipal and state levels linking 
government initiatives with community and industry 
processes to foster and manage plastics circular 
economy transition dialogues are established and 
running. 


2035: 

• Evidence of desired culture shift in business and 
community achieved through transition management 
are documented and analysed for planning for the 
next decade. 




Supportive infrastructure

The circular economy would ideally be built on a 
digital, research and physical backbone. Digital data 
flows would link material flow from virgin plastics 
manufacture through to reuse, secondary processing, 
or disposal. The physical hubs for this data should 
be local industrial ecologies where manufacturing, 
materials collection and reprocessing feed each other.

Priorities

Aim: To invest in recycling and digital infrastructure needed 
to collect, sort, track, and assess the quality and value of 
end-of-life plastics, including horizontal integration of 
recyclers and industries that take up secondary materials.

Action focus: Local councils, SMEs and MSMEs 
to establish the necessary infrastructure under a 
national recycling modernisation plan. A Recycling 
Modernisation Fund would expand India’s capacity 
to sort, process and remanufacture plastic.

Digital infrastructure is becoming an enabler for 
integrating the informal sector into new ‘cycling’ 
businesses. Digital platforms provide an end-to-end 
waste management platform that connects and facilitates 
transactions across the waste management and recycling 
value chain. Once established, they require minimum 
additional infrastructure to scale. More investment 
is needed in digital waste management tools such as 
GPS-enabled tracking for vehicles, image recognition 
tools, leveraging the Internet of things (IoT) and AI. 
Stronger data analytics of the circular waste value 
chain is also needed, using a unified digital platform 
to capture data, identify gaps, help improve collection 
and recycling rates, and guide policy making. Finally, 
waste exchange platforms and marketplaces would 
reduce recovery and transportation costs for companies 
generating and collecting waste while also making it 
more affordable for users to seek what they need. 

Research and development ecosystem: While funding 
for commercialising innovation is scarce, funding for 
early-stage R&D is even more difficult to secure. India 
might consider strengthening its research ecosystem, 
with business support and incubation labs for SMEs 
similar to North America’s Small Business Innovative 
Research (SBIR) Model, which brings industry, academic 
research and SMEs together with co-funding. Other 
initiatives may include relaxing the patents arrangement 
between industry and academia, and setting up a 
common information platform on emerging technologies 
on plastics segregation, processing and recycling.

Industrial clusters. The most successful business models 
occur in industrial zones where recycling facilities are 
clustered along with downstream producers who use the 
recyclates. This industrial symbiosis drives collaboration 
and innovation, and saves transport and transaction 
costs. It exists at few places in India, including Chennai 
and Nagpur for post-consumer plastic wastes. 

Further investment is needed to expand these models across 
India, so that recycling is part of a true circular economy 
for plastics rather than an isolated function. Capital 
investment for infrastructure with modern facilities can be 
procured through ULBs and corporates via CSR activities. 
Similar investment in infrastructure is required in Material 
Recycling Facilities (MRFs) for identification of plastic types.

Staged priorities 

2025: 

• Establish a national recycling modernisation fund 
enabling public-private partnerships to assist in growing 
and updating recycling infrastructure co-funded by 
government and the private sector.


2030: 

• Digital platforms for data collection and transparency 
,waste exchange platforms and marketplaces.
• Substantial growth in the available recycling technologies 
including mechanical, chemical and advanced recycling 
options suited to different end-of-life plastic materials.


2035: 

• Industrial clusters driving collaboration and innovation 
in product design enabling commercial viability and true 
circular economy for plastics.


 infrastructureSupportive 
Commercial 
viability 
Awareness 
and readiness 
Consistent 
complianceMaterial flowDigital data flows – Cluster zonesRECYCLINGPRODUCTIONCONSUMPTIONCircular 
Economy 
for PlasticsEnablers

Consistent compliance

With a shared national framework and standards, state 
governments must set targets and monitor progress 
on plastics reduction, reuse and recycling. After 
enough time to licence and educate participants in the 
circular economy, incentive-based enforcement can be 
pursued to ensure targets are met, and that sustainable 
companies are not placed at an unfair disadvantage.

Priorities

Aim: To establish easily understandable rules for the 
plastic value chain including shared definitions and agreed 
standards to guide product design, production processes, 
consumption and appropriate treatment and management 
of end-of-life of plastics.

Action focus: Nationally agreed definitions, standards and 
rules to guide the handling and treatment of plastics across 
the value chain, supported by compliance awareness in 
municipalities, industry, informal sector, SMEs and citizens.

Standards: Quality concerns prevent the use of plastic waste 
as secondary source material, with standards not yet in place 
for recycled polymer. Although ‘Eco-Mark’ labelling has been 
used since 1990, there is no set indicator to achieve SDG 12, 
and no current standards for recycled polymers. Investments 
by the government and industry are needed for:

• digital codes for primary and recycled chemical 
composition, on a standardised platform, for open-loop 
polymer recycling
• testing standards for physical properties such as mechanical 
strength, tensile strength, Young’s modulus etc. for 
recyclates, and qualities for food contact applications
• Develop standards, certification and verification 
mechanisms based on the scientific analysis of lifecycle 
costs of plastic-based products for enhancing markets of 
recycled products and limiting the number of recycling 
cycles based on health and quality parameters 


Monitoring: The potential for data collection, triangulation 
for ensuring accuracy and collation for use by policy 
makers, start-ups, and other market players is immense. 
India has not fully explored its technological capabilities 
for tracking, monitoring with feedbacks into planning and 
policymaking. Action has commenced with Digital India, 
the EPR and GST portals, the annual Swachh Survekshan 
across urban areas and the central command and control 
system linked to emerging MRFs in all smart cities. 
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation 
(MoSPI) updated the National Indicator Framework (NIF) 
in 2021 and developed an India SDG Dashboard with 
the United Nations Resident Coordinator Office. The 
‘NITI Aayog SDG Index’, also developed with the UN, 
measures national and subnational progress towards 17 
SDG goals and targets. Further investment is needed to: 

• Integrate approaches for EPR, incentives, standards, 
finance and tax mechanisms to ensure there is 
standardised information, target setting, monitoring 
and reporting, to enable timely and effective evaluation 
of progress.
• Streamline data systems across municipalities and 
state levels and by industry to accurately report on the 
quantities of waste produced, collected, processed and 
reused; the number of dumping sites, uncontrolled 
landfills, open burning, source segregation, and 
littering; the extent to which awareness and behaviours 
are changing over time; and on the environmental, 
economic, and social consequences of waste.
• Incentivise SMEs to register with state and local 
initiatives to track and trace waste flows (and address the 
disincentive of being exposed to possible penalties for 
non-compliance). 
• Monitor fund management by governments and ULBs, and 
regular reporting to the public on the achievements of 
investments on circular economy and plastics management.
• Establish a national database (or knowledge base) of 
effective plastic circularity intervention programs enabling 
the tracking, evaluation, and learning throughout the 
system to examine the effectiveness of plastic circularity 
programs to promote learning from others.


Enforcement: Enforcement of compliance and mandates 
is weak. For example, though the central government may 
issue a ban, implementation lies with the respective state 
governments and their state pollution control boards, 
where implementation strategies need strengthening. 
PIBOs and plastic waste processors are allowed to carry on 
business via registration on the CPCB’s EPR portal however, 
there is no tracking PIBOs who have not registered. 

• Set-up and enforce targets for compliance of segregation 
of wastes at source for domestic, commercial and 
industrial establishments with supportive infrastructure, 
education, awards and incentives coupled with stringent 
penalties for non-compliance. 


 infrastructureSupportive 
Commercial 
viability 
Awareness 
and readiness 
Consistent 
complianceMaterial flowStandards – Monitoring – EnforcementRECYCLINGPRODUCTIONCONSUMPTIONEnablersCircular 
Economy 
for Plastics

• Integrate national and state policy with implementation 
and regulatory approaches at municipal levels including 
small towns and tier II and tier III cities and rural areas to 
provide clear direction and better alignment in order to 
encourage higher policy uptake and implementation.
• Ensure action at a state level to integrate and register 
different stakeholders involved in bulk generation and 
management of waste plastics including collection, 
segregation, processing and recycling.


Staged priorities 

2025:

• A Circular Economy transition body or mechanism 
has been set up to connect industry government and 
municipalities. 
• Targets for reduction of virgin plastic use, segregtaion at 
source and recycling for bulk generators, municipalities, 
PIBOs and industry have been agreed and established.
• Data tracking mechanisms across producers, recyclers 
municpalities have been set up and streamlined. 


2030:

• Incentives and regulations for reducing virgin plastic use 
and incorporating secondary plastics in products have 
been operationalised. 
• EPR has been extended to all complex material streams 
such as textiles, agricultural products, automobiles, tyres 
targeting all stages of the lifecycle including design and 
production.


2035:

• National standards for end-of-life plastic definitions 
and quality expectations to ensure the required 
characteristics for secondary use are available, including 
digital capability and testing standards for physical 
properties, including monitoring mechanisms. 
• Mandatory regulatory measures and fiscal measures for 
product design and production processes, procurement, 
consumption and disposal have been set up for industry 
to citizens all, based on LCA logic.
• Ecological and human health externalities integrated in 
product, production process and consumption pricing 
and risk assessments for financing.
• Enforcement of non-compliance with the protocols of 
recycling quality standards, is supported with penal 
provisions.
• Overall strategy


India needs a holistic strategy and actionable 
agenda to push towards a circular economy:

1. Set a single, clear framework and 
implementation plan: a practical policy 
framework for circular economy, in which all 
initiatives and information have a place, and a plan 
to put it into action.
2. Develop a circular economy transition body to 
connect industry and government.
3. Include all plastic types: municipal solid waste, 
industrial waste, hazardous waste, e-waste, 
medical waste, and so on.
4. Recognise and engage all stakeholders, especially 
the informal sector of waste pickers and recyclers. 
They are the backbone of the Indian waste 
management system through their door-to-door 
collection yet are excluded from formal policy 
support and recognition. Collaboration must 
encompass the strengths and opportunities of 
the entire ecosystem: across the petrochemical 
industry, ULBs, informal cooperatives, PIBOs and 
regulators. 
5. Streamline effective regulations: make 
regulations and guidelines for recycling, materials 
reuse and energy, clear enough to be effective 
for developing CBMs and fostering circular 
consumption behaviours. 
6. Create systems to support state governments to 
design and implement action-plans for circular 
economy for plastics that encourage decentralised 
governance and implementation at municipal and 
panchayat levels, leveraging local skills, networks 
and enabling local contextual responses. 
7. Integrate learning along the supply chain. Enable 
continuous bottom-up learning, feedback and 
knowledge to all stakeholders across the plastic 
value chain.
8. Phase out plastics: set dates beyond which the 
manufacture of certain plastics is banned, and 
support manufacturers of these materials to 
transition to alternative products and businesses.
9. Support the circular economy with public 
procurement policies and fiscal and tax incentives 
that prefer secondary plastic waste-based products 
and businesses.




25



Call to action from all parties

All participants in the circular economy have a shared 
responsibility to make it efficient and effective, and to 
help scale up or replicate initiatives across the nation. 

Government

Central agencies like MoEFCC, CPCB, MoHUA, Department 
of Chemicals, as well as state public actors and local 
bodies, etc. can accelerate a plastics circular economy by:

• setting the leadership agenda with comprehensive policy 
strategies foused on the circularity agenda, data streams 
to support tracking and monitoring, disaggregated 
targets for sectors, industry and cities, benchmarking 
based on LCA, setting standards for secondary plasctic 
use in products and regulation production and 
consumption regulations for industry, businesses, cities 
and citizens; 
• ensuring there is adequate resourcing to monitor and 
enforce those regulations, particularly at state and 
municpal levels;
• funding priority areas with grants, subsidies, taxation 
incentives and grant or loan schemes;
• sponsoring roadshow showcases and supporting 
waste stream opportunities through enabling finance, 
information flows and technical services;
• endorsing local initiatives and multi-stakeholder 
partnerships for scaling up and replication of good 
practice, incuding learning from practice to improve 
policy design and implementation 
• leading community education initiatives; and
• setting standards in its own procurement and 
incentivising secondary resource based product 
procurement in private sector to support promote the 
circular economy.


Industry

Industry includes the specialist plastic waste and 
manufacturing sectors, as well as the infrastructure, 
product, service and investment companies who 
either use or can sponsor waste recovery and recycling 
through their Environmental-Social-Governance (ESG) 
initiatives. Large corporates and industry organisations 
can support the plastics circular economy by:

• coordinating input into policy, research and supply chain 
priorities; 
• investing in symbiotic industrial zones for waste recovery 
and reuse;
• investing in research and development for technologies 
and innovative materials to reduce use of virgin plastics, 
especially low-value mutli-layered plastics;
• initiating or broking collaborative pilots and research 
initiatives;
• scaling up those initiatives where they span multiple 
geographical areas; and 
• liasing with government on local, state or national 
policies and initiatives.


Informal economy

Waste pickers and sorters play a critical role in resource 
recovery, and must be included as stakeholders in 
circular economy planning. They can as well: 

• use phones to adopt digital data and payment apps; 
• inform and lead households on the need and behaviours 
for plastic recovery and recycling; 
• establish unions to access training, tools and better 
conditions for waste collection and sorting; and 
• convert their informal operations into collective-
based businesses for secondary resource collection, 




aggregation and recycling, and raise their value 
proposition in the plastics value chain.


Civil society and community organisations

Civil society and community organisations are partners 
and facilitators for all those who are or would be a direct 
part of India’s circular economy for plastics. They can:

• lead community education initiatives;
• advocate for equitable and efficient regulation; and 
• support households and small businesses in adopting 
the recycling behaviours on which the circular economy 
depends.


Households and small businesses

Households and small businesses generate most 
of India’s recyclable plastic waste. They can:

• look to buy products of recyclable material and 
packaging and increase efficiencies to remove waste 
from their day to day operations;
• ensure segregation at source to enable value 
maximisation of all recyclables and compostables and 
improve working conditions when working with the 
informal sectors to sort and collect recyclable paper, 
plastics and glass; and
• support and participate in initatives led by their local 
communities and businesses. 


Research

Agencies such as universities, think tanks and 
NITI Aayog have both research and facilitation 
roles, undertaken either independently or at 
the request of any other participants, to:

• identify barriers through the value chain; 
• identify possible solutions, inlcuding block chain data 
and e-governance mechanisms, whether or not original 
or in India or overseas;
• test those solutions with industry participants;
• engage with and inform government policy; and 
• track progress against targets. 


Building the Roadmap is just the start

The next steps needed to advance this vision may be to:

• Mainstream the Roadmap into policy and industry 
strategies through extensive dialogues, communication 
and outreach – making the Roadmap tangible at policy, 
industry, business and community levels.
• Bring key actors to collaborate to design and make the 
circular economy in Plastics Fund.
• Call for Collaborations and partnerships across industry 
and Research Institutions to roll out Circular Economy 
Innovation Hubs in all states. 
• Enable resources to develop and nurture support 
systems for MSMEs for enabling small businesses and 
communities to play their part in the operationalizing 
this road map, specifically, the Knowledge Portal 
for circular economy in plastics, the Technology 
Compendium for Plastics Management and the CBM 
Support Hub. 
• A political and legislative commitment to design and 
operationalise the MEL framework for tracking circular 
economy in plastics at municipal, state and central levels.
• Demonstrate pilots across municipalities and SMEs for 
EPR, data management, circular economy businesses and 
behaviour shifts.




Overview

The research behind this Roadmap was undertaken 
by an ambitious international research collaboration 
between six premier research organisations, three in 
India – Council of Scientific & Industrial Research – 
National Environmental Engineering Research Institute 
(CSIR-NEERI), Development Alternatives, and The Energy 
and Resources Institute (TERI), and three in Australia 
– Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 
Organisation (CSIRO), University of New South Wales 
– Sustainable Materials Research and Technology 
Centre (SMaRT@UNSW), and University of Technology 
Sydney – Institute for Sustainable Futures (UTS-ISF).

The research commenced in July 2020 as part of the India-
Australia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership announced 
by the Indian and Australian Prime Ministers in June 2020. 
A collaborative team of more than 30 researchers with 
a broad range of skills and expertise was established.

In addition to the research capability described above, the 
Roadmap was co-developed with industry, government 
and community stakeholders through semi-structured 
interviews and site visits, a survey of households in 
India, and a series of roundtable discussions. A more 
detailed outline of how the research was conducted can 
be found in Appendix A – Methods. This collaboration 
between researchers, industry, government and 
community stakeholders has resulted in a Roadmap 
that is based on up-to-date scientific evidence.

The research program design covered three main areas 
relating to plastics and plastic waste in India: Metrics and 
Data, Innovation and Technology, and Policy and Behaviour.

Metrics and Data – develop an understanding of 
the main supply chains for different polymers in 
India, the magnitude of plastic waste, how quickly 
waste flows are growing, waste flow destinations 
and leakages to waterways and oceans.

Innovation and Technology – investigate the existing 
situation regarding waste systems and infrastructure, 
recycling technologies, manufacturing options for plastic 
production and future opportunities for innovations in 
recycling and manufacturing utilising plastic waste, creation 
of new materials, products, processes and business models 
that will enable a circular economy for plastics in India.

Policy and Behaviour – examine current public policy and 
institutions, business models, community and industry 
initiatives and behaviour change programs that address 
the growing plastic waste issue in India and are either 
successfully driving change or creating barriers to change.

Furthermore, in each of these three main areas research 
was undertaken to identify the gaps that exist in knowledge 
or practice and the opportunities that can aid India 
in transitioning to a circular economy for plastics.

Each of the following seven chapters in this document 
delved deeper into a specific aspect associated 
with one of the three areas outlined above. 



Chapter 1: Data transparency focuses on the importance 
of quality data across the plastic supply chain, the need 
for data transparency, metrics, indicators and targets 
to meet, the barriers to meeting these needs, such as 
technology and awareness, and finally recommendations 
going forward to overcome the barriers faced.

Chapter 2: Policy frameworks for a circular economy 
for plastics in India examines the policy frameworks 
relevant to plastic management in India, specifically 
the effectiveness of current policy, successful policy 
implementation, gaps in current policy, global 
opportunities leading to furthering the circular 
economy, and potential policy applications for India.

Chapter 3: Circular business models assesses current 
CBMs for plastics operating in India utilising an adapted 
framework as part of the assessment. Further, successes, 
current trends, barriers to mainstreaming and actions 
to help overcome the barriers and drive greater uptake 
of CBMs for plastics in India have been identified. 

Chapter 4: Plastic recycling technologies explores both 
mechanical and chemical recycling technologies that 
are currently used in India, the various gaps in plastic 
waste recycling, and opportunities to develop plastic 
waste recycling technologies in India such as advance 
recycling, along with potential enablers associated 
with plastic recycling that can support and accelerate 
the transition to a circular economy for plastics.

Chapter 5: Uptake of secondary materials in 
manufacturing and infrastructure reviews the use of 
plastic waste in manufacturing and infrastructure in 
India and globally. It identifies the barriers that exist 
preventing or reducing uptake in India and opportunities 
that can lead to an increase in use of plastic as a secondary 
material in manufacturing and infrastructure to assist 
with the management of India’s plastic waste stream.

Chapter 6: Community- and industry-led local initiatives 
focuses on circular economy initiatives at the local 
community and industry level, addressing plastic-
related issues in India and the role they play in plastic 
management. The scope and focus (the beginning, middle 
or end stage of the life cycle of plastics) of the initiatives, 
the type of activity involved, along with the barriers and 
enablers to their implementation are investigated.

Chapter 7: Behaviour change assesses circular 
household behaviour in relation to plastic purchase, 
use and disposal in India and aims to understand the 
factors that hinder or support households in taking up 
circular practices towards plastics, including system-
wide changes needed to facilitate a cultural shift.

Each chapter concludes with specific recommendations 
that arose from the research that can aid with India’s 
transition to a circular economy for plastics. 



Policies and regulations 
are only effective if 
backed by transparent 
tracking and 
accountability

A lack of accurate and reliable 
data is a known key barrier to 
plastics policy success; therefore, 
in order to support economic 
and environmental policy 
decisions, it is essential to:

• Develop unified data collection 
methods at a national level. 
• Allow tracking of the success of 
policy interventions, as well as 
an avenue to accountability.
• Document the registration of 
informal sector to support more 
transparent tracking of their 
contributions. Use advanced 
sorting techniques that can 
facilitate data transparency. 


In such a way, decision makers 
will be able to identify effective 
measures and solutions 
for the sustainable plastics 
industry, to redirect currently 
wasted resources into more 
circular economic models.



1 Data transparency

1.1 Introduction

The SDGs are designed to tackle and overcome the 
global challenges of poverty, inequality, consumption, 
climate change, and more. They are a global compass 
for synchronising three core components for the future: 
social inclusion, economic growth and environmental 
protection. In its voluntary national review in 
2020, NITI Aayog stated that achieving sustainable 
development is, among other factors, contingent on 
efficient utilisation of resources (NITI Aayog, 2020).

A data-driven approach is often regarded as one of the 
most efficient means for ensuring progress towards 
any set target. This is largely because it facilitates 
periodic monitoring and evaluation of various policies 
and programs, and necessary amendments to them, 
so that the desired goals can be achieved in a timely 
manner. The United Nations SDGs have a global indicator 
framework that guides countries in selecting relevant 
indicators for their National Indicator Framework 
(NIF), which can be used to track progress towards 
set targets. A data-driven approach is also essential 
to track progress around the plastic economy. 

1.2 What is working well so far?

A number of SDGs concomitantly deal with the issue of 
plastics3
3 SDGs dealing with the issues of plastics include no poverty (SDG 1), zero hunger (SDG 2), promotion of good health and well-being (SDG 3), clean water and 
sanitation (SDG 6), affordable and clean energy (SDG 7), industry, innovation, and infrastructure (SDG 9), reduced inequality (SDG 10), sustainable cities and 
communities (SDG 11), responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), climate action (SDG 13), and life on land (SDG 15).

, particularly SDG 12, (Responsible Consumption 
and Production), which calls for environmentally sound 
management of all wastes including plastic throughout 
their life cycle. Plastic is a persistent material. Once in the 
environment, it does not go away, and it takes centuries 
to degrade. Over the past 50 years, global production and 
consumption of plastics have increased more than 20-
fold, and plastic production has reached 320 Mt a year.

The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation 
(MoSPI) of the Government of India developed a NIF that 
was last updated in 2021. Based on the NIF, MoSPI has 
also developed an India SDG Dashboard in collaboration 
with the United Nations Resident Coordinator Office. This 
dashboard is a unified data repository on SDG indicators. 
In addition, NITI Aayog developed an index, namely the 
‘NITI Aayog SDG Index’ which is a comprehensive reporting 
index, developed in collaboration with the United Nations 
in India. This index provides an aggregate assessment of 
the performance of all Indian states and union territories 
(UTs) on a set of national indicators derived from the NIF, 
measuring progress of interventions and schemes in the 
country’s journey towards meeting the global goals.

India, as per the recent NITI Aayog SDG Index Report 
2020–21 (NITI Aayog, 2021) showed positive progress overall 
towards SDG goals, identified as a Front Runner (with an 
Index score of 74). When looking at plastic waste generation 
specifically, an average of 2.5 tonnes of plastic per annum 
was generated per 1,000 population in India (2018-19) with 
the SDG target being 1.27 tonnes/annum, indicating further 
room for improvement. When looking at the states and 
UTs individually, there are significant differences in the 
quantity of plastic waste generated. Based on 2018-19 data 
(the latest used by the NITI Aayog SDG Index) the state of 
Goa was the highest plastic waste generator in the country 
(21 tonnes of plastic per annum per 1,000 population), 
while Sikkim, Mizoram and Tripura generated the least 
(0.01 tonnes each). Among the UTs, Delhi generated the 
highest amount of 11.49 tonnes of plastic per annum per 
1,000 population, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli produced 
the least (2.12 tonnes). In the 2020-21 report, 28 states/UTs 
(over three quarters) were identified in the category of 
Front Runner, eight states/UTs in the bracket of Performers 
and only one state featuring in the Aspirant categories4
4 Classification of states/UTs is based on their performance on the SDG India index (a score out of 100), they are classified into four categories - Aspirant: 0–49; 
Performer: 50–64; Front-Runner: 65–99, Achiever: 100.

.



1.3 Data across the 
polymer value chain

The polymer supply chain is extremely complex due to 
its multiple forms, numerous applications across sectors 
and products, and vast time range within which they can 
reach their end-of-life. The useful life of a plastic item 
can be as short as a few hours (e.g., simple packaging 
materials) to as long as a decade (e.g., plastic components 
in televisions or automobiles). Also, the groups of 
stakeholders who are involved in the entire value chain 
are numerous. Stakeholders range from large refineries 
and polymer manufacturers to intermediate businesses 
where polymers are used for manufacturing thousands 
of products and sub-assemblies, followed by commercial 
entities that assemble them in products to be sold in 
the form of final goods. Retailers and end consumers 
also are very diverse. Finally, when polymers reach their 
end-of-life, these are managed and recycled by entities 
operating in both the formal and informal sectors. Hence 
capturing data across the production consumption 
value chain for plastics becomes extremely challenging 
not only for India, but for other countries as well. 

Data availability and quality is strong when it comes 
to polymer production, including imports and 
exports, and is published annually by the responsible 
ministries (Department of Chemicals and Fertilizers 
and Ministry of Commerce). Data on polymer use 
across various sectors is largely reported by selected 
industry associations based on primary surveys and 
inputs received from member companies. However, 
the real challenge lies in having accurate data on 
plastic waste generation, collection and disposal.

Data across the plastic value chain is provided by various 
national and international organisations including 
the Plastindia Foundation, OECD.Stat data, CPCB, etc., 
however, several of these data points are conflicting 
in nature. We have developed data pedigree tables 
represented in Tables 1.1 to 1.4 based on Hoekman and 
Blottnitz (2016) and Weidema and Wesnæs (1996), 
to determine the most suitable data for analysis of 
individual stages across the plastic value chain. The 
tables assess the existing data based on scores for 
reliability, completeness, temporal and geographical 
correlation, access, additional steps, frequency, and 
whether informality and illegality are considered. 

Data on imports, domestic production and exports 
of polymer resins was obtained from country reports 
published by Chemicals and Petrochemicals Manufacturers’ 
Association (CPMA) in the Asia Petrochemical Industry 
Conference (APIC) series of conferences (CPMA, 2020). 

Table 1.1 Pedigree table of data sources for the Upstream Stage of the plastic value chain

UPSTREAM

RELIABILITY

COMPLETENESS

TEMPORAL 
CORRELATION

GEOGRAPHICAL 
CORRELATION

ACCESS

ADDITIONAL 
STEPS

FREQUENCY

INFORMALITY 
&ILLEGALITY

Plastindia 
Foundation 
(2019)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

CPMA 
(2020)

Qualified 
estimate 
(e.g., by 
industrial 
expert)

Representative 
data but from a 
smaller number 
of sites and 
shorter periods 
or incomplete 
data from 
an adequate 
number of sites 
and periods

Time period 
is equal to 
the period of 
study

Data from area 
under study

Publicly 
and 
readily 
available 
data

No 
additional 
steps 
involved

New data 
collected on 
annual basis

Suggest that 
inclusion 
of informal 
flows may be 
increasing 
the veracity 

OECD 
(2022)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

CPCB 
(2020)
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A







Table 1





.2 Pedigree table of data sources for the Production Stage of the plastic value chain 

PRODUCTION

RELIABILITY

COMPLETENESS

TEMPORAL 
CORRELATION

GEOGRAPHICAL 
CORRELATION

ACCESS

ADDITIONAL 
STEPS

FREQUENCY

INFORMALITY 
&ILLEGALITY

Plastindia 
Foundation 
(2019)

Qualified 
estimate 
(e.g., by 
industrial 
expert)

Representative 
data but from a 
smaller number 
of sites and 
shorter periods 
or incomplete 
data from 
an adequate 
number of sites 
and periods

Time period 
is equal to 
the period of 
study

Data from area 
under study

Publicly 
and 
readily 
available 
data

Simple 
calculations 
or 
conversion 
required 
(easy to 
repeat)

New data 
collected on 
annual basis

Suggest that 
inclusion 
of informal 
flows may be 
increasing 
the veracity

CPMA 
(2020)

Qualified 
estimate 
(e.g., by 
industrial 
expert)

Representative 
data but from a 
smaller number 
of sites and 
shorter periods 
or incomplete 
data from 
an adequate 
number of sites 
and periods

Time period 
is equal to 
the period of 
study

Data from area 
under study

Publicly 
and 
readily 
available 
data

No 
additional 
steps 
involved

New data 
collected on 
annual basis

Suggest that 
inclusion 
of informal 
flows may be 
increasing 
the veracity 

OECD 
(2022)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

CPCB 
(2020)
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AData analysis of life cycle stages for 
limited polymersDue to the unavailability and inconsistencies in various 
data sources studied, different sources have been 
consulted to develop the entire plastic material flow.
The shares of polymers in different sectors such as 
packaging (flexible and rigid), household, building 
and construction, agriculture, electrical and electronic, 
automotive are derived from the Plastic Industry 
Status Report (Plastindia Foundation, 2019). The report 
acknowledges 60 plastic industry stakeholders and 
major polymer establishments, including research and 
development institutes, private organisations and other 
small and large plastic industries, for providing data that 
helped them in formulating the report. Certain calculations 
based on assumptions and verification from other 
sources like Statista and Federation of Indian Chambers of 
Commerce & Industry (FICCI) were made accordingly to sum 
up the estimated result. According to the data gathered 
using the aforementioned sources, the total polymer 
consumption for India for the year 2018–19 was estimated 
to be 18.45 Mt. The data for the polymer level consumption 
disaggregation within end-use sectors came from different 
sources (Mittal, 2021; Khemka, 2019; Plastindia Foundation, 
2019). Primary information obtained from an India-based 
PRO, dealing with waste management including polymers, 
validated the PET recycling and consumption rate as 
mentioned in the data. The chosen datasets turned out 
to be more suitable, in terms of total scores, in the 
respective categories of the pedigree tables above.
When it comes to plastic waste streams (plastic waste/
end-of-life) data, the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) Stat reports are more 
suitable and also scored better on the pedigree table 
developed. According to the OECD database, the plastic 
waste generated in India for the year 2019 was 18.51 
Mt, which is segregated into various sectors. The waste 
generated is further broken down by waste treatment, 
that is, recycled (collected for recycling), incinerated, 
landfilled, mismanaged and littered waste, taking into 
account differences across regions. OECD links plastic 
use/consumption to sectoral and regional economic 
projections, which are used to establish the evolution of 
plastics use over time. These volumes of plastics are then 
used to calculate generated waste, based on product 
lifespans of different applications. The OECD employed 
economic modelling to generate the database. More 
specifically, projections of the economic flows, plastics, 
plastic waste and environmental impacts rely on OECD 
in-house modelling tools and involve different steps. 
The data for the 2019 base year has been estimated 
by building on output from the OECD – Computable 
General Equilibrium (CGE) GTAP model (ENV-Linkages).
The pedigree tables for plastic consumption and end-
of-life and waste are represented in Tables 1.3 and 1.4.







Table 1.3 Pedigree table of data sources for the Use Stage of the plastic value chain





USE

RELIABILITY

COMPLETENESS

TEMPORAL 
CORRELATION

GEOGRAPHICAL 
CORRELATION

ACCESS

ADDITIONAL 
STEPS

FREQUENCY

INFORMALITY 
&ILLEGALITY

Plastindia 
Foundation 
(2019)

Qualified 
estimate (e.g., 
by industrial 
expert)

Representative 
data but from a 
smaller number 
of sites and 
shorter periods 
or incomplete 
data from 
an adequate 
number of sites 
and periods

Time period 
is equal to 
the period of 
study

Data from area 
under study

Publicly 
and 
readily 
available 
data

Simple 
calculations 
or 
conversion 
required 
(easy to 
repeat)

New data 
collected 
on annual 
basis

Suggest that 
inclusion 
of informal 
flows may be 
increasing 
the veracity 

CPMA 
(2020)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

OECD 
(2022)

Verified data 
based on 
measurements

Representative 
data from 
a sufficient 
sample of 
sites over 
an adequate 
period to even 
out normal 
fluctuations

Time period 
is equal to 
the period of 
study

Data from area 
under study

Publicly 
and 
readily 
available 
data

No 
additional 
steps 
involved

New data 
collected 
on annual 
basis

Suggest that 
inclusion 
of informal 
flows may be 
increasing 
the veracity 

CPCB 
(2020)
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/ATable 1





.4 Pedigree table of data sources for the End-of-life and Waste stage of the plastic value chain

END-OF-LIFE AND WASTE

RELIABILITY

COMPLETENESS

TEMPORAL 
CORRELATION

GEOGRAPHICAL 
CORRELATION

ACCESS

ADDITIONAL 
STEPS

FREQUENCY

INFORMALITY 
&ILLEGALITY

Plastindia 
Foundation 
(2019)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

CPMA 
(2020)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

OECD 
(2022)

Verified data 
based on 
measurements

Representative 
data from 
a sufficient 
sample of 
sites over 
an adequate 
period to even 
out normal 
fluctuations

Time period 
is equal to 
the period of 
study

Data from area 
under study

Publicly 
and 
readily 
available 
data

No 
additional 
steps 
involved

New data 
collected 
on annual 
basis

Suggest that 
inclusion 
of informal 
flows may be 
increasing 
the veracity 

CPCB 
(2020)
Verified data 
based on 
measurementsRepresentative 
data but from a 
smaller number 
of sites and 
shorter periods 
or incomplete 
data from 
an adequate 
number of sites 
and periodsTime period 
is equal to 
the period of 
studyData from area 
with similar 
production 
conditionsPublicly 
and 
readily 
available 
dataSimple 
calculations 
or 
conversion 
required 
(easy to 
repeat)
New data 
collected 
every 2-3 
yearsSuggest that 
inclusion 
of informal 
flows may be 
increasing 
the veracity







1.4 Challenges and needs for 
data transparency, metrics and 
indicators, and targets (current 
gaps, global best practice)
Countrywide data gathering and analysis is challenging, 
as there is no clear standardisation for SDG 12 and other 
sustainable consumption and production (SCP) related 
targets since many SCP-relevant activities are carried out 
by the informal sector. In the context of SDG 12, the MoSPI 
is the responsible ministry for compilation of data related 
to sustainable management and efficient use of natural 
resources. However, as per the latest report published 
in 2022, the ministry is yet to finalise the indicators.
Information that countries may need to report on includes 
plastic waste generation, import and export of plastic 
scrap, collection and sorting, recycling of plastic, disposal 
and mismanaged waste. The Global Plastics Treaty process 
will provide unprecedented opportunity to accelerate and 
scale existing national efforts to document data, followed 
by ensuring transparency of the process, so that there is 
evidence of good and standard measurement practices. 
These pioneering efforts by a handful of countries will 
serve as a key resource for establishing much of the treaty’s 
substance to be negotiated in the months to come.
Many developing and least developed countries have 
already started quantifying waste flows. For example, 
Indonesia, Vietnam and Ghana have recently commenced 
measuring plastic waste flows – a thorough process 
engaging government, industry, civil society and 
academia alike with the support of the Global Plastic 
Action Partnership. This is an open-source national 
analytics tool developed together with SYSTEMIQ that 
has allowed the three countries to understand their 
plastic pollution situation and what concrete steps are 
needed to transition to a circular economy for plastics.
Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, Mexico and Thailand 
are other examples of countries that have stepped up 
efforts in measuring plastic pollution with support from 
UNEP and the International Union for Conservation of 
Nature’s (IUCNs) wide-ranging hotspot assessments. 
These assessments will also include deploying modelling 
functionalities, allowing countries to run projections into 
the future, test different strategy scenarios and understand 
their environmental, economic and social impacts.
Countries such as Canada, Germany and France are equally 
active in tracking plastic waste flows and are taking an 
increasingly proactive approach in sharing insights and 
advocating for alignment at regional and global levels.
Organisations currently supporting in-country plastic 
waste and pollution data collection and evaluation are 
UNEP-IUCN via their National Guidance for Plastic Pollution 
Hot spotting and Shaping Action programme and their 
global data platform PLASTEAX. The Global Plastic Action 
Partnership is doing the same with SYSTEMIQ via their 
National Assessment and Modelling (NAM) tool. Others 
include the World Bank, the Alliance to End Plastic Waste 
with their data platform PRISM, the University of Georgia’s 
Circularity Assessment Protocol (CAP), UN Habitat via their 
Waste Wise Cities initiative, and WWF via ReSource.
With the aforementioned platforms already in place, 
India must connect with them to bring more international 
credibility to the data being generated and for a 
more standardised data collection methodology. 
India already has some policies in place that have provided 
data documentation frameworks, such as the PWM Rules, 
2016, and the EPR guidelines. The PWM Rules require 
minimising the generation of plastic waste, avoiding 
littering, ensuring segregated storage of waste at source, 
and handing it over. However, there is no framework or 
platform to document and provide the data associated 
with activities that are mandated under the rules.
The rules impose EPR on PIBOs. EPR is applicable to both 
pre-consumer and post-consumer plastic packaging waste. 
Under the guidelines, there is provision for a centralised 
website where producers of plastics will have to declare 
their annual plastic production to the government. 
However, this centralised platform is still in a very nascent 
phase, which disrupts reporting compliance by producers. 
EPR is inversely proportional to the size of the informal 
sector of the country. The success of EPR depends on 
the documentation of targets fulfilled, which becomes 
tedious considering the integral role that the informal 
sector plays in the Indian plastic waste value chain.
The major challenge in the data ecosystem remains to be 
collection methodology. Even with established systems, 
most organisations and countries (and sometimes 
provinces or cities) apply different measurement methods, 
often based on national or regional-specific policies or 
priorities. While some countries predominantly trace 
packaging waste or single-use plastics, others may include 
extra categories like industrial plastics and microplastics. 
Definitions of different types of plastic are another 
aspect where a harmonised approach is still lacking. This 
makes comparison across two methods or two countries 
difficult, thereby sometimes making analyses incomplete.







This is where a global treaty on plastics could largely 
alleviate these challenges by supporting countries 
and other documenting organisations with one 
consistent measurement and reporting system that 
builds on the insights of the world’s current best-in-
class methodologies. Learning current approaches 
undertaken by individual countries will be imperative in 
developing one consistent framework. Reliable plastic 
data could be the magic ingredient we need to ensure 
the transparent and accountable application of a treaty. 
A global standardised methodology seems to 
be a farfetched option in the current scenario. 
What we need in the Indian context is a standard 
collection and reporting framework accepted by 
all national, state and city level agencies.
1.5 Barriers to 
implementation in India 
Informal sectorFor the initial implementation of any guidelines or rules 
and its subsequent effectiveness, relevant and organised 
data related to the sector is paramount. Considering the 
plastic waste value chain in India and the undeniable 
presence of an unorganised informal sector, data 
availability poses a major barrier to orderly implementation 
of guidelines, thus reflecting on overall transparency. 
Figure 1





Materials flow – waste value chain: Swachhta Kendra (MRF)

Material flow

Municipal Waste Value Chain

Data flow

Swachhta Kendra

Municipal waste 
collection with registered 
waste pickers

Decentralised Waste 
Collection Centres

WASTE GENERATORS
Institutions, Schools 
Colleges, Municipality, 
industries, restaurants, 
commercial places etc.

Recycler

Informal waste pickers

Plastic Consumers 
-Brand

Large aggregators

Kabadiwalas/
Scrap yard

At Swachhta Kendra - MRF - interventions

• Set up Swachhta kendra and ensure operations
• Register waste pickers, social & financial income
• Ensure operations
• Data management and financial inclusion of 
kabadiwalas /scrap yard and aggregators
• Data management ,reporting and traceability


Plastic Resins 
Manufacturers

Informal Waste Value Chain



.1 Formal and informal ideal waste value chain in India

Figure 1.1 inspired by Figure 6 in NITI Aayog – UNDP Handbook on sustainable urban plastic waste management (2021)



The informal sector, dominated by unregistered waste 
pickers and rag pickers, contributes significantly to 
the plastic waste value chain. They are present and 
constitute a large percentage at each stage of the 
chain. While there is scope for tracking data along 
formal movement, a huge amount of data gets 
lost along the informal movement of plastic.

