The state of plastics circularity in Finland 2025 - Review and evaluation of PlastLIFE SIP phase 1

Report of the

The state of plastics circularity in Finland 2025

Review and evaluation of PlastLIFE SIP phase 1

Milja Räisänen, Helena Dahlbo, Petra Rinne, Annika Johansson, Tommi Tikkanen, Joanna Haahti, Jani Salminen, Susanna Horn, Jáchym Judl, Jaakko Karvonen, Hanna Salmenperä, Petrus Kautto, Sari Kauppi, Waltteri Heikkilä, Johanna Kaunisto, Tiina Karppinen

Report of the PlastLIFE project coordinated by the Finnish Environment Institute

The state of plastics circularity in Finland 2025

Review and evaluation of PlastLIFE SIP phase 1

Milja Räisänen, Helena Dahlbo, Petra Rinne, Annika Johansson, Tommi Tikkanen, Joanna Haahti, Jani Salminen, Susanna Horn, Jáchym Judl, Jaakko Karvonen, Hanna Salmenperä, Petrus Kautto, Sari Kauppi, Waltteri Heikkilä, Johanna Kaunisto, Tiina Karppinen

Report of the PlastLIFE project coordinated by the Finnish Environment Institute

The state of plastics circularity in Finland 2025

Review and evaluation of PlastLIFE SIP phase 1

Authors:

Milja Räisänen, Helena Dahlbo, Petra Rinne, Annika Johansson, Tommi Tikkanen, Joanna Haahti, Jani Salminen, Susanna Horn, Jáchym Judl, Jaakko Karvonen, Hanna Salmenperä, Petrus Kautto, Sari Kauppi, Waltteri Heikkilä, Johanna Kaunisto, Tiina Karppinen1)

1) Finnish Environment Institute

Co-funder: EU LIFE SIP - funding programme

Publisher: Finnish Environment Institute (Syke), syke.fi/en

Cover photo: Andika Nur / Adobe Stock

The online publication (pdf) is available in the internet: plastlife.fi (in English) >

Circular economy research > Publications on the circular economy, and in Helda open repository (helda.helsinki.fi) Syke-hankkeiden julkaisuja -collection.

ISBN 978-952-11-5808-7 (pdf)

Year of issue: 2025

Preface

Re-thinking plastics in a sustainable circular economy – PlastLIFE SIP (Strategic Integrated Project) is an extensive national co-operation project promoting the implementation of the Plastics Roadmap for Finland (PRfF) and aiming at a sustainable circular economy (CE) for plastics in Finland by 2035. The seven-year project started in December 2022 and will continue until the end of 2029. Altogether 17 partners coordinated by the Finnish Environment Institute (Syke) are working together to develop solutions for

• reducing littering and other negative environmental impacts, and unnecessary consumption of plastics, e.g., by promoting reuse,

• increasing the recycling of plastic waste,

• replacing fossil raw materials in plastics production with recycled plastics or sustainably produced renewable materials, and

• developing the analysis and risk assessment of harmful substances contained in plastic waste.

The PlastLIFE project is mainly funded by the EU LIFE Programme and the partners. Additional funding has been received from several national organisations. More info on the consortium and funding, as well as the project activities can be found from the project webpages at www.plastlife.fi.

This report is produced at the end of the first phase of the project to generate an overview on the current situation of the CE of plastics in Finland as well as PlastLIFE’s and complementary measures’ impacts on the development towards the CE of plastics. Additionally, an evaluation is presented on the PlastLIFE project performance and progress in achieving the various objectives set for the project and the specific activities.

This report will provide comprehensive information for evaluating the PRfF and the planning of the second phase of the PlastLIFE project (2026–2029) and considering the needs for refocusing the project activities as well as mobilising complementary measures. The results can also be utilised in the process of updating the Plastics Roadmap for Finland.

The authors wish to thank everyone who gave their input to the report by providing data or by commenting the report: PlastLIFE consortium members, PlastLIFE steering group, PlastLIFE advisory group, Plastics Roadmap for Finland co-operation network as well as individual experts including Katariina Kukkasniemi, Henna Jylhä, Jaana Sorvari and Tomas Ekvall.