In Figure 1.1, the informal waste value chain presented is 
actually the ideal case scenario. However, in reality, such 
a chain of events is not observed. Instead, waste picked 
up by rag pickers often ends up as street litter, which 
eventually becomes a Garbage Vulnerable Point. There 
is no tracking mechanism for incoming and outgoing 
flows associated with the informal waste value chain, 
hence such massive numbers are either unreported 
or are assumption-based, which never gives a clear 
picture. Also, efforts to bring informal players into 
the formal system to-date have not been completely 
successful. The prime responsibility for bringing such 
a change is largely on local authorities, well supported 
by state and central governments along with local civil 
society organisations. This is important for an efficient 
top to bottom flow of information, that is, from local 
authorities to state level and further to the central level. 

Technology

Plastic recycling technologies for various types of polymers 
are still a grey area for the plastic recycling scenario 
in India. For instance, the PET recycling rate in India is 
comparatively high, compared to other countries, due to 
a higher collection rate of PET by all categories of waste 
pickers (registered and unregistered). This is because of 
the high monetary value associated with PET. This high 
rate of recycling and value associated with PET translates 
to the technology available for its recycling and results 
in significant demand from recyclers. Hence, to upscale 
the recycling scenario to other polymers, substantial 
technology upgradation is required, which at the same 
time is accessible and affordable to on-ground recyclers.

Information and awareness

Another crucial barrier is awareness among waste 
generators about the magnitude of the issue. Lack 
of knowledge and incentive among households 
about the importance of segregation and outcomes 
of waste collected are issues that potentially leave 
these primary waste generators entirely out of the 
system. Once they are on board, household-based 
data could solve the first step of data lacunae, which 
could then help fill gaps further into the process.

Compliance mechanisms for existing 
policies

At the industry level, there are rules in place empowering 
pollution control boards to undertake periodic audits 
and inspections to check compliance of PIBOs and 
waste processors, however, there is no inventory of 
their total number. Thus, questions remain about what 
fraction of total plastic waste the EPR targets represent. 
It is only now, through disclosures on the portal, that 
authorities are hoping to gauge the quantity of plastic 
packaging material introduced in the market by PIBOs. 

The pollution control board is also expected to carry 
out a compositional survey of collected mixed municipal 
waste to determine the share of plastic waste, as well 
as of different categories of plastic packaging material 
on a half-yearly basis, as per the EPR guidelines. 



1.6 Possibilities in the 
Indian context 

There is a lot of focus on technology for waste treatment, 
as technology is an important cornerstone in all stages of 
the waste value chain, covering traceability, accountability 
and digital governance. Mobile phone apps can be 
developed for this purpose and can be used by various 
stakeholders such as waste pickers, recyclers, ULBs and 
citizens in order to integrate everyone into one digital 
cloud. This would enable access to real-time data from 
the field to track the integrated plastic waste supply chain 
right from the point of collection to the end recycler. It 
would also help address PWM compliance mandated by 
the CPCB and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs).

Dedicated agencies like municipal corporations must 
go beyond their expected responsibilities of waste 
collection, segregation and treatment. They must 
work towards bridging knowledge gaps among waste 
generators so that households can be included as the 
first stakeholder in the data ecosystem. India, as a 
society, is very community-driven and thus incentives 
like words of appreciation, decreased collection fees 
in localities, and formalisation of informal players for 
elimination of Garbage Vulnerable Points can help to 
sustain positive behaviour in the long run. This will 
ensure that household-level waste moves only through 
established flows, thereby eliminating data mismatch.

Once an efficient plastic value chain is developed, a unified 
digital platform should be considered as an option. This 
would work as an extensive database to track, monitor 
and organise waste collection and processing efforts. 

India is a member of the United Nations Environment 
Assembly (UNEA). With a total of 124 countries as 
signatories to UNEA, India is part of a resolution to draft an 
agreement that will make it legally binding for signatories 
to address the entire lifecycle of plastics, from production 
to disposal. To ensure that such an effort is successful 
when implemented, India must immediately work to 
develop its data infrastructure, focusing specifically on 
standardised methodology and data tracking systems at 
each stage of the plastic value chain. Existing data and 
policy infrastructure must be utilised fully to achieve such 
an outcome. The MoEFCC has already notified guidelines 
on EPR for Plastic Packaging early in 2022. Plastic Waste 
Processors (PWPs) have been given specific mandates 
under the guidelines and they are to register themselves 
on a centralised EPR portal developed by the CPCB. PWPs 
already registered with the SPCBs and Pollution Control 
Committees are also required to register on the EPR portal. 
It is important to note that only PWPs that are registered 
on the portal will be able to issue certificates for plastic 
waste processing. This will be considered as fulfilment of 
EPR obligations by PIBOs, which are also required to be 
registered on the same portal. As per the CPCB’s Annual 
Report of 2019-20 (CPCB 2020), there are 4,953 registered 
units engaged with plastic in 30 states/UTs in India. This 
includes 3,715 plastics manufacturers or producers, 896 
recyclers, 47 manufacturers of compostable plastic and 295 
manufacturing multilayer plastic. Streamlining data coming 
out of these entities and developing a solid database should 
be the starting point of India’s unified plastic data portal.



1.7 The way forward 

Technology-related investments in digital waste 
management tools such as GPS-enabled tracking for 
vehicles or image recognition tools are required. These 
tools can leverage the IoT and AI technology for enhanced 
performance during uncertain situations. Data analytics 
is another opportunity where investment can play an 
important role in moving towards digital maturity and 
helping to improve plastic collection and recycling rates. 

Simultaneously, data transparency is required to build a 
circular plastic waste value chain. This could be achieved via 
a unified digital platform where information linked to the 
data, and the justification related to it, is provided along 
with the completeness of the data associated with the 
sector. Instead of just providing the numbers, transparency 
could be improved by stating the methods of data 
collection and its completeness, which would translate to 
how veritable the quoted numbers are and where gaps are 
required to be filled through assumptions and calculations. 
Data transparency will lead to the implementation 
and formalisation of substantial policy making, 
guidelines and rules and will also simplify the process 
of identifying defaulters in the value chain, eventually 
helping the transformation to circularity of the sector.

In addition to basic data collection, the quality of 
data collected needs to be reliable. Taking into 
consideration the various types of polymers produced 
and their categories, the current data available is not 
up to the mark of categorical distribution, leading to 
the incorrect estimation of mismanaged waste. 

Considering the complexities of the plastic waste value 
chain, data integration continues to be a major challenge. 
There are unified platforms/portals in progress or 
proposed to facilitate data integration across the plastic 
waste value chain. This calls for future investments 
on data integration and reporting infrastructure for 
driving data sustainable business practices along 
the production and consumption value chain.

Short-term priorities (to 2025) 

• Under the Swachh Bharat Mission, municipalities are 
periodically collecting and collating data on the volume 
of waste generated and collected. However, there are 
limited efforts in undertaking assessments of waste 
composition and characterization. Accelerate the 
adoption of such practices by all states in a time bound 
manner.
• Plastic waste processing capacities and actual processing 
of collected waste across different states to be 
mandatorily reported on an annual basis. This will help 
in tracking capacity distribution and capacity increase 
across states in tandem with plastic waste generation.
• As identified above, the key challenge in the data 
ecosystem had been the harmonization/standardisation 
of the data collection and compilation. The CPCB 
must issue data collection and reporting guidelines, 
particularly on the plastic waste share of the total waste 
generation, frequency/periodicity of assessment, plastics 
classification by types etc. 
• Polymer and/or plastics manufacturing process rejects 
may often be recycled, however, the type of rejects, 
volume and extent of recycling are unknown. The EPR 
portal can and should provide data related to percentage 
of process rejects recycled as furnished by PIBOs, as well 
as recyclers. 


Medium-term priorities (to 2030)

• Mobile phone apps need to be developed and used by 
stakeholders, including manufacturers of polymers, 
plastic waste pickers, recyclers, ULBs and citizens, to 
integrate stakeholders into one data platform.
• More granular tracking is needed, which will enable 
better sorting throughout the value chain, reducing 
contamination. 
• Government to support and facilitate channelling 
investments into the smart waste ecosystem, leading to 
digitization of the plastic waste sector.
• Incorporating periodic third-party audits as a part of a 
compliance mechanism.
• Using a data-led approach to increase consumer 
awareness.


Long-term priorities (beyond 2030)

• Integration of all production, consumption and end-of-
life management data of various polymers into the NITI 
Aayog SDG Index and Dashboard.




An Innovation Hub 
could be a mechanism 
to support India’s 
transition to a circular 
economy for plastics

Transitioning to a circular economy 
will be aided by innovation – all 
along the plastic supply chain. 
An Innovation Hub is a platform 
that supports transforming 
promising ideas into impactful, 
real-world solutions and can be a 
key mechanism in India’s shift to 
a circular economy for plastics.

 

An Innovation Hub in 
India would involve:

• Collaboration between 
researchers, NGOs, SMEs, start-
ups, Government, industry and 
investors. 
• Leveraging existing funding and 
attracting new investment.
• Rethinking the way plastic is 
created, used and managed, 
as well as the management of 
plastic waste.
• The housing and development 
of a compendium of plastic 
recycling technologies, 
providing information, current 
innovations and recent 
technological developments in 
the sector. 
• Both technology innovations 
and social innovations.


Benefits of an Innovation 
Hub in India:

• Could house best practice 
examples from across India.
• A boost in capability in the 
plastic innovation ecosystem.
• Enhanced stakeholder 
collaboration.




2 Policy frameworks for a 
circular economy for plastics 
in India

2.1 Introduction

This chapter examines the dynamically evolving policy 
framework relevant to plastics management in India, 
with the intention of supporting the transition to a 
circular economy for plastics. The analysis is based 
on stakeholder perspectives of the effectiveness and 
gaps in policy design and implementation for a circular 
economy for plastics in India. A framework adapted 
from Dovers and Hussey (2013, Table 2.1) was used to 
categorise the research findings. This research builds on 
a previous review of the policy frameworks for a circular 
economy for plastics in India, which was published by 
the project team in December 2021 (Talwar et al., 2021).

Previous research from this project revealed that 
most policies and institutions in India addressed 
the consumption, waste generation and resource 
recovery phases of the plastics value chain, with 
inadequate policy guidance for upstream efforts to 
support sustainable production and reduction, or the 
expansion of alternatives to single-use plastics. The 
vast majority of policy instruments focused on end-of-
life management, including recycling and reprocessing 
activities. Some subnational policy instruments such as 
the Goa Resource Efficiency Strategy (2020) reflect recent 
advances in formalising a circular economy plan for a 
state, demonstrating diverse stakeholder consultation.

Table 2.1 Adapted framework based on Dovers and Hussey (2013)

INSTRUMENT CLASS

MAIN INSTRUMENT AND APPROACHES

Monitoring and evaluation

Measurement of EPR effectiveness, data transparency, environmental or social impact assessment, risk 
assessment, lifecycle assessment, and statutory monitoring requirements

Market mechanisms

GST, other taxes/charges, subsidies, rebates, penalties, supporting expansion of CBMs, technology 
incentives and support, efficiency in production/recycling, financial incentives to expand the use 
of alternative materials or reduce the use of virgin polymers, and intellectual property support and 
processes to enable research commercialisation

Standards

E.g., Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), labelling, international treaties and standards (e.g., Basel 
Convention, Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants treaty)

Consultation

Mediation, negotiation, dispute resolution, inclusive institutions and processes, inclusiveness for 
informal sector actors and institutions, and consultative policy design

Research and development

Increase knowledge generally (basic research) or specifically (applied research), with the aim of 
informing the setting of a goal or standard; developing technologies or practices; establishing 
socioeconomic implications; and monitoring environmental conditions, human development, or policy 
impact

Information and 
communication

Research findings leading to policy as well as policy imperatives leading to research aiding information 
flow to firms, agencies, and individuals. Mechanisms include sustainability indicators, state of the 
environment reporting, natural resource accounting, community-based monitoring, environmental 
auditing, and mechanisms for consultation or policy debate

Community involvement

Participation in policy formulation; freedom of information laws; rights to comment on development 
proposals; community-based monitoring; community implementation of programs; cooperative 
management; community ownership and management, citizen engagement, education and awareness







Figure 2.1 maps a typical flow of activities for municipal 
waste management in the country. Using the example of 
the PWM Rules, state governments and UTs are required 
to establish a state-level advisory committee, whereby the 
Secretariat responsible for Urban Development enforces 
the PWM rules (in rural areas, this responsibility lies with 
the Gram Panchayat). As per the PWM Rules, entities 
involved in plastic manufacturing and recycling can conduct 
operations only after registering with the respective SPCB 
or the CPCB, depending on their geographic scope.

Government of 
India

State Government

Central 
Government

ULB/Municipalties

CPHEEO, MOUD, 
CPCB, MOEFCC, 
MoA, MNRE

District 
Magistrate or 
the Deputy 
Commissioner, 
municipal 
authority

Department of 
Urban Development, 
SPCB, State level 
Nodal Agency, State 
Environment Impact 
Assessment Authority

Formulating 
Policies Guideline 
prograram 
Financing

Cordinating 
between Central 
and ULB/
Muncipalites, 
Developing state 
policy

Handling waste 
management 
within goverened 
area

Implementation 
Unit



Figure 2.1 Municipal Waste Management in India

Source: Priti and Mandal (2022)

KEY PWM STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES

NO.

PWM STAKEHOLDERS

KEY RESPONSIBILITIES

1

Pollution control boards 
(CPCB and SPCBs)

• Overall EPR implementation
• Stakeholders’ registration and certification
• Create and manage technology platform
• Set targets and impose penalties


2

Producers, importers, 
brand owners

• Overall PWM responsibility
• Plastic credit mechanism
• Compliance reporting to CPCB/SPCBs
• Co-ordinating and funding of PROs


3

PROs

• EPR planning
• Capacity building of waste value chain
• Material flow through value chain
• Waste processing


4

Independent processors

• Waste processing including collection from ULBs, segregation, and recycling 


5

Local bodies (ULBs or 
Gram Panchayats)

• Demarcate locations/area, set up infrastructure and access funds from various sources for PWM
• Ensure source segregation and collection
• Create citizen communities and allocate human resources
• Co-ordinate with PROs/independent processors and review progress


6

Retailers and street 
vendors

• Consumer awareness
• Provide dustbins for waste disposal
• Ensure that plastic waste enters appropriately into PWM value chain


7

End users (institutional 
or individual waste 
generators)

• Minimize waste generation by reduced consumption, following sustainable disposal methods, and 
putting public pressure on producers
• Ensure that waste produced is directed correctly into the PWM value chain
• Segregation at point-of-disposal






 

Table 2.2 Stakeholder roles for EPR in India 

Source: Pani and Pathak (2021)



Local governments are directly responsible for 
implementing waste management policies, whereas a 
ULB is responsible for waste management within their 
jurisdiction. India follows a bottom-up implementation 
structure; thus, successful policy implementation requires 
good infrastructure, budget, skill and staff motivation 
within a ULB, coupled with active community engagement. 
Some interesting examples of local action to address 
plastics pollution are in the state of Himachal Pradesh, 
where a buy-back scheme (Vasudeva, 2022) and technology 
solutions to identify single-use plastic dumping sites 
near water sources were introduced (The Times of India, 
2022). Another state, Tamil Nadu, banned 14 types of 
single-use plastics on 1 January 2021, and the district 
of Nilgiris within the state has successfully eliminated 
single-use plastics since 2000. Table 2.2 outlines the 
stakeholder roles for EPR regulations within the country.

2.2 Methodology

From January to August 2022, the research team 
conducted in-depth interviews with stakeholders in 
India comprising think tanks, local, state and federal 
government actors, policy makers, academics, industry 
peak bodies and community organisations (Table 2.3). 
The aim of these interviews was to assess perspectives 
about the effectiveness of current policy, challenges and 
gaps needing to be addressed, as well as strategies to 
improve implementation and effectiveness, in order to 
drive a circular economy for plastics in India. Previous 
research by this group had identified gaps in policy 
design, taking a plastics value chain perspective, noting 
the need to assess barriers and enablers for effective 
implementation of policy alongside the institutional 
and technical levers to support a just transition. 

Table 2.3 Stakeholders interviewed in this research

STAKEHOLDER GROUP

NO. OF INTERVIEWS

Think tanks

4

Industry bodies

3

Academia

3

Central ministry

2

State-level entity

2

International multilateral 
organisations

2

Urban Local Body

1

Total No. of interviews

17





2.3 Current policy landscape

The PWM Rules 2022 set targets for PIBOs of plastics, 
who were expected to take back 25% of their material 
by 2021–22, followed by 70% by 2022–23, and 100% by 
2023–24 (PWM Rules, 2022; Shah, 2022). The targets 
rely on the presumption that collection systems will 
be in place, or that producers who have failed to meet 
their obligations under the PWM Rules 2016 will now 
comply. However, no formal guidance is available for 
actors to be able to achieve these targets (Shah, 2022). A 
gap exists in the integration of informal sector recycling 
activities into formal systems (Talwar et al., 2021).

The draft E-waste (Management) Rules Amendment 
2022 assigns the CPCB the responsibility to implement 
EPR. A wide range of electronic goods are to be covered 
under the legislation, including laptops, landline and 
mobile phones, cameras, recorders, music systems, 
microwaves, refrigerators and medical equipment. The 
E-waste Rules also stipulate e-waste recycling targets 
of 60% by 2022–2023, 70% by 2023–2024, and 80% by 
2024–2025, with importers of used electrical and electronic 
equipment requiring 100% EPR for imported materials 
at the end-of-life if the materials are not re-exported.

The EPR certificate offsets and environmental 
compensation scheme will be administered by the CPCB. 
The environmental compensation scheme will be applied 
when PIBOs have not met their EPR obligations. PIBOs 
will be required to submit annual reports about their 
performance against targets, using an online portal via 
the CPCB. However, the lack of third-party auditing or 
independent verification of the reporting, as well as 
the fact that producers and brand owners will be able 
to seek refunds or compensation, which is intended to 
be a penalty, has raised doubts about the operational 
practicalities and effectiveness of this approach (Shah, 
2022). Another gap is that the certification schemes 
only apply to registered recyclers and processors, 
which represent formal recycling institutions, and 
thus preclude India’s vast informal sector activities.

One of the most controversial elements of the amendments 
is the shift away from using PROs. The PROs were previously 
designed to be a key actor in the E-waste (Management) 
Rules 2016, as intermediaries between manufacturers of 
electronic goods and formal recyclers. The Draft E-waste 
Rules 2022, instead, vest all recycling responsibility with 
authorised recyclers, which has generated criticism about 
the vast network already established by PROs, as well as 
the associated job losses and their role in driving business 
and community education programs. Such a move also 
reflects the general inconsistency in policy directives, which 
adversely impacts business and consumer confidence, a 
recurring theme that also came up in the interviews.



What is working well

National policies such as the Swachh Bharat Mission, PWM 
Rules, single-use plastic bans in different states, draft 
National Resource Efficiency Policy, Smart Cities Initiative, 
and BIS and International Organisation for Standardization 
(ISO) standards provide guidelines for plastic use and 
packaging in India. Multi-dimensional policy instruments, 
such as the Swachh Bharat Mission and the Swachh 
Survekshan, are notable in driving citizen engagement and 
awareness generation for issues related to solid and PWM. 
The stakeholder analysis revealed that current policy was 
effective in achieving certain economic, social and human 
health outcomes, evidenced by the following themes:

• Successful grassroots policy implementation;
• Uniform framework for EPR;
• Training and capacity development for awareness 
and education;
• Investment in research and development; and
• Advances in standards and certification for effective 
market creation. 


Successful grassroots policy implementation

India’s approach to managing plastic pollution is 
evident through the PWM Rules and multi-faceted 
citizens’ programs such as the Swachh Bharat Mission, 
Swachh Survekshan (which provides an annual 
ranking of cities’ performance against Swachh Bharat 
Mission targets), and a proliferation of localised 
tracking and aggregation platforms such as Recykal, 
to integrate activities of the formal and informal 
sectors in waste collection and management. 

The main focus of the Swachh Bharat Mission, launched in 
2014, has been to eradicate open defecation in the country, 
build toilets and sanitation facilities, increase women’s 
hygiene, and improve solid waste management awareness 
and practices. Under Swachh Survekshan, an annual survey 
of urban and rural sanitation and cleanliness is undertaken, 
which is now considered a useful tool in implementing 
plastics regulations involving ULBs, municipalities, citizens 
and community organisations. Swachh Survekshan has 
been successful in increasing participation by cities. 4,355 
cities participated in 2022 compared with just 73 in 2016 
(MoHUA, 2022). According to the 2022 results, Indore is 
the only city in India to have achieved 7-star certification, 
with Surat, Bhopal, Mysuru, Navi Mumbai, Visakhapatnam, 
and Tirupati ranking 5-stars (MoHUA, 2022a). 5
5 See more at https://sbmurban.org.



Case study: Practice to policy design

Hasiru Dala, a grassroots organisation, has 
demonstrated the concepts of decentralised waste 
management, EPR, dry waste collection centres 
and MRFs in Bangalore city since 2011. They were 
pursuing decentralised waste management even 
before the model was formally recognised in 
the PWM Rules in 2016. Hasiru Dala’s successful 
implementation of dry waste collection at ward 
level, endorsed support from the city to provide 
adequate infrastructure. Today, Bangalore city 
has a successful model of working with waste-
picker collectives to manage the dry waste 
collection centres. In 2019, the state government 
of Karnataka expanded this model state-wide. 

Case study: Effective implementation 
of plastic rules in Goa 

The state of Goa and its ULBs have demonstrated 
excellent progress in implementing plastic 
waste regulations through the creation of good 
infrastructure, capacity building programs and 
training for waste management officials, supported 
by awareness campaigns for citizens. The state is 
also progressing EPR implementation through the 
creation of a nodal agency, Goa Waste Management 
Corporation (GWMC). GWMC’s primary function is 
to secure and assist the establishment of facilities 
for the scientific management of various types of 
waste in Goa. Along with training local bodies on all 
waste-related matters, GWMC also assists in policy 
formulation through active stakeholder consultation. 
A segregation rate of 85% was reported in the state.

Beginning with two-way segregation of dry and 
wet waste, the capital city of Goa, Panjim, now 
segregates waste into 16 different types. The 
city initiated a Shop With Your Waste campaign 
in 2020, where the citizens are able to purchase 
daily commodities in exchange for dry waste in 
predetermined shops. The campaign mimics a 
barter system for recyclables and the shop owner 
receives a handling fee to provide clean recyclables 
to recyclers. The city has also banned various 
single-use plastics with ample availability of 
alternatives. Under the Smart Cities Mission, Goa 
has deployed several waste management tools, 
such as Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags at 
waste generators, to help with real-time tracking.



Uniform framework for Extended Producer 
Responsibility 

The MoEFCC initiated a uniform framework for EPR in 
June 2020 under the PWM Rules, 2016. The framework 
was further amended in 2022, to provide EPR, recycling, 
end-of-life disposal, and use of recycled content 
targets for PIBOs. Under the uniform framework, waste 
management policies have become more producer-centric, 
compared to ULB-led waste management previously. 
Given the socioeconomic and environmental diversity 
of India, the framework recognises that a single EPR 
model is not feasible. Instead, three different models 
have been set forth for PIBOs: i) Fee-based model, ii) 
PRO-based model, iii) Plastic credit-based model. 

Fee-based model: The primary responsibility for 
managing plastic waste rests with the ULB. PIBOs are 
required to pay a fee to the central EPR corpus fund. 
This account will be managed by a Special Purpose 
Vehicle (SPV), a legal entity created to carry out the 
specified activity. The fee is determined based on the 
normative cost to ULBs for managing the waste.

Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO)-based model: 
On behalf of the PIBOs, a certified producer responsibility 
organisation is recruited to manage end-of-life products. 
The framework suggests a fee per kilogram for different 
plastic types. The model also allows ULBs to act as PROs 
if they have the infrastructure to process plastic waste.

Plastic credit-based model: Although manufacturers are 
not required to collect plastic waste, they are required 
to recover and recycle comparable quantities of waste. 
This model allows producers and recyclers to pre-set 
terms based on which plastic credits may be applicable.

Although PIBOs are able to decide on a suitable EPR 
model, there is a requirement to submit volumes 
of waste processed using accredited processors 
(MoEFCC, 2020). The framework proposes a phased 
approach to achieve targets and PIBOs are able 
to update progress using the MoEFCC portal.

Training and capacity development for 
awareness and education

With relevance to consumers and 
the larger community

Since the 2016 amendment of the plastic waste regulations, 
there have been many initiatives to create consumer 
education and awareness. While most Indian cities 
have implemented dry and wet waste segregation, NITI 
Aayog (2021) identified some cities such as Alappuzha 
(Kerala), Panjim (Goa), and Indore (Madhya Pradesh) 
where active community awareness and engagement 
have helped achieve better segregation outcomes 
(Sirur and Bikhchandani, 2021). Initiatives led by civil 
society organisations targeting schools and the youth 
have been well received. An online portal, Swayam, 
through the Ministry of Education, provides PWM 
education for university students and professionals. 

With relevance to ULBs and waste 
management personnel

Under the Swachh Bharat Mission, the Government of 
India offers administrative and technical training to ULB 
staff. States such as Goa undertake regular training for 
waste-related matters. NGOs and community service 
organisations are aligned with ULBs to facilitate capacity 
building, hotspot mapping and leakage assessment, as 
well as the development of management plans for ULBs. 

With relevance to other stakeholders

Initiatives are underway to educate actors within the 
plastic industry and users in the tourism and hospitality 
sectors where demand for plastic products is high, in 
order to better manage disposal, and reduce plastic 
pollution and marine litter. Informal sector actors are 
an integral part of India’s waste management landscape 
and receive training in scientific waste management 
from ULBs and NGOs, with multiple initiatives under 
way to connect the disparate activities with formal 
recyclers, to create equitable economic, social, and 
human health outcomes for the informal sector. 

Investment in research and development

There are efforts by the government and other stakeholders 
to adopt and develop indigenous technologies to 
improve policy implementation. Academic institutions 
and multilateral organisations such as UNEP are investing 
in scientific research to assist in developing evidence-
based policy initiatives. UNEP is also collaborating 
with the MoEFCC to develop and commercialise SUP 
alternatives. The Department of Science and Technology 
also offers research funding for plastic alternatives. 
Other localised initiatives are being promoted, such 
as the conversion of secondary materials into paper 
blocks, tiles, roads and construction materials.



Case study: Technological innovation 
for better waste management

In 2020, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) 
adopted multiple ICT solutions to monitor waste 
management in the city and improve coordination 
among different waste stakeholders. The city 
has introduced a Radio Frequency Identification 
(RFID) based attendance system and geo-tagging 
of collection routes. Hot spots are monitored, and 
violators penalised using a mobile application called 
Ezetap. The BBMP has been able to successfully 
eliminate waste hotspots and achieve 100% door-
to-door waste collection through effective adoption 
of ICT-based technologies (NITI Aayog, 2021).

Advances in standards and certifications for 
effective market creation

The Government of India introduced the first eco-labelling 
standards, ‘Eco-Mark’, in 1990 for product categories 
including plastic products for easy identification of 
environment-friendly products. The PWM rules also refer to 
BIS standards for compostable plastic products, including 
guidelines for recycling plastic products and labelling.6
6 Indian Standards – Guidelines for recycling of plastic


In 2021, the PWM (Third Amendment) rules and Food 
Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) approved the 
use of recycled plastic in food contact packaging which, 
despite worries about unscientific recycling practices by 
the informal sector, was considered to be a big win to help 
expand the markets for recycled content in packaging. 

2.4 Gaps in current policy 

India has numerous statutes for handling waste, with 
distinct rules for different waste streams. Despite regular 
amendments to PWM regulations and EPR, there is weak 
integration of circular economy principles. The CPCB, SPCBs 
and municipalities are concerned with public health issues 
of waste and pollution rather than resource value. While 
there is an attempt in current EPR models to create demand 
for recycled polymers, they mainly support efficient 
recycling and cost viability, rather than promoting models 
for reuse. 

A general gap exists in the inconsistency of definitions 
and messaging across different policies and initiatives, 
causing apprehension among the business community 
and consumers. The research showed that implementation 
of the PWM Rules and EPR was poor in many parts of 
the country due to weak source segregation, inadequate 
infrastructure, and unavailability of reliable alternatives to 
plastic. Despite the informal sector’s major role in India’s 
waste management, no formal mechanisms to recognise 
their activities or to build capacities or provide adequate 
security and compensation exist. There are ample social 
and human health risks that merit urgent attention but 
have not been adequately addressed by recent policy 
amendments. In terms of training and awareness programs, 
waste-related messaging is adapted to local languages, 
given India’s diversity, yet neither the messaging nor the 
medium is tailored to suit the needs of the informal sector 
(Niazi et al., 2021). 

Lastly, this research found that policies need to address 
the expansion of CBMs for sustainable consumption, for 
example, container refills and reuse businesses, and that 
the vast and informal local repair economy is absent from 
policy initiatives. Stakeholder analysis reveals the following 
gaps in current policy:

• Lack of integration between formal and informal 
sector activities.
• Need for capacity building to improve 
implementation and monitoring.
• Need for incentives to expand markets for plastics 
alternatives.
• Lack of effective monitoring and data transparency.
• Need for standards and certifications for better 
product design.
• Need for multi-stakeholder consultation and cross-
sector collaboration.
• Ineffective policy design, e.g., EPR regulations that 
do not address design and production.




Lack of integration between formal and 
informal sector activities

In India, the informal sector comprises not just waste 
pickers but also a large number of recyclers who operate 
informally. They are often not included in formal 
compliance systems and lack legal status. The reality is that 
informal waste collectors in India provide an invaluable 
door-to-door collection network, yet this sector’s activities 
are excluded from formal policy support and recognition. 

There are also self-perception issues and a weak 
understanding of the forms of integration that 
would be most meaningful to the sector. Moreover, 
mechanisms to improve the informal sector’s health, 
hygiene and social status are largely absent in current 
policy frameworks, with calls for a just transition.

Often in national level plastic pollution deliberation 
forums, the informal sector is represented by a 
high-level representative who might not be able to 
effectively communicate the on-ground challenges. 

‘The central authorities are 
silent on the elephant in the 
room – the informal sector.’

‘The informal sector consider themselves 
to be part of an illegal activity.’

‘Any discussion impacting their activities 
must occur in active consultation with 
the informal sector actors directly to 
ensure there is a just transition.’

Case study: Pune Municipal 
Corporation (PMC) – SWaCH 
Cooperative Model 

The PMC signed a Memorandum of Understanding 
with SWaCH, an informal waste-picker cooperative, 
in 2008. The primary function of SWaCH is to 
provide door-to-door waste collection and other 
waste management services. Apart from covering 
SWaCH’s administrative costs, PMC also provides 
access to waste and equipment that are necessary 
to fulfil its responsibilities. The waste pickers are 
paid a service fee and are accountable to both the 
PMC and its residents. The waste pickers sort and 
sell the recyclable materials they have collected 
from houses, which provides an alternative revenue 
stream for them. Non-recyclable waste is disposed 
of at designated points in the secondary waste 
collection system. The cooperative has designated 
coordinators to ensure the receipt of service fees, 
redress grievances, and provide value-added services 
like composting and e-waste collection. SWaCH 
is the best example of effective implementation 
of waste regulations, inclusivity of the informal 
sector, and just transition (ESCAP, 2019). 

Need for capacity building to improve 
implementation and monitoring

Waste management is a responsibility of ULBs, mandated 
through the 74th Constitution Amendment Act, 1992. 
However, Prasad and Pardhasaradhi (2020) indicate 
that states are reluctant to extend the financial and 
functional autonomy of ULBs, thereby restricting 
enforcement powers of ULBs. Additionally, many states 
and ULBs lack the technical skill and physical capacity 
to manage waste issues. Based on the results of the 
Swachh Survekshan, it is observed that often big cities 
are rewarded but smaller or slow-performing cities 
are left wanting feedback and support to improve 
capacity. There are calls for cities to be offered equal 
opportunities and cross-learning opportunities. 

Compliance monitoring in a massive country like India, 
with many PIBOs, and consumers, is a big challenge as the 
country lacks solid monitoring mechanisms and appropriate 
application of technological systems. Although there is a 
central reporting portal for reporting plastic data, there 
is weak reliability of the accuracy of data. Inadequate 
staffing in government offices makes effective monitoring 
a glaring challenge. There is a need to assign responsibility 
to all stakeholders, including ULBs, and need for a system 
to enable penalties for violators. A shared vision and a 
shared understanding of resource circularity across all 
stakeholders would go a long way in the design of data 
collection and management systems to support innovations 
in waste reduction, resource recovery and recycling. 

 



Need for incentives to expand markets for 
plastics alternatives

Despite the SUP bans across most states in India, 
single-use polyethylene bags are rampant owing to 
weak economically and environmentally sustainable 
alternatives. Plastic alternatives are found to be either 
expensive or inconvenient, which discourages wide-
scale adoption. The research identified a need for 
greater collaboration between academia and industry 
to commercialise technical solutions for reducing plastic 
use. More financial and technological backing is needed 
to expand the footprint of indigenous technologies 
and businesses, to make them globally competitive.

Another challenge with plastic alternatives was the 
lack of cost parity between plastic bags and paper 
bags as a barrier to adoption, especially for small/
informal businesses like local/street-side vegetable 
vendors. There is a role for ‘standards’ and ‘regulations’ 
in setting the baseline, and further enablers in terms 
of market mechanisms and infrastructure are needed 
to support industry to adopt alternative materials. 

Rather than uni-directional bans, the government must 
actively consult with industry to design policies that 
support a just transition. Formalised programs and 
incentives are required to upskill and educate industry 
actors, along with encouraging market demand for 
alternative and secondary materials. For example, 
India was able to catalyse local renewable energy 
generation and demand to make the industry cost 
competitive compared to coal-fired power generation. 

Lack of effective monitoring and data 
transparency

India has several reporting systems, but none give clear-
cut information on environmental, economic, and social 
consequences. Baseline estimates for pre-regulation status 
are absent, making it difficult to measure post-regulation 
environmental, social, and economic benefits. Quantitative 
assessment and auditing exercises to estimate the quantity 
of waste produced, collected, post-collection status, and 
the quantity of products made of recycled materials is 
absent in current systems. Hence, self-disclosure reports 
provided by states, ULBs, and private parties are not fully 
reliable. Benchmarks to assess performance, including 
target setting through policy and annual reporting, are 
needed to measure progress. With the central reporting 
platform under way for EPR reporting, maintaining the 
robustness of data while ensuring effective implementation 
could be a significant challenge in the absence of 
adequate monitoring and benchmarking systems.

The need for standards and certifications for 
better product design

Recently, the PWM (Third Amendment) Rules, 2021, and 
Food Safety and Standards (Packaging) Regulations, 
addressed the use of recycled plastic in food contact 
packaging.7
7 Plastic Waste Management (Third Amendment) Rules, 2021

 However, there are concerns in the scientific 
community as most recycling is carried out by the 
unregulated informal sector using unscientific processes, 
often resulting in contaminated recycled materials 
flowing into packaging. The PWM Rules Amendment, 
2021 received criticism from scientific experts and 
environmentalists, who argued that standards for plastic 
recycling needed to be laid out and any directives to 
use recycled plastic should be considered in the context 
of food and health safety8
8 Reports from the Food Packaging Forum found high levels of contaminants, such as pesticides, rare earth elements, flame retardants, and other substances, 
to be able to transfer from plastics into food (Singh, 2021; Parkinson, 2021).

 from plastic food packaging, 
also requiring involvement of the food sector (Ujaley, 
2022). Currently, there is no standardisation of recycled 
plastic products or recycled plastic polymers, mainly 
because these are handled by the informal sector. 

The need for multi-stakeholder consultation 
and cross-sector collaboration

The current regulations do not adequately reflect 
crossovers between different sectors in the plastics value 
chain. Most policies focus on plastic waste, resulting in 
an absence of dialogue with the petrochemical industry 
to influence reduction strategies. To achieve systemic 
change driven by a circular economy for plastics, various 
ministries such as finance, environment, industry and 
commerce, and skill development, need to engage with 
industry, small-scale recyclers and the informal sector. 
Industry expects clear frameworks, timeframes and 
guidelines to drive implementation. Further, Indian 
industry is not always proactively involved in policy 
design, hence extra effort is needed to ensure ongoing 
consultation and multi-stakeholder dialogue. 

Ineffective policy design, e.g., EPR 
regulations lack aspects of designing for the 
environment and minimising production

EPR in India currently targets mostly small-scale plastic 
processors and manufacturers whose activities are highly 
fragmented and informal, whereas polymer manufacturers 
are few in number and mostly large firms. Targeting 
policy incentives to include polymer manufacturers 
will have much more impact downstream, rather than 
starting with the downstream, which is a symptom, not 
the cause of the prevalence of plastic in the economy. 

The scope of EPR needs to expand beyond direct producers, 
for example, to bulk consumers such as IT companies 
who are large users of electrical and electronic products. 
Further, EPR regulations need to acknowledge informal 



waste actors, as waste management is one of the most 
prominent sectors for the informal economy (e.g., in 
Bangalore city, 3,500 tonnes of plastic are traded daily, 
with the informal sector at the core of operations). 

2.5 What could be done to 
further the circular economy?

Countries across the world are investing in innovative 
solutions to tackle the plastics challenge. Interventions 
range from EPR, plastic taxes, bans on plastic bags and 
microbeads in cosmetic products, to using plastic waste 
in constructing roads and co-processing in cement 
factories. A Global Plastics Treaty to eradicate plastic 
pollution by 2025 was agreed in Kenya in March 2022, 
by 175 UN member countries, including India. The pact 
is expected to include provisions for the entire lifecycle 
of plastics, spanning manufacturing, product design, 
use and end-of-life management (Prakash, 2022).

In March 2022, the European Commission proposed 
Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) as 
a part of the Sustainable Products Initiative (SPI) under 
the European Green Deal (Anthesis, 2022). The proposal 
establishes a framework for the design of specific product 
groups to make them more circular, sustainable, and 
environmentally responsible by enabling them to be 
more durable, reusable, recyclable, and upgradable. It 
introduces the idea of a ‘Digital Product Passport’ that 
makes it possible to access information about a product’s 
environmental sustainability. It facilitates repairs and 
recycling, and provides increased transparency about 
a product’s life cycle impact on the environment, 
helping consumers and businesses make informed 
purchase decisions (European Commission, 2022). Such 
an Ecodesign approach will be valuable in India.

Taxation and finance are important instruments to 
facilitate market creation for alternatives, while reducing 
dependence on SUPs. For example, Ireland enacted the 
‘PlasTax’ – a levy on plastic bags at retail points in 2002. 
Aiming to prompt consumer behaviour change, the tax was 
set six times higher than the projected willingness to pay. 
Ireland saw a more than 90% decrease in plastic bag use 
within a year of the tax’s implementation. The proportion of 
plastic bag waste in national waste reduced from 5 percent 
in 2002 to less than 1 percent in 2004 (Convery et al., 2007). 
The Irish levy on plastic bags exemplifies the importance 
of broad public support for the successful implementation 
of policy tools. Other examples of combating plastic 
pollution through taxation include France’s regulation 
on increased VAT on non-recyclable bottles, increased 
tax on sending waste to landfills, and subsidised tax 
on recycling operations (Rush, 2018; Stieger, 2018).

India’s pursuit of EPR implementation will benefit 
from the expansion of collective voluntary schemes 
and take-back schemes co-funded by industry and 
government. The stakeholder research suggested 
an urgent need for multiple collective schemes, co-
funded by industry, to increase collection, centralised 
dismantling and processing, by extending training and 
employment opportunities to the informal sector.

The product take-back scheme is a widely adopted 
instrument to address plastic waste. McCarthy (2020) 
reports that 40 countries have successfully integrated 
container take-back systems into their waste management 
systems. Countries such as Germany and Norway have 
shown great results in plastic bottles returned for recycling. 
Germany has diverted 120 billion containers from waste 
since the implementation of the deposit return scheme 
in 2003, where buyers pay 25 cents per bottle at the 
time of purchase, and 99% of plastic bottles are now 
returned for recycling. In Norway, since the scheme was 
introduced in 2014, 97% of the country’s plastic bottles 
have been returned for recycling (Campbell, 2021). Similar 
successes are evident in Australia, with the Return and Earn 
Scheme in New South Wales (NSW) driving exceptional 
consumer awareness and engagement, as a national 
model for rolling out container-deposit legislation.

Another intervention that is gaining traction globally 
to promote sustainable production and consumption 
is the ‘right to repair’. Countries and regions such as 
the USA, the UK, and the EU have formalised action. 
India proposed introducing the ‘right to repair’ in July 
2022, which would require manufacturers to provide 
customers with information about their products so that 
the products can be easily repaired by themselves or by 
a third party, rather than just by the original equipment 
manufacturers. The framework aims to facilitate 
trade between the original equipment manufacturers 
and third-party buyers and sellers, which will also 
lead to the creation of new jobs (The Times of India, 
2022) and the expansion of second-hand markets.

2.6 What would work in India?

Efficient source segregation and enforcement of 
regulations will contribute significantly to a circular 
economy for plastics in India. There is a need to 
demonstrate the business case for a circular economy 
where the government can play the role of enabler as well 
as in the expansion of secondary markets. International 
examples to share best practice and the need for more 
private investment were identified as current gaps. There 
is a need to incentivise greater collaboration between 
waste management bodies and waste generators, such as 
through state government to ULBs based on performance. 

Financial mechanisms that would enable a circular economy 
for plastics in India include introducing an environmental 
tax. Imposing a cost on producers (e.g., through a tax) 
to incentivise them to make more environmentally 
responsible products can be a means to encourage better 
product design, reducing demand (planned obsolescence) 



and addressing the issue of traceability of waste (if 
relying on end-of-life management). There is a need to 
provide fiscal incentives to recyclers to promote the use 
of recycled feedstock; for example, lowering GST on 
recycled products and materials in comparison to virgin 
polymers. Given that the waste and recycling sector in 
India is highly unorganised and has a large informal 
economy, GST is a disincentive to businesses formalising 
their operations. Instead, incentives to attract businesses 
to formalise their operations are needed to achieve 
holistic social and environmental benefits. Such incentives 
will encourage big organisations to invest in recycling 
infrastructure, spurring higher competition in the sector. 

The Indian Government can play a more proactive 
role in supporting industry transition away from 
plastics to enable the strengthening of markets for 
alternatives. Newly emerging alternatives to plastics, 
such as leaf and agri waste-based packaging, algae 
and mushroom-based, and bamboo and paper-based 
materials need research, marketing and fiscal support 
and incentives. The government should provide support 
and incentives to invest more time in alternative 
material production, material innovation, and to 
enable the shift for plastic manufacturers/traditional 
entrepreneurs who have technical knowledge to be able 
to invest in the manufacture of alternative materials. 
Similar incentives have been provided in the past to 
nascent but important industries such as renewable 
energy – a comparable approach is needed to enable 
a systemic transition away from SUP in India.

The informal sector is the backbone of the Indian waste 
management system. Policies need to be inclusive 
and equitable to ensure communities are not unfairly 
disadvantaged, and that the interests of the majority are 
reflected in policy. Policy design should better reflect 
local needs and behaviours and offer flexibility and 
adaptability to suit the needs of different stakeholders 
and cultural diversity in India. Policy frameworks need to 
create space to capitalise on existing skills and networks 
of the informal waste sector to ensure there is a just 
transition. Consumption patterns and local, informal, cash 
economies need to be integrated to measure progress. 

There are several challenges in adopting international 
policy and industry standards without adapting to the 
Indian socio-economic-political context. Regulations 
such as SUP bans do not acknowledge India’s unique 
circumstances in terms of informal sector activities 
and the grey economy. The informal sector’s physical 
network should be considered in urban planning, to 
consider avenues to integrate informal waste collection 
activities into industrial and urban development 
plans. Policies should create mechanisms for informal 
waste actors to be able to secure formal funding to 
invest in recycling. There need to be incentives for 
the informal sector to operate in special recycling 
zones, and tax-free operations for defined periods.

2.7 Recommendations

1. Set a single policy framework and implementation 
plan for circular plastics, in which all initiatives and 
information have a place, and a plan to put it into action
– Streamline regulations and guidelines for recycling, 
materials reuse and energy.
– Develop a circular economy transition body to 
connect industry and government.
– Support the circular economy with public 
procurement policies and fiscal and tax incentives that 
prefer secondary plastic waste-based products and 
businesses.
– Enhance EPR regulations to incorporate the informal 
sector, building on initiatives of online marketplaces 
to connect actors in the waste and recycling value 
chain or social enterprises that act as PROs.
– Develop standards, certification and verification 
mechanisms based on the scientific analysis of 
lifecycle costs of products to enable development of 
markets for recycled and other secondary products 
from plastic waste. 
– Promote and strengthen waste exchange platforms 
and marketplaces that reduce recovery and 
transportation costs for companies generating and 
collecting waste.
– Integrate approaches for EPR, incentives, standards, 
finance and tax mechanisms to ensure there is 
standardised information, targets, monitoring and 
reporting, to enable timely and effective evaluation of 
progress.



2. Recognise and engage all stakeholders
– Recognise and engage all stakeholders, especially the 
informal sector of waste pickers and recyclers.
– Integrate all the actors – ULBs, PIBOs, regulators, 
informal sector – and encourage collaboration among 
the ‘entire ecosystem’.
– Consider strengths of all stakeholders and how they 
can better serve the system of resource recovery.
– Formalise the informal sector by supporting informal 
cooperatives as social business.
– Ensure there is feedback and learning to reflect on the 
ground realities, and further amend the policy based 
on these learnings.
– Policies should enable knowledge transfer and 
learning for all stakeholders across the plastic value 
chain.







3. Facilitate decentralised, locally relevant and equitable 
implementation of policies
– Ensure action at the state level to integrate and 
register different stakeholders.
– Understand and tap into local systems, so that 
responses from government and industry are 
contextually relevant. Local governments can also 
implement by-laws.
– Ensure equitable implementation of policy in different 
contexts in India, beyond the large cities.
– Include small producers and the informal sector (small 
and medium producers enable alternatives to plastic 
and need to invest in these).



4. Drive stronger enforcement and implementation of 
existing policies.
– Integrating policy and regulatory approach to provide 
clear direction and better alignment in order to 
encourage higher uptake and implementation.
– Encouraging state-level data collection, monitoring, 
and evaluation as well as higher transparency in public 
reporting to enable better measurement.
– Set benchmarks to assess performance, including 
annual target setting and reporting.
– Enforce targets for recycling for households, 
neighbourhoods, cities and municipalities with 
recognition and awards program for clean 
neighbourhoods, towns, and cities.





Short-term priorities (to 2025) 

• Develop a circular economy transition body to connect 
industry and government. 
• Support plastics collection, sorting and source 
segregation, through investment in infrastructure, 
community education and incentives to consumers to 
foster source segregation and R behaviours. 
• Develop financial and tax incentives to encourage 
business innovation and investment in R&D, as well as 
the expansion of circular business models including 
increasing demand for alternative materials. 
• Provide funding to support ULBs for better waste 
management, community education, staff training, 
infrastructure development and initiatives to support the 
integration of the informal sector. 
• Implement policies that enable training and capacity 
building with a variety of stakeholders including the 
informal waste sector to enable monitoring and safe 
handling of plastic waste and to fill knowledge gaps 
regarding the circular economy. 
• Develop peer networks on a hub and spoke model 
among cities to share best practices and resources.


Medium-term priorities (to 2030)

• Enhance EPR targets and scope to include other complex 
material streams such as textiles, agricultural products, 
automobiles, and tyres. EPR should target all stages 
of the lifecycle including design and production and 
engage a range of stakeholders. 
• Invest in setting up eco-industrial parks (EIPs) to 
create industrial symbiosis opportunities and explore 
possibilities of the upcoming plastic processing hubs and 
special economic zones to have EIP and circular economy 
features. 
• Develop a circular plastics strategy to integrate 
management of various plastic types at all stages of the 
lifecycle including design, production, consumption and 
end-of-life. The strategy should engage a wide range of 
stakeholders and consider the use of national standards, 
phase outs of some plastics and streamlining the 
regulatory framework. 
• Invest in R&D, recycling technology and infrastructure, 
including for advanced sorting and waste processing. 
Establish a recycling modernisation fund to assist 
in growing and updating recycling capabilities and 
technologies, co-funded by government and the private 
sector.
• Provide incentives for stronger collaboration between 
research and industry (e.g., the Small Business Innovative 
Research Model in Canada, patents co-ownership 
between industry and academia). Facilitate market 
commercialisation of technologies and innovations, such 
as alternative materials to reduce use of virgin plastics, 
recycling technologies, innovative products, and data 
management solutions. 


Long-term priorities (beyond 2030)

• Implement green public procurement and circular 
procurement strategies at the national, state and local 
levels.
• Every state should have a plastics innovation centre or 
hub co-funded by industry and government to support 
material and technology R&D, provide education and 
knowledge resources for better waste management, 
skills training and business support to transition to a 
circular economy. 




Programs to foster 
innovation and financing 
will unlock opportunities 
for circular businesses

To create an enabling environment 
for circular business model 
success, start-ups and transitioning 
businesses will require supportive 
programs to facilitate supply chain 
networking and collaboration, as 
well as access to finance. 

Access to finance is a key issue for 
businesses starting up, even when 
product and service innovation is 
developed. Part of the challenge is 
that new business models require 
evidence of returns or social and 
environmental benefits, this can 
be difficult for small businesses 
to collect. In addition, payback 
periods for circular business 
models may be longer. 

To overcome these challenges 
with financing, a number 
of innovative mechanisms 
can be applied, such as:

• A Viability Gap Fund* dedicated 
to circular business model 
initiatives to cover high start-
up expenses and shorten long 
payback periods.
• A revolving fund set up to 
specifically finance circular 
business models.
• Public-private-community 
partnerships to help 
finance waste management 
infrastructure.
• Microfinancing to facilitate 
entrepreneurship for the 
informal sector.
• Considering peer to peer 
lending platforms for financial 
inclusion of the informal sector.


Programs to foster innovation 
and provide the supportive 
ecosystems for CBMs could include:

• Further development of circular 
business incubators and 
accelerators through public-
private partnership models that 
can offer funding, mentoring, 
capacity building, and 
networking (academia, industry 
and civil society).
• Publishing success stories and 
innovative work by start-ups, 
municipalities and private 
partnership-based projects that 
address plastic waste to promote 
circularity and knowledge 
sharing.
• Setting up networks enabling 
different industries and different 
parts of supply chains to interact 
and share information.


* Kapur-Bakshi, S., Kaur, M., and Gautam, S., 2021. Circular Economy for Plastics in India: A Roadmap. New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute. Available 
at https://www.teriin.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/Circular-Economy-Plastics-India-Roadmap.pdf



3 Circular business models

3.1 Introduction

Since the second industrial revolution, India has 
been following the take-make-waste linear economy 
approach. On one hand this has enabled economic 
benefits and brought prosperity but on the other hand, 
it has led to the overuse and depletion of resources, 
increased environmental degradation, and inflated 
prices of raw materials (NITI Aayog-UNDP, 2021).

The shift towards CBMs is often discussed as a key 
mechanism for change to drive a circular economy (Henry 
et al., 2020). The basis of a circular economy business 
model is to avoid waste and retain the value of materials 
or products within the economy as long as possible 
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). CBMs can be defined as:

Business models that are cycling, 
extending, intensifying, and/or 
dematerialising material and energy loops 
to reduce the resource inputs into and 
the waste and emission leakage out of 
an organisational system. This comprises 
recycling measures (cycling), use phase 
extensions (extending), a more intense use 
phase (intensifying), and the substitution 
of products by service and software 
solutions (dematerialising) 
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2020, p. 7).

The shift away from traditional linear business 
models towards a circular business model represents 
a significant change for businesses and consumers. 
As such, circular businesses are likely to meet with 
resistance and may need support as society and its 
institutions and systems adapt over time. In this chapter, 
we explore the types of CBMs already operating in 
India and investigate the barriers and opportunities 
for driving greater uptake of CBMs for plastics.

Table 3.1 Circular business model framework

Adapted from Geissdoerfer et al. (2020) and Bocken et al. (2014, 2016).

TYPOLOGY

PLASTIC RELEVANT EXAMPLES

Substituting

Replacing plastic packaging with non-plastic 
alternatives

Extending

Long warranty electrical and electronics, 
upgradable mobile phones, repair of 
e-products, second-hand sales, reusable 
packaging

Intensifying

Car rental/sharing, internet cafes, 
computer and phone leasing, toy, tool and 
equipment libraries, agricultural equipment 
cooperatives, ride-pooling, taxis (instead of 
owning a car)

Cycling

Upcycling plastic products, take-back 
schemes, recycling plastics, industrial parks 
using waste plastics as inputs





To investigate CBMs, we compared frameworks from 
the literature and adapted a framework from several 
sources – see Table 3.1 above. The framework identifies 
four major categories of CBMs. Using this framework, we 
undertook a literature and practice review (see Retamal 
et al., 2021) to identify businesses currently operating 
in India that fit with this CBM framework for plastics. 
We subsequently conducted semi-structured interviews 
with 16 businesses, with the aim of sampling for diversity 
across the four categories. Finally, we undertook a 
qualitative analysis of interviews using a mix of inductive 
and deductive approaches using Dedoose software9
9 Dedoose Version 9.0.90, cloud application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data (2023). Los Angeles, CA: 
SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC www.dedoose.com.

. 



3.2 What is working well?

Circular business models and innovations offer alternatives 
to the established norms but face some challenges in 
their operation and scalability. Through the stakeholder 
interviews with businesses adopting CBMs in India, we 
have identified barriers to mainstreaming CBMs and 
gathered ideas on actions that can help to enable CBMs 
and overcome the barriers. In this section, we draw on 
the interviews and literature to highlight aspects of the 
CBM ecosystem that are currently working well, as well 
as factors that are currently contributing to CBM success 
and creating an enabling business ecosystem for CBMs.

With growing awareness of plastics issues and the 
establishment of plastics-focused policies, there has 
been a recent increase in the number CBMs set up in 
relation to plastics. This study identified the existence 
of both older ‘established’ and newer ‘emerging’ 
circular business model types for plastics in India. 

‘Established’ CBMs in India relate to:

• Recovery of materials for recycling and energy recovery.
• Services that avoid packaging (e.g., Dabbawallas).
• Repair, reuse, resale (formal or informal businesses) (e.g., 
for electrical and electronic goods).


Newer examples of CBMs described as ‘emerging’ include: 

• Renewable materials for packaging, as a substitute for 
plastic (SUPs). 
• Technology platforms for aggregation of recyclables 
enabling EPR.


These examples highlight which business types already 
fit within established business ecosystems, and which 
may be in the process of establishing and may encounter 
resistance. The CBM framework specifies four categories 
of business models, namely: substituting, intensifying, 
extending and cycling. In the practice review, it became 
evident that CBMs relating to substituting and cycling were 
fairly common in relation to single-use and packaging 
plastics. Businesses ‘extending’ product lifetimes through 
repair and reuse are also common in relation to electrical 
and electronic goods and automobiles. Businesses 
‘intensifying’ plastic use were the least common in India. 

Key CBM trends

1. ‘Cycling’ / recycling businesses are established and new 
CBMs are emerging


The recovery of materials for recycling and energy 
recovery is one of the most established CBMs in India. 
This is achieved primarily through the informal sector. 
Many start-ups and companies are now innovating to 
streamline it in a more formal or organised manner. 
There are around 91 start-ups working in the field of 
collection and recycling of various types of waste.10
10 https://www.recyclingstartups.org/country/India/

 

2. Second-hand goods market continues to flourish in India


There are some very well organised second-hand 
markets in India, such as Chor Bazaar in Mumbai, which 
has been operating for over 150 years. With the advent 
of smartphones and the increasing rate of internet 
penetration, this sector has become more formalised and 
is growing. E-commerce platforms such as olx, quickr, 
secondhandbazaar, and kiabza help to trade pre-used 
products more easily. Among the second-hand goods 
category, the trading of electronics is dominant. The 
second-hand smartphone market in India is expected to 
double in three years to USD 4.6 billion by 2025, according 
to a joint report by the mobile devices industry body 
India Cellular and Electronics Association (ICEA) and 
research firm IDC.11
11 https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/second-hand-smartphone-market-in-india-to-reach-4-6-bn-in-2025-report-122012801920_1.html

 Other categories of second-hand 
goods broadly include automobiles, furniture, home 
appliances, electronics, toys, sports, and branded clothes. 
This type of business model not only extends the life of a 
product but also significantly reduces waste generation. 

3. Many alternative packaging materials are emerging with 
lots of innovation occurring


Many industries have started using innovative ideas to 
substitute for single-use and packaging plastics. There 
are two common replacement options for plastics: (i) 
bioplastics or bio-based polymers, and (ii) renewable 
fibre-based alternatives. Bioplastics are made from 
non-fossil sources, such as agricultural byproducts, 
but are manufactured into plastics. Bioplastics may 
have similar properties to regular plastics, or they 
may be biodegradable or compostable, so there is 
significant variability in their environmental impacts. 

Many businesses in India are working on fully compostable 
natural alternatives for manufacturing disposable 
cutlery/plates/bowls with materials such as sugarcane 
bagasse/waste (Ecoware, 2021, Dinearth, 2022, Pappco 
Greenware, 2021), areca-nut leaves (Ecotopia, 2021), or 
bamboo (Bamboo India, 2021). There have also been 
attempts to make edible cutlery (bowls and spoons) using 
cereals (Edible Pro, 2021). Paper bags and paper straws 
have become the preferred choice of many consumers. 
However, as per the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) done by 
UNEP (2020), both paper and bio-derived plastics could 



be major greenhouse gas emitters. Reuse of all types of 
bags/products needs to be promoted, as this extends 
the lifetime of products and reduces impacts from the 
production of new products as well as waste management.

4. EPR requirements are encouraging innovation and new 
business models 


EPR is ‘an environmental policy approach in which a 
producer’s responsibility for a product is extended 
to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle’ 
(OECD, 2016), especially for the take-back, recycling, and 
final disposal of the product. In India, EPR regulations 
were first introduced in India in 2012 to focus on 
e-waste and was extended to plastic waste in 2016. 
Other products such as batteries, tyres and rubber, 
and solar photovoltaics are under consideration. 

One of the main challenges in effectively implementing 
EPR has been the dispersed waste collection networks in 
India, which are highly localised and dominated by the 
informal sector. As discussed in the policy frameworks 
chapter (see Chapter 2), the informal sector’s role has been 
largely ignored in formal policy, especially policies related 
to plastics and EPR. Thus, we found an increasing number 
of examples of technology platforms which fill the gap of 
connecting the informal sector to formal EPR collection, 
thereby assisting in improved EPR implementation.

One example is Recykal, which is an end-to-end waste 
management platform connecting actors within the 
waste management and recycling value chain. The 
business hosts an online marketplace to congregate waste 
actors and to facilitate transparency and traceability 
of waste material flows. Recykal also partners with 
producers and brand owners to implement plastic take-
back and customer engagement programs. Another 
social enterprise is Saahas Zero Waste, which offers 
waste management services connecting consumers 
and recyclers. The business also performs the role 
of being a PRO on behalf of corporate businesses, 
technology parks and resident welfare associations. 

5. Digital technologies and integration of informal workers 
into business models


Digital technologies have been an enabler for integrating 
the informal sector into new ‘cycling’ businesses. 
Kabadiwalla Connect uses ICT and IoT-based platforms to 
set up a network of ‘kabadiwallas’ (waste aggregators) to 
improve the efficiency of the informal recycling system. 
It facilitates people segregating and selling recyclable 
waste materials (such as plastic, paper, metal scrap, glass) 
to local kabadiwallas, who in turn sell it to be upcycled, 
or recycled for a profit, to larger waste aggregators and 
processors (Kabadiwalla Connect, 2021). Similarly, Banyan 
Nation, one of India’s first vertically integrated plastic 
recycling companies, uses a proprietary data intelligence 
platform that integrates thousands of informal recyclers 
into its supply chain. The platform has also been extended 
to municipalities to better understand city waste flows 
and use a data-centric approach to manage their waste 
more efficiently, effectively and economically. Recykal 
also provides an end-to-end waste management platform 
that connects and facilitates transactions across all 
stakeholders in the waste management and recycling value 
chain. Its digital solutions help organise the fragmented 
waste management sector and facilitate transparent 
and traceable material flows with real-time visibility. 

The enabling environment

Interviewees in this study referred to a number of 
existing and potential factors that can contribute 
to mainstreaming CBMs in India. These are:

Indian Government policy focus on plastics

Interviewees explained that the broad policy landscape 
focused on solid waste and plastics has contributed to 
awareness and demand for alternatives. The Swachh 
Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India Mission) has brought waste 
issues to mainstream awareness, and single-use plastic 
bans and extended producer responsibility have a direct 
impact on businesses. The UN Global Plastics Treaty 
(UNEP, 2022) is also an important global driver of action 
on plastics. Businesses explained that policies inspired 
new products, spread awareness faster and generated 
demand. Grant and accelerator schemes have also helped 
to support the growing number of waste-related start-ups. 
There is, however, a need for stronger implementation 
of existing policies, not just at national and state level, 
but also at the panchayat (village) level, as they have the 
potential to make decisions about waste and sanitation. 

Growing awareness, advocacy and collaboration

The international focus on plastics has helped drive 
awareness and has also enabled collaborations and funding 
from overseas. This external pressure helps to support 
CBMs in India. There is also demand from tourism for eco-
businesses. Organisations noted that they wanted to see 
more two-way exchanges between South-South countries. 

Several businesses that were interviewed play an 
education and advocacy role in relation to plastics issues 
and the alternatives. Their activities range from doing 
talks and workshops, to running online courses, to 
engaging with different stakeholders. Overall, interest 
and acceptance of plastic alternatives is growing but still 
has a long way to go. Interviewees explained that greater 
environmental awareness is needed to generate demand. 

Partnerships with government have also been 
particularly helpful for enabling legitimacy of 
waste organisations. As one suggested, ‘building 
partnerships with different government entities in all our 
programs has made our programs a lot more credible 
and much more engaging with the community’.



3.3 Current challenges 
and opportunities 

Circular business models are diverse. As described in 
Section 3.1, they include businesses offering i) alternative 
materials to replace plastic products (substituting), ii) 
plastic products that have been designed to last longer 
and be reused (extending), iii) plastic products that can be 
used more intensively among multiple users (intensifying), 
and iv) plastics that can be collected and recycled into new 
products (cycling). As each of these business model types 
have different offerings, they encounter some distinctive 
challenges. Some common challenges include costs and 
supply chain issues as well as difficulty accessing finance.

3.3.1 Costs and supply chain issues

Businesses substituting plastics noted that plastic is very 
cheap and it is difficult for alternatives to compete on 
price, so customers pay a premium. Businesses offering 
services for more intensive use of products highlighted 
that maintenance and operational costs are higher for 
renting equipment and conducting deliveries. Some 
‘intensifying’ businesses also require reverse logistics, 
which necessitates cooperation within the supply 
chain. Some waste management businesses enabling 
recycling spoke of fragile profit margins, fragmented 
supply chains and difficulty accessing finance.

Renewable fibre-based alternatives to plastic are less cost 
competitive and are more vulnerable to farming/sourcing 
issues as well as decomposition depending on climate. 
One manufacturer explained that a fibre-based plate sent 
to Pune was still intact after two years, while the same 
plate sent to Goa needed to be packed very carefully due 
to the humidity. Renewable fibre-based substitutes are less 
economical than plastic and cost more to transport as they 
are heavier and larger. The shorter shelf life of fibre-based 
products especially became a problem during pandemic 
shutdown periods as they spoiled while in storage.

Fragmented supply chains and the need for cooperation 
can pose challenges for new markets. The informal 
sector plays a very important role in the collection and 
recycling of plastics, so cooperation must be developed 
within this highly fragmented supply chain, where 
there is often a lack of data. This becomes a larger 
problem when recycling businesses are successful; 
as one recycling aggregator explained, ‘as we scale it 
becomes more challenging to work with a fragmented 
supply chain’, due to uncertainty about volumes. 

Beyond the collection and processing, recycling 
businesses also need to find a buyer and end 
market for the recycled plastic content. As one 
business explained, ‘it’s a lot of figuring out what 
is the right application, industry, feedstock and 
who will buy the next product that comes out’. 

In a slightly different example, reuse schemes require 
cooperation and arrangements for reverse logistics. For 
example, a cafe needs to promote the use of reusable cups 
and take them back on behalf of the reusable cup provider. 

3.3.2 Policy issues

In terms of policy-related barriers for businesses, there 
was a general awareness of the difficulty for businesses 
to transition to a circular business model and the need 
for policy to drive change. However, some stakeholders 
highlighted the need for ‘baby steps’ or phased changes 
to make it easier for industry and consumers.

Plastics recycling businesses said that progress is 
difficult where there is a lack of policies and targets 
or a lack of policy implementation. For example, 
recycling businesses explained that in jurisdictions 
without baseline data, monitoring or KPIs for recycling, 
it is much harder to increase recycling. Stakeholders 
also emphasised that the plastic bans do not include all 
single-use plastic items. For example, disposable coffee 
cups have a plastic lining, and while they are not banned, 
there is a lack of incentives to use alternative cups.

Policy awareness may be limited and this affects 
implementation. While some stakeholders felt that Swachh 
Bharat Abhiyan brought ‘the whole conversation on waste’ 
to mainstream awareness, others described a lack of public 
awareness about specific laws in relation to plastic. As one 
organisation explained, ‘the problem everyone has is that 
there is law but no one knows that the law exists’. This 
highlights a lack of awareness and enforcement of plastic 
bans limits their impact and influence in the market.

Only one regulatory barrier was identified, where 
recycled material cannot be used for food grade packaging 
in India. However, one interviewee noted that there 
are some examples overseas (e.g., New Zealand) where 
post-industrial recycled material can be used, rather than 
post-consumer recycled content. This type of concession 
could expand the market for recycled plastics.



3.3.3 Informality

Recycling businesses highlighted a number of challenges 
they encountered due to informality in supply chains, 
particularly in relation to the lack of data, difficulty 
accessing finance, and ambiguity in the policy regime. 

There is a lack of data on the quantity and 
value of waste collected by the informal sector, 
which makes it hard to quantify opportunities. 
Consequently, it is also hard to obtain finance when 
the informal sector is key to the supply chain. 

‘The recognition of each and every aggregator 
is still lacking by the system. People know 
the waste collector, but they do not know the 
stakeholders in the next aggregator who is more 
like a waste bank. We do not yet understand 
the power they have in the value chain.’

Recycling aggregator

Recyclers explained that smaller aggregators and scrap 
shops need to be recognised for their role in the supply 
chain, and that there is policy ambiguity around their 
role, which creates confusion for supply chain partners.

One organisation highlighted the need for 
capacity building for informal sector workers 
to increase the value of the waste they collect 
and to improve hygiene and sanitation.

3.3.4 Lack of finance 

Access to finance was a common problem for businesses. 
Gaining support for an innovative new alternative to plastic 
is a challenge as businesses need to provide evidence of 
returns but need initial investment to produce the evidence 
– ‘it’s always egg or hen first’. In some cases, recycling 
businesses require advance payments to establish their 
systems, but municipalities can be unwilling to provide 
this. Businesses often need major capital investment in 
order to sign long-term contracts with municipalities.

Accessing finance is also linked to a lack of data, 
as funders are looking for metrics of success. Small 
businesses can find it difficult to quantify or do not 
align with traditional metrics, such as product sales. 
To gain long-term contracts, businesses need data 
and proof of contracts, and this information is not 
available when working with the informal sector.

Data is also needed to verify sustainability claims and to 
avoid greenwashing, and some businesses would like to 
see the use of standards to demonstrate green credentials.

3.3.5 Lack of technology and waste 
infrastructure

Recycling businesses were particularly affected by the 
systems and environments in which they operate. As 
one explained, ‘the problem that we are facing right 
now is the infrastructural gap’ where a lack of waste 
infrastructure, including for collection, baling and 
processing plastic, severely reduces opportunities 
for recycling. Some businesses also cited a lack of 
technology or physical storage space as limiting factors.

3.3.6 Lack of awareness

A few businesses mentioned a lack of consumer and 
industry awareness as a barrier. For example, a lack 
of awareness of the environmental impacts of plastics 
and a lack of awareness of alternative offerings. As 
one start-up business explained, ‘there was a lack of 
trust and low demand for the services we provided’, 
which slowly changed, and now ‘the ecosystem 
is developing, the market is heating up and more 
companies are doing this in the next few years. All 
of this gives us more confidence to work further’.

3.3.7 Opportunities

Based on this study, there are several initiatives that could 
address the barriers identified by businesses. These include: 

• Integrating the informal sector in legal frameworks 
to clarify their role, improve working conditions and 
reliability, and facilitate data collection and access to 
finance.
• Increase awareness and implementation of existing 
policies, as well as awareness of the impact of plastics to 
drive the transition.
• Work with the financial sector and provide funding 
arrangements specifically for CBMs.
• Invest in technology to improve the performance 
characteristics of renewable fibre-based packaging 
alternatives.
• Invest in waste management infrastructure to provide 
infrastructure for improved recycling.
• Create a conducive ecosystem for development of 
markets for recycled and other secondary products 
including required standards, certification and 
verification mechanisms.
• Establish network-based knowledge and support 
platforms to exchange solutions, good practices, 
and learnings specifically for CBMs. Connections and 
networks foster innovation and promotion. As one 
business explained, ‘We need to build a landscape where 
the circular economy is not just about technology, but is 
also process and people driven’.
• Enable South-South exchanges to share knowledge 
around CBMs.




In addition, successful business models operating 
overseas can be adapted for the Indian context. The 
following are examples of reuse businesses operating in 
Australia, which would fit in the ‘intensifying’ category.

Green Caffeen12
12 Read more at https://greencaffeen.com.au 

 is an Australian reusable coffee cup 
system that allows cafes to sign-up for free, and provides 
cafes and consumers with an alternative to disposable 
coffee cups. More than 700 cafes and 35,000 customers 
currently use this service, which allows customers to use 
the cups for coffee at a participating cafe, then return the 
used cup to any other participating cafe at a later date, 
where it will be cleaned and made available for reuse. 

Cercle13
13 See how Cercle cups work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjwlvrQcCNc. Read more about the business at http://www.cercle.com.au

 offers a reusable coffee cup service in Australian 
offices. The business model follows a simple take-back 
system whereby takeaway metal cups (often without 
lids) are made available to customers at a cafe, or coffee 
cart. The cups can later be returned to Cercle Drop Pods 
located in workplaces. These cups are then washed 
and made available for reuse by cafes. Since April 2021, 
the business has successfully diverted 104,555 coffee 
cups from landfill. The business currently services four 
commercial buildings in Sydney and has been able to 
bring down the cost of using the service to around 70 
cents (~ INR 40) per cup, closing the gap with single-use 
cups which cost around 10–15 cents (~ INR 6–8) per cup.



3.4 Which possibilities should 
be implemented in India?

Based on the barriers and enablers identified through this 
study, and further ideas from the literature, we can make a 
number of recommendations for action to drive the uptake 
of CBMs. The circular economy offers a comprehensive 
strategy for managing plastics, and to reach their full 
potential, business models that are circular must generate 
value for society and the environment in addition to 
profit. In this section, we outline our recommendations in 
terms of policy, technology, business and market support, 
financing and developing the business ecosystem.

Enabling policy 

• Develop practical, implementable and unambiguous 
policy frameworks and schemes.
• Implement existing government policies and enforce 
regulations that could enable development of CBMs for 
plastics.
• Introduce fiscal and tax incentives for development and 
promotion of plastic waste-based products and uptake of 
such businesses.
• Amend public procurement policy to preference circular 
businesses.


Business and market development support 
programme

• Support further development of circular business 
incubators and accelerators through public-private 
partnership models that can offer funding, mentoring, 
capacity building, and networking (academia, industry 
and civil society).
• Develop standards, certification and verification 
mechanisms to enable development of markets for 
recycled and other secondary products from plastic 
waste.


Highlight success stories and innovative work by start-
ups, municipalities and private partnership-based projects 
that address plastic waste and promote circularity.

Leverage technology including digital

• Develop a compendium of commercially proven 
technological solutions of varying investment range 
(from low to high) and automation (from manual to fully 
automatic) for management of plastic waste.
• Build strong communication platforms for promoting 
CBMs that market plastic products as services and 
promote sharing and leasing.
• Use information platforms and digital technologies 
to help drive inclusion of the informal sector and 
marginalised communities while making access more 
equitable.
• Promote and strengthen waste exchange platforms and 
marketplaces that reduce recovery and transportation 
costs for companies generating and collecting waste 
while also making it more affordable for users to find 
what they need. 
• Create an effective waste collection and management 
system assisted by technology-based processes for 
tracking the quality and quantity of material and 
products across the plastic waste value chain.


Innovative finance

• Encourage Public-Private-Community partnerships for 
innovation in business models and financing strategies 
for investment in waste management infrastructure.
• Explore social investment platforms (peer-to-peer 
lending) for financial inclusion and empowerment of 
workers in the informal waste management sector.
• Develop innovative credit products to meet 
entrepreneurial aspirations of informal sector workers.
• Set up a Viability Gap Fund (Kapur-Bakshi et al., 2021) 
dedicated to circular business model initiatives to cover 
high start-up expenses, shorten long payback periods, 
and boost technological advancement.
• Set up a Revolving Fund that can be used expressly to 
encourage the circularity of business models by enabling 
those that are thought to be at risk to acquire finance for 
their business models or particular resource efficiency 
strategies.


A robust plastic waste management 
ecosystem

• Establish a circular business network to provide support 
and exchange knowledge on solutions, good practices, 
and learnings specifically for CBMs.
• Rethink the waste management business model in 
municipalities, with shared investment and profit, 
creating a win-win situation for all stakeholders, 
including the informal sector.
• Establish a network of business support service providers 
(e.g., special purpose vehicles) to sustain CBMs over the 
longer term.




3.5 Recommendations 
and timeframe 

Based on the barriers and enablers identified through this 
study, and further ideas from the literature, we can make a 
number of recommendations for action to drive the uptake 
of CBMs. The circular economy offers a comprehensive 
strategy for managing plastics, and to reach their full 
potential, business models that are circular must generate 
value for society and the environment in addition to 
profit. In this section, we outline our recommendations in 
terms of policy, technology, business and market support, 
financing and developing the business ecosystem.

Short-term priorities (to 2025) 

• Build robust communication platforms to promote CBMs 
and highlight success stories and innovative work by 
start-ups, municipalities and private partnership-based 
projects that address plastic waste and promote circular 
business activities.
• Support further development of circular business 
incubators and accelerators through public-private 
partnership models that can offer funding, mentoring, 
capacity building, and networking with academia, 
industry and civil society. 
• Develop a compendium of commercially proven 
technological solutions of varying investment range 
(from low to high) and automation (from manual to fully 
automatic) for management of plastic waste. 
• Promote and strengthen waste exchange platforms and 
marketplaces that reduce recovery and transportation 
costs for companies generating and collecting waste 
while also making it more affordable for users to find 
what they need.
• Encourage Public-Private-Community partnerships for 
innovation in business models and financing strategies 
for investment in waste management infrastructure.
• Establish a circular business network to exchange 
knowledge on solutions, good practices, and learnings 
specifically for CBMs, and provide support services (e.g., 
special purpose vehicles) to sustain CBMs over the longer 
term.


The key actors and stakeholders for carrying out the 
above collaborative actions include relevant ministries, 
departments and institutions of the Government of 
India such as NITI Aayog, MoSDE, MoST, MoMSME, 
MoE; commerce and industry associations such as CII, 
FICCI, NASSCOM, ASSOCHAM; start-ups, businesses, 
incubators and accelerators such as Indian STEP & Business 
Incubator Association, Entrepreneurs Association of India; 
finance institutions; municipalities and ULBs; workers 
in the informal waste management sector and their 
associations; corporate, brand owners and organisations 
under the ambit of EPR guidelines and rules; and civil 
societies, NGOs, and other community institutions. 



Medium-term priorities (to 2030)

• Introduce fiscal and tax incentives to encourage the 
development and promotion of plastic waste-based 
products and uptake of such businesses; amend public 
procurement policies to preference circular businesses.
• Develop standards, certification and verification 
mechanisms to enable the development of markets 
for recycled and other secondary products from 
plastic waste. 
• Explore social investment platforms (peer-to-peer 
lending) for financial inclusion and empowerment of 
workers in the informal waste management sector. 
• Develop credit products that prioritise circular 
economy and meet entrepreneurial aspirations of 
informal sector workers. 
• Set up funds that are geared to assess the potential 
of circular economy businesses and technology, 
including a Viability Gap Fund (Kapur-Bakshi et al., 
2021) to cover high start-up expenses and shorten 
long payback periods, and a Revolving Fund to invest 
in next-stage circular business with an expectation of 
commercial returns.


The key actors and stakeholders for carrying out the 
above collaborative actions include relevant government 
departments, institutions and ministries such as 
MoEFCC, CPCB, SPCBs, MoF, MoCI, MoMSME; standards, 
accreditation and certification bodies such as BIS, QCI; 
financial institutions, social and environmental investors; 
corporate, brand owners and organisations under the 
ambit of EPR guidelines and rules; and relevant commerce 
and industry associations; supported by other actors in 
the business ecosystem such as start-ups, businesses, 
incubators and accelerators; waste management agencies, 
workers in the informal waste management sector and 
their associations; technology, machinery and equipment 
suppliers; civil societies and grassroots organisations.

Long-term priorities (beyond 2030)

• Create an effective waste collection and management 
system assisted by technology-based processes for 
tracking the quality and quantity of material and 
products across the plastic waste value chain.


The key actors and stakeholders for carrying out the 
above collaborative action over the long term include 
municipalities and local bodies in rural and urban areas, 
waste management agencies, consumers, polymer 
producers, manufacturers, brand owners, and organisations 
under the ambit of EPR guidelines, CPCB, SPCBs, start-ups 
and businesses offering circular solutions, workers in the 
informal waste management sector, waste aggregators 
and recyclers. This requires leadership and ongoing 
support from relevant ministries and government 
departments, which can be provided through the 
institutionalisation of an autonomous special purpose 
vehicle (e.g. Indian Plastics Circular Economy Forum), 
financial institutions, technology providers, commerce 
and industry associations, and civil societies and NGOs.



Pertinent application of 
mechanical and advanced 
recycling (chemical) 
technologies could be a 
viable and safe solution 
for keeping plastic waste 
streams in circularity 

• Mechanical and advanced 
recycling (chemical) 
technologies can complement 
one another.
• Enforcement of full phase 
robotics, software solutions 
and artificial intelligence in 
the sorting and recycling 
processes will provide a clean 
homogeneous stream of plastic 
feedstock. Mechanical recycling 
should be reserved for higher 
value, cleaner waste streams.
• Advanced recycling can 
tolerate higher levels of 
lower value, mixed, or 
contaminated waste streams.
• Deployment of Advanced 
Recycling units will require 
careful LCA to ensure that 
the process is safe, effective 
and sustainable for the 
given circumstances.