Authors, November 2025

Abstract

The state of plastics circularity in Finland 2025 - Review and evaluation of PlastLIFE SIP phase 1

Re-thinking plastics in a sustainable circular economy – PlastLIFE SIP (Strategic Integrated Project, 2022–2029) aims at a sustainable circular economy (CE) for plastics in Finland by 2035. PlastLIFE promotes the implementation of the Plastics Roadmap for Finland (PRfF) by reducing littering and other negative impacts of plastics, refusing from unnecessary consumption of plastics and promoting reuse, increasing recycling and replacing fossil raw material with renewable or recycled materials.

This report presents an overview of the CE of plastics in Finland at the end of the 1st phase of PlastLIFE. It highlights future priorities for promoting the CE and identifies the needs for additional activities within PlastLIFE and related initiatives

PRfF (2018, updated in 2022) and its co-operation network have provided a platform and a shared desire for collaboration between plastics value chain actors and public administration to promote CE of plastics. Yet, achieving CE of plastics still requires continuous efforts across all levels of society

Littering remains a significant problem along Finland’s coasts, where approximately 90% of beach litter consists of plastics. Improving the situation requires more knowledge on litter pathways, as well as the development of methods for identification, monitoring and assessment of impacts.

The greatest challenge in promoting the CE of plastics is reducing unnecessary consumption of plastic, which requires changes in behaviour and the creation of entirely new business environments, for example, to enable reuse and repair. In the plastics value chain, the highest climate impacts occur during material production. Reducing unnecessary plastic consumption mitigates climate impacts, littering, and the spread of hazardous substances into the environment and organisms. So far, the reduction of plastic use has largely relied on voluntary measures, such as Green Deal agreements However, there is either no available data on their effectiveness, or the data that does exist indicates only minimal change. Stronger policy instruments should be considered and monitoring improved

Separately collected plastic packaging waste accounts for less than half of total plastic waste. Around 80% of plastic waste is used for energy recovery, which is the second largest contributor of climate impact in the plastics CE. The focus on packaging leaves most plastic waste streams unaddressed. Data should also be gathered on other plastic waste types, their volumes and recycling potential.

Virgin, fossil-based plastic is increasingly being replaced by alternative materials, such as recycled or bio-based plastics, but monitoring this transition remains challenging. The production of alternative materials is strongly influenced by demand, which has not been high so far. Domestic production also faces challenges due to competition from lower-cost materials available on global markets, where the safety and quality of materials cannot always be ensured.

PlastLIFE will during the 2nd project phase continue to finalise its planned activities and collaborate with relevant stakeholders, especially industry. Focus will increasingly be on communicating, disseminating and scaling up the results. Avoiding unnecessary consumption of plastics and increasing reuse shall get more emphasis. Tailored content in communications and events for different audiences helps reach decision-makers, industry and citizens. Participatory communication campaigns will encourage citizens to get involved in promoting CE of plastics.

The future policy efforts to support the CE of plastics should consider the safety of plastics, prevention of plastic emissions and the quality of recycled plastic. Simultaneously, innovation and new business opportunities should be encouraged, e.g., to support reuse. Developing a comprehensive indicator framework is a requirement for monitoring the progress. Finally, securing funding for research is essential to ensure that decision making is based on scientific evidence and that policy instruments are appropriately targeted and effective in the transition towards the CE of plastics.

Keywords: Plastics, circular economy, PlastLIFE, indicators, plastic flows, LCA, policy, future needs

Tiivistelmä

Muovien kiertotalouden tilanne Suomessa 2025

– PlastLIFE SIP -hankkeen ensimmäisen vaiheen arviointi

Muovien kestävä kiertotalous – PlastLIFE SIP (Strategic Integrated Project 2022–2029) tähtää muovien kestävään kiertotalouteen Suomessa vuoteen 2035 mennessä. PlastLIFE edistää Suomen muovitiekartan (engl. lyhenne PRfF) toimeenpanoa vähentämällä roskaantumista ja muita muovien haitallisia vaikutuksia, vähentämällä muovien turhaa kulutusta, edistämällä uudelleenkäyttöä, lisäämällä kierrätystä ja korvaamalla fossiiliset raaka-aineet uusiutuvilla tai kierrätetyillä materiaaleilla.