4 Plastic recycling 
technologies

4.1 Introduction 

The transition from a linear to a circular economy 
for plastics is critical to the Indian economy given the 
challenges associated with recycling plastic waste, its 
potential value as a resource across the value chain, 
and consequent impact on greenhouse gas emissions. 
LCA studies have indicated that substituting virgin 
plastics with recycled plastics can reduce emissions by 
20–50% (d’Ambrières, 2019, Lai et al., 2022). A modern 
and viable plastics recycling industry is essential for a 
sustainable circular economy for plastics and important 
for India’s progress on the SDGs and its participation 
in the forthcoming Global Plastics Treaty (2024).

Recycling of plastic waste in India encompasses 73% of 
all plastic waste, but effective technologies for recycling 
are needed to create a true circular economy for plastics, 
as reported in our findings. Currently, 61% of generated 
plastic waste is recycled, 12% is reutilised and 27% is being 
mismanaged (Baynes et al., 2021). Mechanical recycling 
recovers plastic material from plastic waste in a number of 
steps including sorting, segregation, cleaning, shredding 
and thermo-mechanical extrusion to form granulates 
without significant changes to their chemical composition. 
These granulates are used for making different recycled 
products or mixed with virgin plastics for manufacturing 
of products. Chemical recycling converts plastic waste 
into monomers, fuels and value-added chemicals. 
Mechanical recycling has a 94% share of the Indian market, 
supported by chemical recycling and alternative uses. 
These recycling technologies delay the end-of-life of 
plastic and limit resource consumption. However, some 
of these technologies downcycle the plastic and result in 
open-loop recycling, limiting their potential secondary 
uses after two or three life cycles. In a circular economy 
for plastics, there is a need for sustainable recycling 
technologies, with a major emphasis on keeping material 
in the loop through subsequent recycling and reuse.

We assessed what is needed for India to pursue a 
circular economy for plastics by developing a framework 
and baseline study in five stages. The first stage 
was stakeholder engagement which included onsite 
investigations with plastic waste recyclers to gain a deep 
understanding of current plastic waste recycling practices 
in India. The next stage was to prepare an inventory 
of recycling technologies and analyse primary data to 
determine optimal recycling technologies using Multi-
Criteria Decision Analysis. Simultaneously, data on PWM 
and the circular economy for plastics were collected from 
literature, statistical documents, discussions, working 
papers, government reports and policy documents. The 
third stage identified gaps and challenges in the current 
recycling system. The fourth stage identified regulatory 
and voluntary opportunities for the development 
of recycling infrastructure and industrial zones. The 
implementation barriers to these opportunities were 
then identified. The final stage involved the development 
of recommendations and enforcement mechanisms for 
policy makers, regulatory authorities and industrialists. 

Hence, this chapter sets out India’s potential to develop 
plastic waste recycling technologies that will support 
and accelerate India’s transition to a circular economy 
for plastics, through the uptake of advanced recycling 
technologies and actions required to address the associated 
challenges in the short, medium and long term.

The chapter confirms that significant steps need to 
be taken over the next decade for rapid transition 
towards a circular economy for plastics, with a ‘full-
system approach’ to advance plastic waste recycling 
technologies while considering sustainability, 
resource efficiency, circularity and standards. 



4.2 Overview of recycling 
technology in India

Mechanical recycling is the leading technology across 
the sector, which is also dominated by small-to-medium 
sized local facilities servicing industrial precincts. 
However, several factors including variations in quality 
of feedstock, lack of connectivity and awareness among 
stakeholders, poor investment in recycling infrastructure 
and lack of standards for plastic waste recycling, are 
among the issues making it difficult to establish large-
scale facilities on an economic basis. Data on post-
industrial plastic waste generation and recycling is 
not available. Similarly, data on textile waste which 
utilises mechanically recycled PET is not available.

Registered and unregistered recycling units

While there are 5,776 recycling units in India, most 
rely on a large informal workforce with little capital 
investment. Plastic waste recycling in India is mainly due 
to the large number of people in the informal workforce 
whose livelihoods depend on collecting, sorting, and 
recovering valuable plastic from mixed waste (Neo et 
al., 2021). Unlike other countries, India does not export 
plastic waste and instead manages it domestically through 
regulatory bodies and organisations such as ULBs.

According to CPCB, post-consumer plastic waste generated 
by various states/UTs is used in recycling, road construction, 
waste-to-energy (WtE) plants, waste to oil (WtO) plants 
and co-processing in cement plants. However, exact 
quantities used is not provided by most states/UTs. 
Currently, there are 4,953 (3,715 plastic manufacturers/
producers, 896 recyclers, 47 compostable manufacturing, 
295 multi layered plastic) registered units in 30 states/
UTs. There are 823 unregistered plastic manufacturing/
recycling units operating in nine states/UTs (CPCB, 2020). 

Stakeholder engagement: Major findings

Mechanical recycling the dominant 
technology

Mechanical recycling is the dominant technology in 
the recycling market with a 94% share, followed by 
energy recovery and alternate use (5%), and chemical 
recycling or pyrolysis (1%), (Shanker et al., 2022). 

Mechanical recycling of post-industrial and post-consumer 
polyethylene plastic waste to produce regranulates and 
recycled products such as pipes, films and bags was 
observed. Recycling of expanded polystyrene (EPS), also 
known as thermocol, is carried out by hot melt extrusion 
and alternatively through crushing and grinding. There 
are approximately ten chemical recycling plants that use 
either pyrolysis or catalytic pyrolysis for production of fuel, 
whereas one industry is involved in depolymerisation of 
PET to obtain the parent monomer for closed-loop recycling 
of PET. Some plants, in their pilot stage, are investigating 
the extraction of carbon nanomaterials from plastic waste 
for use in semiconductor and electronics applications. A 
few start-ups are utilising post-consumer plastic waste for 
end-of-life options such as tiles, furniture and home wares; 
however, the cost of recycled products is prohibitively 
expensive and needs incentivisation to reduce it. 

Discussions with stakeholders during our study showed 
that mechanical recycling is an effective and widely-used 
tool for achieving a circular economy for plastics. In most 
cases, mechanical recyclers use fabricated and completely 
indigenous plastic recycling machinery. Prominent 
recycling technologies that are widely practised across 
India include single screw extrusion and pelletisation, 
blown film extrusion, post-consumer PET to washed PET 
flakes, PS and EPS recycling. Some recycling units produce 
semi-virgin grade recyclate to produce LDPE films and 
straps for high strength applications. The recycling rate 
of PET in India is significantly higher (around 90%) when 
compared to other polymers due to considerable market 
demand for PET recyclates; however, quality data on 
closed-loop and open-loop recycling is not available.

Single screw extrusion is most prevalent in the mechanical 
recycling units due to its associated benefits of low-
cost, simple design, ruggedness and reliability. Single 
screw extrusion is reliable for extrusion of less complex 
ingredients with low melting points, such as HDPE, 
LDPE, PP and ABS. However, the use of twin screw can 
enhance the output and productivity of plastics with 
highly viscous melt, such as EPS and other polymer 
blends, by providing homogeneous mixing. Other 
automation required for segregation, cleaning and 
shredding of plastic waste feedstock also needs technical 
advancement to result in less resource consumption. 



Post-industrial plastic waste recycling with ‘in-house’ 
material recycling facilities for recycling the scrap 
generated in virgin units is the best example of industrial 
symbiosis. Such examples are observed at Nagpur for 
LDPE manufacturing, Pune for recycling of EPS waste, and 
Chennai for recycling of industrial plastic waste. A chemical 
recycling plant in Pune has installed smaller capacity plants 
near the city to recycle plastic waste from nearby areas 
instead of larger capacity plants outside the city. This, in 
turn, reduces costs of transportation and overall processing. 

Many chemical recyclers have ties with municipal 
corporations for providing plastic waste. Some have 
tie-ups with NGOs that raise awareness about source 
segregation and collect plastic waste from nearby 
areas. It was observed that many recyclers have good 
networks for supplying feedstock or recyclate to one 
another, both inter- and intra-city and state-wide.

Inclusive systems at local levels

Irrespective of proper and designated PWM systems 
at local levels, recycling of plastic waste is successfully 
implemented in India because of the inclusive systems. An 
ecosystem where the informal sector is involved, along 
with indigenous machinery and local government support, 
performs well in comprehensive plastic waste recycling and 
management. Government initiation plays a very important 
role in successfully establishing recycling facilities and 
introducing PWM rules effectively in the system. 

The most economically successful business models appear 
where recycling facilities are clustered in industrial zones, 
where post-industrial waste is easily available, saving 
costs on transportation and cleaning. The recyclates 
produced are reused by such industries as their primary 
feedstock, establishing industrial symbiosis and helping 
in maintaining circularity. Similar findings are made in 
our study for a cluster of industries in Chennai, India 
for post-consumer plastic waste flows. The techno-
economic-environmental analysis showed better economic 
feasibility due to readily available plastic waste and 
reduced transportation costs. This provides an example 
of gate-to-gate recycling where the plastic waste before 
entering the gate (consumer) gets recycled and again 
used as a feedstock, whereas post-consumer plastic waste 
recycling depicts a cradle to gate system boundary. 

A recycling unit visited in Haldwani, Uttarakhand, is 
involved in the production of recycled PE pipes using 
recycled pellets made from plastic waste. This post-
consumer unit has formalised the marginalised community 
involved in sorting of plastic waste from municipal solid 
waste dumps situated 0.5 km from the recycling unit and is 
a typical example of inclusive growth. The transportation 
costs for raw materials are hence almost nil. The municipal 
corporation has provided the infrastructure and land, 
thus reducing the capital investment cost to the recycler. 

Lack of recycling for Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 
and other category (type seven) plastics 

PVC with resin identification code 3 is a widely used 
polymer in India. A major challenge in the recycling of 
PVC is the presence of high chlorine content and the 
high quantity of additives, mainly plasticisers, which 
are added during the manufacturing of various PVC 
plastic products. Flexible PVC is plasticised to increase 
its flexibility, whereas hard PVC is un-plasticised. PVC 
used in footwear has a different PVC content. Few 
examples of mechanical recycling of PVC exist; however, 
in order to produce high quality recyclate, PVC plastic 
waste with uniform material composition is required. 
PVC is an excluded polymer in WtE and WtO plants.

Similarly, large quantities of other category plastics 
come from the automobile and electrical and electronics 
industries. Limited recycling was observed for type seven 
(other category) plastic. Few stakeholders are recycling 
ABS, nylon and polycarbonate into regranulates; further 
research is required for the development of sustainable 
recycling technologies for these types of plastics. The 
associated challenges of the ‘other’ category are low 
waste flows, and variable chemical properties of polymer 
blends including the melting point. Innovations in recycling 
processes are required in order to address the challenges.

4.3 Overview of gaps 
in current recycling 

Field visits and stakeholder interviews revealed the 
following gaps and challenges for existing recycling 
technologies, which summarised in Figure 4.1.

While there are significant challenges to the growth of 
plastic waste recycling industries in India, the widespread 
practice and facilities for recycling are a sound platform 
on which opportunities for development can be pursued.



Figure 4.1 Gaps in current plastic waste recycling technologies in India

Gaps in PW recycling in India

 

Collection and sorting facilities

Proximity and location 
of recycling centres

Lack of systematic material 
recovery facilities

The dominance of manual 
sorting and segregation

Supply of 
contaminated, 
commingled, 
post-consumer 
feedstock

Sorting and segregation

Lack of advanced 
techniques and machinary

Low weight to volume 
of these plastics

Inadequate collection 
of rigid and flexible 
packaging waste and SUPs 
such as LDPE and EPS

Difficulty in transportation

Low ecomomical value 
for informal sector

Sustainability?

Data gaps

• Data on post-industrial PW generation 
• Lack of data transparency and statistics for computation of 
material flow 
• Gaps in transparency of overall performance efficiency 
& consequent environmental footprint of PW recycling 
technologies
• Gaps in data for utilization of recycled PW in textile sector
• Data on recycling EoL of textile waste is missing
• Data management and financial inclusion of kabadiwalas /
scrap yard and aggregators
• Data management ,reporting and traceability




Quality of recyclate 
No Product certificationLack of testing for structural 
and mechanical propertiesNo use of ecolabels/code 
for recycled contentNo consistency in thequality of recyclateTesting and certificationof recyclate at par 
with virgin resinsThermal degradation of 
polymer during extrusionComposition of PW feedstock 
Use of additive, colors and fillerTesting & certification of recyclate 
at par with virgin resinsChemical Recycling TechnologiesThe inability of 
plastic-derivedfuel to replace 
conventionalfuelsAbsence of upcycling 
technologiesMechanical Recycling TechnologiesPrevalent use of single screw 
extruders & low-tech machinesLack of technologies for recycling 
PVC & type seven plasticsLack of recycling technologies 
for processing single use 
& multi-layered plasticsHigh consumption of energy 
& water in processingLack of awareness of 
advancement in technologies 
such as melt-filtration system & 
advanced Eddy current SeparatorAbsence of gasification 
technologiesExistence of very few 
depolymerisation 
technologiesInability to process PET 
and PVC in pyrolysisPVC-Thermaldegradationgenerates HClPET-Thermal degradationgenerates benzoic, phthalic 
acid and terephthalates 
Corrosion of reactor & product contaminationFactors affecting qualityPlastic Waste Recycling Technologies

4.4 Opportunities to drive 
greater plastic recycling 

Addressing issues such as the poor quality of feedstock 
will require changes in both the technologies used 
and the behaviours of participants from consumers to 
manufacturers. From a technical point of view, progress 
can be driven by technological innovation, higher 
recycling targets, scalability and cost efficiency, strict 
environmental norms, promotion of circular design 
applications, development of circular design guidelines, 
and specification of minimum recycled plastic content 
for certain products. Opportunities occur all along 
the development path to a true circular economy for 
plastics, as discussed in the following section.

Common forum for technology options 

The creation of an online platform portal for a 
compendium of plastic recycling technologies would 
facilitate access to existing information, innovations and 
recent technological developments. The information 
could be substantiated by providing open access to 
stakeholders and technologists along with the contact 
details of the technology provider. It would disseminate 
free knowledge and a mechanism for a forum where 
interested stakeholders could share experiences, best 
practices and on-field problems which would serve the 
purpose of its creation. The link to the compendium 
should be included in PWM rules and governed by 
a board of experts for verification and inclusion.

Our interactive experience in India shows that the 
technological scenario is indigenous, with machinery 
fabricated locally. There is no information sharing platform 
for continuous updating of technologies, improvement in 
machinery and emerging product design. Improvements 
in machinery would include advancements in energy 
and water consumption reduction, as well as pollution 
control devices such as scrubbers for emission control. 
End-of-life recycling options for non-recyclable plastic 
waste with catalytic cracking, higher quality and increased 
quantity of output, that is, fuel and better utilisation of 
plastic waste, should be included in the compendium.

Information on investment costs, machinery production 
capacities, resource efficiency and technology costs could 
be included, in addition to alternative greener cleaning 
materials as alternatives to chemicals. Innovations 
in cleaning and separation of dust and metals would 
comprise an important section of the compendium.

Funding infrastructure for sustainable 
plastic waste recycling 

Lack of infrastructure for plastic waste collection and 
recycling remains a major problem, thus, its development 
for efficient plastic waste recycling is important. Many 
stakeholders have raised the issue of purchasing plastic 
waste at high costs which should be predominantly 
available at scheduled costs. The hierarchy in the waste 
collection system, from marginalised communities to 
formal waste collectors, can be harmonised as seen with 
Hasiru Dala Innovations, Bengaluru, where the informal 
sector in waste collection was professionalised by 
providing an identification card from the municipality. 

Investment in waste management infrastructure can be 
devised through smart city missions and the Swachh 
Bharat Mission (Clean India) (MoHUA, 2019), which 
aims to develop liveable and sustainable cities. Waste 
management can also contribute to meeting India’s aim 
for net zero emissions and provide a way forward for 
signing the Global Plastics Treaty planned for 2024.

Advanced sorting methods for supply of 
clean feedstock

Automated sorting techniques based on colour, gravity, 
and polymer type are less labour intensive and more 
accurate when compared to manual sorting. Some popular 
dry sorting techniques are spectrum-based, x-ray-based, 
air sorting, specific gravity-based, and electrostatic – 
based on electrostatic charges. Apart from dry sorting, 
there are wet sorting and chemical sorting techniques 
available with more sensitivity and delivering high 
transparency. Such kinds of transitions in innovations 
and advancement should be brought into the recycling 
ecosystem as these are lacking in the present market.

Innovations in coding, quality and 
subsequent scope of reuse

Plastic waste recycling is being made easier by special 
codes at the point of manufacture, and similar innovations 
in coding could also be provided to recycled plastic 
products, so they can be easily identified by consumers and 
recyclers. Recycled product codes will aid in understanding 
recycling potential, its frequency and also identification 
of the polymer composition. The quality of the recycled 
product can be optimised by categorising codes and thus 
help prevent mismanagement and leachate breakdown. 
Similarly, the polymer composition of product containers/
bottles should be revealed by manufacturers via providing 
separate coding to channelise better and logical recycling 
likelihood and establishing a standardised platform.



Certification and data tracking of plastic 
recycled products 

There are currently no criteria or material testing standards 
that exist for recyclates to test physical properties such as 
mechanical strength, tensile strength, Young’s modulus, 
etc. Moreover, standards for chemical properties, 
which establish composition in terms of adulterants 
and additives, can broaden the potential application 
of recycled materials, including food packaging.

It is necessary to standardise and implement protocols for 
the quality of recycled pellets and other recycled products. 
Recycling units should be able to ascertain the recycled 
content in a product for open-loop polymer to polymer 
recycling. QR codes, bar code systems, mobile apps and AI 
are some of the ways to identify virgin and recycled content. 
Defined standards are useful for further remanufacturing 
sectors or green product design of recyclate in all 
applications, particularly those that require material 
strength or will be used in food contact applications. 

Testing and certification of recycled plastics should be 
mandatory as it allows for the substitution of virgin 
polymer for end-use applications. This requires an 
elementary evaluation of the recycled polymer/product, 
including the batch frequency, in order to gain a better 
understanding of the consistency in the recycled polymer 
stream. This will further encourage consumers and 
manufacturers to use recycled polymers as a product or 
feedstock. To ensure the quality of the recycled products, 
the source of the plastic waste needs to be traceable.

Furthermore, recyclers should have a provision for 
registering themselves in the quality management system 
as per ISO 9001 or equivalent, and an audit program 
could review the records for compliance with respect 
to all the test methods used to check quality. The PWM 
rules specify the conditions under which plastic bags 
should be white in colour, or colours should use pigments 
and colourants as per Indian Standards listed under 
IS 9833:1981. Also, recycled plastic bags should meet 
Indian Standard IS 14534:1998 (Guidelines for recycling of 
plastics) with a dedicated label as recycled. Compostable 
plastics should have a label saying ‘compostable’ and 
should meet Indian Standard IS/ISO 17088:2088.

Certification should be accompanied by data transparency 
throughout the recycling process. Annual surveys for 
upstream production and importation, identification of 
polymer types, material flow and product applications 
should be conducted. This activity could be well supported 
by blockchain technology and an online tracking system.

Adequately funded R&D for plastic waste 
recycling technologies

Committed and adequately funded R&D is required for the 
development of advanced plastic recycling infrastructure. 
Several technologies such as transitions in machinery for 
improved efficiency, better material recovery facilities 
with sensors/AI for sorting, advance pressure washing 
systems, crushers and grinders and screw extruders, and 
suitable fluidised bed reactors are important in recycling. 
Reactors capable of scaling up large quantities of plastic 
waste need extensive research on reactor design. 

Approaches in research funding for PWM towards 
upcycling technologies, gasification, catalytic pathways, 
hydrocracking, and product redesign and remanufacturing 
are required. This aligns with efforts under the flagship 
‘Make in India’ program to encourage development of 
indigenously developed advanced recycling systems. 

Financial incentives for participants in 
plastic waste recycling 

Transformation of plastic waste as a cashable commodity 
can be realised by incentivising recovery and higher 
recycling rates and participation of various stakeholders 
involved in plastic waste recycling. This can be achieved 
within the policy guidelines for various stakeholders 
including municipal corporations, plastic recyclers, 
waste collectors, and consumers. Incentive schemes 
should aim to be inclusive, formalised and must address 
the financial challenges faced by plastic recyclers.

Financial incentives for recyclers can be designed 
to promote capital investment for required modern 
infrastructure and encourage voluntary contributions 
by plastic manufacturers. Voluntary contributions by 
industries towards investing in transformative technologies 
will encourage entrepreneurs and players in recycling 
businesses. Polymer to polymer technologies can be 
developed profitably and increase the use of plastic waste.

Mechanical recyclers are using low-cost fabricated 
machinery which exhibits low throughput and consumes 
more resources. Subsidies for machinery may help 
recyclers to procure advanced recycling systems. 
Moreover, a green tax on the recycling system could 
encourage recyclers to use sustainable recycling 
systems that consume less energy and water.

Incentivisation and subsidies for municipal corporations, 
as well as green credits in the Swachh Bharat (Clean India) 
mission for plastic waste recycling to municipalities, will 
yield positive results in domestic recycling volumes of 
post-consumer plastic waste. Presently, higher recycling 
costs prevent municipalities from recycling plastic waste 
and implementing local recycling programs. Development 
of a policy with financial incentives for municipalities 
may help to improve commingled post-consumer 
plastic waste chemical recycling at more local levels.



Landfill taxes to discourage plastic waste 
from reaching landfill

Disposal of plastic waste in landfill must be the least 
preferred option. Landfill taxes can be imposed on plastic 
waste reaching landfill. Transition management for this 
option may encounter hurdles and implementation could 
be an indirect option. This would serve to generate 
funds for environmental mitigation as well as inhibiting 
disposal of plastic waste in landfill by raising the cost.

Creating a true circular economy for plastics 
with industrial symbiosis

Most of all, plastic recycling needs to be seen as part of a 
true circular economy for plastics rather than as an isolated 
function. This applies both to securing the feedstock, 
and the ultimate uses of high-value upcycled plastic.

Industrial symbiosis, with close association between 
industries, is required for effective industrial waste 
recycling and is good for creating economic value from 
plastic waste. This reduces resource consumption, 
transportation costs, and environmental impact by 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, 
leading to cost-effective recycling. It may result in 
increased data transparency with increased responsibility 
with respect to post-industrial waste flows.

Alternative uses of plastic waste in the construction 
industry, e.g., roads, tiles, compressed boards and 
other recycled products, offer sustainable end-of-life 
PWM options and true circularity can be attained if 
further reuse in recycling of plastic waste materials is 
not possible. There is a need to promote closed-loop 
recycling to achieve true circularity. Similarly, tertiary 
or chemical recycling producing WtE, oil and gas from 
plastic waste should be performed with end-of-life plastic 
waste that cannot be recycled further, thus retaining 
the value of mechanically recyclable plastic waste.

Global case studies provide ample evidence and inspiration 
for these opportunities. These voluntary stages need to 
be pursued as opportunities before recycling and reuse 
are made mandatory, with enforcement mechanisms 
and technologies to ensure standards are met.

Global case studies

Case study I – France and the United Kingdom 
have introduced a good initiative to limit waste to 
landfill by imposing landfill taxes (d’Ambrières, 
2019). Landfill taxes, or outright bans on allowing 
landfill disposal of certain types of waste, are 
the most effective way to reduce the amount 
of waste plastic sent to landfill. The European 
Union has set a goal of only 10% of plastic 
waste to landfill by 2030, down from around 
30% currently. Incineration taxes are also being 
used to limit this type of waste process. 

Case study II – ACO recycling (Turkey) provides 
an economically feasible segregation process 
and increased material flows in the supply chain 
by utilising IoT sensors based on AI algorithms. 
Smart bins are used for collection because 
they automatically assess the level of garbage 
in the bins and provide information to waste 
collectors. This will be useful in optimising 
collection timing, routes, and frequencies. 
Robots (AI-powered) are used in recycling centres 
to perform waste segregation at high speed, 
saving time and labour costs as well as fuel 
costs in waste management (Watine, 2021).



Case study III – Upcycling/Depolymerisation 
technology and modifications (gate to cradle) 

• British Petroleum (United Kingdom), in collaboration 
with Clean Planet Energy (UK), has initiated 
conversion of hard-to-recycle plastic waste into 
naptha and diesel with ultra-low sulphur content at 
very low temperature (BP and Clean Planet Energy, 
2022).
• PyroCore (United Kingdom) transforms plastic waste 
by pyrolysis under high temperature and inert 
atmosphere into solid and syngas. This process aids in 
the reduction of carbon emissions as well as energy 
costs14
14 https://pyrocore.com/technology/ (accessed 8 September 2022).

.
• Poly (methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) is a widely used 
polymer, particularly in bio-medical applications. Lab 
studies have established depolymerisation of PMMA 
at less than 300° C, into monomers in a fluidised bed 
reactor (Kang et al., 2008).
• Ioniqa Technologies (Netherlands) is able to reduce 
a variety of plastic waste including PET waste at a 
low temperature (Artigas, 2014) by an ionic catalyst 
complex. 
• IBM’s glycolysis process uses an active and volatile 
organocatalyst which selectively degrades clean and 
contaminated plastics, producing a good quality 
BHET (Bis-(2-Hydroxyethyl) Terephtalate) with lower 
production of waste15
15 https://www.azocleantech.com (accessed 2022)

.


• JEPLAN’s BRING Technology™ consists of glycolysis 
of PET combined with specific purification steps in 
order to remove all inorganic and organic compounds 
existing in waste PET. They started a ‘textile-to-
textile’ recycling demonstration plant in 201816
16 www.jeplan.co.jp (accessed 2022)

.
• Gr3n (Switzerland) employed hydrolysis at a pilot scale 
to form PET to terephalic acid and claim to produce 
virgin grade monomers using microwave-assisted 
catalysis via an alkaline hydrolysis. This patented 
DEpolymerisation by MicrowavE TechnolOgy 
(DEMETO) is able to depolymerise PET materials 
ranging from coloured packaging to polyester textiles 
within 10 minutes, in a continuous process17
17 https://gr3n-recycling.com/technology.html (accessed 2022).

.
• Loop™ Industries uses catalytic thermolysis at 
low temperatures to form monomers dimethyl 
terephthalate (DMT) and monoethylene glycol (MEG) 
for PET18
18 www.loopindustries.com (accessed 2021)

. 
• Carbios (France), with their scalable PETase 
technology (Enzymolysis) are converting polyester 
textile waste back to monomers and bottles19
19 https://www.carbios.com/en/enzymatic-recycling (accessed 2022).

. 
CSIRO also developed a PETase enzyme which can 
proficiently break down PET to its original monomers 
by computational design of enzyme (King et al., 2021).


While all of these opportunities must be pursued for 
recycling technologies to be adopted at scale across 
India, there are some barriers to implementation that 
threaten either one, some or all of the opportunities.



4.5 Barriers to implementation 
of potential solutions

The broad scope of opportunities that need to be pursued 
by the plastic recycling sector would be challenging enough 
in the best environments. However, they must overcome 
some equally broad barriers. Current regulations on plastic 
waste recycling fail to impose stricter environmental 
standards in plastic products, while a relatively low degree 
of collaboration along the value chain has contributed to 
a lack of awareness on the technologies, business cases 
and behaviours needed. A huge sector of the textile/
fashion industry which utilises plastic in its production is 
not considered in the plastic waste flow chain in India.

Regulatory barriers

Technologies enabling plastic recycling options for 
secondary raw materials face regulation barriers and 
require infrastructure and large investments. Taxation on 
the use of secondary materials, market-based incentives and 
integrated recycling plans, coupled with sufficient waste 
flows, are major barriers to the implementation of a policy 
leading to a circular economy for plastics. De Weerdt et al. 
argued that waste treatment taxation and plastic-related 
legislation significantly contribute to reductions in plastic 
waste generation from industry and can increase rates of 
industrial plastic waste recycling (De Weerdt et al., 2020). 
On the flipside, a lack of positive environmental standards 
for inputs and products hinders the implementation 
of CE business models to reuse plastic waste.

Over-reliance on EPR

Policies leading to the inclusion of manufacturers in 
recycling need to be favoured over creating EPR obligations, 
as detailed in PWM rules. Presently, manufacturers are 
not recyclers, and producers are dependent on EPR for 
management of plastic waste generated by them. EPR does 
not emphasise recycling, and there are some loopholes 
in EPR implementation that need to be addressed.

Lack of awareness and connectivity among 
stakeholders in plastic value chain

Sustainable PWM requires stakeholder engagement, 
from design to product, across the plastic value chain 
in order to achieve a circular economy for plastics. 
Our discussions with stakeholders revealed a lack of 
understanding of recent developments in advancements 
in machinery and technological options for resource 
utilisation. Although the plastic waste to fuel quaternary 
option was found to be competitive, the percentage of 
players was only 5% of total plastic recyclers. Data and 
statistics on post-industrial plastic waste generation and 
its recycling are currently unavailable. There are neither 
incentives nor awareness of upcycling plastic waste, 
or in-house plastic waste recycling by manufacturing 
industries in order to break the norm of using virgin raw 
materials. Poor connectivity between municipalities, 
manufacturers and recyclers means that there is no 
concerted effort to build awareness across the board.

Poor business case for investment

Sustainable recycling technologies that are implemented 
on an industrial scale require large investments and major 
players, both of which are lacking in the current recycling 
regime. To overcome these barriers, a clear Roadmap for 
reinvigorating the plastic waste recycling sector that guides 
it through the four stages of development is required.



4.6 Recommendations 
to drive innovation

These recommendations are designed to fill gaps, pursue 
opportunities, and overcome barriers in a holistic way that 
builds capacity and impact. We have identified a path to 
sustainable plastic recycling and a true circular economy 
for plastics through the uptake of new technologies and 
design options in the short, medium and long terms.

Short-term priorities (to 2025)

• Improvise and find alternatives to the technological and 
legal barriers that hinder active entrepreneurship.
• Develop, and regularly update, a compendium of 
technologies focusing on recycling options. 
• Use advanced technologies to disseminate information 
to stakeholders via expos, workshops, and exhibitions in 
line with the Skill India Mission. 
• Manage source-segregated dry waste through the 
development of recycling infrastructure including 
recycling facilities and MRF.


Medium-term priorities (to 2030)

• Establish a dedicated group of statutory bodies to 
monitor the implementation of the PWM rules.
• Create an online platform to monitor the flow chain 
of polymers with the help of digitalisation (software 
solutions and artificial intelligence in sorting and 
recycling processes). 
• Develop economic incentives towards a Recycling 
Modernisation Fund and its outreach to enhance 
recycling capabilities.
• Affirm the role of science in supporting industry in the 
development and upscaling of technologies (potentially 
positioning CSIR as an innovation catalyst in the Indian 
innovation system).
• Inventorisation of size of industry, resource 
consumption and pollution due to discharge of 
emission and effluents, for designating criteria for 
plastic recycling industries into red, orange or white 
categories pragmatically. 


Long-term priorities (beyond 2030)

• Intervention of successful global technologies and 
innovation in machinery for optimum resource 
utilisation. 
• Develop standards and product certification mechanisms 
to enable the monitoring of product quality and 
recycling efficiency.
• Develop a dedicated Plastics Innovation Hub to 
encourage young minds.




Bioplastics are not a 
simple solution for 
the single-use plastics 
problem

Made from renewable plastics 
rather than from fossil fuel 
sources, bioplastics are often 
offered as a ‘green’ alternative 
to single-use plastics. 

They come with several 
potential limitations though:

• Some bioplastics contribute 
to the microplastics problem 
as they contain biomass that 
is difficult to be broken down 
by microorganisms. These 
can require high temperature 
industrial composting to attain 
complete breakdown, beyond 
what is possible under household 
composting conditions.
• There are added burdens 
from agriculture and chemical 
processing when compared with 
petroleum-based plastics. These 
include extensive land use, and 
additional pollutants from the 
use of fertilisers and pesticides.
• Their production also competes 
for land that could be used 
for food production, seen as a 
growing challenge for India’s 
large population.


To ensure that bioplastics 
represent a safe and sustainable 
alternative to single-use 
plastics, we need:

• Strict, national level standards 
regarding minimum 
requirements for bioplastics (e.g., 
compostable performance, etc.).
• National laboratories to 
provide timely and accurate 
certification testing.
• Careful LCA of products to 
determine if they do offer a 
better alternative to single-
use plastics.




5 Uptake of secondary 
materials in manufacturing 
and infrastructure

5.1 Introduction

The recycling of synthetic polymers and plastics in India 
can be improved substantially. India generates around 
3.46 Mt of plastic waste annually, or 25 kg per person 
(CPCB, 2020), and recycles only around 50% of it. Most of 
the remaining material is either incinerated haphazardly 
or dumped in unmanaged landfill, where it is slowly 
released into water bodies in macro and microstructure, 
where it becomes embedded in the food chains of humans, 
marine and other terrestrial and aquatic life (Issac and 
Kandasubramanian, 2021). The process of recycling post-
consumer plastic has many inherent challenges. To reverse 
the supply chain flow in a centralised model, waste plastic 
needs to be collected from end consumers, transported to 
recycling facilities and sorted into its different types before 
it can even be processed, making it resource intensive 
and impacting the already ailing supply chain system.

Incorporating plastic waste as a secondary source 
material in construction and infrastructure may be 
one solution. Several innovative uses of secondary 
materials can help consume plastic waste and reduce 
reliance on conventional raw materials, thus creating a 
sustainable material flow system. Plastic waste uses that 
are garnering interest include bitumen binder, aggregates 
in concrete, waste to fuel and energy, coke substitute 
in steel manufacturing, petroleum coke substitute in 
cement manufacturing and other construction products 
like sand brick, recycled plastic lumber and tiles. India’s 
demand for conventional raw materials is rapidly rising 
as it becomes a global manufacturing hub, with a 
growing consumer base needing shelter, transportation 
and utilities (Kant et al., 2015). These demands may be 
addressed by incorporating plastic waste as a secondary 
source, mitigating the issue of PWM as well.

This chapter reviews the use of synthetic polymers 
(plastic) in asphalt road construction, cement and 
steel manufacturing, power generation and the 
manufacturing of some construction products. For 
each of these secondary uses, the chapter reviews:

• the current state of that use of waste plastic in India 
(with some uses such as asphalt quite advanced, while 
others such as power generation in their early stages), as 
well as any barriers to its development,
• successful global practices for that use, which may hold 
lessons for how those barriers may be overcome, and
• recommendations for increasing that use in India, 
including actions in the short, medium, and long terms.


We believe the use of plastic waste as secondary 
materials is a missed opportunity for India. Reusing 
plastic waste as secondary materials will help manage 
the waste stream and reduce reliance on unsustainable 
petrochemical industries. It will be fostered by making 
recycling technology available throughout India in a 
decentralised model, with standards and quality checks to 
maintain the consistency of the recycled waste stream. 



5.2 Sustainable asphalt 
roads with waste plastic 

The use of plastic waste as an alternative to conventional 
polymer-based bitumen binders has strong potential. 
Not only does it supersede the use of conventional 
polymer-based binders, but it seems a better alternative 
to pyrolysis or landfilling waste (Hoxha, 2021). 

Key findings are that:

• India has been a strong adopter of plastic waste in its 
bitumen, driven by both free use of the technology and 
regulation. 
• Australia and other countries are mixing plastic with 
other packaging and rubber in innovative new road 
technologies.
• However, in both existing and emerging technologies, 
issues such as wear, fumes and microplastic generation 
are still to be addressed. 
• To pursue the potential of plastics in the sector, proper 
regulatory frameworks and guidelines are required 
along with processes to use all kinds of plastic waste in 
the bitumen. The recycling process, techno-economic 
analysis and feasibility of using all kinds of recycled 
plastic need to be carried out.


Current status of use in India

More than 98% of surfaced roads in India are reported 
to have bituminous topping to facilitate the country’s 
rapid nationwide infrastructure development (Dhir, 
2000). The expansion of asphalt roads has helped 
in economic development, but the cost incurred in 
the project has resulted in poorly engineered roads, 
with increased costs of raw materials like asphalt. 
This limitation can be overcome by using waste 
plastic as a secondary source of bitumen binder.

India has been using plastic waste to form polymer-
modified asphalt since early 2000, when Jambulingam 
Street in Chennai was built, which showed improved 
durability and fewer potholes (Yuliana, 2021). Thus, the 
CPCB and various policymakers have been supporting the 
use of plastic waste in road construction since early 2000, 
and most states and UTs have reported the use of plastic 
waste in road construction as a major area of secondary 
consumption (CPCB, 2020). This trend has been growing, 
with around 100,000 km of road built with plastic waste 
as of 2020, and over 11 states with plans of doubling the 
plastic waste road policy in next fiscal year (Heriawan, 
2020). The use of plastic waste in asphalt roads in India 
was further bolstered when the patent for using PE, PP 
and PS with bitumen for improved binding properties was 
handed to the Government of India for free (Vasudevan, 
2012; Lee, 2022). In addition, as of 2015 there was a 
mandatory regulation for road developers to use recycled 
plastic in road construction within 50 km of the periphery 
of any city with a population of more than 500,000. In 
case of unavailability of recycled plastic, the developers 
need to request a special permit from the road transport 
ministry (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, 2019).

Current global practices

Several industries are working to form standards and 
technologies to incorporate waste plastic streams into 
asphalt, which has been lacking in India, with most of 
the effort coming from government and regulatory 
bodies, despite a few exceptions of limited registered 
patents (Vasudevan, 2012; Lee, 2022). Austroads, an 
Australian-based company, has been working to develop 
clear guidelines for the road industry to identify and 
handle road-grade plastics to use in road construction 
with their APT6305 project (Giustozzi and Boom, 2021). 
Downer has been using recycled soft plastic bags and 
packaging and rubber from end-of-life rubber to form 
‘reconophalt’, which has been approved by the New 
South Wales Environmental Protection Agency and has 
a comparable environmental risk to standard asphalts, 
in terms of BPA leaching and microplastic generation. 
Similarly, another Australian company, Fulton Hogan, 
has developed polymer-modified asphalt using recycled 
plastic waste, ‘Plastiphalts’, which follows the framework 
set by Austroads for recycled polymer-modified binders.

Drawbacks of current applications

The effect of using plastic waste as bitumen binder has 
been extensively studied in a controlled environment 
(Hassani, 2005; Dalhat and Al-Abdul Wahhab, 2017; Heydari 
et al., 2021), but more analysis of the effect of using 
plastic waste at an implementation scale is needed. Some 
simulation standards, like the Heavy Vehicle Simulator 
(Du Plessis, 2018) and the pavement Fatigue Carousel 
(Simonin et al., 2016), simulate the field environment 
for testing asphalt roads, but because they are run as 
accelerated scenarios, they do not account for factors such 
as microplastic generation due to tyre-induced abrasion on 
the road (Enfrin and Giustozzi, 2022). Similarly, the use of 
petroleum-derived products as bitumen binders results in 
production of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and volatile 
organic compounds (VOC) at high temperatures (Butler, 
2000), and when using plastic as a bitumen binder the 
risk of fuming still remains while handling the asphalt (Mo 
et al., 2019; Ansar et al., 2021). This can be avoided when 
handling plastic-based asphalt in a controlled environment, 
but when using it on a construction site, external factors 
like wind and temperature increase fume production.

Researchers have only recently begun to study the 
environmental effects of microplastics, who have found 
that using plastic-based asphalt will expose millions of 
tonnes of plastic to heat and ultraviolet radiation, which 
are the main factors for microplastic generation. There 
have been limited studies on microplastic generation 
from asphalt roads, as most samples taken for studies are 
roadside dust samples, which can include microplastics 



originating from vehicle tyres and surroundings, as well 
as the asphalt road (Leads and Weinstein, 2019; Yukioka 
et al., 2020; O’Brien et al., 2021). There are some common 
techniques like pavement friction testers (Enfrin and 
Giustozzi, 2022), sandpaper with rotary abrader (Burghardt 
et al., 2022), and the wet track abrasion technique (Saghafi 
et al., 2019), to simulate the natural abrasion of asphalt 
roads and collect the microplastics, but the results are 
always subject to limitations such as the size and shape 
of the microplastic, effects of UV light and moisture, 
and time-induced decomposition of the plastic.