Tämä raportti luo yleiskuvan muovien kiertotaloudesta Suomessa PlastLIFE-hankkeen ensimmäisen vaiheen lopussa. Raportissa nostetaan esiin muovien kiertotalouden edistämiseksi tulevaisuudessa tarvittavia painopisteitä ja tunnistetaan tarpeita lisätoimille PlastLIFE:ssa ja sitä täydentävissä hankkeissa.

PRfF (2018, päivitetty 2022) ja sen yhteistyöverkosto ovat muodostaneet toimivan pohjan ja tahtotilan yhteistyölle muovien kiertotalouden edistämiseksi muovien arvoketjutoimijoiden ja julkishallinnon kesken Silti muovien kiertotalouden saavuttaminen vaatii edelleen laajoja ja jatkuvia ponnistuksia kaikilla yhteiskunnan tasoilla.

Roskaantuminen on edelleen merkittävä ongelma Suomen rannikoilla, missä noin 90 % rantaroskasta on muovia. Tilanteen parantaminen edellyttää lisää tietoa roskien kulkureiteistä sekä menetelmien kehittämistä niiden tunnistamiseen, seurantaan ja vaikutusten arviointiin.

Suurin haaste muovien kiertotalouden edistämisessä on muovien turhan kulutuksen vähentäminen, mikä vaatii muutoksia käyttäytymiseen sekä täysin uusien liiketoimintaympäristöjen luomista, esimerkiksi tuotteiden uudelleenkäytön ja korjaamisen mahdollistamiseksi. Muovien arvoketjussa suurimmat ilmastovaikutukset syntyvät materiaalin tuotannosta. Muovin turhan kulutuksen vähentäminen vähentää niin ilmastovaikutuksia, roskaantumista kuin haitallisten aineiden kulkeutumista ympäristöön ja eliöihin. Toistaiseksi muovin käytön vähentäminen on perustunut pääasiassa vapaaehtoisiin toimiin, kuten Green Deal -sopimuksiin. Niiden tehokkuudesta on kuitenkin vain vähän tietoa tai havaitut muutokset ovat olleet vähäisiä. Velvoittavampia politiikkatoimia tulisi harkita ja seurantaa parantaa.

Kaikesta muovijätteestä alle puolet on erilliskerättyä muovipakkausjätettä. Noin 80 % muovijätteestä hyödynnetään energiana, mistä aiheutuu toiseksi eniten ilmastovaikutuksia muovien kiertotaloudessa. Suurin osa muovijätevirroista jää nykyisten pakkauksiin keskittyvien tavoitteiden ja tilastoinnin ulkopuolelle. Tietoa tulisi koota myös muista muovijätteistä, niiden määristä ja kierrätyspotentiaalista.

Neitseellistä, fossiilipohjaista muovia korvataan yhä enemmän vaihtoehtoisilla materiaaleilla, kuten kierrätetyillä tai biopohjaisilla muoveilla, mutta siirtymän seuranta on haastavaa. Vaihtoehtoisten materiaalien tuotantoa ohjaa vahvasti kysyntä, joka ei toistaiseksi ole ollut suurta. Kotimainen tuotanto joutuu kilpailemaan kansainvälisillä markkinoilla esiintyvien materiaalien kanssa, joiden hinta voi olla edullinen, mutta turvallisuus ja laatu kyseenalainen.

Hankkeen toisessa vaiheessa PlastLIFE jatkaa suunniteltujen toimien toteutusta ja viimeistelyä sekä yhteistyötä keskeisten sidosryhmien, erityisesti teollisuuden, kanssa. Painopiste siirtyy yhä enemmän tulosten viestintään, levittämiseen ja skaalaamiseen. Muovin turhan kulutuksen vähentäminen ja uudelleenkäytön lisääminen saavat enemmän painoarvoa. Eri yleisöille räätälöidyt sisällöt viestinnässä ja tapahtumissa auttavat saavuttamaan päättäjiä, teollisuutta ja kansalaisia. Osallistavat viestintäkampanjat kannustavat kansalaisia tulemaan mukaan muovien kiertotalouden edistämiseen.

Politiikan kehittämisessä tulisi edistää teemoja kuten muovien turvallisuus, päästöjen ehkäisy ja kierrätysmuovin laatu. Samalla tulisi tukea innovaatioita ja uusia liiketoimintamahdollisuuksia. Edistymisen seurantaan tarvitaan kattavien indikaattoreiden kehittämistä. Lopuksi, tutkimusrahoituksen turvaaminen on olennaista, jotta päätöksenteko perustuu tieteelliseen näyttöön ja politiikkatoimet ovat kohdennettuja ja tehokkaita siirtymässä kohti muovien kiertotaloutta.

Asiasanat: Muovi, kiertotalous, PlastLIFE, indikaattorit, muovivirrat, LCA, politiikka, tulevat tarpeet

Sammandrag

Status cirkulär ekonomi för plast i Finland 2025 - Utvärdering av PlastLIFE SIP fas 1

Hållbar cirkulär ekonomi för plast – PlastLIFE SIP (Strategic Integrated Project, 2022–2029) syftar till en hållbar cirkulär ekonomi (CE) för plast i Finland senast år 2035. PlastLIFE främjar genomförandet av Finlands färdplan för plast (PRfF) genom att minska nedskräpning och andra negativa effekter av plast, avstå från onödig plastkonsumtion, främja återanvändning, öka återvinning och ersätta fossila råmaterial med förnybara eller återvunna material.

Denna rapport ger en översikt över CE för plast i Finland vid slutet av den första fasen av PlastLIFE. Rapporten lyftar fram framtida prioriteringar för att främja CE, samt identifierar behov av ytterligare åtgärder inom PlastLIFE och kompletterande projekt

PRfF (2018, uppdaterad 2022) och dess samarbetsnätverk har utgjort en fungerande plattform och en gemensam vilja till samarbete för att främja CE för plast mellan aktörer i plastens värdekedja och den offentliga förvaltningen. Att uppnå CE för plast kräver dock fortsatt insatser på alla samhällsnivåer.

Nedskräpning är fortfarande ett betydande problem längs Finlands kuster, där cirka 90 % av strandskräpet består av plast. Förbättring av situationen krävs mer kunskap om skräpets spridningsvägar samt utveckling av metoder för identifiering, övervakning och bedömning av effekter.

Den största utmaningen för att främja CE för plast är att minska onödig konsumtion av plast, vilket kräver beteendeförändringar och skapandet av helt nya affärsmiljöer, till exempel för att möjliggöra återanvändning och reparation av produkter. Den största klimatpåverkan i plastens värdekedja skapas vid materialproduktion. Minskning av onödig plastkonsumtion hindrar klimatpåverkan, nedskräpning och spridning av farliga ämnen i miljön och organismer. Hittills har minskningen av plastanvändning främst baserats på frivilliga åtgärder, såsom Green Deal-avtal. Det finns dock begränsade data om deras effektivitet eller så har observerade förändringar varit små. Starkare politiska styrmedel bör övervägas och övervakningen förbättras.

Separat insamlat plastförpackningsavfall utgör mindre än hälften av all plast i avfallet. Cirka 80 % av allt plastavfall utnyttjas som energi, vilket framkallar den näst största klimatpåverkan inom CE för plast. Största delen av plastavfallet faller utanför de nuvarande förpackningsfokuserade målen och den tillhörande statistiken. Data bör också samlas in om annat plastavfall, deras volymer och återvinningspotential.

Jungfrulig, fossilbaserad plast ersätts alltmer av återvunnen eller biobaserad plast, men övervakningen av denna övergång är utmanande. Produktionen av alternativa material påverkas starkt av efterfrågan, som hittills varit låg. Inhemsk produktion måste konkurrera med material på de internationella marknaderna, vars pris kan vara lågt men där säkerheten och kvaliteten kan ifrågasättas.