Recommendations for using plastic waste as 
bitumen binder

India lacks regulations and standards that clearly lay out 
the guidelines and framework for using waste plastic in 
asphalt roads. These regulations and proprietary products 
can be developed by both private and public entities, 
encouraging the development of innovative methods for 
incorporating waste plastic. Austroads has formulated 
APT6305, which outlines the process for using different 
types of recycled plastics, their recycling process, and their 
application scope in asphalt roads (Giustozzi and Boom, 
2021). This framework, formulated by public and private 
entities, helps guide all the stakeholders in the ecosystem. 
Likewise, only LDPE and HDPE are currently used in asphalt, 
while omitting other kinds of plastics, so new technologies 
and guidelines need to be developed to incorporate all 
kinds of waste plastic into the asphalt. Similarly, there have 
been limited tests and studies done for asphalt application 
at the implementation level, with most studies being 
carried out in controlled environments in laboratories to 
analyse the production of volatile organic compounds 
and toxic by-products while handling the binder. 

5.3 Waste plastic as fine 
aggregate in cementitious 
composites

The aggregates which form 65–80% of concrete 
(Faraj et al., 2019) are typically made of gravel, sand 
and crushed rock. With 10 billion tonnes of concrete 
produced annually around the world (Meyer, 2004), any 
substitution of recycled plastic waste is a large untapped 
opportunity to reduce plastic waste and reduce the 
extraction of conventional geological aggregates. 

By using plastic aggregates, concrete structures can 
be made lightweight, with enhanced compressive and 
tensile strength (Akçaözoğlu et al., 2010). Likewise, 
plastic aggregates inherently have lower bulk density, 
a lower melting point, and lower water absorption 
(Choi et al., 2009). Despite the intrinsic benefits of 
plastic aggregates in concrete there has been very 
limited commercial adoption in India, with only 
Maharashtra using around 18,000 tonnes of waste 
plastic for concrete aggregate in 2020 (CPCB, 2020).

Key findings are that:

• In part to address a shortage of sand, India is 
experimenting with PET-bottle recycling and other 
aggregate materials. 
• Recycled plastic use internationally focuses on uses that 
are not subject to heavy vehicle movements, such as 
footpaths, public spaces, and domestic driveways.
• Issues to be addressed by further innovation include 
weakness under testing, fumes and combustibility, and 
water porosity. 


Cementitious composite application needs to be 
expanded to states in India other than Maharashtra, 
with the application scope explored in non-structural 
areas like pavements and driveways, due to the 
impact on mechanical strength with an increase in 
the composition of recycled plastic in the mix. 

Current status of use in India

In the Indian construction market, exponentially growing 
urbanisation has led to a shortage of raw materials 
like sand, which is used as aggregate for cementitious 
composite, and researchers have suggested using PET 
bottles as a substitute, in addition to chemical admixtures 
to retain the compressive strength and workability of 
the concrete (Savoikar et al., 2015). Likewise, a team of 
researchers from Tamil Nadu has registered a patent that 
includes using recycled PET bottles to replace 70% of 
the sand composition of tri-arc shaped pavement blocks, 
with similar mechanical strength as normal blocks, as per 
IS 15658:2006 code (India Today Web Desk, 2022). There 
is commercial-scale production of plastic sand bricks, 
such as that carried out by Rhino machines from India 
which make ‘Silica-Plastic Blocks’ from recycled plastic 



waste (20%) and foundry dust waste (80%), where the 
use of plastic eliminates the need for water during the 
mixing and curing stages. The mechanical strength of 
the sand bricks was found to be 2.5 times more than that 
of red clay bricks and used 80% less natural resources.

Current global practices

Companies like Replas, from Australia, use soft plastic 
(PE and PP), as partial substitutes for aggregates in the 
making of Polyrok Civil, which has been used in the 
construction of pavements, curbside, and landscaping. 
Likewise, Replas have been using the concrete in pilot 
sites like Crossing Place Trail in Wodonga, a footpath 
in the City of Frankston in Victoria, and Horsham Coles 
carpark in Victoria. These kinds of initiatives can help in 
the use of plastic waste as aggregate in concrete. Concrete 
structures that do not undergo significant stress, such as 
footpaths, public walkways, driveways, and structures of 
a similar nature, can incorporate aggregate material. 

Drawbacks of current applications

The use of plastic aggregates in cementitious materials 
increases defects and cracks as the composition 
increases, and also the size and type of plastic affects 
the Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) test value, which is 
an industry standard to check for defects, uniformity 
and estimate the depth of cracks in concrete structures 
(Qasrawi, 2000). A study done with PET has shown 
that increments in particle size have a negative impact 
on the UPV value, with uniform impact until 30% 
of composition by weight (Albano et al., 2009). 

Concrete with plastic aggregates has higher combustibility, 
making it unsuitable for indoor application and more 
suited for outdoor structures, like pavements, highways 
and less strength intensive structures (Aciu et al., 2018). 
The combustion of plastic aggregate concrete leads to 
high amounts of fume generation, which can be toxic. 
Similarly, concrete with plastic has higher porosity, 
leading to higher water absorption, and carbonation 
of the structure, but it also acts as a good barrier 
to chlorine ions (Gu and Ozbakkaloglu, 2016). The 
shrinkage stress of the concrete is also weakened, due 
to the low elastic modulus of the plastic making the 
concrete structure weak (Gu and Ozbakkaloglu, 2016). 

Recommendations for plastic waste in 
cementitious material

There has been limited use of recycled plastic in 
cementitious aggregate in India, with only PET being 
used in Maharashtra (CPCB, 2020). This needs to be 
expanded to more states to increase the uptake of 
waste PET as a secondary material as it has proven that 
the controlled addition of PET fibres can improve the 
tensile and flexural strength and wet and dry density 
of concrete structures (Rathod et al., 2021). Similarly, 
use cases for concrete with recycled plastic need to be 
explored and implemented for outdoor non-structural 
areas like pavements, driveways and footpaths, which 
have been increasing in India with its development in 
roads (Dhir, 2000), and urbanisation (World Bank, 2021).

5.4 Iron and steel manufacturing

Demand for steel is anticipated to continue to rise 
significantly. However, iron and steel are regarded as one 
of the most challenging industries to decarbonise in India 
(Kim et al., 2022), due to their high heat consumption, use 
of carbon as a process feed, small profit margins, huge 
investment intensity, lengthy asset lives and trade barriers. 
Recycled plastic can be explored to reduce reliance on 
conventional fuel sources, carbon sources, as an alloying 
material and as a reductant (Devasahayam et al., 2019a; 
Devasahayam et al., 2019b). This work suggests that:

• India has the potential to direct 8 Mt of plastics to the 
iron and steel sector by 2030, but the industry is in a very 
early stage.
• However, other nations have started using plastic waste, 
with promising growth in Germany, Italy and Japan.
• These projects show that there are potential emission 
and cost advantages in the use of secondary plastics if 
the stock can be de-chlorinated.


For the use of waste plastic in steel manufacturing in India 
to excel, the current trial approach needs to be translated 
to large-scale adoption, which requires a robust material 
flow system for the waste plastic. This can be developed 
by coordinating with local governments and industries.

Current status of use in India

After considerable discussion, the Indian Ministry of Steel 
recently announced an assessment of the potential for 
incorporating plastic waste in the country’s iron and steel 
industry (Kainthola, 2022; Government of India, 2022). 
The applicability, benefits, and drawbacks of using plastic 
waste, including single-use plastics, were considered for 
use in areas such as coke ovens, blast furnaces, and electric 
arc furnaces. According to projections, 1 kg of plastic 
consumption will be equivalent to about 1.3 kg of coal, 
and the iron and steel sector has the capacity to use up to 
2–3 Mt of plastic waste annually, and more than 8 Mt by 
2030–2031 (Ministry of Steel, 2022b). Currently, a relatively 
small proportion of plastic waste produced on the sites 
of steel firms is used sporadically for trial purposes by the 
industry. The use of plastic waste as a fuel or reductant 
in the steel industry, which is deregulated, would depend 
on its technological and economic viability (Ministry of 
Steel, 2022a). However, even though India is the second 
largest steel manufacturer in the world, its use of plastic 
waste is still in its infancy (Das and Kandpal, 1997).



Current global practices

In contrast, steel manufacturers from other nations have 
started using plastic waste as fuel and carbon sources 
in manufacturing processes to reduce reliance on 
conventional materials derived from petrochemical sources.

At the Bremen Steel Works (ArcelorMittal), the first trial to 
introduce waste plastics into a blast furnace with a capacity 
of 70,000 tonnes/year was undertaken in 1994, followed 
by commercialisation the following year (Satyendra, 2018). 
The NKK (now JFE Steel) Keihin Works in Japan had the 
first comprehensive facility for injecting plastic waste. The 
manufacturing plant has a processing facility for waste 
plastic where solid and soft plastics can be separated, 
along with PVC. Solid plastics like HD/LD PE are used as 
reductants, while soft plastics are fed directly into a blast 
furnace (Satyendra, 2018; Asanuma et al., 2014; Hotta, 2003). 

The world’s largest plant centred on plastics injection into 
blast furnaces has been operated by the steel producer 
Voestapline. Around 220,000 tonnes of end-of-life plastics 
in the form of various agglomerates have been injected 
since 2007 as alternative reductants. The future expansion 
of the Torero project by ArcelorMittal may potentially 
use waste plastics as circular carbon sources to replace 
fossil fuels being injected into the blast furnace. The 
company also plans to use waste plastics for dry reforming 
by reacting with CO2 (captured from the blast furnace) 
using a high temperature plasma torch to produce syngas 
for iron ore reduction in a blast furnace (IGAR project). 
NextChem and Acciaierie d’Italia (a joint venture between 
ArcelorMittal and Invitalia, the biggest steel producer 
in Italy) have agreed to conduct a viability study on the 
use of circular gas (syngas) at the Taranto steel mill. This 
circular gas is produced using NextChem’s Waste-to-
Chemical technology, which is based on recovering the 
carbon and hydrogen present in plastic and dry waste via 
a partial oxidation approach. Both during the production 
of steel and during its refinement, this specific gas can 
be utilised instead of natural gas or coal dust in the blast 
furnace (Hydrocarbon Processing, 2021; Maggio, 2022).

Nippon Steel in Japan recycles over 200,000 tonnes of 
plastic waste per year, collected from household and 
municipality waste streams. The collected waste plastics 
are chemically treated in coke ovens, generating around 
40% hydrocarbon oil (used for plastic products), 40% 
coke oven gas (used as energy at steelworks) and 20% 
coke (used for making iron) (Nippon Steel Corporation, 
2021). POSCO has invented ‘Slastics’, a composite material 
made of steel slag and plastic waste, to recycle steel slag. 
Slastics have a lot of promise for use in a wide range of 
engineering and construction applications since they 
are incredibly robust and durable. When plastics are 
recycled to make Slastics, they prevent 99% of greenhouse 
gas emissions compared to when they are incinerated; 
this is the equivalent of averting 2.33 tonnes of CO2 for 
every tonne of recycled plastic (Worldsteel, n.d.).

To lower their carbon footprint, steel producers are also 
looking into the possibility of injecting gases with a 
high percentage of hydrogen through tuyeres and/or in 
the stack. The gas might originate from waste plastics 
as they have a significant proportion of hydrogen in 
their molecular chains. The use of electric arc furnace 
steelmaking is gradually increasing, which also helps in 
the recycling of steel scrap. For instance, Polymer Injection 
Technology has been successfully commercialised using 
electric arc furnaces in different industries and hence, 
an engineering modification to introduce an injection 
lance (if not present) for waste plastics in the furnace 
can be considered. Another key aspect to be considered 
is the collection of waste plastics followed by sorting 
and cleaning. Industrial collaborations with plastic 
collection recycling units (formal and informal) are a major 
requirement to address this issue and work on how the 
ferrous industry could source waste plastics in an efficient 
way. Therefore, by making significant developments 
in alternative technologies using waste plastics, the 
Indian steel sector can take a leading role in moving 
ahead by incorporating circularity with plastic waste.

Drawbacks of current applications

The iron and steel industry is a large, worldwide 
sociotechnical system that profoundly affects our 
current lifestyle. One significant obstacle which is usually 
considered is that steel produced through alternative 
technologies initially costs more than traditional steel due 
to the greater expenses associated with these technologies 
(Muslemani et al., 2021). However, when waste materials 
like plastics are used to meet energy and chemical demands 
in a ferrous industry, the costs related to coal mining and 
coke making are eliminated. Thus, plastic waste does tend 
to cause raw material savings as well as some monetary 
savings if planned adequately in terms of waste plastics 
collection and transportation. For the fabrication of steel, 
the ferrous industry employs carbon-intensive primary 
resources. It is the greatest coal consumer, and direct 
reduced iron (DRI) requires hydrogen as a reductant, 
commonly obtained by reforming natural gas (Kim et al., 
2022). Thus, by employing waste resources like plastics or 
generating syngas as the reductant, significant quantities of 
carbon coming from the natural resources can be reduced.

Another challenging aspect is meeting the global demand 
for steel. Recent steel production was around 1951 Mt in 
the year 2021 (Worldsteel, 2022). Thus, any form of change 
in the conventional manufacturing process will affect 
the supply-demand ecosystem of the steel industry. The 
conventional blast furnace – basic oxygen furnace route 
accounts for around 71% of steel production and the 
remainder is produced through the electric arc furnace 
route (Worldsteel, n.d.(a)). Hence, implementation of 
alternative technologies with the use of waste plastics 
should be carried out in a way that does not impact global 
demand and the collection or supply of waste plastics 
needs to be adequate for the manufacturing process. The 



composition of mixed waste plastics will be crucial as 
chlorinated plastics like PVC need to be dechlorinated/
treated before being used for iron and steelmaking 
applications. Moreover, close coordination with steel 
suppliers, such as the iron ore sector or scrap sector, is 
crucial to ensuring carbon neutrality along the entire value 
chain. High expenses, prolonged investment cycles, a lack 
of funding, the likelihood of product quality or character 
changes, the risk of production interruption, an insufficient 
supply of skilled labour, a lack of proven technologies, and 
a lack of accurate and comprehensive information are all 
risks. Development and enhancement obstacles in energy 
efficiency of a particular process can be technological, 
informational, economical, behavioural, organisational, 
competency, or awareness-related (Kim et al., 2022).

Recommendations for plastic waste in iron 
and steel manufacture

India, being the second largest steel manufacturer in the 
world (Das and Kandpal, 1997), has a unique opportunity 
to incorporate waste plastic as a secondary source of 
carbon in the steel industry and thus reduce carbon 
consumption. Efforts are currently limited to trial runs 
and sporadic use of waste plastic, which need to be 
upscaled for commercial-scale adoption. Currently, the 
availability of a consistent supply of waste plastic has 
been a major issue for the steel industry, which needs to 
be addressed by creating a large-scale and robust supply 
chain system for waste plastic (Ministry of Steel, 2022c).

5.5 Power generation

The calorific value of plastics ranges from 30–40 MJ/
kg, which is comparable to conventional fuel sources 
like gasoline (46 MJ/kg), coal (30 MJ/kg) and fuel oil (43 
MJ/kg) (Panda et al., 2010; Komalis et al., 2012). Thus, 
the opportunity of using waste plastics as a fuel source 
in thermal energy plants and manufacturing plants 
has been explored through to commercial levels.

Key findings are that:

• Pilot projects like Ocean Plastic Turned into an 
Opportunity in Circular Economy (OPTOCE) have been 
running in India, which transfer non-recyclable plastic 
waste as coal substitutes in energy-intensive industries.
• In India, plastic waste to fuel conversion has been limited 
to a few states like Punjab, Telangana and Madhya 
Pradesh, at pilot scale.
• Globally, there have been diversified waste to fuel 
approaches like Plastofuels, a densified coal-like dense 
plastic nugget, which is not observed in the Indian 
market.


The waste to fuel approach in India can be effectively 
implemented using a robust waste inventory and 
logistics system. To date, waste to fuel approaches have 
been mainly operated by unregulated waste bodies.

Current status of use in India

Projects such as OPTOCE aim to convert non-recyclable 
plastic waste into energy and coal substitutes while 
directing recyclable plastic waste to recycling 
facilities. This project is currently run in pilot phase in 
China, India, Vietnam, Myanmar and Thailand by the 
Norwegian Development Program where they have been 
focusing on energy-intensive cement manufacturing 
industries (OPTOCE, n.d.). Similarly, the CPCB annual 
report states that the use of plastic waste in cement 
manufacturing is widely applied in many states, with 
states like Maharashtra using around 16 tonnes of 
plastic waste used per annum in cement manufacturing 
(CPCB, 2020). The plastic waste replaces the use of 
petroleum coke as the energy source in cement kilns.

In India, the commercial extraction of fuel from recycled 
plastic has not gained momentum, compared to the global 
scale. All implementation has been limited to research 
and on a pilot scale, with only states like Telangana, 
Punjab and Madhya Pradesh running commercial-scale 
waste to fuel plants (CPCB, 2020). The Indian Institute 
of Petroleum (IIP), a subsidiary laboratory of the CSIR, 
has developed CSIR-IIP-GAIL technology, which converts 
waste PE and PP to diesel, and is already running in 
pilot scale at 1 tonne per day capacity. This technology 
can convert 1 kg of plastic waste (with more than 
60% PE/PP composition) into approximately 700 ml 
gasoline, 500 ml petrochemicals, or 800 ml diesel, 
with LPG generated as a by-product (CSIR-IIP, n.d.).

Current global practices

Researchers from Pennsylvania University have developed 
a system to convert agricultural plastic waste into coal-like 
dense plastic nuggets called Plastofuel, which can be used 
with coal in thermal plants. The system can be deployed 
on an individual farm scale to convert the waste plastic 
generated at that level into Plastofuel or can be scaled 
up to an industrial scale (Lawrence et al., 2006). Another 
agricultural plastic waste focused product is Eco-clean 
burners, developed by GR Technologies from Korea, which 
use high temperature combustion to use plastic as fuel, 
and have been used in conjunction with Plastofuel in 
Pennsylvania. These burner systems have been approved 
by US EPA standards while monitoring carbon monoxide, 
nitrogen oxide, and benzofurans (Ciolkosz, 2014). Instead of 
direct combustion, the other technique is catalytic pyrolysis 
of plastics to convert it into gas, coke, and hydrocarbons, 
which is then fed into boilers for power generation. 

There have been several commercial applications for 
converting plastic as a fuel source and using it for 
manufacturing. Linda Wang and the team from the 
Davidson School of Chemical Engineering have developed 
a supercritical water liquification method of low pressure, 
hydrothermal processing to convert polyolefin waste to oils 
with 87% yield (Jin et al., 2021). This technique has been 
used by Hasler Ventures LLC to develop a pilot project to 



process waste polyolefins into fuels (Martin, 2021). Japan 
has been at the forefront in using waste plastic to generate 
energy, with around 380 waste-to-energy plants already 
deployed around the country as of 2019 (Nikkei Asia, 2019). 
They have companies like Mitsubishi, Hitachi Zosen, Toshiba 
and Environment Energy already developing technologies 
to convert waste to fuel, with current pilot projects in 
Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam, Singapore and 
Thailand (Matsuoka, 2021). In Australia, researchers from the 
University of Sydney have developed a technology called 
Cat-HTR, with Licella, which can treat all kinds of plastic 
waste using supercritical hydrothermal reactions to convert 
them into fossil fuels. The process is already running pilot 
plants in Newcastle, NSW and in England, with annual 
capacity of 20,000 tonnes of waste (Maschmeyer, n.d.). 

Drawbacks of current applications

Though the concept of converting waste plastic to fuel 
is a very noble approach, it comes with some intrinsic 
limitations. Firstly, the waste-to-energy plant needs a 
consistent flow of waste plastic, which is provided by local 
council solid waste collectors and often has lower and 
varied calorific values, which can affect the efficiency of 
the system. Secondly, the combustion produces gases like 
carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, and benzofurans based 
on different mixes of plastic in waste. Thirdly, the pyrolysis 
process can convert the plastic into fuel but most of the 
process requires high energy and a controlled environment, 
making it expensive. As reported by Nikkei Asia, Japan has 
been using pyrolysis technology to produce fuel from waste 
plastic for the past decade, but due to the complexity and 
cost of the technology, it has been limited to Japan (Nikkei 
Asia, 2019). Other innovative technologies for pyrolysis 
have only been deployed at pilot scale and have yet to 
be translated to the industrial level (Maschmeyer, n.d.). 
Another study has shown that the fuel produced from 
waste plastic tends to have higher amounts of emissions, 
compared to conventional fuels (Kalargaris, 2017). 

Recommendations for plastic waste in 
power generation

Waste inventory has been a major issue in India, where 
most resources are invested in collecting and sorting the 
waste. Among these waste collection units, more than 
10,000 units are operated by unregulated bodies (Krishnan, 
2022). Thus, a more regulated waste collection and sorting 
system needs to be implemented so that a consistent supply 
of waste plastic can be provided to waste-to-energy plants. 
Likewise, unconventional waste-to-energy methods such 
as coal-like nuggets need to be implemented, which can 
collect plastic waste from micro-systems like an agricultural 
farm and convert it into combustible coal-like nuggets.

5.6 Other construction products

While India is under way in its use of plastic waste 
in asphalt roads, power generation, and steel and 
concrete manufacture (CPCB, 2020), other applications 
are gaining traction in other parts of the world. This 
section considers how plastic waste is being used in 
roof tiles, insulation, and as a timber replacement.

Roof tiling

The application of recycled plastic in roof tiles has been 
explored by many studies, to attain required mechanical 
properties, lightweight nature, reduced water porosity 
and UV resistance. A Kenya-based company has been 
manufacturing Ecoblock tiles, also called ‘Ecotiles’, 
which are made of recycled plastic, sand, and a UV 
stabilising pigment, with synthesising temperature 
above 220° C, allowing them to withstand high outdoor 
temperatures. Likewise, a US-based company, Brava, has 
been producing synthetic rooftiles made of compressed 
recycled plastic, asphalt and fibreglass, which are 
lighter, easy to handle, and UV fade resistant.

Insulation

Another application of recycled plastic is indoor insulation 
for buildings to replace the conventional fibreglass, 
cellulose, and mineral wool. These traditional insulation 
materials need special handling precautions due to the 
presence of small glass particles, which can lead to health 
hazards such as skin and eye irritation and impacts on 
the respiratory system with prolonged exposure (De 
Vuyst et al., 1995). In light of these drawbacks, recycled 
plastic is now being used in insulation materials. SupaSoft 
uses recycled polyester for insulative application, and 
has thermal conductivity of 0.04 Wm-1K-1, which is 
similar to the commonly used fibreglass wool insulation 
(Bharat et al., 2017). Similarly, Autex insulation also 
uses recycled polyester (50% composition) to make 
BCA fire standard compliant insulation material, which 
is accredited to ISO 9001 and ISO 1400 standards. In 
addition to that, the polymer-based insulation has 
0% w/w water absorption, compared to fibreglass 
material which has around 2% (Bharat et al., 2017).

Lumber replacement

Recycled plastics are also used to form a wood-like 
structure called recycled plastic lumber. The recycled 
plastics are mixed with materials like wood dust, glass 
fibres or rubber to get different mechanical properties in 
the lumber and replace metals and wood in construction 
materials. Generally, plastics like LDPE, HDPE and PP are 
used for the lumber structure, comprising more than 50% 
of the composition, as they can act as an adhesive and 
accommodate materials like glass fibres to form a rigid 
structure (Breslin et al., 1998). The application of plastic 
lumber is more confined to non-load bearing structures 



like fences, park benches, dock surfaces and marine piling, 
due to its high fluctuation in modulus of elasticity during 
its lifetime (Breslin et al., 1998). The recycled plastic lumber 
can be a superior alternative to chromium copper arsenate 
treated lumber for marine applications due to the leaching 
issue of chromium and arsenic into marine ecosystems 
(Breslin and Alder-Ivanbrook, 1998; Weis and Weis, 1996).

Several commercially available recycled plastic lumber 
products have been on the market for more than a decade. 
NewTechWood uses 95% recycled material, with recycled 
HDPE (40%) mixed with recovered hard and softwood 
fibres (55%) to make their metro range decking. Another 
UK-based company uses recycled LDPE, HDPE, PP, PVC 
and Styrene to make lumber. The recycled thermoplastics 
are shredded, melted, and moulded into desired shapes. 
The products are then tested under ISO 527, ISO 82, and 
ASTM E383-B to test their mechanical and thermal stability. 
These recycled plastic lumber products have been used in 
different applications, ranging from furniture, doors, decks 
and fences to other non-structural support applications.

5.7 Recommendations to increase 
the uptake of waste plastics

The most common challenges in using plastic waste 
are maintaining a consistent waste stream and meeting 
demand, but there are other long-term use case challenges 
such as microplastic generation and changes in supply 
chain topography. There have also been issues of 
production of biohazards while handling plastic waste and 
during the process of converting it into final products, 
such as the generation of monoxides and benzofurans 
during plastic waste-to-energy synthesis. These challenges 
need to be addressed to aid the incorporation of 
waste plastic into the manufacturing supply chain.

Short-term priorities (to 2025)

Two actions are needed to overcome the immediate 
barriers to the uptake of secondary waste plastics.

Standards to regulate the use of plastic 
waste as secondary sources in industries

The manufacturing industry relies on a consistent supply 
chain of raw materials to maintain the quality standards 
of the products. Some established waste collection 
and recycling infrastructure can provide the necessary 
waste plastic raw material to the industry, but meeting 
the demands of industry can demotivate consumption. 
Thus, plastic waste consumption standards need to be 
developed by stakeholders (SME and industry partners) 
that can regulate the quality of plastic waste, and 
outline the framework for plastic waste processing 
and the duties and responsibilities of each stakeholder 
in the supply chain. This will establish a blueprint 
for consistent material flow for the industries. 

Accessible and sustainable technologies 
to extract a clean waste stream 

Most use cases of recycled plastic waste are limited to small-
scale adoption due to technological barriers. Japan has 
been at the forefront of plastic waste recycling technologies 
but their processes have largely been confined within the 
country due to the complexity of the technology and the 
cost of deploying it (Glaser et al., 2022). So, an accessible 
technology is required to bolster the uptake of recycled 
plastics as secondary sources, which can be developed 
in India and transform the country into the global plastic 
innovation hub. These sustainable technologies then can 
be translated to other nations to expand the influence of 
India on the recycling and waste industries. The immediate 
requirement of sustainable technology can be fulfilled by 
upscaling different effective pilot and small-scale projects 
being used by industries to large-scale adoption. The 
bodies like CSIR India can facilitate between the industries, 
government bodies and the SME to overlook the holistic 
approach of large-scale adaptation of the technologies. 

Overcoming medium-term challenges 
(to 2030)

The large-scale progression of plastic waste into 
manufacturing will require significant upscaling 
of workforce and infrastructure for collection and 
transport to meet the growing demand for plastic 
waste. The relocation of workforce from the current 
centralised supply system can be done but geographical 
dislocation and skills gaps may remain a challenge.

Transition from a centralized workforce economy

The current recycling industry in India is fragmented 
and mostly unorganised, making it difficult to assess the 
workforce and resource involved, whereas the conventional 
supply chain system for plastic, which is based on limited 
oil producing areas, is an established economy (Autor et al., 
2016). Transitioning from the centralized system to a more 
distributed system will impact the workforce economy.

The large-scale progression of plastic waste in 
manufacturing can be aided by gradual translocation 
of workforce, and by adequate training and awareness 
to the workforce and industry beneficiaries. For a 
flourishing economy like India, being a core player 
in this new industrial evolution with competent 
workforce will aid in its growth and development.

Adoption of a new form of supply-chain system

From a logistical standpoint, a new supply chain is being 
introduced, and since a sound manufacturing ecosystem 
needs a robust supply chain, more resources need to be 
invested. The current global supply chain systems for 
plastic and plastic products are based on raw materials 
sourced from oil producing areas and sold to industries 
globally. This centralised supply system will be disrupted 



after the large-scale adoption of recycled plastic waste as a 
secondary source. The current plastic recycling ecosystem is 
fragmented, with non-existent traceability and transparency 
of material flows (Milios et al., 2018), making large-scale 
adoptability challenging. The fragmented recycling 
industries can be better regulated by developing standards 
and guidelines for existing and new recycling stakeholders, 
aided by regulatory policy to encourage plastic recycling 
capacity and using it as secondary sources of raw 
materials. The global manufacturing chain is evolving 
from economy-of-scale to economy-of-scope to adapt to 
diversity in consumer demand, which is more quality and 
use driven than mass usage. The gradual adoption of a 
circular economy also demands a new form of supply chain 
system, which can be addressed by evolving centralised 
manufacturing systems to distributed manufacturing.

Long-term priorities (beyond 2030)

The potential health and environmental harm of 
microplastics have been subject to increased scrutiny by 
the scientific community, and further research is needed 
on microplastic generation and dispersal from the use of 
plastic waste. 

Microplastic generation and its 
potential health impact 

Plastics, when exposed to UV for a long duration, start 
breaking into small fragments, which can then seamlessly 
infuse into the biological ecosphere. Microplastics can 
carry toxic chemicals on their surface and when ingested by 
organisms, can affect the gastrointestinal and respiratory 
system. Microplastics can come from plastic waste and 
from the plastic that is in use in, for example, building 
structures and textiles (Ivar do Sul and Costa, 2014). Thus, 
the use of plastic in manufacturing products like plastic 
lumber, plastic sand bricks, as bitumen binder and as 
fine aggregate in cementitious material can increase 
the generation of microplastics in the environment.

Research on microplastic generation and its effects are 
still limited. Extensive quantification of the sources of 
microplastics is very difficult to determine, making it 
a challenge to control their generation. Studies on the 
effects of microplastics are also limited, with most work 
based on the effects on marine life and microorganisms 
(Issac and Kandasubramanian, 2021; Prata et al., 2019). 
The early stages of microplastic investigation, and 
limited work done on it can be an excellent prospect 
for research bodies from both academia and industry 
to build an information base, this knowledge can help 
further prognosticate the incorporation of plastic 
waste in circular economy. Furthermore, this also 
serves an avenue for India to be an information hub 
for the microplastic research and innovation.

Evolution to distributed manufacturing to 
assist the distributed recycling industry

The global manufacturing chain is evolving from economy-
of-scale to economy-of-scope to adapt to consumer 
demand. The gradual adoption of the circular economy 
also demands a new form of supply chain system, 
which can be addressed by evolving the centralised 
manufacturing system to distributed manufacturing, 
by using the potential of additive manufacturing, and 
thus by using decentralised recycling approaches. 

The advent of the distributed manufacturing (additive 
manufacturing) approach can help India, which has a 
large consumer base and among which most of them are 
transitioning to upper income class gradually, by reducing 
reliance on centralized supply chain system to fulfill their 
needs. Since, the world economy is already transitioning 
to this new avenue, it is logical for an economic behemoth 
like India to have a head start on this industrial evolution. 
The sustainable growth of distributed manufacturing 
should be supported with clear frameworks developed in 
accordance with industries, government and SME partners.

Conclusion 

Considering the current amount of plastic in circulation and 
the rate of mismanagement (landfilling and unmanaged 
dumping), the incorporation of plastic waste as secondary 
materials can be seen as a missed opportunity. In addition 
to that, for nations like India, demand for more virgin 
plastic materials to be fed into their manufacturing 
and construction industries is inevitable, which puts 
more stress on the already ailing and limited petroleum 
refineries and suppliers. Thus, by the uptake of plastic 
waste as secondary materials, the benefits can be reaped 
in two stages: PWM, which is already a global issue, and 
reduction in reliance on unsustainable petrochemical 
industries for raw materials to balance supply and demand.

Similarly, the eventual incorporation of plastic waste into 
the manufacturing chain needs to be aided by developing 
guidelines for standardisation and quality checks in 
recycling industries, regulating the type of technology 
used in the industries and maintaining consistency in the 
recycled waste stream. There is also a requirement for the 
development of accessible recycling technology, so that 
adoption of effective technology can be widespread. Such 
technologies can be brought to global markets with help 
from open-source licences and not-for profit organisations. 
Likewise, centralised recycling industries also need to evolve 
to decentralised iterations, so recycling can be done in a 
modular manner and to an effective degree, avoiding the 
need for large-scale collection and recycling infrastructure, 
which has not been effective in addressing the PWM issue. 



Integration of the 
informal sector is a key 
part of the solution

The informal sector, dominated 
by unregistered waste pickers 
and rag pickers, contributes 
significantly to the plastic waste 
value chain in India. Yet there 
is lack of recognition in formal 
mechanisms about their activities, 
impeding the economic and 
social security, human health, 
and social integration of informal 
actors. The informal sector of 
waste pickers and recyclers are 
currently excluded from formal 
policy support and ‘consider 
themselves to be part of an 
illegal activity’. There is urgent 
need to recognise and engage 
all stakeholders, especially 
collaboration that must encompass 
the strengths and opportunities 
of the entire ecosystem, 
especially the informal sector. 

To maximise the opportunities 
presented by the informal 
workforce’s door-to-door waste 
collection network, training and 
upskilling is needed in order 
to improve environmental and 
social outcomes. Given that 
waste collection carried out by 
the informal sector is impacted 
by the market value of secondary 
materials, and sorting of plastic 
waste is mostly performed 
manually, there is ample scope 
for investing in technologies and 
infrastructure to enable more 
efficient collection, segregation 
and demand for secondary 
materials. Some key activities 
needed to integrate the activities 
of the informal sector are: 

• Include the informal sector 
in legal frameworks to clarify 
their role, improve working 
conditions, access to finance, 
access to government services 
and benefits and supporting 
them in developing their own 
business opportunities. 
• Recognise the importance of 
the roles undertaken by the 
informal sector, a significant 
move will be to provide basic 
work and hygiene conditions 
such as uniforms, identity cards, 
safety gear, adequate equipment 
and tools, and to provide health 
insurance.
• Promote and strengthen 
waste exchange platforms 
and marketplaces that reduce 
recovery and transportation 
costs for waste generators and 
collectors, including the use 
of digital platforms and IoT 
to connect actors across the 
value chain.
• Enable systems to track and 
monitor material flows managed 
by the informal waste value 
chain, to reduce underreporting 
and illegal trade.
• Provide practical guidance 
to leaders at municipal and 
community levels, in both the 
formal and informal economies, 
to enable better tracking 
of EPR efficacy and policy 
implementation, such as bans on 
single-use plastics.
• Strengthen markets for 
secondary materials by 
equipping informal sector 
recyclers with adequate 
technologies, material know-
how and fair compensation, 
including reverse take-back 
channels through established 
EPR systems.
• Tailor training and awareness 
programs, waste-related 
messaging and media to suit 
the needs of the informal sector, 
and to encourage co-design of 
action plans to support effective 
policy implementation. 




6 Community- and industry-
led local initiatives

6.1 Introduction

Community- and industry-led local initiatives are an 
important component of the suite of plastic management 
measures taken up by India. As a signatory to the 
forthcoming Global Plastics Treaty, 2024, India will need 
to tackle the whole life cycle of plastic, from production to 
disposal and not just post-consumer waste. Therefore, all 
stakeholders in the value chain have a role to play in PWM.

This chapter focuses on community- and industry-led local 
initiatives implemented across the country by community 
organisations, industry stakeholders, the public sector 
and/or international organisations. Circular economy 
initiatives are often undertaken by communities to reduce 
the impacts of plastic on the local environment (UNDP, 
2019). Community- and industry-led local initiatives have 
the potential to contribute to the transition towards a 
circular economy for plastics by experimenting with 
innovative models of action on the ground, raising 
awareness and facilitating behaviour change among 
citizens and informing policy. While they may initially be 
small scale, their multiplication and progressive scaling 
up could lead them to have broader impacts on society. 

Our aim is to understand the scope and focus of community 
and industry led local circular economy initiatives 
operating in India and to further identify the success 
factors and the challenges they encounter(ed) during 
their implementation and development. This study began 
with an extensive review of grey literature, media articles 
and annual reports to identify relevant initiatives. A 
number of initiatives were then selected as case studies 
and interviews were conducted with stakeholders to gain 
insights into their operations. The chapter concludes with 
some recommendations to facilitate the development 
of Community- and industry-led local initiatives. 

In the review, a large number of initiatives were identified 
(Tyagi et al., 2021) – due to our focus on local initiatives 
involving individuals and communities, the examples 
tend to focus on the management of plastic packaging 
and do not involve plastic management from major 
industries. Initiatives were characterised based on the 
circular economy strategy20
20 The circular economy strategies framework we adopt offers ten circular economy strategies: Refuse, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, 
Remanufacture, Repurpose, Recycle and Recover (Kirchherr et al., 2017; Potting et al., 2017).

 they employed and the types 
of activities they conducted. Most focused on either the 
end-of-life of plastics, particularly recycling and recovery, 
or the beginning of the life cycle, notably refuse and 
reduce. In contrast, only a few examples of initiatives 
focused on the middle of the life cycle, such as reuse or 
repurpose. Six types of activities carried out by initiatives 
were identified, as described in Table 6.1. Each initiative 
conducted one or several of those types of activities.



Table 6.1 Types of activities conducted by community- and 
industry-led local initiatives

TYPE OF 
ACTIVITY

DESCRIPTION

Awareness raising 
and behaviour 
change

Initiatives that focus on raising awareness 
of individuals, communities and businesses 
and encouraging behaviour change in their 
local community through campaigns or 
plastic waste-related activities (e.g., beach 
clean-up, waste collection drives etc.).

Using alternatives 
to plastics

Initiatives that aim to replace plastic with 
alternative materials (e.g., glass bottles 
instead of plastic bottles, cloth bags 
instead of plastic bags).

Repurposing of 
plastic waste for 
new applications

Initiatives that aim to repurpose plastic 
waste by finding new applications, such as 
low-cost building material. 

Incentivising waste 
segregation

Initiatives that provide financial ‘rewards’ 
for the collection of plastics (e.g., buy-back 
system, paying school fees with plastics).

Facilitating waste 
segregation, 
collection and 
recycling

Initiatives that aim to provide the 
logistics, infrastructure and systems to 
facilitate waste segregation, collection 
and recycling, by providing bins, drop-
off points or collection drive services, 
coordinating actions with recyclers, 
developing material recovery facilities or 
dry waste collection centres, etc.

Building capacity 
of waste collectors

Initiatives that aim to improve the 
livelihoods and working conditions of 
waste collectors and support them with 
the development of managerial skills.





To undertake further analysis of the success 
factors and challenges encountered during the 
implementation and development of initiatives, we 
selected 16 case studies to represent the diversity of 
circular economy strategies and types of activities 
across different proponents and geographies.

The team conducted 14 semi-structured interviews with 
stakeholders involved in the 16 case study initiatives 
(two interviewees discussed two initiatives each). To 
understand the success factors and challenges encountered 
during the implementation and development of the 
initiatives, a framework was developed (Tyagi et al., 
2021). This framework is composed of five categories:

• Context: Elements of the social, political, regulatory, 
cultural and economic context that enable or hinder the 
emergence and development of an initiative.
• Appropriateness: (In)adequacy of the initiative within 
the local context.
• Governance and management: Governance and 
management structures that enable or hinder community 
paricipation, social inclusion as well as the financial and 
organisational sustainability of the initiative.
• Diffusion:21
21 In the initial framework presented in a previous working paper (see reference hereafter), the 'innovation' was evaluated along with diffusion. However, this 
dimension will not be evaluated in this chapter. See also Tyagi A, Ruoso LE, Retamal M, Pai Panandiker A, Goswami G and Niazi Z 2021, Towards a circular 
economy for plastics in India: A review of community, industry and public sector initiatives. Report Number 2021–2. Development Alternatives, UTS and TERI, 
Australia and India.

 The ability of the initiative to scale up or 
replicate itself.
• Outcomes and impacts: The ability of the initiative to 
meet its objectives as well as the environmental, social, 
and economic impacts of the initiative.


These five categories informed the structure of our 
interviews and were then used to identify the success 
factors and the challenges encountered during the 
implementation and development of the initiatives studied.