Under projektets andra fas kommer PlastLIFE att fortsätta slutföra planerade aktiviteter och samarbeta med relevanta aktörer, särskilt industrin. Fokus kommer alltmer att ligga på kommunikation, spridning och skalning av resultaten. Att undvika onödig plastkonsumtion och öka återanvändning kommer att få större betoning. Skräddarsydda kommunikationsinnehåll och evenemang för olika målgrupper kommer att hjälpa nå beslutsfattare, industri och medborgare. Kommunikationsinsatser såsom engagerande kampanjer kommer att uppmuntra medborgare att delta i främjandet av CE för plast.

Framtida politiska insatser för att stödja CE för plast bör beakta plastens säkerhet, förebyggande av plastutsläpp och kvaliteten på återvunnen plast. Samtidigt bör innovation och nya affärsmöjligheter uppmuntras, t.ex. för att stödja återanvändning. Slutligen är utvecklingen av ett omfattande indikatorramverk en förutsättning för att följa framstegen. Att säkra finansiering för forskning är avgörande för att säkerställa att beslutsfattande baseras på vetenskapliga bevis och att politiska styrmedel är ändamålsenliga och effektiva i övergången mot CE för plast.

Nyckelord: Plast, cirkulär ekonomi, PlastLIFE, indikatorer, plastflöden, LCA, politik, framtida behov

2.4.

5

5.1.3.

5.1.4.

5.2.

Annex 1. PlastLIFE indicators, their basic and monitoring values and data sources.

Annex 2. Deliverables and other publications produced in the PlastLIFE SIP (2022–2025) .................. 111

Annex 3. Complementary measures started 2021–2024 promoting the implementation of the Plastics Roadmap for Finland 115

1 Introduction

Re-thinking plastics in a sustainable circular economy – PlastLIFE SIP (Strategic Integrated Project) is an extensive Finnish national co-operation project with the goal of sustainable circular economy (CE) for plastics in Finland by 2035. During seven years (2022–2029), PlastLIFE promotes the implementation of the Plastics Roadmap for Finland (PRfF) that aims for the breakthrough of a CE of plastics in Finland by 2030 by reducing littering and unnecessary consumption of plastic, increasing recycling and replacing fossil raw material with renewable materials in plastics manufacturing (Ministry of the Environment 2022).

The first steps towards a sustainable plastics economy in Finland were taken in 2018, when the first PRfF was published. The first PRfF was proposed by the wide working group appointed by the Ministry of the Environment (MoE). This national programme aimed at reducing littering and harmful impacts of plastics and decreasing use of unnecessary, especially, single-use plastics. The aim was also to increase recycling and to replace fossil-based plastics with recycled plastics or sustainably produced renewable raw materials (Ministry of the Environment 2022). PlastLIFE was based on the first version of the PRfF.

The update, the Plastics Roadmap 2.0 was again launched by the MoE and published in 2022 by the PRfF co-operation network and as a strategic project of the ministries. The four goals - reduce and refuse, recycle and replace - remained but there were other new goals added to the programme because this was suggested in the mid-term review and evaluation of the original Roadmap. The main goal was specified and set to ensure the breakthrough of a circular plastics economy in Finland by 2030. Along this main goal several suggested first steps needed were set for each action.

The PlastLIFE project was originally structured to promote the implementation of the first version of the PRfF, in which the explanations for the four main objectives reduce and refuse, recycle and replace, had slightly different phrasings than in the second version (O1-O4, Chapter 1.1). However, the main contents remained the same. During the project implementation, PlastLIFE follows closely the updates of the PRfF and considers each alteration in the roadmap. Yet no need for specific conversion has been discovered. After all, the main target has remained the same: the aim for a sustainable circular plastics economy in Finland. In this report, for clarity, the current phrasings for the four main PRfF objectives are used (see Chapter 1.1).

PlastLIFE is divided into two phases: 1st phase 2022–2025 and 2nd phase 2026–2029. The aim of the current report is to examine the situation of the CE of plastics in Finland at the end of the project phase 1. The report evaluates the national development on the CE of plastics in correspondence to the PRfF and its targets (Chapter 2). In addition to the national development, the impacts of PlastLIFE and its complementary measures are analysed in comparison to the targets of the project (Chapters 3 and 4). A comprehensive picture of the plastic flows in Finland is a prerequisite for understanding the current situation and future potentials of the CE of plastics. The plastic flows are reported in Chapter 5 and the environmental impacts of the CE of plastics assessed based on these flows, are reported in Chapter 6. The evolving policy environment of the CE of plastics is discussed in Chapter 7. Finally, conclusions based on these analyses are drawn in Chapter 8 and suggestions for future priorities for promoting the CE of plastics in Finland are given.

The comprehensive report serves as a basis for considering the need for re-directing and modifying the project tasks and for mobilising complementary measures for the project phase 2. The report also

analyses whether more measures are needed on a national and policy level to achieve the sustainable CE of plastics The analysis will be repeated at the end of the project phase 2.

The target audience for this report include 1) the project consortium and financiers for the impacts of the project, and 2) professional audience and general public for the analysis of the national status of CE of plastics and general impacts of the project.

1.1. The Plastics Roadmap paves the way for the breakthrough of the circular economy of plastics in Finland by 2030

According to the Plastics Roadmap for Finland, a breakthrough of CE for plastics by 2030 requires making progress towards reducing littering of the environment and other environmental harm caused by plastics (Objective 1 = O1), avoiding unnecessary consumption of plastics and promoting the reuse of plastics (Objective 2 = O2), enhancing the recycling of plastics and recyclability of plastic products (Objective 3 = O3) and replacing virgin plastic manufactured from fossil raw materials with recycled plastics or sustainably produced renewable materials (Objective 4 = O4) (Ministry of the Environment 2022). Throughout this report, progress in the CE of plastics is described primarily in relation to these four objectives.

In addition to the objectives, the PRfF includes 11 separate action measures. The action packages are set to achieve the following six goals by 2030 (Ministry of the Environment 2022):

• A substantial reduction in the amount of plastic litter in the marine environment and in several other key areas compared to 2022.

• A 30% reduction in consumption and a significant rise in reuse across several key product groups compared to 2022.

• A 60% recycling rate for plastic packaging and a significant start to recycling other plastic products.

• Fully recyclable or reusable plastic packaging, along with a considerable enhancement in recyclability and reuse across various other plastic products

• Recycled plastics accounting for an average of 30% of new products in several product groups.

• Frontrunner in sustainably produced, recyclable products made from renewable raw materials, as well as in plastic-free materials for specific applications.

The eleven action measures (or themes) of PRfF have been slightly modified to the following altogether 15 themes for the use of the PlastLIFE monitoring (especially for the monitoring of outreach and dissemination in Chapter 3.2.1 and for the monitoring of complementary measures in Chapter 4):

1.2. PlastLIFE SIP promotes the implementation of the Plastics Roadmap for Finland

What do we mean by sustainable CE of plastics (Figure 1)? The PlastLIFE project has visioned that a society where sustainable CE of plastics is fulfilled, is a society that takes responsibility for plastics. Everyone feels responsible for plastic use and plastic waste and so does their part to reduce littering and increase plastics recycling. Chemicals are managed in a way that the safe utilisation of plastic waste is ensured, and the development of new alternative materials is safe and sound from all environmental perspectives. For such a society to become a reality, ambitious plastic policies based on scientific knowledge are required, policies that encourage companies to innovate and invest in advancing the CE. Decisions are made based on up-to-date information about different types of plastics, their recycling, and composition as well as their environmental, economic, and social impacts. In a society that takes responsibility for plastics, sustainable solutions and practices are shaped through dialogue and co-operation between key stakeholders.

Figure 1. Sustainable use of natural resources and reduction of negative impacts of plastics are in the core of a sustainable circular economy of plastics. © Finnish Environment Institute. 2025.

To efficiently promote the implementation of the PRfF towards a sustainable CE of plastics, PlastLIFE follows a three-level objective hierarchy ranging from practical, operational objectives to the overarching objectives of the PRfF (see Chapter 1.1). On the first level of the objective hierarchy there are specific task objectives for all PlastLIFE tasks. These task objectives and their indicators are operational and quantifiable or qualitatively assessable. They are monitored during the whole duration of PlastLIFE to assess the impacts of all project activities. The second level of the objective hierarchy includes the overall project objectives, to which the task-level objectives contribute. The project objectives were

defined to monitor the development of the third level of objectives, namely the four overarching objectives of the PRfF (Chapter 1.1).