This chapter is structured in four parts. Firstly, we present 
‘what is working well’, or the success factors of the 
initiatives. Secondly, we discuss ‘what could be done 
differently’, where we identify challenges related to 
the implementation and development of initiatives, as 
well as a few global best practice examples that could 
provide avenues for initiative development. Finally, we 
provide insights into actions that could be taken in India 
to facilitate the implementation and development of 
community- and industry-led local initiatives, with specific 
recommendations for the short-, medium- and long-term.



6.2 What is working well?

In this section, we report on the successes achieved by 
the initiatives in terms of: i) positive environmental, social 
and economic outcomes, ii) implementation of sustainable 
governance and management (with a specific focus on 
partnership and collaboration, financial sustainability 
and community engagement), and iii) processes of 
scaling up and replication of initiatives. We also present 
elements that were mentioned less often, which are 
contextual enablers and alignment to local context.

Positive outcomes

Community- and industry-led local initiatives respond to 
problems identified by proponents concerning plastics 
in India. These are: i) negative impact of plastics on 
land, freshwater and marine ecosystems, ii) overflowing 
landfills generating air quality problems and fire risks, 
iii) poor working conditions of individuals working 
in the informal waste sector, iv) no or unfit waste 
segregation and collection systems; v) no collection of 
dry waste with low commercial value; vi) lack of recycling 
infrastructure; and vii) littering and dumping of waste. 
Each initiative responds to one or several of these 
challenges, leading to a range of positive outcomes.

Positive outcomes that were qualitatively reported 
by interviewees were environmental, social, 
economic and process-related in nature:

• Environmental outcomes relate to some degree of 
diversion of dry waste from landfill, improvements in the 
general cleanliness of the environment and improved air 
quality.
• Social outcomes pertain to the formalisation of the 
informal sector by officialising the roles of waste 
workers (e.g., through worker identification cards), 
giving them access to government services and benefits, 
and supporting them in developing their own business 
opportunities (e.g., development of material recovery 
facilities managed by waste pickers). Another type of 
social outcome is an increased awareness and a shift in 
practices related to waste segregation and collection, 
plastic avoidance and use of alternative materials by 
individuals, households, housing societies, schools and 
small businesses, even if sometimes short-lived.
• Economic outcomes are connected to the creation of 
new markets for plastics that are usually not collected 
due to their low value (e.g., thermocol is used as 
insulation material and multi-layered plastic is co-
processed in cement factories) as well as the emergence 
of an industry for alternative products (e.g., bowls 
made of areca-nut spathe or bamboo). Other economic 
outcomes are: i) improved economic prospects for waste 
workers owing to increased segregation rates, which 
give them access to good quality waste they can sell 
for a higher value and ii) lower expenses for businesses 
that repurposed plastic as cheap buidling material, or 
adopted more durable alternative materials (e.g. glass 
instead of plastic bottles).
• Process-related outcomes relate to initiatives that can 
be used as a ‘showcase’ of best practice and could 
be reproduced elsewhere, most notably around the 
improvement of waste segregation and collection 
systems and the monitoring of waste being processed at 
recycling/recovery facilities.


Sustainable governance and management

Three aspects of governance and management 
appeared to be key to the success of initiatives: 
partnerships and collaboration, financial 
sustainability, and stakeholder engagement.

Partnership and collaboration: Several initiatives involved 
a range of stakeholders, including public entities (e.g., 
state governments, ULBs or panchayats), private actors 
(e.g., waste industry, companies conducting EPR and CSR 
programs), community or international organisations (e.g., 
NGOs, not-for-profits) and citizens. These partnerships 
and collaborations brought together stakeholders with 
complementary skills and capacities, notably around 
infrastructure provision, logistics, workforce, funding 
and soft skills, such as expertise in behaviour change 
programs. This enabled them to implement initiatives 
that they could not have implemented on their own. 

Another type of partnership observed was cross-sectoral 
collaboration between waste focused organisations and 
those focused on other social and environmental issues, 
such as health and sanitation. This approach makes 
it possible to address the same issue from a range of 
perspectives. This was only observed once but it may 
be significant in addressing some of the multi-faceted 
social and environmental dimensions of plastic waste.



Finally, linking up and collaborating with existing 
influential organisations was found to enhance the visibility 
of initiatives. This was the case of one not-for-profit 
organisation that collaborated with a well-established 
philanthropic organisation, who shared information about 
the initiative with various government organisations.

Financial sustainability: Access to funding and financial 
autonomy were important aspects of the successful 
governance and management of initiatives. While 
access to funding was identified as a major challenge 
to sustaining and scaling up initiatives, notably for 
initiatives managed by NGOs and not-for-profits (as 
will be discussed in Section 6.3), several initiatives did 
manage to secure public funding and/or funding from 
CSR programs. Additionally, one initiative managed to 
gain financial autonomy by organising activities that 
generate income (i.e., organisation of a small business 
exhibition several times a year, where businesses are 
charged a stall fee that is then used to fund the initiative). 
In other cases, the initiative was designed to create 
economic opportunities for participants in the initiative, 
by selling the products they create as an alternative to 
single-use plastic products or by managing their own 
waste collection centre. This may lead to participants 
being able to pursue activities beyond the initiative.

Community engagement constitutes the last 
important aspect of the governance and management 
of initiatives. Several strategies for successful 
community engagement were identified:

• Doing the ‘groundwork’ to enrol community members 
in the project, notably by presenting the objective and 
vision for the project by going door-to-door,
• Demonstrating that the project is long term and will lead 
to continuous involvement,
• Showing the tangible outcomes of an initiative (e.g., a 
bench made of plastics collected during a coastal drive), 
and
• Tapping into existing community groups (e.g., women’s 
groups) and local or religious leaders to contribute to 
and/or support the initiative.


Scaling up and replication of initiatives

The ability of initiatives to scale up or replicate is an 
important feature to enable widespread implementation 
and success in driving a circular economy. Scaling up 
refers to initiatives that increase in size and expand to 
different geographies. Replication refers to initiatives 
that are taken up by other organisations to be developed 
elsewhere. Three types of stakeholders – government, 
citizens and businesses – appear to be the driving 
force for the scaling up and replication of initiatives: 

• Government agencies can support scaling up of 
initiatives by giving them formal recognition and 
endorsing their implementation at a larger scale (e.g., 
Memorandum of Understanding or any other type of 
formalised agreement) and can play an active role in the 
replication of initiatives by being the main proponent for 
the implementation of an existing initiative in another 
location.
• Large industry stakeholders can play a role by 
leveraging their resources to pilot and then scale up 
initiatives in the multiple geographical areas where 
they are established. Similar to government agencies, 
large industry stakeholders can also be a driver for the 
replication of initiatives by observing and learning from 
their peers.
• Community members can play an important role in 
scaling up initiatives by actively contributing to the 
localised management of activities implemented by an 
initiative, to increase its geographical coverage. They 
can also drive the replication of initiatives conducted by 
other community members in their own local area by 
learning from existing initiatives.


Other factors (context and appropriateness)

Context and appropriateness did not feature prominently in 
the interviews. However, a few important elements should 
be mentioned. Regarding contextual factors, two initiatives 
were enabled by the creation of by-laws at the city level that 
aligned with their objectives. Concerning appropriateness, 
the importance of designing initiatives that take the local 
context into account was mentioned twice. In one case, 
the importance of developing initiatives that provided 
economic opportunities for participants was considered 
important for initiatives focusing on communities that 
encounter financial struggles. Another initiative that 
focused on improving the life conditions of informal 
waste pickers insisted on the importance of building on 
the existing waste pickers industry to improve the system, 
rather than bringing ‘businessmen from the outside’.



6.3 What are the 
current challenges?

In this section, we report on the challenges encountered 
by initiatives, which may lead to discontinuance, poor 
outcomes, or impossibility for the initiative to be scaled 
up or replicated. We identified a range of contextual 
barriers and struggles with community engagement 
that led to suboptimal outcomes for initiatives. We also 
identified lack of access to funding as a fundamental barrier 
to the implementation of sustainable governance and 
management and the scaling up or replication of initiatives.

Contextual barriers impacting the outcomes 
of initiatives

Three contextual barriers were identified by interviewees 
that prevented some initiatives from reaching the 
expected outcomes: i) a lack of regulatory support, 
ii) a lack of collection and recycling centres, and 
iii) a lack of inexpensive reusable alternatives.

• Lack of regulatory support was found to hinder 
the implementation of initiatives related to waste 
segregation, collection and recycling, and the use of 
plastics as building materials.
– EPR was considered by one interviewee as 
encouraging participants to collect plastic waste 
and send it to cement kilns instead of enabling 
source segregation and recycling. Another 
interviewee mentioned that the amount offered 
through the bidding process is too low for some 
stakeholders to participate.
– Lack of support from local governments was also 
mentioned. In the absence of by-laws or any other 
form of institutional recognition of an initiative, 
initiatives rely on ‘memories of individuals within 
the organisation’, making the success of an initiative 
vulnerable to staff movements within local 
government. Another barrier identified is local 
governments not issuing permits for the trialling of 
innovative practices.



• Lack of collection and recycling centres posed 
challenges to several initiatives. Some initiatives 
collected so much waste that existing infrastructure was 
insufficient to absorb the waste collected. Others did 
not have access to recycling and recovery centres. This 
meant that the waste collected by various initiatives 
sometimes ended up in landfill or was burnt. The reason 
provided to explain problems related to access was that 
many small corporations in cities and towns do not have 
logistics and recycling centres in place. Barriers to the 
implementation of such centres can be a lack of scale 
(i.e., only small quantities of plastics are collected), or a 
lack of infrastructure to enable the establishment of a 
recycling centre (e.g., a power supply).
• Lack of inexpensive reusable alternatives posed 
challenges to an initiative focusing on encouraging 
individuals and businesses to replace plastic with 
other materials. 


Struggles with community engagement

Lack of community engagement was a substantial barrier 
identified by some initiatives focusing on the collection 
and segregation of waste or replacing plastic with 
other materials. Several hindrances were identified:

• Inconvenience: Using reusable alternatives or bringing 
waste to the collection centre is less convenient than 
using single-use plastics or having waste collected at 
home.
• Ineffectiveness: Individuals can perceive their actions 
as having no impact if the whole system of waste 
management is not modified too.
• Illegitimacy: Advice provided by initiatives may be 
perceived as illegitimate when it is not supported by 
regulations. For example, why avoid polypropylene bags 
if no regulation has been put in place to regulate their 
use?
• Low priority: Individuals may have other priorities, 
notably focusing on their livelihoods.




Providing financial incentives to 
facilitate community participation in 
initiatives: two international examples

Models developed by initiatives abroad may help 
to address some of the challenges in India. Here, 
we present two examples from Indonesia and 
Australia that may help overcoming some barriers 
relating to community engagement, notably around 
the issue of participation being a low-priority.

Bank Sampah (Indonesia): This is a method 
developed by Bank Sampah, Indonesia, to collect 
and recycle household solid waste (including plastic 
waste). In Yogyakarta, the first waste banks were 
established in 2008, and by 2017, Indonesia had 
more than 5,000 waste banks (Schlehe and Yulianto, 
2020). Managed by community organisations, the 
waste banks aim to encourage community members 
to bring waste to the bank, weigh it, and register 
credit for it. Once a year, people are paid out an 
amount equal to the reported weight of waste that 
they brought in (Schlehe and Yulianto, 2020). 

Seaside Scavenge (Australia): Seaside Scavenge 
is an event organised by Take 3 for the Sea, a 
registered charity, where waste (including plastic 
waste) is collected from waterways and parks. 
During the event, participants collect plastic waste, 
which is then sorted, counted and transmitted to 
the Australian Marine Debris database, where it is 
used for research on marine pollution. For every 
ten pieces of trash collected, participants receive a 
token that they can use to shop at a market selling 
second-hand items donated by the community 
(https://www.take3.org/seaside-scavenge/).

While initiatives providing financial incentives 
already exist in India, these two examples provide 
additional strategies that could be used to 
incentivise community participation in initiatives 
related to waste collection and beach cleaning.

Lack of access to funding as a fundamental 
barrier to sustainable governance and 
scaling up

Initiatives often reported that a lack of funding was a 
significant hindrance to the long-term governance and 
management of initiatives, as well as their diffusion 
through scaling up and replication. In one case, an 
initiative ceased due to a lack of access to funding 
beyond the pilot stage. In other cases, individuals used 
their personal funds to finance activities until they were 
able to secure modest financial or material support.

While lack of funding in general was considered a 
hindrance, emphasis was put, by some, on the importance 
of government funding. Indeed, one initiative considered 
government funding to be essential, as there is ‘some 
work that the government should do’ about solid waste 
management, and several interviewees mentioned 
the need to develop collaboration with and secure 
funding from the government as necessary to scale up 
initiatives. Indeed, scaling up initiatives often involves 
additional capital, transportation and labour costs, 
which initiatives cannot bear without further financial 
support. However, the availability of CSR funding was 
perceived by one interviewee as encouraging the 
government not to engage in and fund those activities.

In addition to a lack of access to funding, several other 
governance and management challenges were noted:

• Difficulties in developing partnerships or 
collaborations with the government (i.e., the 
government does not regard staff from an initiative as 
having professional skills) or private companies (i.e., 
the initiative does not manage to identify companies 
that recycle or recover waste).
• Lack of (human) capacity within the initiative to 
manage it adequately and to scale it up.
• Lack of success in engaging with waste pickers (i.e., 
lack of access and capacity to communicate with 
waste pickers).


Industry led initiatives on alternative 
uses of plastics

Several of the observed initiatives used plastics 
for alternative purposes by using it in building 
materials or by creating new objects such as 
benches from plastic collected in beach drives. 
While these initiatives tended to be community-
led and on a small-scale, Indonesia has an 
example of an industry-led large-scale project.

Danone AQUA’s Bottle 2 Fashion (Indonesia): This 
venture uses recycled bottles that would otherwise 
end up in landfill or in the environment to make a 
line of children’s clothing. The plastic collected is 
sorted, cleaned, and shredded at Danone AQUA’s 
recycling unit in South Tangerang, close to Jakarta 
(Jakarta Post, 2020). The H&M production facility 
then converts the shredded plastic into children’s 
clothing (Jakarta Post, 2020). H&M sells the 
collection both online and at a number of stores 
in Java, Bali, and abroad (Jakarta Post, 2020).



6.4 Recommendations

Governments and industry stakeholders at the local, state, 
and national levels in India can support community- and 
industry-led local initiatives for the circular economy. As 
observed in this chapter, partnership and collaboration, 
financial sustainability and community engagement 
were found to be essential to the implementation 
and development of initiatives. Conversely, struggling 
initiatives often report a lack of partnership and 
collaboration with government and private entities, a 
lack of community engagement, and a lack of access to 
funding. Additionally, a range of contextual barriers that 
hamper the implementation and development of initiatives 
were also identified. One type of barrier – the lack of 
regulatory support – can impact all types of initiatives. 
Other barriers apply to specific types of initiatives, such 
as a lack of provision of collection and recycling facilities 
for initiatives focusing on waste management and a lack 
of access to inexpensive and reusable alternatives for 
initiatives focusing on ‘refusing’ the use of plastic. 

As a result, measures that facilitate partnership and 
collaboration, engagement with communities and the 
provision of funding, but also address various contextual 
barriers are likely to foster the implementation and 
continuance of a diversity of circular economy initiatives. 
The following measures could be considered in the short-, 
medium- and long-terms. They are categorised according 
to the following themes: i) partnership and collaboration, 
ii) financial sustainability, iii) fostering community 
support and iv) creating an enabling environment

Short-term priorities (to 2025)

Partnership and collaboration

• Support initiatives through local and state government 
endorsement in local media, news channels, social 
media, etc. This will increase community engagement by 
enhancing the legitimacy of initiatives.
• Develop knowledge sharing platforms and spaces 
where proponents and local and state governments can 
learn from each other. In this environment, the work 
of initiatives can be more systematically recorded and 
studied to identify potential to scale up and replicate. 


Fostering community engagement

• Short-term measures suggested in the Behaviour 
change chapter (see Chapter 7) would also contribute 
to community engagement by shifting perspectives 
on circular economy initiatives being inconvenient, 
ineffective, illegitimate, or low priority.


Medium-term priorities (to 2030)

Partnership, collaboration and 
financial sustainability

• Establish incubators and accelerators through public-private 
partnership models that offer funding, connect community-
led local initiatives with corporations, businesspeople, 
academics and professionals in the industry.
• Develop government-led programs to co-finance 
initiatives, and in collaboration with incubators, facilitate 
initiatives to develop towards financial self-sufficiency. 


Fostering community engagement

• Medium-term measures suggested in the Behaviour 
Change chapter (see Chapter 7) also contribute to 
community engagement in initiatives by shifting 
perspective on circular economy initiatives being 
inconvenient, ineffective, illegitimate, or low priority.


Creating an enabling environment

• Medium-term measures suggested in the Circular 
Business Models chapter (see Chapter 3) contribute to the 
development of alternatives to single-use plastics. This 
can support initiatives aiming to refuse plastics. 
• Governments may facilitate the acquisition of 
community-owned machinery (e.g., Precious Plastic, 
ByFusion, CMPlastik) to support community-led local 
initiatives that recycle plastics into usable products.


Long-term priorities (beyond 2030)

Fostering community engagement

• Implement monitoring systems to track the progress and 
impacts of community- and industry-led local initiatives. 
This is likely to help with community engagement by 
providing data on the effectiveness of initiatives.
• Long-term measures suggested in the Behaviour Change 
chapter (see Chapter 7) contribute to community 
engagement in initiatives by shifting perspective 
on circular economy initiatives being inconvenient, 
ineffective, illegitimate, or low priority.


Creating an enabling environment

• Enhance regulatory support through modifications to EPR 
rules to ensure it supports higher-order activities of the 
circular economy (not just refuse-derived fuel and recycling).
• Build a network of material recovery and recycling facilities 
in urban and rural areas to enable systematic waste 
collection and recycling. This can support all initiatives 
related to waste management.
• Long-term measures suggested in the Circular Business 
Models chapter (see Chapter 3) contribute to the 
development of alternatives to single-use plastics. This 
can support initiatives aiming to refuse plastics. 




Resources are 
urgently needed to 
modernise India’s 
recycling supply chain

Modernising India’s recycling 
supply chain will meet a short-term 
objective of a circular economy of 
plastics. Modernisation, however, 
requires significant resources 
to address waste infrastructure 
gaps, while growing the sorting, 
processing and manufacturing 
or remanufacturing capability of 
the recycling sector. A Recycling 
Modernisation Fund could be a 
national initiative established in 
India with Government funding 
complemented by industry 
investments into new and 
upgraded recycling infrastructure.

 Benefits of a Recycling 
Modernisation Fund include:

• Increased capacity and capability 
of the plastic resource recovery/
recycling sector.
• Attracting the latest 
innovations in plastic waste 
recycling.
• Environmental and economic 
benefits. 
• Creation of jobs in the sector.
• Improved quality of materials for 
remanufacturing.
• Transformation of the waste and 
recycling sector.


Funding could be applied for and 
used by SMEs, NGOs, urban local 
bodies or community groups with 
varying sized operations in both 
urban and rural or regional areas. 
The increase in recycling capacity 
resulting from modernisation 
of the recycling sector is in line 
with transitioning to a circular 
economy by keeping more plastics 
in the supply chain after their 
initial use in the short term.

A successful plastics Recycling 
Modernisation Fund could be 
expanded to other recyclable 
materials transitioning to a 
circular economy, such as glass, 
paper, tyres or cardboard.



7 Behaviour change

7.1 Introduction

A circular economy for plastics requires households in India 
to make behavioural changes to the way they purchase, 
use, and dispose of plastic in their everyday lives. Plastic 
waste is estimated to constitute up to 8% of the total 
municipal solid waste generated in India (Bhattacharya 
et al., 2018) with plastic packaging comprising the bulk 
of household waste (Shaikh and Shaikh, 2021). In 2015, 
more than 90% of biscuits, confectionery, dried and 
processed food, and baked goods in the country used 
plastic packaging (Bheda, 2019). Plastic packaging is also 
the largest contributor to litter and pollution in waterways 
in India (Schmaltz et al., 2020, Shaikh and Shaikh, 2021, 
Sunitha et al., 2021). Increasing circularity behaviours at the 
household level towards plastic waste and plastic packaging 
will contribute to mitigating the impacts of the growing 
challenge of plastic pollution and creating economic 
opportunities from a circular economy for plastics. 

Circular household behaviours towards plastics go 
beyond the traditional 3 Rs of reducing, reusing and 
recycling because the concept also includes responsible 
disposal – what we call ‘4 R behaviours’. The 4 R 
behaviours are based on the consumption cycle and 
groups circular household behaviours as follows:

• Purchasing behaviours focus on reducing and avoiding 
plastic consumption through switching to non-plastic 
alternatives, purchasing products in Environmentally 
Friendly Packaging (EFP)22
22 EFP - Environmentally friendly packaging is that which can be recycled, composted, or made from recycled materials.

, purchasing products that 
are recyclable, and purchasing products that contain 
secondary or recycled materials.


Use of products and goods behaviours inclue repair and 
reuse of plastic products and avoidance of single-use plastic. 

Disposal of products behaviours focus on keeping the 
value of materials circulating for as long as possible 
through appropriate source separation, recycling, 
participating in return schemes, and avoiding littering.

While there have been programs and initiatives in India 
aimed at reducing single-use plastic and increasing 
consumer awareness about 4 R behaviours, the extent 
to which households practice these behaviours across 
different regions in India is unclear, owing to lack of 
data availability (Niazi et al., 2021). Moreover, there have 
been very few initiatives to change the material objects 
and infrastructure needed to support circular household 
practices. Factors that hinder or enable circular household 
practices towards plastics are also not well understood 
despite their importance in furthering government policy 
and programs aimed at reducing plastic waste. This report 
addresses these shortfalls and identifies system-wide 
factors that, when combined, can support a cultural shift 
towards increased circularity of plastic in India. These 
factors can be divided into three groups, as shown in 
Figure 7.1, and each is discussed in terms of identifying 
barriers and enablers for increasing 4 R behaviours.

1. Knowledge and abilities

• Refers to the skills or knowledge needed to carry out the circularity behaviours; it 
also includes a level of awareness from which to build people’s competencies


2. Attitudes and motivations 

• Refers to the values, social norms, attitudes, feelings, and symbolic meanings 
associated with performing circularity behaviours 


3. Physical and material infrastructure

• Refers to the technologies, tools, infrastructure, or material objects used in 
performing circularity behaviours




Figure 7.1 Three types of system-wide factors required for driving behavioural change in a social system

Source: Adapted from Shove et al. (2012)



In this chapter, we used four research sources 
to address a knowledge gap about the extent of 
4 R behaviours in Indian households, as well as 
barriers and enablers to these behaviours:

• A desktop review of websites, education programs, and 
academic literature pertaining to plastic waste reduction 
campaigns in India and other initiatives used globally to 
increase the circularity of plastic (Niazi et al., 2021).
• 24 semi-structured interviews conducted with municipal 
governments, waste aggregators, material recovery 
facility operators, and organisations associated with 
waste education programs and other waste-reduction 
initiatives in Haridwar, Panjim, and Agra23
23 These cities were chosen because of their differences in size, geographic locations, and outcomes in the Swachh Survekshan Survey of 2021. Each area is 
connected to tourism, though this is experienced differently – Haridwar at the base of the river Ganges is a holy city and popular as a pilgrimage destination; 
Agra, home to the Taj Mahal, has a major problem managing plastic waste; and Panjim, considered one of the cleanest cities in India and capital city of Goa is 
one of India’s main tourist destinations. The Swachh Survekshan Survey 2021 results for each city also varied considerably: Haridwar ranked 285; Agra ranked 
24; and Panjim ranked 3. This cross-section of cities provided a diverse range of experiences and insights from which we could identify opportunities and 
barriers to underpin our recommendations for increasing circularity behaviours.

. 
• 558 online household surveys conducted in the same 
three cities as the interviews, using a quota sampling 
method to ensure a diverse range of households with 
varying levels of plastic circularity activities. 
• Observations and informal interviews from site visits. 


Drawing inferences from the four research sources, 
we identified a range of potential solutions and 
opportunities for improving circularity in household 
behaviours with regards to plastic and addressing 
the system-wide changes that are needed to enable 
and sustain desirable behavioural change. 

7.2 What are current practices 
and what is working well to 
enable 4 R behaviours?

Current behaviours and the determining 
factors

Householders and communities in India are 
practising 4 R behaviours to a varying degree. 

Results from the online survey shed light on the 
differences between households that practise high 
circularity of plastics (i.e., high circularity households) 
and those that practise to a lesser degree (i.e., low 
circularity households). Table 7.1 shows that low circularity 
households engaged in circularity activities sometimes or 
infrequently, whereas high circularity households engaged 
in plastic circularity activities almost always or often. 

Table 7.1 Frequency of circularity practices reported by the 
different households

CIRCULARITY 
PRACTICES

LOW 
CIRCULARITY 
HOUSEHOLDS 

HIGH 
CIRCULARITY 
HOUSEHOLDS

Buying products with 
EFP1

Sometimes

Almost always

Minimise/avoid products 
with plastic packaging1

Sometimes

Almost always

Responsibly dispose of 
their waste inside and 
outside home1

Sometimes

Almost always

Segregate waste at 
home2

Sometimes

Almost always

Segregate ‘dry’ and ‘wet’ 
waste2

Sometimes

Almost always

Segregate plastic from 
other waste2

Infrequently

Very often

Segregate paper from 
other waste2

Infrequently

Often

Segregate glass from 
other waste2

Very infrequently

Sometimes



Note: 1 Measured on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 being never and 5 almost 
always; 2 Questions were asked in yes/no or yes/not sure/no answer 
formats; Percentages of people who affirmed the practice: >=90% as 
‘almost always’, 70%–89% as ‘very often’, 60%–69% as ‘often’, 45%–59% 
as ‘sometimes’, 44%–35% as ‘infrequently’, <35% as ‘very infrequently’.

The online survey delved further into how households in 
India dispose of their different plastic packaging at home, 
as shown in Figure 7.2. Across all plastic packaging waste, 
low circularity households were more likely to dispose of 
their plastic waste in landfill. High circularity households 
were most likely to segregate and send their various plastic 
waste streams to recycling. The high circularity households 
were also more inclined to segregate their plastic waste 
and sell for money than lower circular households. Soft 
plastic food packaging was the most likely plastic waste to 
be disposed of to landfill by both low and high circularity 
households. Food residue in plastic packaging was reported 
as making it impractical to recycle these materials. 



SOFT PLASTIC FOOD WRAPPERS

Segregate and reuse 
at homeSegregate and sell for 
moneySegregate and send to 
recycling (not for )
Place in general bin for 
disposal to landllHighLow
%%%%%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
%
HARD PLASTIC PRODUCT PACKAGING 

Segregate and reuse 
at homeSegregate and sell for 
moneySegregate and send to 
recycling (not for )
Place in general bin for 
disposal to landllHighLow
%%%%%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
%
PLASTIC CARRY BAGS

Segregate and reuse 
at homeSegregate and sell for 
moneySegregate and send to 
recycling (not for )
Place in general bin for 
disposal to landllHighLow
%%%%%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
PLASTIC DRINK BOTTLES

Segregate and reuse 
at homeSegregate and sell for 
moneySegregate and send to 
recycling (not for )
Place in general bin for 
disposal to landllHighLow
%%%%%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
PLASTIC FOOD CONTAINERS

Segregate and reuse 
at homeSegregate and sell for 
moneySegregate and send to 
recycling (not for )
Place in general bin for 
disposal to landllHighLow
%%%%%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
PLASTIC UTENSILS

Segregate and reuse 
at homeSegregate and sell for 
moneySegregate and send to 
recycling (not for )
Place in general bin for 
disposal to landllHighLow
%%%%%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%
.%




Figure 7.2 Household management of different types of plastic waste in India

Note: Households were presented with each type of plastic packaging and asked what they did with the waste, choosing any of the 
four options: (1) place in general bin for disposal to landfill; (2) segregate and send to recycling; (3) segregate and sell for money; 
and (4) segregate and reuse at home. Percentages of responses are shown for each plastic type of packaging waste. 



ACCESSIBILITYAFFORDABILITYEASE OF USE/
CONVENIENCERESOURCESKNOWLEDGEKNOWHOWEFFORTHABITPERSONALNORMSSUBJECTIVENORMSEFFICACYDESCRIPTIVE 
NORMSEDUCATIONGENDERINCOMEACCESS TO 
Information and differences in circularity 
behaviours

In addition, both low and high circularity households 
reported some differences in terms of the types of 
information that they had previously received about 
household waste management. Figure 7.3 shows that high 
circularity households had received significantly more 
information on household waste management than low 
circularity households. Of all information types, most 
households in the two circularity groups had received 
information about the types of waste that can be recycled.

Figure 7.3 The types of household waste management information received by households

Low and high circularity households differed in the ways in 
which they performed the two plastic circularity behaviours 
investigated in the study: (1) minimising/avoiding packaging 
waste, which included buying products with EFP, and 
(2) responsible waste disposal inside and outside of the 
home. The two household groups differed significantly 
in their knowledge and know-how for undertaking these 
two circularity behaviours (competencies), their access 
to and affordability of the materials and infrastructure 
needed (materials), and the social or normative influences 
shaping their behaviours (meanings). Figure 7.4 provides 
a summary of factors that were significantly different 
between the high and low circularity households.

Figure 7.4 Factors that were significantly different between high and low circularity households

Note: Blue bubbles represent materials factors, orange bubbles represent competence factors, grey 
bubbles represent meaning factors and yellow bubbles are socio-demographic variables. 


Never received information 
about household 
waste managementWhere to return empty 
plastic bottles or packagesWhere I can take my 
waste to be recycledHow to segregate my 
waste appropriatelyThe type of waste that 
can be recycledHighLow

.%

.%

.%
.%
 .­.%
­€.%
­.%
­.€%
.%
 %
%%%
INFORMATION RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY

High circularity individuals reported more access to 
shops that sell products with EFP and affordability of such 
products than low circularity households. High circularity 
households also had higher levels of knowledge and know-
how about buying products with EFP. They had strong 
convictions about buying products with EFP and felt that 
their significant others would support them to do so. High 
circularity households were also more inclined to think that 
other people in India would buy products with EFP than 
low circularity households. In addition, high circularity 
households had better materials and competencies that 
allowed them to practise responsible waste disposal inside 
and outside their home. High circularity households also 
attached strong meaning to practising responsible waste 
disposal behaviours. Influences of some socio-demographic 
variables are also noteworthy, with key findings including: 

• Households with higher income and educational levels 
were often correlated with plastic circularity behaviours.
• Likewise, individuals with higher income and education 
levels also reported higher levels of the necessary 
materials and infrastructure, and knowledge and skills to 
undertake the behaviours. They also attached stronger 
meanings to circularity behaviours.
• Females were found to be more likely to practise these 
circular behaviours than males. Compared to males, 
females would more often buy products with EFP and 
minimise or avoid plastic packaging. Females were also 
more likely to practise responsible waste disposal inside 
and outside of their home. Females thought separating 
plastic waste and responsibly disposing of it to be easier 
and more convenient than males did.
• Households with children reported higher levels of 
knowledge and know-how about purchasing products 
with EFP.


7.3 What are the barriers?

Key barriers constraining 4 R behaviours in households 
can be grouped into a framework of three elements: 
knowledge and know-how; motivations and 
meanings; and materials and infrastructure. Details 
of these barriers are summarised in Figure 7.5. 

Knowledge and know-how barriers

Even though education programs and awareness campaigns 
have been the main focus in changing household 
behaviours towards plastics in India, a range of factors 
limit their overall effectiveness. These factors include 
limited access to information and education programs, 
particularly in rural areas, not all campaigns being 
translated into local languages, and limited implementation 
and availability of the materials and infrastructure 

Knowledge and know-how

• Lack of knowledge and 
understanding of how to 
source separate
• Lack of understanding about 
the extent of the plastic 
pollution problem
• Lack of access to education 
and awareness programs 
through language barriers, 
geography etc
• Lack of monotoring data
• Lack of knowledge of plastic 
alternatives







Motivations and Meanings

• No incentives to increase 
recycling 
• A use and throw culture 
(prefer to throw away into 
waste bins)
• Concerns over hygiene and 
health risks associated with 
recycling process and using 
recycled materials
• Too much time and effort
• Distrust or unsatisfaction with 
waste collectors’ service, 
• Certain features of EFP, or 
products in EFP perceived as 
inferior 
• Social influence 
(discouragement from others)
• Not responsible for recycling 
in the household







Materials and Infrastructure

• Lack of availability, 
accessibility, and affordability 
to switch to non-plastic 
alternatives or to products 
that will reduce plastic waste, 
e.g., environmentally friendly 
products
• Lack of space and 
infrastructure in homes to 
support source segregation
• Lack of waste collection 
services that will collect 
recycleables
• Some plastics are not suitable 
for recycling such as those 
contaminated by food 
residues
• Inconvenience of recycling
• Inadequate financial incentive 
to send plastics to collectors







Figure 7.5 Summary of barriers to households practising 4 R behaviours



needed to support source segregation, recycling initiatives 
and use of alternatives to plastics. Knowledge of affordable 
alternatives to plastic is sporadic in India. Consumers are 
often limited to certain plastic alternatives depending on 
where they shop. In circumstances where alternatives to 
plastics are available, the labelling of products with EFP 
is unclear and this hinders the uptake of alternatives.

There is also a lack of monitoring data to evaluate the 
extent to which an intervention is effective in changing 
a behaviour, and changes in public awareness over time. 
An exception is the Swachh Survekshan survey, which is 
conducted annually at the municipality level and uses a 
rating and ranking system to provide feedback to citizens 
about their state and municipality’s ranking of ‘cleanliness’. 
Even though the Swachh Survekshan survey does not 
measure the effectiveness of behavioural interventions, nor 
do the results give an indication of the types of programs 
implemented in the leading cities, the results provide a broad 
indication of the state of the urban landscape, including 
ratings and certification for being a ‘Garbage Free’ city.

Knowledge of the impacts of plastic pollution and circular 
behaviours towards plastic appears to be limited among 
everyday people in India. The lack of monitoring data on 
intervention effects and public awareness compounds 
these challenges because authorities are limited in their 
ability to convey the extent and severity of the plastic 
pollution problem to motivate householders improving 
the circularity of their behaviours towards plastics.

Motivation and meanings barriers

The detrimental effects of plastic pollution on the natural 
environment and human health are not at the forefront 
of people’s minds when they use or purchase products 
comprising plastic. The general perception of plastic being 
cheap and easy, to be disposed of anywhere, is a barrier to 
adopting new circularity behaviours. For many people in India, 
a ‘use and throw’ culture seems apparent. It is unclear the 
extent to which income influences a use and throw culture. 
Higher income levels potentially exacerbate this attitude due 
to increased access to resources and purchasing power. On 
the other hand, lower economic groups are potentially more 
likely to contribute to waste leaking into the environment due 
to limited access to waste collection services. The caste system 
may also contribute to motivational barriers for undertaking 
recycling behaviours in households. Recyclable materials 
including plastics have previously been handled by a socially 
perceived lower caste and therefore there is a perception in 
the wider community that these materials are contaminated, or 
‘yucky’, and can never be ‘cleaned’ because of this association.

The SUP ban aims to reduce the use of plastic carry bags 
for shopping; however, for some shoppers, there remains 
a reluctance to use a cloth bag as an alternative to plastic 
carrying bags. This observation relates more to male shoppers 
than female shoppers. In many cases, women appear to be 
the key decision makers regarding purchasing and recycling 
plastic, but there is limited information about factors 
that may hinder or constrain women in these activities.

Segregating plastic waste for recycling is a relatively 
new activity in India and has not yet become part of 
long-standing household routines, as is the way with 
newspapers, which in many cases have been separated 
and sold to ragpickers for many years. Source separation is 
influenced by such factors as available space in the house, 
age of family members, education and income levels, and 
nature of the residence (i.e., permanent vs. temporary). 
The survey found that females thought source separation 
to be easy and that they are better at source separation 
and responsible waste disposal than males. The survey also 
indicated that if people perceived the task as requiring too 
much time and effort, then it acted as a demotivator and 
a barrier to performing the behaviour. We note that, for 
some individuals, the lack of available time to undertake 
circularity behaviours such as cleaning used plastic for 
recycling or travelling further to purchase products in EFP 
is a capacity constraint rather than a matter of attitude and 
motivation. Furthermore, if the individual felt they were 
not responsible for managing waste within the household, 
they were less inclined to undertake circularity behaviours. 

Perceptions of health and safety risks and concerns 
about hygiene and cleanliness related to recycling 
practices and recycled materials also act as barriers 
for people in adopting behaviours that would increase 
the circularity of plastics. For example, contamination 
risk to food, ink from newspaper wrapping that may 
leak and spoil products, and potential risk of disease 
transmission such as COVID-19 all detract from involvement 
with reusing materials and recycled products. 

The social acceptability of purchasing and gifting recycled 
products or products in EFP is still developing in India. 
Consumers have not yet associated recycled products 
and products in EFP with quality and prestige and these 
factors are important to the purchasing decisions of the 
survey respondents, especially in purchasing gifts for 
family and friends, by friends, family or store merchants. 

Materials and infrastructure barriers

Lack of accessibility, availability, and affordability of 
environmentally friendly alternatives to plastic is deemed 
a barrier for many people, particularly those on lower 
incomes. These factors also limit the effectiveness of SUP 
bans as vendors continue to use banned plastics. Vendors 
indicated in interviews that they would be prepared to 
switch to non-plastic alternatives if they were provided 
with options that were available and affordable. As a result, 
many consumers continue to prefer cheaper single-use 
polythene bags. Furthermore, non-plastic alternatives seem 
to be limited to metropolitan cities and large vendors with 
smaller markets, and other vendors are unable to afford 
such options, which is typical of non-metropolitan areas. 



Many people also perceive that products are not designed 
or produced in a way to support waste avoidance; 
for example, products produced with a reduced shelf 
life or designed such that they cannot be recycled. 
These shortcomings compound the ‘use and throw’ 
culture that seems to exist among many consumers. 

A lack of waste management and recycling services 
and infrastructure, the insufficient capacity of existing 
infrastructure, and a shortage of labour to sort and 
segregate waste are all factors limiting collection and 
recycling options for many households, particularly for 
those located in wards on the periphery of municipal 
areas. These shortfalls also lead to increased littering 
in these locations. In addition, a hesitance by banks to 
fund businesses in the waste management and recycling 
sector and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on labour 
shortages has further exacerbated these challenges. 
In many instances, sorting in waste aggregation 
businesses largely fell to women labourers during 
the COVID-19 pandemic over the past three years.

Inconveniences such as lack of automation or lack of 
online platforms for finding where to sell recyclable 
materials were also identified as barriers, as well as 
inadequate financial incentives to send plastics to 
collectors. Some plastics are perceived to be unsuitable 
for recycling because they contain food residues, such as 
bottles with liquid, and dirty utensils and food containers. 
This perception points to an infrastructure barrier of 
not being able to include plastics with food residues 
in dry waste, as well as a motivation barrier of being 
disinterested by cleaning efforts involved in recycling.

7.4 What are the enablers?

The key enablers for supporting increased circularity 
behaviours correspond, in many cases, to overcoming 
the identified barriers. In addition, some enablers reflect 
gaps in interventions that have been successfully reported 
in other countries, or in the academic literature, or as 
effective behaviour change strategies used in other 
contexts to improve pro-environmental behaviours such 
as reducing energy or water use. The enablers are again 
discussed as three groupings related to knowledge and 
know-how, motivations and meanings, and materials 
and infrastructure, and are summarised in Figure 7.6.

Figure 7.6 Summary of enablers to households practising 4 R behaviours

Knowledge and know-how

• Democratisation of 
information – translated into 
a range of languages, written 
in an easy to understand way, 
made available and accessible
• Extend people’s 
understanding of the 
plastic problem including 
environmental and health 
effects
• Extend education programs in 
schools
• Clearer product labels to 
inform purchasing decisions 
and recyling behaviour
• Measures to make recycling 
and recycled products safe 
and hygienic and infrom the 
public of such measures 







Motivations and Meanings

• Use of social influence and 
social pressure to help 
drive behaviour change for 
avoiding and reducing plastic 
and increasing recycling 
and responsible disposal 
have been underutilised as a 
potential enabler 
• Growing concerns for 
the environment (nature, 
pollution and climate change)
• Use of incentives to encourage 
increased circular behaviours
• Use of data to monitor and 
provide targets and feedback 
to towns, municipailities 
and wherever possible to 
households so that improved 
behaviour is recognised and 
rewarded
• Draw on people’s sense of 
civic duty, social responsibility 
and altruistic motivations 
to encourage increased 
circularity behaviours







Materials and Infrastructure

• Ensure non-plastic substitutes 
or alternatives are available 
and their use are supported
• Ensure the necessary 
infrastructure is available 
for source segragation in 
households, waste collection 
and recycling within 
communities
• Ensure places with less 
capacity are also provided 
opportunity and support 
to transition to less plastic 
consumption so the process is 
‘just and fair’
• Introduce laws and 
regulations to support repair 
of products, improved design 
and improved recyclability of 
products. 
• Provide better financial 
incentives, or give promotions 
for EFP products









Knowledge and know-how

Awareness programs need to go beyond building increased 
consciousness of plastic-related issues and instil a deeper 
understanding of the plastic problem, and increase capacity 
in households and neighbourhoods to undertake circular 
plastic behaviours. This includes building knowledge 
around environmental impacts and potential health effects, 
as well as the necessary behaviours needed to reduce 
plastic waste. In addition, messaging that addresses specific 
concerns around hygiene and safety issues associated with 
recycling and recycled products would help in the uptake 
of 4 R behaviours. It will be critical to ensure information 
is provided in a range of languages, communicated in 
an easy to understand and not too scientific way, and 
made available and accessible including in rural areas. 

Using digital platforms to increase access to information 
about where to recycle, and the most economically 
beneficial options for recycling, would also help 
behavioural change and reduce the time and effort 
barriers associated with information seeking. Digital 
technology at the home could also be used to support 
waste collectors and the waste management system more 
generally through the use of ‘smart’ technology to help 
improve efficiency of collection. However, public awareness 
campaigns and education would be needed to accompany 
such interventions so that households can build trust and 
confidence in the benefits of the ‘smart’ technology. 

Extending education programs to schools and college 
students would build capacity in young people and foster 
their personal values to protect their environment. Many 
view young people as the main agents of change in families. 
Through helping to model and teach family members who 
may have less knowledge about 4 R behaviours, there is 
an opportunity for younger people to improve decision 
making around product choices and other circularity 
behaviours. In addition, ensuring products include clear 
labels for buyers regarding packaging materials and 
how these can be recycled would further support more 
circular product choices and consumer decision making.

Motivation and meanings

Social influences and pressure from family and friends 
can be used to create motivation for reducing plastic 
consumption and improving recycling and responsible 
disposal. This can be achieved through a variety of 
social means, such as the use of celebrities and ‘in-
groups’ to shape behaviour, social learning where 
the desired behaviour is witnessed and copied, 
and community-based or bottom-up initiatives that 
create momentum for change. Social influences can 
also be used to dissuade undesired behaviours. 

There was a sense among the interviewees and survey 
respondents that providing financial value for recyclable 
materials and segregated waste can incentivise 
households to sort their waste at source. Understanding 
how much financial incentive is adequate for different 
behaviours and households and how to implement 
the incentive effectively requires further research.

Targets and feedback on recycling or waste reduction 
outcomes can also be used to drive the behaviour of 
households, neighbourhoods, towns, or municipalities. 
Incentives, policies, and regulations can further drive 
desired behaviours. However, many of these initiatives 
are underpinned by good data, which can be used 
to monitor or measure behaviour over time, and to 
identify the effectiveness of specific interventions. 

Many people feel a growing concern for the 
environment, and this can be used to foster motivation 
to alter plastic consumption and help drive the 
uptake of circular plastic behaviours. A sense of 
moral conviction, civic duty, and other altruistic 
motivations can be used to influence individuals and 
their social groups to practise 4 R behaviours. 



Materials and infrastructure

Ensuring the accessibility, availability and affordability of 
non-plastic alternatives will enable many people to switch 
from plastic to a substitute. The use of the substitute may 
also need to be supported for the change to be effective. 
For example, ensuring hygiene issues are addressed if 
disposable cutlery is to be replaced with non-disposable 
and reusable alternatives. Introducing laws, policies, and 
regulations to support the repair of products, improved 
design, and improved recyclability of products would 
further ensure households are able to reduce their overall 
consumption of plastic. Businesses, including international 
companies and local merchants, are perceived as being 
responsible for making it easier for households to buy 
EFP products. For example, some survey respondents 
suggested that merchants could create specific sections 
in their stores for EFP products and open shops dedicated 
to selling EFP products. Financial incentives or reduced 
costs of non-plastic alternatives, products with recycled 
content, or products in non-plastic packaging, would also 
help drive increased circular purchasing behaviours. 

Some towns and cities lack the capacity and infrastructure 
to deliver waste collection services and recycling. Many 
households also lack space and the necessary bins for 
source segregation; moreover, appropriate bins that 
are inaccessible to stray animals are needed if bins 
are to be placed outside of dwellings. In many towns, 
there is also a lack of public bins to prevent littering. 
Ensuring the necessary infrastructure as broadly as 
possible across India, including in rural areas and areas 
with lower-income households, would ensure a just and 
fair transition to achieve a more circular economy for 
plastics. Furthermore, convenience is a key consideration; 
the more convenient the access to recycling, waste 
separation, and waste bins in public spaces, the 
more successful behaviour change is likely to be. 



7.5 Recommendations

Short-term priorities (to 2025) 

The short-term recommendations focus on six main areas: 

1. Augment and re-focus messages used in awareness and 
education campaigns 
– Include information on the size of the plastic pollution 
problem, potential impacts from plastic pollution on 
the environment and community wellbeing, and what 
is required of citizens (the ‘why’ and the ‘how’). 
– Ensure that information is available in a range of 
languages and communication channels.
– Utilise schools and colleges as primary places for 
delivering awareness and education programs.
– Increase information and training on how to read 
packaging labels to make better choices at the time of 
purchase and to dispose of packaging responsibly.
– Increase knowledge and capacity among informal 
workers, such as ragpickers, waste collectors, and 
shopkeepers, to pass on correct information (e.g., 
health and environmental impacts of plastic pollution) 
to consumers because, in many cases, the informal 
sector is the primary source of information for 
households. 
– Extend digital options for improving access to 
information and different types of information, such 
as where to recycle in a given neighbourhood.



2. Extend incentives and disincentives to reinforce desired 
behaviours
– Encourage consumers to sell their waste directly to 
sorting centres if there is no collection system.
– Provide incentives and recognition to consumers for 
segregated materials.
– Provide incentives to establish innovative non-plastic 
packaging options.
– Use disincentives to foster desired behaviours in 
segregating, recycling, and disposal.



3. Support households to participate in source segregation 
and recycling
– Roll out a program for household collection bins.
– Develop innovative solutions for multi-unit dwellings.
– Develop a monitoring plan to help households 
maintain their source segregation efforts.
– Identify solutions for segregating waste in very small 
dwellings.



4. Utilise collective social processes to create and maintain 
momentum for behavioural change
– Provide targets and feedback mechanisms 
for households, neighbourhoods, cities and 
municipalities on recycling and littering rates.
– Create recognition and award programs for clean 
neighbourhoods, towns, and cities.
– Utilise groups within society to encourage and be 
exemplars of 4 R actions, e.g., religious groups, 
sporting groups, and school communities.
– Encourage clean-up drives and awareness days in 
cities and municipalities.



5. Build a new meaning and positive image to recycle and 
use recycled products
– Provide incentive programs so that recycling and 
using recycled products become desirable behaviours 
in the community.
– Shift consumer perceptions about the quality and 
prestige of products packaged in eco-friendly 
packaging, that is, they are not inferior.
– Place coloured bins in public areas to allow source 
separation and as an avenue to raise public awareness 
of source separation and how this separation helps 
the environment.
– Identify solutions that address concerns about 
hygiene related to substitutes for single-use plastic. 
For example, the cleanliness and ‘purity’ of cutlery 
and crockery that are cleaned and kept hygienic.
– Create a marketing plan to mainstream the use 
of recycled products so they can gradually be 
disassociated with the ‘unclean’ image, and the image 
of being products limited to lower segments of the 
population.



6. Establish monitoring, evaluation, and learning 
throughout the system in order to:
– Monitor the types and levels of plastic waste in 
landfill.
– Examine the effectiveness of plastic circularity 
programs to promote learning from others.
– Establish a national database (or knowledge base) of 
effective plastic circularity intervention programs.
– Support a platform for shared learning and knowledge 
building.







Medium-term priorities (to 2030)

Medium-term recommendations are underpinned by 
research, innovation, policy, regulation, and improved 
data collection. These recommendations are broad and 
focus on four main areas: improving product design and 
labelling; improving waste management and resource 
recovery capacity and service delivery; extending 
monitoring, evaluation, and learning throughout 
the system; and supporting additional research.

1. Improving product and packaging design, affordability, 
and labelling 
– Increase access and availability of eco-packaged 
products where packaging can be composted, 
collected, or recycled easily.
– Increase availability and affordability of non-plastic 
alternatives for everyday items such as disposable 
utensils, carry bags, and sticks for food and non-food 
items.
– Increase availability of products that are fully 
recyclable at the end of product life.
– Increase labelling, use of standards, and certification 
on products and packaging to allow consumers to 
make improved product purchase choices and to know 
how to responsibly dispose of products at the end of 
their life, e.g., whether to recycle, return to producer, 
or participate in a collection refund scheme.



2. Improving waste management and resource recovery 
capacity and service delivery
– Create formal employment opportunities for 
ragpickers and garbage collectors to improve their 
skills and livelihoods. 
– Modify current infrastructure or build new 
infrastructure to cater for source segregation and 
minimise leakage points in collection systems (e.g., 
most of the fleet used by municipalities for collection 
of household waste does not support source-
segregated waste).



3. Extending monitoring, evaluation, and learning 
throughout the system
– Expand capability to track and monitor flows of 
plastic.
– Extend evaluation of plastic circularity programs to 
include targets and feedback mechanisms.
– Extend the national database (or knowledge base) of 
effective plastic circularity intervention programs to 
include learnings from international initiatives.
– Extend opportunities for shared learning and 
knowledge building.



4. Supporting additional funding and investment in:
– Research and development programs for plastic 
packaging alternatives that are affordable, accessible, 
and socially acceptable.
– Education and awareness programs in the informal 
sector to increase collection and recycling.
– Technological solutions to improve responsible waste 
disposal inside and outside of the home.





Long-term priorities (beyond 2030)

1. Fostering a cultural shift
– Support a cultural shift in the way citizens think 
about waste and the workers who work in the waste 
management and resource recovery sector.
– Support a shift away from a ‘use and throw’ approach 
to product consumption by consumers.



2. Continual progress
– Continue to improve programs and initiatives that 
foster and enable social and behavioural change to 
support increased circularity of plastic in India. 







References

Aciu C, Ilutiu-Varvara DA, Manea DL, Orban YA 
and Babota F 2018, Recycling of plastic waste 
materials in the composition of ecological 
mortars. Procedia Manufacturing, 22, pp.274-279.

Akçaözoğlu S, Atiş CD and Akçaözoğlu K 2010, An 
investigation on the use of shredded waste 
PET bottles as aggregate in lightweight 
concrete. Waste Management, 30(2), pp.285-290.

Albano C, Camacho N, Hernández M, Matheus A and 
Gutierrez AJWM 2009, Influence of content 
and particle size of waste pet bottles on 
concrete behavior at different w/c ratios. Waste 
Management, 29(10), pp.2707-2716.

Ansar MA, Assawadithalerd M, Tipmanee D, Laokiat L, 
Khamdahsag P and Kittipongvises S 2021, Occupational 
exposure to hazards and volatile organic compounds 
in small-scale plastic recycling plants in Thailand 
by integrating risk and life cycle assessment 
concepts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 329, p.129582.

Anthesis 2022, The EU Ecodesign for Sustainable 
Products Regulation: What It Means for Businesses 
– Anthesis. Anthesis Group, https://www.
anthesisgroup.com/ecodesign-sustainable-
products-regulation/ (accessed 22 January 2023).

Artigas V 2014, Polymer degradation, WO 2014/209117 Al.

Asanuma M, Terada K, Inoguchi T and Takashima N 2014, 
Development of waste plastics pulverization for blast 
furnace injection. JFE Technical Report, 19, pp.110-117.

Autor DH, Dorn D and Hanson GH 2016, The 
China shock: Learning from labor-market 
adjustment to large changes in trade. Annual 
Review of Economics, 8, pp.205-240.

Bamboo India 2021, Bamboo India, https://www.
bambooindia.com/know-our-product-brush/

Baynes TM, Kapur-Bakshi S, Emami N, Bhattacharja S, 
Tapsuwan S, Joseph S, Locock K, Kaur M, Sinha 
R, Bajpai N, and Talwar S 2021, A material flow 
analysis of polymers and plastics in India. Report 
Number 2021-1. CSIRO, Canberra, Australia, https://
research.csiro.au/rpwi/wp-content/uploads/
sites/412/2021/12/A-material-flow-analysis-of-
polymers-and-plastics-in-India-Final-Nov-2021.pdf

Bharat KR, Abhishek S and Palanikumar K 2017, June, 
Mechanical property analysis on sandwich structured 
hybrid composite made from natural fibre, glass 
fibre and ceramic fibre wool reinforced with epoxy 
resin. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science 
and Engineering (Vol. 205, No. 1, p. 012015). IOP 
Publishing, doi: 10.1088/1757-899x/205/1/012015

Bhattacharya RRNS, Chandrasekhar K, Deepthi MV, 
Roy P, and Khan A, 2018, Fact Sheet on Plastic 
Waste in India. World Environmental Day, TERI.

Bheda H 2019, Extended Producer Responsibility 
and Way Forward, AIPMA.

Bocken NMP, Short SW, Rana P and Evans S 2014, A literature 
and practice review to develop sustainable business 
model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 
pp.42-56, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039

Bocken NM, De Pauw I, Bakker C and Van Der Grinten 
B 2016, Product design and business model 
strategies for a circular economy. Journal of 
Industrial and Production Engineering, 33(5), 
pp.308-320, doi: 10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124

BP and Clean Planet Energy 2022, BP and Clean Planet 
Energy reach agreement to help advance the circular 
plastics economy, 2022, https://www.bp.com/content/
dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/
news-and-insights/press-releases/bp-and-clean-planet-
energy-reach-agreement-to-help-advance-the-circular-
plastics-economy.pdf (accessed 14 September 2022).

Breslin VT and Adler-Ivanbrook L 1998, Release of 
copper, chromium and arsenic from CCA-C 
treated lumber in estuaries. Estuarine, Coastal 
and Shelf Science, 46(1), pp.111-125.

Breslin VT, Senturk U and Berndt CC 1998, Long-
term engineering properties of recycled plastic 
lumber used in pier construction. Resources, 
Conservation and Recycling, 23(4), pp.243-258, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(98)00024-X

Burghardt TE, Pashkevich A, Babić D, Mosböck H, 
Babić D and Żakowska L 2022, Microplastics 
and road markings: the role of glass beads and 
loss estimation. Transportation Research Part 
D: Transport and Environment, 102, p.103123.



Butler MAS 2000, Health effects of occupational 
exposure to asphalt. US Department of Health and 
Human Services, Public Health Service, Centres 
for Disease Control and Prevention, National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Campbell L 2021, Top 10 countries doing the most 
to tackle plastic pollution, Good With Money, 
https://good-with-money.com/2021/07/26/
top-10-countries-doing-the-most-to-tackle-
plastic-pollution/ (accessed 22 January 2023).

Choi YW, Moon DJ, Kim YJ and Lachemi M 2009, 
Characteristics of mortar and concrete containing 
fine aggregate manufactured from recycled waste 
polyethylene terephthalate bottles. Construction 
and Building Materials, 23(8), pp.2829-2835.

Ciolkosz D 2014, Waste Plastic in Fuel, https://extension.psu.
edu/waste-plastics-as-fuel (accessed 22 August 2022).

Convery F, McDonnell S, and Ferreira S 2007, The most 
popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish 
plastic bags levy. Environmental and Resource 
Economics. doi:10.1007/s10640-006-9059-2

CPCB 2020, Annual Report 2019–20 on Implementation 
of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, in 
Annual Report, Central Pollution Control Board, 
Online, 2020, https://cpcb.nic.in/uploads/
plasticwaste/Annual_Report_2019-20_PWM.
pdf (accessed 29 September 2022).

CPMA 2020, Indian Petrochemical Industry, Country 
paper from India, Asia Petrochemical Industry 
Conference, 28-29 May 2020, New Delhi, India, 
India, https://cpmaindia.com/pdf/indian-
petrochemical-industrty-country-report-2020.pdf 

CSE 2020, Managing Plastic Waste in India.

CSIR-IIP n.d., Waste plastics (PE,PP) to diesel CSIR 
IIP GAIL Technology, https://www.iip.res.in/
waste-plastics-pepp-to-diesel-csir-iip-gail-
technology/ (accessed 28 September 2022).

d’Ambrières W 2019, Plastics recycling worldwide: 
current overview and desirable changes. Field 
Actions Science Reports. The Journal of Field 
Actions (Special Issue 19), pp.12-21, http://
journals.openedition.org/factsreports/5102

Dalhat MA and Al-Abdul Wahhab HI 2017, Performance 
of recycled plastic waste modified asphalt 
binder in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of 
Pavement Engineering, 18(4), pp.349-357.

Das A and Kandpal TC 1997, Iron and steel 
manufacturing technologies in India: 
estimation of CO2 emission. International 
Journal of Energy Research, 21(12), pp.1187-
1201, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
114X(19971010)21:12%3C1187::AID-ER320%3E3.0.CO;2-Y

De Silva L, Doremus J and Taylor R 2021, The Plastic 
Economy. Environmental Defense Fund Economics 
Discussion Paper Series, EDF EDP, pp.21-05.

De Vuyst P, Dumortier P, Swaen GM, Pairon JC and 
Brochard P 1995, Respiratory health effects of 
man-made vitreous (mineral) fibres. European 
Respiratory Journal, 8(12), pp.2149-2173.

De Weerdt L, Sasao T, Compernolle T, Van Passel S, and 
De Jaeger S 2020, The effect of waste incineration 
taxation on industrial plastic waste generation: A panel 
analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 157, 
p.104717, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104717

Devasahayam S, Raju GB and Hussain CM 2019a, 
Utilization and recycling of end of life plastics 
for sustainable and clean industrial processes 
including the iron and steel industry. Materials 
Science for Energy Technologies, 2(3), pp.634-646.

Devasahayam S, Raman RS, Chennakesavulu K and 
Bhattacharya S 2019b, Plastics—villain or hero? 
polymers and recycled polymers in mineral and 
metallurgical processing – a review. Materials, 12(4), 
p.655, doi: 10.3390/ma12040655

Dhir P 2000, India: An Asphalt Roads Country, 
The Asphalt Yearbook 2000, pp. 51-3.

Dinearth 2022, Dinearth Eco friendly 
tableware, https://dinearth.com/

Dovers S and Hussey K 2013, Environment & 
sustainability: a policy handbook. 2nd edition. 
The Federation Press, NSW, Australia.

Du Plessis L, Ulloa-Calderon A, Harvey JT and Coetzee NF 
2018, Accelerated pavement testing efforts using 
the Heavy Vehicle Simulator. International Journal of 
Pavement Research and Technology, 11(4), pp.327-338.



Eartheasy 2021, Eartheasy. https://learn.
eartheasy.com/guides/the-best-eco-friendly-
alternatives-for-the-plastic-in-your-life/

Ecotopia 2021, Ecotopia. https://ecotopia.in/

Ecoware 2021, Ecoware. https://ecoware.in/

Edible Pro 2021, Edible Pro. https://ediblepro.com/

Enfrin M and Giustozzi F 2022, Recent advances in the 
construction of sustainable asphalt roads with 
recycled plastic. Polymer International, 71(12), 
pp.1376-1383, https://doi.org/10.1002/pi.6405

ESCAP 2019, Closing The Loop – Innovative partnerships 
with informal workers to recover plastic waste, in an 
inclusive circular economy approach. ESCAP, https://
www.unescap.org/sites/default/d8files/knowledge-
products/Closing%20The%20Loop_Pune%2C%20India%20Case%20Study.pdf (accessed 19 January 2023).

European Commission 2022, Ecodesign for sustainable 
products, from https://commission.europa.eu/
energy-climate-change-environment/standards-
tools-and-labels/products-labelling-rules-and-
requirements/sustainable-products/ecodesign-
sustainable-products_en (accessed 20 January 2023).

Faraj RH, Sherwani AFH and Daraei A 2019, Mechanical, 
fracture and durability properties of self-
compacting high strength concrete containing 
recycled polypropylene plastic particles. Journal 
of Building Engineering, 25, p.100808.

Geissdoerfer M, Morioka SN, de Carvalho MM and Evans 
S 2018, Business models and supply chains for the 
circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, 
pp.712-721, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.159

Geissdoerfer M, Pieroni MP, Pigosso DC and 
Soufani K 2020, Circular business models: 
A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 
p.123741, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123741

Giustozzi F and Boom Y 2021, Use of road-grade recycled 
plastics for sustainable asphalt pavements: overview 
of the recycled plastic industry and recycled plastic 
types, Austroads Ltd, Sydney, APT6305.

Glaser JA, Sahle-Demessie E and Te’ri LR 2022, Are 
Reliable and Emerging Technologies Available 
for Plastic Recycling in a Circular Economy? In 
Waste Material Recycling in the Circular Economy-
Challenges and Developments, Ed Dimitis S. Achilias, 
IntechOpen, doi: 10.5772/intechopen.95163

Gu L and Ozbakkaloglu T 2016, Use of recycled 
plastics in concrete: A critical review. Waste 
Management, 51, pp.19-42.

Hassani A, Ganjidoust H and Maghanaki AA 2005, Use of 
plastic waste (poly-ethylene terephthalate) in asphalt 
concrete mixture as aggregate replacement. Waste 
Management & Research, 23(4), pp.322-327.

Henry M, Bauwens, T, Hekkert, M, and Kirchherr, 
J 2020, A typology of circular start-ups: An 
Analysis of 128 circular business models. Journal 
of Cleaner Production, 245, 118528–. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118528

Heriawan A 2020, Upcycling plastic waste for rural road 
construction in India: an alternative solution to 
technical challenges, ADB South Asia Working Paper 
Series, Papers and Briefs vol. 69, no. March 2020, 
p. 28, http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/WPS200097-2

Heydari S, Hajimohammadi A, Javadi NHS and 
Khalili N 2021, The use of plastic waste in 
asphalt: A critical review on asphalt mix 
design and Marshall properties. Construction 
and Building Materials, 309, p.125185.

Hoekman P and Blottnitz H 2016, Cape Town’s 
Metabolism: Insights from a Material Flow Analysis, 
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21, 5, October 2017, 
1237-1249, https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12508

Hotta H 2003, Recycling technologies for 
promoting recycling-oriented society. NKK 
Technical Review, 88, pp.160-166.

Hoxha E, Bohne RA and Passer A 2021, November. 
Gap between simplified and detailed calculation 
of the environmental impacts of road mixtures. 
Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 
2042, No. 1, p. 012175). IOP Publishing.

Hydrocarbon Processing 2021, NextChem and 
Acciaierie d’Italia agree on a feasibility study to 
decarbonize Taranto steel plant, https://www.
hydrocarbonprocessing.com/news/2021/10/
nextchem-and-acciaierie-d-italia-agree-on-
a-feasibility-study-to-decarbonize-taranto-
steel-plant (accessed 25 August 2022).

India Today Web Desk 2022, Green tech innovation 
by TN college researchers replaces 70% sand in 
concrete with shredded plastic, https://www.
indiatoday.in/education-today/news/story/
green-tech-innovation-by-tn-college-researchers-
replaces-70-sand-in-concrete-with-shredded-
plastic-1917822-2022-02-25 (accessed 22 August 2022).

Issac MN and Kandasubramanian B 2021, Effect 
of microplastics in water and aquatic 
systems, Environmental Science and Pollution 
Research, vol. 28, no. 16, pp.19544-19562.



Ivar do Sul JA and Costa MF 2014, The present and 
future of microplastic pollution in the marine 
environment. Environmental Pollution, 185, pp.352-
364, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.10.036

Jakarta Post 2020, AQUA, H&M expand on bottle2fashion 
initiative to reduce plastic waste, Jakarta Post, https://
www.thejakartapost.com/adv/2020/09/03/aqua-
hm-expand-on-bottle2fashion-initiative-to-reduce-
plastic-waste.html (accessed 4 August 2021).

Jin K, Vozka P, Gentilcore C, Kilaz G and Wang NHL 
2021, Low-pressure hydrothermal processing of 
mixed polyolefin wastes into clean fuels. Fuel, 294, 
p.120505, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.120505

Kabadiwalla Connect 2021, Kabadiwalla Connect, 
https://www.kabadiwallaconnect.in/

Kainthola D 2022, Roadmap for Plastic Waste Use in Steel 
Sector to be Made in a Month: Steel Minister, https://
tatsatchronicle.com/govt-planning-use-of-plastic-
waste-in-iron-and-steel-manufacturing-calls-for-
exploring-all-possibilities/ (accessed 29 August 2022).

Kalargaris I, Tian G and Gu S 2017, The utilisation of oils 
produced from plastic waste at different pyrolysis 
temperatures in a DI diesel engine. Energy, 131, pp.179-
185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.024

Kang BS, Kim SG, and Kim JS 2008, Thermal degradation 
of poly (methyl methacrylate) polymers: Kinetics 
and recovery of monomers using a fluidized 
bed reactor. Journal of Analytical and Applied 
Pyrolysis, 81(1), pp.7-13, doi: 10.1016/j.jaap.2007.07.001

Kant A, Srlvastava DK, Goyal A, Srinivasan G, Sahoo 
P and Singh S 2015, Transforming India into a 
global manufacturing hub. Yojana, 59, pp.18-22.

Kapur-Bakshi S, Kaur M and Gautam S 2021, Circular 
Economy for Plastics in India: A Roadmap. The 
Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi, 
https://www.teriin.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/
Circular-Economy-Plastics-India-Roadmap.pdf

Khemka P 2019, Plastics in the Automotive Industry 
– Which Materials Will Be the Winners and 
Losers? https://www.gpca.org.ae/2019/01/31/
plastics-in-the-automotive-industry-which-
materials-will-be-the-winners-and-losers/

Kim J, Sovacool BK, Bazilian M, Griffiths S, Lee J, Yang M 
and Lee J 2022, Decarbonizing the iron and steel 
industry: A systematic review of sociotechnical 
systems, technological innovations, and policy 
options. Energy Research & Social Science, 89, 
p.102565, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102565

King S, Hutchinson SA and Boxall NJ 2021, Advanced 
Recycling Technologies to Address Australia’s 
Plastic Waste. CSIRO, Canberra, Australia.

Kirchherr J, Reike D, and Hekkert M 2017, Conceptualizing 
the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. 
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221–232, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005

Komilis D, Evangelou A, Giannakis G and Lymperis C 
2012, Revisiting the elemental composition and the 
calorific value of the organic fraction of municipal 
solid wastes. Waste Management, 32(3), pp.372-381, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.034

Krishnan A 2022, Like Japan and Singapore, why doesn’t India 
burn plastic wastes to produce energy? https://scroll.
in/article/1014050/like-japan-and-singapore-why-
doesnt-india-burn-plastic-waste-to-produce-energy

Lai WL, Sharma S, Roy S, Maji PK, Sharma B, Ramakrishna 
S, and Goh KL 2022, Roadmap to sustainable plastic 
waste management: a focused study on recycling 
PET for triboelectric nanogenerator production 
in Singapore and India. Environmental Science 
and Pollution Research, 29(34), pp.51234-51268.

Lawrence MJ, Garthe JW and Buckmaster DR 2006, A new 
look at making plastic-derived fuel: The Plastofuel 
500, American Society for Plasticulture, 33(4), pp.87-93.

Leads RR and Weinstein JE 2019, Occurrence of tire wear 
particles and other microplastics within the tributaries 
of the Charleston Harbor Estuary, South Carolina, 
USA. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 145, pp.569-582.

Lee C 2022, From lower carbon emissions to fewer potholes, 
there are a number of benefits to building a layer 
of plastic into roads, BBC, https://www.bbc.com/
future/article/20210302-could-plastic-roads-make-
for-a-smoother-ride (accessed 5 September 2022).

Maggio D 2022, Steel made from plastics. Projects 
in the steelmaking industry, https://www.
expometals.net/en-gb/news/news-in-detail/steel-
made-from-plastics-projects-in-the-steelmaking-
industry-id28875 (accessed 22 August 2022).

Martin S 2021, Purdue innovation affordably turning 
plastics into fuel, online: Purdue University.

Maschmeyer n.d., New technology turns a liability 
into an asset, https://www.sydney.edu.au/
research/research-impact/a-new-plastic-recycling-
technology-converts-liability-into-asset.html

Matsuoka K 2021, After years of dabbling, Japan gets serious 
about plastics recycling, Chemical and Engineering 
News, https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/
years-dabbling-Japan-serious-plastics/99/i38



McCarthy, N 2020, Chart: Which Countries Have Bottle 
Deposit Systems? Statista. Retrieved January 
22, 2023, from https://www.statista.com/
chart/22963/global-status-of-plastic-bottle-
recycling-systems/ (accessed 22 January 2022).

Meyer C 2004, Concrete materials and sustainable 
development in the USA. Structural Engineering 
International, 14(3), pp.203-207.

Milios L, Christensen LH, McKinnon D, Christensen 
C, Rasch MK and Eriksen MH 2018, Plastic 
recycling in the Nordics: A value chain market 
analysis. Waste Management, 76, pp.180-189. 

MoEFCC 2020, Guideline Document Uniform Framework 
for Extended Producers Responsibility (Under 
Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016), https://
moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/
Final-Uniform-Framework-on-EPR-June2020-for-
comments.pdf (accessed 18 January 2023).

MoHUA 2019, Plastic waste management. Issues, Solutions 
& Case Studies, http://swachhbharaturban.gov.
in/writereaddata/SBM%20Plastic%20Waste%20Book.pdf (accessed 2 September 2022).

MoHUA 2022, Secretary, MoHUA launches Swachh Survekshan 
2023 under Swachh Bharat Mission Urban 2.0, with the 
theme of ‘Waste to Wealth’ for Garbage Free Cities. 
Press Information Bureau Online, Government of India, 
24 May 2022, https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.
aspx?PRID=1827969 (accessed 19 January 2023).

MoHUA 2022a, President of India Announces Results 
of Swachh Survekshan 2022. Press Information 
Bureau Online:, Government of India, 1 October 
2022, https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1864209#:~:text=Shivamogga%20in%20Karnataka%20received%20the,awards%20saw%20a%20few%20surprises (accessed 19 January 2023).

Ministry of Road Transport and Highways 2019, Guidelines 
for the use of Waste Plastic in Hot Bituminous Mixes 
(Dry process) in Wearing Courses, in Use of Plastic 
Waste in Road Construction, Press Information Bureau 
Online, Government of India, 9 December 2019, https://
pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1595500

Ministry of Steel 2022a, Use of Plastic Waste in Iron and 
Steel Production, Press Information Bureau Online: 
Ministry of Steel, Government of India, 21 March 2022.

Ministry of Steel 2022b, Steel Industry can Provide a 
long term Sustainable Solution for Plastic waste 
in India says Shri Ram Chandra Prasad Singh, 
Press Information Bureau Online: Ministry of 
Steel, Government of India, 25 March 2022.

Ministry of Steel 2022c, Use of Plastic Waste in 
Steel Manufacturing, Press Information 
Bureau Online: Ministry of Steel, Government 
of India, 19 December 2022.

Mittal R 2021, The future of industrial packaging: Post-
COVID industry trends, https://www.linkedin.
com/pulse/future-industrial-packaging-post-
covid-industry-trends-rohit-/?trk=public_
post_main-feed-card_feed-article-content

Mo S, Wang Y, Xiong F and Ai C 2019, Effects 
of asphalt source and mixing temperature 
on the generated asphalt fumes. Journal of 
Hazardous Materials, 371, pp.342-351.

Mohanty S 2017, Recycling of Plastics in 
Indian Perspective, UNIDO Off.

Muslemani H, Liang X, Kaesehage K, Ascui F and Wilson J 
2021, Opportunities and challenges for decarbonizing 
steel production by creating markets for ‘green 
steel’ products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 315, 
p.128127, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128127

Neo ERK, Soo GCY, Tan DZL, Cady K, Tong KT, and Low 
JSC 2021, Life cycle assessment of plastic waste 
end-of-life for India and Indonesia. Resources, 
Conservation and Recycling, 174, p.105774, 
doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105774

Niazi Z, Walton A, and Gardner J 2021, Enabling behaviour 
change towards a circular economy for plastics 
in India, Report Number 2021-4, Development 
Alternatives and CSIRO, India and Australia, https://
research.csiro.au/rpwi/wp-content/uploads/
sites/412/2022/01/Enabling-behaviour-change-
towards-a-circular-economy-for-plastics-in-India.pdf 

Nikkei Asia 2019, Southeast Asia’s trash, Japan Inc.’s power-
generating treasure, https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/
Environment/Southeast-Asia-s-trash-Japan-Inc.-s-
power-generating-treasure (accessed 22 August 2022).

Nippon Steel Corporation 2021, Nippon Steel Sustainability 
Report 2021, in Nippon Steel Zero Carbon Initiative, 
https://www.nipponsteel.com/en/csr/report/

NITI Aayog 2020, Decade of Action: Taking SDGs from 
Global to Local, India’s VNR 2020 Report.

NITI Aayog 2021, SDG India Index & Dashboard 
2020-21, Partnerships in the Decade of 
Action, https://sdgindiaindex.niti.gov.in/
assets/Files/SDG3.0_Final_04.03.2021_Web_
Spreads.pdf (accessed 28 April 2023).

NITI Aayog 2021, Waste-wise Cities, NITI Aayog, https://
www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2021-12/Waste-
Wise-Cities.pdf (accessed 19 January 2023).



NITI Aayog-UNDP 2021, Handbook – Sustainable 
Urban Plastic Waste Management, https://
www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2021-10/
Final_Handbook_PWM_10112021.pdf 

O’Brien S, Okoffo ED, Rauert C, O’Brien JW, Ribeiro 
F, Burrows SD, Toapanta T, Wang X and Thomas 
KV 2021, Quantification of selected microplastics 
in Australian urban road dust. Journal of 
Hazardous Materials, 416, p.125811.

OECD 2016, Extended Producer Responsibility: 
Updated Guidance for Efficient Waste 
Management, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD 2019, Environment-Global Plastics Outlook 
[WWW Document]. https://stats.oecd.org/

OECD 2022, Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, 
Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, OECD 
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/de747aef-en

OPTOCE n.d., Ocean Plastic Turned into an 
Opportunity in Circular Economy, https://
optoce.no/ (accessed 25 August 2022).

Panda AK, Singh RK and Mishra DK 2010, Thermolysis of 
waste plastics to liquid fuel: A suitable method for 
plastic waste management and manufacture of value 
added products – A world prospective. Renewable 
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(1), pp.233-
248, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.005

Pani SK and Pathak AA 2021, Managing plastic packaging 
waste in emerging economies: The case of EPR in 
India. Journal of Environmental Management, 9, 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33780821/

Pappco Greenware 2021, Pappco Greenware, 
https://www.pappcoindia.com/

Parkinson L 2021, India allows recycled plastics in food 
contact. Food Packaging Forum, https://www.
foodpackagingforum.org/news/india-allows-recycled-
plastics-in-food-contact (accessed 6 February 2023).

Plastindia Foundation 2019, Plastic industry status report 
2019: Data on Indian plastics industry 2018–2019 – 
statistics, overview & forecast, Plastindia Foundation.

Potting J, Hekkert M, Worrell E, and Hanemaaijer A 
2017, Circular Economy: Measuring Innovation in the 
Product Chain, Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, 
(2544), http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/
publicaties/pbl-2016-circular-economy-measuring-
innovation-in-product-chains-2544.pdf

Prakash P 2022, Explained | What is the upcoming global 
treaty on plastic pollution? The Hindu, https://www.
thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/
explained-what-is-the-upcoming-global-treaty-
on-plastic-pollution/article65234335.ece

Prasad DR and Pardhasaradhi Y 2020, Twenty-five Years 
of the Constitution Seventy-fourth Amendment 
Act (74th CAA),1992: Promise and Performance. 
Indian Journal of Public Administration, 66(2), 1, 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0019556120923900

Prata JC, da Costa JP, Lopes I, Duarte AC and Rocha-
Santos T 2019, Effects of microplastics on 
microalgae populations: a critical review. Science 
of The Total Environment, 665, pp.400-405.

Priti and Mandal K 2022, Review on evolution of 
municipal solid waste management in India: 
practices, challenges and policy implications. 
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-022-01444-3

Qasrawi HY 2000, Concrete strength by combined 
nondestructive methods simply and reliably 
predicted. Cement and Concrete Research, 30(5), 
pp.739-746, doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00226-X

Rathod KD, Khedikar I and Dabhekar K 2021, November, 
Feasibility study of concrete by using polyethylene 
terephthalate fiber in enhancing the mechanical 
properties of concrete. In IOP Conference 
Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 
1197, No. 1, p. 012041). IOP Publishing.

Retamal M, Panandiker AP, Talwar S, Sah S and King S 
2021, Circular Business Models for Plastics in India. 
Literature and Practice Review. Report Number 
2021-3. UTS, TERI, Development Alternatives and 
CSIRO, Australia and India, https://research.csiro.au/
rpwi/wp-content/uploads/sites/412/2021/12/Circular-
Business-Models-for-Plastics-in-India-Final-2021-1.pdf

Rollin C 2019, Indonesia rolls up its sleeves to fight 
plastic pollution, https://www.raceforwater.
org/en/news/lindonesie-en-action-contre-la-
pollution-plastique/ (accessed 4 August 2021).

Rush C 2018, France announces new consumer incentive 
to reduce plastic waste. RFI, https://www.rfi.fr/
en/france/20180812-france-announces-new-
consumer-incentive-reduce-plastic-waste.

Saghafi M, Tabatabaee N and Nazarian S 2019, 
Performance evaluation of slurry seals containing 
reclaimed asphalt pavement. Transportation 
Research Record, 2673(1), pp.358-368.



Satyendra 2018, Waste Plastics injection in a Blast 
Furnace, https://www.ispatguru.com/waste-plastics-
injection-in-a-blast-furnace/ (accessed 2022).

Savoikar PP, Orr JJ and Borkar SP 2015, November, 
Advanced Tests for Durability Studies of Concrete 
With Plastic Waste. In UKIERI concrete congress.

Schlehe J, and Yulianto VI 2020, An anthropology of 
waste: Morality and social mobilisation in Java. 
Indonesia and the Malay World, 48(140), pp. 
40–59. doi: 10.1080/13639811.2019.1654225

Schmaltz E, Melvin EC, Diana Z, Gunady EF, Rittschof 
D, Somarelli JA, Virdin J, and Dunphy-Daly MM 
2020, Plastic pollution solutions: emerging 
technologies to prevent and collect marine plastic 
pollution. Environment International, 144: 106067, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106067

Shah D 2022, Why the Plastic Waste Amendment Rules 
2022 Is a Paper Tiger, Science – The Wire, https://
science.thewire.in/environment/plastic-waste-
amendment-rules-2022-epr-certificates-paper-tiger/

Shaikh IV and Shaikh VAE 2021, A comprehensive review on 
assessment of plastic debris in aquatic environment 
and its prevalence in fishes and other aquatic animals 
in India. Science of the Total Environment, 779, p.146421, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146421

Schandl H, King S, Walton A, Kaksonen A, Tapsuwan S and 
Bayne T 2020, National circular economy roadmap 
for plastics, glass, paper and tyres. CSIRO, Australia. 

Shanker R, Khan D, Hossain R, Islam MT, Locock K, Ghose 
A, Sahajwalla V, Schandl H, and Dhodapkar R 2022, 
Plastic waste recycling: existing Indian scenario 
and future opportunities. International Journal of 
Environmental Science and Technology, pp.1-18.

Shove E, Pantzar M, and Watson M 2012, The dynamics of 
social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. Sage.

Sikka P 2007, Plastic waste management in 
India. Packaging India, 39(6), p.43.

Simonin JM, Baltazart V, Le Bastard C and Derobert 
X 2016, Progress in monitoring the debonding 
within pavement structures during accelerated 
pavement testing on the fatigue carousel. In 8th 
RILEM International Conference on Mechanisms 
of Cracking and Debonding in Pavements (pp. 
749-755). Springer Netherlands.

Singh SG 2021, Why new rule allowing recycled plastic 
in food packaging raises concerns. Down To 
Earth, https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/
waste/why-new-rule-allowing-recycled-plastic-
in-food-packaging-raises-concerns-79454

Sirur S and Bikhchandani R 2021, These 3 Indian cities have 
managed to solve the problem of landfills. Here’s how 
they did it. ThePrint, https://theprint.in/environment/
these-3-indian-cities-have-managed-to-solve-the-
problem-of-landfills-heres-how-they-did-it/777877/

Stieger G 2018, France to tax non-recycled plastic 
packaging. Food Packaging Forum, https://
www.foodpackagingforum.org/news/france-
to-tax-non-recycled-plastic-packaging

Sunitha TG, Monisha V, Sivanesan S, Vasanthy M, 
Prabhakaran M, Omine K, Sivasankar V, and 
Darchen A 2021, Micro-plastic pollution along the 
Bay of Bengal coastal stretch of Tamil Nadu, South 
India. Science of the Total Environment 756, 144073, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144073

Talwar S, Thanduparakkal S, Arora K, Niazi Z and Retamal 
M 2021, A review of the policy framework for a circular 
economy for plastics in India, Report Number 2021-
5. UTS and Development Alternatives, Australia and 
India, https://research.csiro.au/rpwi/wp-content/
uploads/sites/412/2022/02/Policy-Framework-
for-a-CE-for-Plastics-in-India-Final-2021-2.pdf

The Economic Times 2017, Waste segregation program 
– ‘Alag Karo’ In Gurugram for Gurugram, The 
Economic Times, https://economictimes.
indiatimes.com//tetra-pak/tetra-pak-articles/
waste-segregation-program-alag-karo-in-gurugram-
for-gurugram/articleshow/60407056.cms?utm_
source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_
campaign=cppst (accessed 12 February 2023).

TERI 2018, Fact sheet on plastic waste in India, http://www.
teriin.org/sites/default/files/files/factsheet.pdf

The Times of India 2022, Explained: What is the government’s 
proposed ‘right to repair’ law and why it is good news 
for you. The Times of India, https://timesofindia.
indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/explained-what-is-the-
governments-proposed-right-to-repair-law-and-why-
it-is-good-news-for-you/articleshow/92902844.cms



Tyagi A, Ruoso LE, Retamal M, Pai Panandiker A, 
Goswami G, and Niazi Z 2021, Towards a circular 
economy for plastics in India: A review of community, 
industry and public sector initiatives. Report Number 
2021–2. Development Alternatives, UTS and TERI, 
Australia and India, https://research.csiro.au/rpwi/
wp-content/uploads/sites/412/2021/12/Community-
Industry-Initiatives-Report-Final-2021-1.pdf

Ujaley M 2022, Recycled plastics packaging need major 
overhaul to gain confidence of food industry: Top 
polymer scientist. The Economic Times, https://
economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-
products/food/recycled-plastics-packaging-need-
major-overhaul-to-gain-confidence-of-food-industry-
top-polymer-scientist/articleshow/89587334.cms

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) 2019, 
Plastics and Circular Economy: Community Solutions.

UNEP 2020, Single-use plastic bags and their 
alternatives - Recommendations from Life 
Cycle Assessments, https://wedocs.unep.
org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/31932/
SUPB.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

UNEP 2022, https://www.unep.org/news-
and-stories/story/what-you-need-know-
about-plastic-pollution-resolution.

Vasudeva V 2022, Himachal Pradesh to start buying 
single-use plastic items from students of 100 
schools. The Hindu, https://www.thehindu.com/
news/national/other-states/himachal-pradesh-
to-start-buying-single-use-plastic-items-from-
students-of-100-schools/article65567087.ece

Vasudevan R, Sekar ARC, Sundarakannan B and 
Velkennedy R 2012, A technique to dispose waste 
plastics in an ecofriendly way – Application in 
construction of flexible pavements. Construction 
and Building Materials, 28(1), pp.311-320, 
doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.08.031

Watine P 2021, 8 Inspiring innovations that are helping 
to fight plastic pollution, https://www.weforum.
org/agenda/2021/12/fight-plastic-pollution-
innovations/ (accessed 9 September 2022).

Weidema B and Wesnæs M 1996, Data quality 
management for life cycle inventories—an example 
of using data quality indicators, Journal of Cleaner 
Production, 4, 3–4, 167-174, ISSN 0959-6526, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(96)00043-1, 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
abs/pii/S0959652696000431?via%3Dihub

Weis JS and Weis P 1996, The effects of using wood treated 
with chromated copper arsenate in shallow-water 
environments: a review. Estuaries, 19, pp.306-310.

Worldbank 2021, Urban Population (% of total population), 
United Nations Population Division, World 
Urbanization Prospects: 2018 Revision, https://
data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.
IN.ZS?locations=IN (accessed 15 December 2022).

Worldsteel n.d., POSCO: Slag upcycling for negative 
emissions, https://worldsteel.org/steel-topics/
sustainability/our-action/slag-upcycling-for-
negative-emissions/ (accessed 25 August 2022).

Worldsteel n.d.(a), What is steel?, https://worldsteel.org/
about-steel/steel-facts/ (accessed 28 August 2022).

Worldsteel 2022, 2022 World Steel in Figures, 
https://worldsteel.org/wp-content/uploads/
World-Steel-in-Figures-2022.pdf

Yukioka S, Tanaka S, Nabetani Y, Suzuki Y, Ushijima T, Fujii 
S, Takada H, Van Tran Q and Singh S 2020, Occurrence 
and characteristics of microplastics in surface road dust 
in Kusatsu (Japan), Da Nang (Vietnam), and Kathmandu 
(Nepal). Environmental Pollution, 256, p.113447.

Yuliana CDD, Stephanie LBN, Ríos-Moreno GJ, 
Chávez-Alegría O and Trejo-Perea M 2021, 
June. Analysis of new asphalt alternatives with 
polymers: A review. In 2021 XVII International 
Engineering Congress (CONIIN) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.



Appendix A Methods

The Roadmap was compiled from a synthesis of 
research findings from a range of studies conducted 
across six domains and primarily in three phases. 
These domains included: data and metrics, policy 
frameworks, circular economy business models, plastic 
recycling technologies, community and industry led 
local initiatives initiatives, and social and behavioural 
change approaches. The phases involved an initial 
literature review, followed by development of strategies, 
and a final refinement and testing of findings.

A.1 Phase 1 Literature review

In 2021, each domain conducted an initial literature 
review to provide an in-depth understanding of the 
state of play in India and the initiatives that were being 
undertaken both domestically and globally with respect 
to the circular economy for plastics. These reviews have 
been compiled into individual reports and journal articles, 
and are available on the project website, Reducing 
Plastic Waste in India, https://research.csiro.au/rpwi/?

Reports

• A material flow analysis of polymers and plastics in 
India (Report 2021-1) – https://research.csiro.au/rpwi/
wp-content/uploads/sites/412/2023/03/A-material-flow-
analysis-of-polymers-and-plastics-in-India-Final-2021-1.
pdf
• Towards a circular economy for plastics in India: A review 
of community, industry and public sector initiatives 
(Report 2021-2) – https://research.csiro.au/rpwi/wp-
content/uploads/sites/412/2023/03/Community-Industry-
Initiatives-Report-Final-2021-2.pdf
• Circular business models for plastics in India: Literature 
and practice review (Report 2021-3) – https://research.
csiro.au/rpwi/wp-content/uploads/sites/412/2023/03/
Circular-Business-Models-for-Plastics-in-India-
Final-2021-3.pdf
• Enabling behaviour change towards a circular economy 
for plastics in India: A review of social and behavioural 
enablers (Report 2021-4) – https://research.csiro.au/
rpwi/wp-content/uploads/sites/412/2023/03/Enabling-
behaviour-change-towards-a-circular-economy-for-
plastics-in-India-Final-2021-4.pdf
• A review of the policy framework for a circular economy 
for plastics in India (Report 2021-5) – https://research.
csiro.au/rpwi/wp-content/uploads/sites/412/2023/03/
Policy-Framework-for-a-CE-for-Plastics-in-India-
Final-2021-5.pdf


Journal articles

• Plastic Waste Management in India: Challenges, 
Opportunities, and Roadmap for Circular Economy – 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084425
• Plastic waste recycling: existing Indian scenario and 
future opportunities – https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-
022-04079-x
• A circular economy framework for plastics: A 
semi-systematic review – https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2022.132503
• Full circle: Challenges and prospects for plastic waste 
management in Australia to achieve circular economy – 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133127




A.2 Phase 2 Development 
of strategies

During 2022, each domain proceeded to further 
investigate solutions and strategies for the Roadmap 
by examining challenges, barriers, opportunities, and 
enablers needed to progress the circularity of plastic 
in India through improvements and changes in their 
domain areas. This stage involved interviews, surveys, 
and secondary data sources to further collect evidence 
to inform the roadmap’s strategies and priorities. 
Details of each domain’s methods and data sources are 
outlined in the following sections of this Appendix. 

A.3 Phase 3 Refining the roadmap

The Roadmap priorities were tested at three roundtable 
events, which included stakeholders from government, 
industry, and non-government organisations. At 
these events, the seven Roadmap strategies were 
shared and discussed, and salient feedback was 
integrated into the final version of the roadmap. 

A.4 Details of Phase 2: Methods 
and data sources for each domain

A variety of methods and data sources were used 
to collect and analyse data for each domain. These 
inputs provided evidence from which to draw 
research findings, which were then synthesised into 
the roadmap’s key strategies and priorities. 

Table A.1 summarises the interview methods used for 
four of the domain areas: policy frameworks, CBMs, 
community-led initiatives, and approaches to social and 
behavioural change. Table A.2 contains additional details 
on whether interviews were undertaken individually 
by domain group or jointly with two or more domain 
groups. Table A.3 summarises the number of interviews 
conducted with each stakeholder group. The interviews 
and survey research received ethical approval from the 
Human Research Ethics Committees from CSIRO or the 
University of Technology, Sydney (depending on which 
organisation was leading the specific data collection 
activity) and complies with the Australian National 
Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. 



Table A.1 Overview of interview methods 

DOMAIN GROUPS

POLICY FRAMEWORKS

CIRCULAR 
BUSINESS MODELS

COMMUNITY AND 
INDUSTRY LED LOCAL 
INITIATIVES

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOURAL 
CHANGE APPROACHES

Number, type 
of interview 24
24 Some interviews were conducted jointly by two or more domain groups as shown in Table A.2.



17 semi-structured 
interviews

16 semi-structured 
interviews

14 semi-structured 
interviews

24 semi-structured interviews

Sampling 
strategy

Interviews with 
stakeholders across 
the plastic value chain 
who are responsible for 
plastic policy design and 
implementing regulations 
on the ground

Interviews with 
businesses led 
by framework 
of business 
model types, and 
internet search for 
businesses

Interviews with 
diverse proponents 
of community-level 
initiatives

Key informant interviews focused 
on three cities in India: Haridwar, 
Panjim, and Agra. The sample 
aligned with cities where household 
surveys were undertaken

Stakeholder 
groups

Industry bodies, Central 
Ministries, ULB, academia, 
state-level entities, think 
tanks, international 
multilateral organisations 

Businesses

Not-for-profit, NGO, 
social enterprise, private 
sector (hospitality and 
FMCG), government 
and international 
organisations

Government, waste management 
and resource recovery sector, NGOs, 
education providers

Recruitment of 
participants

Via email and phone 

Via email and phone 

Via email, phone and 
LinkedIn

Participants identified through 
publicly available websites and 
professional networks.

Contacted by email and phone

Geographical 
focus

India

India

India

Haridwar, Panjim, and Agra – chosen 
for differences in size, geographic 
locations, and outcomes in the 
Swachh Survekshan Survey

Analysis

Qualitative, thematic 
analysis using Dedoose

Qualitative, thematic 
analysis using 
Dedoose

Qualitative thematic 
analysis using Dedoose

Qualitative thematic analysis using 
Dedoose





Table A.2 Breakdown of interviews by domain group including combined interviews

 

DOMAIN GROUPS INTERVIEWS

COMBINED INTERVIEWS

 

Policy 
frameworks

Circular 
business 
models

Community 
and industry 
led local 
initiatives

Social and 
behavioural 
change 
approaches

Policy frameworks + 
Community and industry 
led local initiatives + Social 
and behavioural change 
approaches

Policy frameworks 
+ Social and 
behavioural change 
approaches

Number, type 
of interview

11 semi-
structured

16 semi-
structured

13 semi-
structured

18 semi-
structured

1 semi-
structured

5 semi-
structured





Table A.3 Number of interviews by stakeholder type

STAKEHOLDER GROUP

NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS

Businesses

31

Community groups/NGOs/Action think tanks

15

Government and ULBs

8

Academics

3

Industry bodies

4

International multilateral organisations

3

TOTAL INTERVIEWS

64







A.2 Method summaries

In this section we provide short summaries of the 
methods relevant to the following Roadmap chapters: 

Chapter 1 – Data transparency

Chapter 2 – Policy frameworks for a circular 
economy for plastics in India

Chapter 3 – Circular business models 

Chapter 4 – Plastic recycling technologies 

Chapter 6 – Community- and industry-led local initiatives 

Chapter 7 – Behaviour change.

Chapter 1 – Data transparency

In Chapter 1, we investigated the flows of different 
polymers through the Indian economy using Material 
Flow Analysis (MFA). MFA is one of the most widely 
used approaches for measuring flows and stocks of 
materials within a specified spatial-temporal boundary 
and following the mass-balance principle (Brunner and 
Rechberger, 2016). The results can be useful to decision 
makers because the mass-balance approach can identify 
ways to improve raw material efficiency, contribute to 
saving natural resources, reduce environmental impacts, 
and thus help to achieve SDGs (Gao et al., 2020).

In Chapter 1, we have compiled data for plastics based 
on the systematic approach of Baynes et al. (2011), who 
reconciled incomplete and incongruently disaggregated 
records to construct a complete and coherent material 
flow account. This approach involves: collecting primary 
data sources; comparing the different data using 
common categorisation; consolidating the data into 
a final data set; and completing the data set, which 
may involve extrapolation or other inference to fill 
any data gaps. Similar approaches have been used to 
develop economy-wide MFA; West et al. (2021) has a 
recent update of the methodology which was used 
to assemble the database underlying the UN’s Global 
Material Flows Database (Schandl et al., 2018). 

Chapter 2 – Policy frameworks for a circular 
economy for plastics in India

The research for Chapter 2 comprised two parts: i) a 
literature review of the policy frameworks relevant to the 
circular economy for plastics in India, and ii) stakeholder 
interviews and workshops to understand the enablers of 
and barriers to a circular economy for plastics in India. 

The literature review included peer-reviewed academic 
journal articles, news sources in India, websites and 
reports published by various government ministries and 
departments such as the MoEFCC, CPCB, Department 
for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), 
and publications by specialised agencies such as the 
NITI Aayog and TERI, UNEP, and the OECD. The review 
also included industry reports, websites and news from 
peak-body institutions such as the All India Plastics 
Manufacturers’ Association (AIPMA) and FICCI.

To examine policy progress in India, the policy instruments 
and effectiveness frameworks proposed by Dovers and 
Hussey (2013) were chosen. These frameworks were used 
as the basis for characterising relevant policy instruments 
in India, with further evaluation of the effectiveness of 
major recent policies. This research identified gaps in policy 
design from a plastics value chain perspective, noting 
the need to assess barriers and enablers for effective 
implementation of policy alongside the institutional and 
technical levers required to support a just transition. 

Between January and August 2022, the research team 
conducted 17 interviews with stakeholders in India, 
comprising think tanks, local, state, and federal government 
actors, policy makers, academicians, industry peak bodies, 
and community organisations, to assess perspectives 
about the effectiveness of current policy, challenges 
and gaps that need to be addressed, and strategies to 
improve implementation and effectiveness in order 
to drive a circular economy for plastics in India. The 
perspectives and insights of experts and policy makers 
were shared with the research team during one meeting 
organised with the NITI Aayog and three round table 
workshops held between 2021 and 2023, attended by 
members from academia, civil society, municipal actors, 
waste management organisations and businesses. 



Chapter 3 – Circular business models

In Chapter 3, we investigated CBMs in India to characterise 
the types of CBMs that are being used and to understand 
the challenges these businesses encounter and how they 
can be further enabled and scaled up. To begin with, 
we compared CBM frameworks from the literature and 
adapted a framework to suit the context of India and 
the focus on plastics. The framework identifies four 
major categories of CBMs which are shown in Table 
A.4 below along with plastic relevant examples.

Using this framework, we undertook a review of 
academic literature, and then a review of current practice 
(Retamal et al., 2021) by searching for each business type 
online and identifying businesses currently operating 
in India that fit with the framework for plastics. We 
subsequently conducted semi-structured interviews 
with 16 businesses in India, with the aim of sampling 
for diversity across the four categories. Finally, we 
undertook a qualitative analysis of interviews using 
Dedoose software25
25 Dedoose Version 9.0.90, cloud application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data (2023). Los Angeles, CA: 
SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC www.dedoose.com.

. We employed a mix of inductive 
and deductive approaches to identify key themes and, in 
particular, the barriers and enablers for CBMs in India.

Chapter 4 – Plastic recycling technologies

The methods for Chapter 4 focused on plastic recycling 
technologies and involved the following steps:

Identifying stakeholders

This included obtaining consent for sharing information 
and collecting primary data from identified recycling 
industries. The study was carried out in five clusters across 
India, including Nagpur district and Pune (Maharashtra), 
Chennai (Tamil Nadu), Haldwani (Uttarakhand) and Delhi. 
Mechanical recycling units in these cluster areas were 
identified and contacted to obtain consent for stakeholder 
engagement, field visits and primary data collection. 

Preparing a comprehensive questionnaire

The questionnaire was designed for conducting 
semi-structured interviews with stakeholders and 
to acquire data on various criteria and indices. The 
hierarchical system was based on four criteria: economic, 
technical, resource utilisation, and environmental.

Visiting industries and qualitative and 
quantitative collection of data

Sixteen and seven semi-structured interviews were 
conducted in mechanical recycling and chemical recycling 
units, respectively. Three PWM-using PROs were also visited. 

Data from the stakeholder engagement was collected 
and analysed using an Analytical Hierarchy Process 
(AHP) and a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).

Ranking of technological options

Ranking of technological options based on expert 
opinion was performed for MCDA design frameworks.

Identifying research gaps, barriers, and 
opportunities to improve and increase 
plastic recycling, future perspectives and 
advanced technological options. 

Table A.4 Circular business model framework

TYPOLOGY

PLASTIC RELEVANT EXAMPLES

Substituting

Replacing plastic packaging with non-plastic alternatives

Extending

Long warranty electrical and electronics, upgradable mobile phones, repair of e-products, second-hand sales, 
reusable packaging

Intensifying

Car rental/sharing, internet cafes, computer and phone leasing, toy, tool and equipment libraries, agricultural 
equipment cooperatives, ride-pooling, taxis (instead of owning a car)

Cycling

Upcycling plastic products, take-back schemes, recycling plastics, industrial parks using waste plastics as inputs



Adapted from Geissdoerfer et al. (2020) and Bocken et al. (2014, 2016)



Chapter 6 – Community- and industry-led 
local initiatives

In Chapter 6, we described the scope and focus of 
various community- and industry-led local initiatives 
along with the success factors and challenges to their 
implementation and development. To do so, we identified 
a range of initiatives by conducting an initial review of 
the grey literature, media articles and annual reports from 
organisations in India. We focused on community- and 
industry-led local initiatives conducted by community 
organisations (e.g. not-for-profit organisations, NGOs, 
social enterprises and research organisations), industry 
stakeholders (e.g. CSR), the public sector, and to a lesser 
extent, international organisations. We classified those 
initiatives based on the types of proponents leading 
them, the circular economy strategies they used, the 
types of activities they conducted, and their geographical 
location. We then selected case studies that represented 
the diversity of initiatives according to those criteria.

Our data collection consisted of 14 semi-structured 
interviews with stakeholders involved in 16 case studies 
(two interviewees discussed two case studies). Nine case 
study initiatives were identified during our initial review of 
publicly available information, while the remaining seven 
were either other initiatives conducted and discussed by 
interviewees from the first ten case studies or additional 
initiatives identified during our data collection phase.

Our frame of analysis for this chapter is a composite 
evaluation framework built on existing evaluation 
frameworks for community-based and circular economy 
initiatives. The framework is divided into five categories:

• Context: Elements of the social, political, regulatory, 
cultural and economic context that enabled or hindered 
the emergence and development of an initiative.
• Appropriateness: (In)adequacy of the project within the 
local context.
• Governance and management: Governance and 
management structures that enabled or hindered 
participation, social inclusion, financial, and 
organisational sustainability of the initiative.
• Diffusion: The initiative’s ability to scale up or replicate 
itself.
• Outcomes and impacts: The initiative’s ability to meet its 
objectives, and the environmental, social, and economic 
impacts of the initiative.


The data was then qualitatively analysed using Dedoose 
software. The five categories of the framework were used 
to deductively code data. Additionally, inductive coding was 
used to code any data that did not fit into the framework.

Chapter 7 – Behaviour change

Chapter 7’s research findings were informed by four 
main data sources: a desktop review and literature 
review report; key informant interviews; a household 
survey; and observations during site visits.

The key informant interviews and household surveys 
were conducted in 2022 and focused on three cities in 
India: Haridwar, Panjim, and Agra. These cities were 
chosen because of their differences in size, geographic 
locations, and outcomes in the Swachh Survekshan survey 
of 2021. This cross-section of cities provided a diverse 
range of experiences and insights from which we could 
identify opportunities and barriers to underpin our 
recommendations for increasing circularity behaviours. 

The interviews and survey research received ethical 
approval from the CSIRO Human Research Ethics 
Committee, which complies with Australian National 
Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research.

The approach of the four methods was as follows

1. Desktop review and literature review report
– A review of government websites and reports, 
education programs, NGO initiatives and other 
information pertaining to plastic waste reduction 
campaigns in India.
– A review of the academic literature had previously 
been undertaken which included behaviour change 
initiatives used globally for increasing the circularity 
of plastic (Niazi et al., 2021



2. Key informant interviews
– Twenty-four interviews were conducted with key 
informants from municipal governments, the waste 
management sector, education, and the not-for-profit 
sector.
– The interviews were semi-structured and lasted 
approximately 45 minutes. Interview topics included 
perceived barriers, challenges, opportunities, and 
enablers needed to support improved circularity of 
plastic.
– The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and 
analysed using a thematic analysis approach and 
Dedoose software for data management. Key themes 
were identified and integrated into the findings 
outlined in Chapter 7.







3. Online survey methodology


The online survey was designed to understand factors 
that would influence the way households perceive and 
manage plastic waste inside and outside their homes. 

– The survey, conducted in May and June of 2022, was 
administered through Qualtrics, an online survey 
company, using their panel participants in India.
– Qualtrics invited their panel participants to the survey 
by providing general information about the survey 
length and possible incentives. A range of incentives 
were typically offered to participants, including 
points, cash incentives, and gift cards. Potential 
participants were not provided with the survey goals 
or content to avoid potential self-selection biases in 
the sample.
– The three target cities Agra, Haridwar and Panjim 
were chosen for the reasons stated above. 
– A quota sampling technique was employed to ensure 
that participants were evenly distributed across the 
three targeted locations, and into three groups of 
plastic waste recycling behaviours (lower, medium or 
higher recycling groups). Categorising participants 
into the different recycling behaviour groups helped 
shed light on how these groups may differ in their 
resources, abilities and perceptions in relation to 
PWM.
– A total of 558 surveys were obtained: 34.4% from 
Agra, 32.4% from Haridwar and 33.2% from Panjim. 
Across the recycling groups, 32.1% of the participants 
were in the lower, 34.4% in the medium and 33.5% in 
the higher recycling groups.
– 62.5% of participants were males and 37.5% were 
females. Most participants (96.2%) were aged 45 or 
younger (50.5% in 18 to 25 age group; 32.6% in 26 to 
35 age group; and 13.1% in 36 to 45 age group). Very 
few participants (3.9%) were aged 46 and over.
– The responses for five open-ended questions about 
barriers and enablers for responsible disposal, 
recycling and purchasing of environmentally friendly 
packages were manually coded using a thematic 
analysis approach. Code definitions were refined 
iteratively to minimise overlaps and combined when 
appropriate. Each code was classified into one of 
three system-wide factors based on the social practice 
theory: knowledge and know-how; motivation and 
meanings; materials and infrastructure. 


4. Observations at site visits
– Site visits provided the research team with a deeper 
understanding of the context in which the waste 
sector operated.
– Site visits included a municipal transfer station, a 
material recycling facility, a landfill, and a waste 
collection system.





The visit to a municipal Command and Control Centre 
of the Agra Smart City enabled an understanding 
of the present and potential data and IoT-based 
tools for influencing consumer behaviours towards 
reduction and segregation of plastics.



References

Baynes TM, Turner GM and West J 2011, Historical 
Calibration of a Water Account System. 
Journal of Water Resources Planning and 
Management, 137(1), pp.41-50, https://doi.
org/10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000090 

Bocken NM, De Pauw I, Bakker C and Van Der Grinten B 
2016, Product design and business model strategies 
for a circular economy. Journal of industrial 
and production engineering, 33(5), pp.308-320, 
https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124

Bocken NMP, Short SW, Rana P and Evans S 2014, A literature 
and practice review to develop sustainable business 
model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 
pp.42-56 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039

Brunner PH and Rechberger H 2016, Handbook of Material 
Flow Analysis: For Environmental, Resource, and 
Waste Engineers, 2nd edition, ed. CRC Press, https://
doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315313450 

Dovers S and Hussey K 2013, Environment & 
sustainability: a policy handbook. 2nd edition, 
The Federation Press, NSW, Australia. 

Gao C, Gao C, Song K, Fang K 2020, Pathways towards 
regional circular economy evaluated using material 
flow analysis and system dynamics. Resources, 
Conservation and Recycling, 154, p.104527, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104527 

Geissdoerfer M, Pieroni MP, Pigosso DC and Soufani K 
2020, Circular business models: A review. Journal 
of Cleaner Production, 277, p.123741, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123741

Niazi Z, Walton A, and Gardner J 2021, Enabling behaviour 
change towards a circular economy for plastics 
in India, Report Number 2021-4, Development 
Alternatives and CSIRO, India and Australia, https://
research.csiro.au/rpwi/wp-content/uploads/
sites/412/2022/01/Enabling-behaviour-change-
towards-a-circular-economy-for-plastics-in-India.pdf

Retamal M, Panandiker AP, Talwar S, Sah S, and King S 
2021, Circular Business Models for Plastics in India. 
Literature and Practice Review. Report Number 
2021-3. UTS, TERI, Development Alternatives and 
CSIRO, Australia and India, https://research.csiro.au/
rpwi/wp-content/uploads/sites/412/2021/12/Circular-
Business-Models-for-Plastics-in-India-Final-2021-1.pdf

Schandl H, Fischer-Kowalski M, West J, Giljum S, Dittrich 
M, Eisenmenger N, Geschke A, Lieber M, Wieland H, 
Schaffartzik A, Krausmann F, Gierlinger S, Hosking 
K, Lenzen M, Tanikawa H, Miatto A, Fishman T 2018, 
Global Material Flows and Resource Productivity: Forty 
Years of Evidence. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 22(4), 
pp.827-838, https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12626 

Tyagi A, Ruoso LE, Retamal M, Pai Panandiker A, Goswami 
G, and Niazi Z 2021, Towards a circular economy for 
plastics in India: A review of community, industry 
and public sector initiatives. Report Number 
2021–2. Development Alternatives, UTS and TERI, 
Australia and India, https://research.csiro.au/rpwi/
wp-content/uploads/sites/412/2021/12/Community-
Industry-Initiatives-Report-Final-2021-1.pdf

West J, Lieber M and Wang H 2021, Technical Annex 
for the Global Material Flows Database – 2021 
edition. Global Material Flows Database.



Appendix B Collaboration 
Research Team

Over 50 researchers contributed to the project 
and development of the Roadmap over the life of 
the three-year collaboration. Listed below are the 
current and past member of the research team.

Neha Agarwal, MSc in Environment and Water 
Resources Engineering, Civil Engineering, was 
Manager, Research & Analysis at Development 
Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.

Sagiruddin Ahmed, MA (English), Master of 
Library and Information Science is a Corporate 
Communication Executive, Knowledge Management at 
Development Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.

Aparajita Amita Mathew, MA in Social Anthropology, 
Post Graduate Program in Development Studies, was a 
Project Executive, Green and Inclusive Entrepreneurship 
at Development Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.

Kavya Arora, MSc in Environmental Studies and 
Resource Management, was a Senior Manager at 
Development Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.

Nitin Bajpai, MTech in Energy Systems, was a 
Research Associate at the Centre for Resource 
Efficiency and Governance Division (CREG) 
in TERI, based in New Delhi, India.

Er Snehal Balbudhe, MTech in Chemical Engineering, was 
a Project Associate in CSIR-NEERI, based in Nagpur, India.

Dr Tim Baynes, PhD in Physics, was a senior science 
leader at CSIRO, based in Sydney, Australia.

Souvik Bhattacharjya, MEcon with a specialty in World 
Economy, is a Senior Fellow and Associate Director 
at the Centre for Resource Efficiency and Governance 
Division (CREG) in TERI based in, New Delhi, India.

Dr Smitirupa Biswal, PhD in Material Science and 
Engineering and BTech(H) in Metallurgical and 
Materials Science Engineering, is a researcher at 
the Centre for Sustainable Materials Research & 
Technology (SMaRT), UNSW in Sydney, Australia. 

Dr Rita Dhodapkar, PhD and MSc in Chemical 
Sciences, is the Science Secretary and Senior 
Researcher at CSIR-NEERI based in Nagpur, India.

Elsa Dominish, Master of Environmental Management 
is a Research Principal at UTS-ISF in Sydney, Australia.

Dr Narges Emami, PhD in Civil Engineering and Masters in 
Civil Engineering (specialising in Renewable Energy), is a 
research scientist at CSIRO based in Canberra, Australia.

Dr Nick Florin, PhD in Chemical Engineering, is an 
Associate Professor at UTS-ISF in Sydney, Australia.

Dr John Gardner, PhD in Organisational Psychology, is a 
senior science leader at CSIRO based in Brisbane, Australia.

Anirban Ghose, BEng in Mechatronics, Hons and BSc in 
Nanoscience and Technology is a Microfactory Engineer 
at the Centre for Sustainable Materials Research & 
Technology (SMaRT), UNSW in Sydney, Australia. 

Gitika Goswami, MSc in Geology and Certification 
Course on Environment Management and Sustainable 
Development, is Associate Vice President & Lead, 
Policy Research & Planning at Development 
Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.

Anisha Gupta, MSc in Natural Resource 
Management, is Deputy Manager at Development 
Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.

Alpana Gupta, Master of Planning in Environment 
Planning, was a researcher at Development 
Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.

Dr Rumana Hossain, PhD in Material Science and 
Engineering and MEng in Advanced Engineering 
Management, is a Research Associate at the Centre 
for Sustainable Materials Research & Technology 
(SMaRT), UNSW in Sydney, Australia. 

Dr Md Tasbirul Islam, PhD in Engineering and 
MA in comparative local development (Sociology, 
Political Science, Economics), was a researcher at 
the Centre for Sustainable Materials Research & 
Technology (SMaRT), UNSW in Sydney, Australia. 

Er Jowin Joseph, MTech in Environmental Engineering, is 
a Senior Scientist at CSIR-NEERI, based in Nagpur, India.

Sarada Kapilavai, MSc in Climate Science and Policy, was 
a Project Executive, Green and Inclusive Entrepreneurship 
at Development Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.



Bharti Kapoor, MA in Hindi, is Senior Manager, 
Knowledge Management at Development 
Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.

Dr Shilpi Kapur Bakshi, PhD in Economics, 
was a senior fellow in the Centre for Waste 
Management in TERI based in New Delhi, India.

Karminder Kaur, MA in Development Studies, 
is a Research Associate at Development 
Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.

Trinayana Kaushik, MSc in Climate Science and Policy, is 
a Research Associate in the Centre for Resource Efficiency 
and Governance (CREG) in TERI based in New Delhi, India.

Dr Debishree Khan, PhD and Masters in Environmental 
Science, is a Scientist at CSIR-NEERI, based in Nagpur, India.

Dr Sarah King, PhD in Innovation Networks 
and Masters in Corporate Environmental and 
Sustainability Management, was a research scientist 
at CSIRO, based in Melbourne, Australia.

Dr Taryn Kong, PhD in Natural Resources Studies 
(with a minor in Anthropology), is a research 
scientist at CSIRO, based in Brisbane, Australia.

Dr Asha Lalwani, PhD and Masters in Statistics, is a 
Principal Scientist at CSIR-NEERI, based in Nagpur, India.

Dr Katherine Locock, PhD in Pharmacology, is a senior 
science leader at CSIRO, based in Melbourne, Australia.

Priti Mukhopadhyay, MA in Library and Information 
Science, was a Fellow, Knowledge Management Unit at 
Development Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.

Zeenat Niazi, MArch, is Senior Vice President, 
Chief Knowledge Officer at Development 
Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.

Dr Sushma Pardeshi, PhD and MSc in Chemical 
Sciences, is a Senior Project Associate at 
CSIR-NEERI, based in Nagpur, India.

Ms Murni Po, BSc in Psychology, is a senior experimental 
scientist at CSIRO based in Canberra, Australia.

Ms Natasha Porter, BSc in Natural Resource 
Management, is an experimental scientist and project 
manager at CSIRO based in Perth, Australia.

Farhana Rahman, PhD Candidate at the Institute for 
Sustainable Futures is based at UTS-ISF in Sydney, Australia.

Dr Monique Retamal, PhD in Environment & Society 
and Masters in Water Resources, is a Research 
Director at UTS-ISF, based in Canberra, Australia.

Dr Laure-Elise Ruoso, PhD in Sustainable Futures 
and Master of Environmental Science, is a Senior 
Research Consultant at UTS-ISF in Sydney, Australia.

Sudhir Sah, BTech in Mechanical Engineering, 
is a Program Officer, Sustainable Enterprises at 
Development Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.

Australian Research Council (ARC) Laureate Professor Veena 
Sahajwalla (FAA FTSE HonFIEAust CPEng), is the founding 
Director of the Centre for Sustainable Materials Research 
& Technology (SMaRT), UNSW in Sydney, Australia.

Dr Heinz Schandl, PhD in sociology and MA in 
social and economic sciences, is a senior science 
leader at CSIRO based in Canberra, Australia.

Ms Riya Shanker, MSc in Environmental Sciences 
and BSc in Biotechnology, was a Project Associate 
in CSIR-NEERI, based in Nagpur, India.

Ms Radhika Sharma, MSc in Environmental 
Sciences and BSc in Zoology, was a Project Associate 
in CSIR-NEERI, based in Nagpur, India.

Mandavi Singh, MSc in Environmental Sciences, is a 
Project Associate in the Centre for Resource Efficiency and 
Governance (CREG) in TERI based in New Delhi, India.

Dr Ria Sinha, PhD in Business Sustainability, was an 
Associate Fellow in the Resource Efficiency and Governance 
Division (CREG) in TERI, based in New Delhi, India.

Dr Simran Talwar, PhD and Masters in Management, 
is a Research Principal at UTS-ISF in Sydney.

Dr Sorada Tapsuwan, PhD in Economics and MSc in 
environmental and natural resource economics, is a senior 
research scientist at CSIRO based in Canberra, Australia.

Dr Andrew Terhorst, PhD in Business Studies and 
Masters in Marine Geology, is a senior experimental 
scientist at CSIRO based in Sandy Bay, Australia.

Sherine Thandu Parakkal, BTech in Civil Engineering, 
Post Graduate Program (Contemporary Smart City 
Development and Management), Certificate of 
Continuing Professional Development (Public Policy 
Analysis), Candidate PGD (Environmental Law) is Deputy 
Manager, Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy at 
Development Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.

Anshul Tyagi, MA in Environmental Sciences, was a Fellow 
at Development Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.

Aakriti Uttam, MA in Social Work, is a Program 
Officer, Capacity Building and Livelihoods at 
Development Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.

Dr K Vijayalakshmi, PhD in Organic 
Chemistry, was Vice President at Development 
Alternatives Group, New Delhi, India.

Dr Andrea Walton, PhD in furthering household 
sustainability behaviour, is a senior science 
leader at CSIRO based in Brisbane, Australia



Appendix C Organisations who 
engaged with the Roadmap 
development

Many organisations were engaged with the project over the three-year collaboration, via 
roundtable discussions, semi-structured interviews, site visits, and other activities.

7to9 Green Store

Agra Nagar Nigam

Akshar Foundation

Arannya Environment Research Organisation

Aspirelabs

Athak Foundation

ATREE, Delhi

Banyan Nation

Central Institute of Petrochemicals Engineering & Technology 
(CIPET), Ahmedabad, India

Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), India

Centre for Environment Education, India

Chintan

CII

Corporation of the City of Panjim

CPHEEO, MoHUA

DD Traders

Department of Science and Technology, India

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry, India

Fisheries Co-operative Society

Goa Cutlery Bank

Goa State Pollution Control Board

Goa Waste Management Corporation

Haridwar Municipality

Hasiru Dala

Iamgurgaon

IIM Ahmedabad

IIT Kharagpur

India Plastics Institute

Insignia Projects

Institute of Chemical Technology (ICT), Mumbai, India

ITC MRF

Kabadiwalla Connect

KleenCup

Lions Services

LUCRO

Mahila Mandal

MD Traders

Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change 
(MoEF&CC), India

Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, India

Ministry of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises, India

National Institute of Urban Affairs, India

National Productivity Council, India

NITI Aayog, India

Premsons Plastics Pvt Ltd, Ex-AIPMA

Project Mumbai

Recykal, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

RO Water Enterprise

Rudra Environmental Solution, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Samarpan Foundation, Delhi

Saraswathi Plastic Industries, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India

Shakti Plastic Industries, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Shri Bhubhneshwari Mahila Ashram (SBMA)

Swayambhu Solutions Pvt Ltd

Taj Group of Hotels

Tent Service Provider

The Confederation of Indian Industry, India

Toxics Link

UNDP

United Nations Environment Programme, India

Waste Aggregators

Waste Warriors

XLRI Jamshedpur

Yes In My BackYard (YIMBY)







For further information

CSIRO

Natasha Porter

+61 8 9333 6251

natasha.porter@csiro.au

CSIR-NEERI

Dr Rita Dhodapkar

+91 93 7310 3518

rs_dhodapkar@neeri.res.in

Development Alternatives

Zeenat Niazi

+91 11 2654 4100

zniazi@devalt.org

TERI

Souvik Bhattacharjya

+91 96 5071 2150

souvik.bhattacharjya@teri.res.in