The project objectives and indicators are presented in Tables 1 and 2 together with the relevant target values Most of the targets are set for the year 2035, which marks the end of the PlastLIFE monitoring (five years after the formal conclusion of PlastLIFE in 2029). The cross-cutting project indicators on behaviour, production and consumption, recycling, littering, governance and dissemination generate an understanding of the situation of the CE of plastics in Finland and the impacts of PlastLIFE on it. The indicator baseline values and data sources as well as monitoring values from project phase 1 are presented in Annex 1.

In addition to the indicators in Tables 1 and 2, the project impacts on networking and synergies with other projects, effects on employment, revenue due to project outcomes, and the catalytic effects are monitored during the project lifetime. The indicators and their monitoring values are presented in Annex 1 and not included in the analysis in more details.

Table 1. Indicators and target values for national monitoring selected in PlastLIFE to monitor the circular transition of plastics in Finland.

Objective

1. Reduce littering of the environment and other environmental harm caused by plastics

2. Avoid unnecessary consumption of plastics and promote the reuse of plastics

3. Enhance the recycling of plastics and recyclability of plastic products

Indicator description [unit] Target

a) Coastal littering number of litter items (median) per 100 m of coastline

b) Number of clean up events

4. Replace virgin plastic manufactured from fossil raw materials with recycled plastics or sustainably produced renewable materials

a) ≤ 25

b) ≥ 88

Amount of municipal solid waste [kg/person] ≤ 629 kg/person

a) Recycling rate of plastic packaging waste [%]

b) Recycled plastic packaging waste [t/year]

c) Share of plastics in the mixed municipal solid waste from households [%]

d) Amount of non-recycled plastic packaging waste [t/year]

e) GHG emissions reported in CO2-eq related to plastics waste treatment

Demand for primary plastics [t/year]

a) ≥ 55 %

b) 73,326 t/year

c) ≤ 10 % (or: 166,000 t/year)

d) ≤ 60,000 t/year

e) Decrease of 50% or from 156,000 to 78,000 t/year of CO2eq. in GHG emissions related to plastics waste treatment.

Original target ≤ 520,000, updated target 674,000 t/year

Table 2. Indicators and target values for monitoring the PlastLIFE impacts on PRfF implementation and outreach achieved.

Indicator theme

Degree of the implementation of the PRfF

Outreach achieved

Indicator description

a) Number of PlastLIFE and complementary projects or actions related to the PRfF main objectives

b) A headline figure of PlastLIFE and complementary funding identified, secured and mobilised related to the PRfF main objectives

a) Number of events organised

b) Number of participants in the events organised

c) Evaluation on the increased knowledge (% of respondents)

d) Number of publications

e) Number of web-site visits

Target

a) Target value not defined

b) 150 M€ mobilised by PlastLIFE

a) 200

b) 10,000

c) 70% of respondents

d) 100 blogs or news articles & 70

reports and articles

e) 20,000

2 National development of the circular economy of plastics

This chapter discusses how the circular economy (CE) of plastics has evolved in correspondence to the Plastics Roadmap for Finland (PRfF). The development of the PlastLIFE indicators (Chapter 1.2) is described and an evaluation of the indicator limitations is provided. Additionally, other potential indicators are highlighted and the results of the project ‘Indicators for the PRfF’ by Karppinen et al. (2025) are outlined.

2.1. Reduce littering of the environment and other environmental harm caused by plastics

The presence of plastic waste in the environment has raised significant concern. Single-use plastic (SUP) products have been recognised as a major contributor to littering, prompting legislative efforts to reduce their usage (2019/904/EU). Therefore, also in the PRfF the majority of actions specifically address SUPs. The goal in the PRfF is that there is a substantial reduction in the amount of plastic litter in the marine environment and in a number of other key areas compared to 2022. The chosen indicators highlight the importance of raising public awareness about littering through communication efforts, as well as citizen-focused campaigns and events. Hence, the progress towards the goal is monitored using indicators such as the numbers of coastal litter and environment clean-up campaigns carried out, along with the reported quantities of litter collected.

One of the action packages in the PRfF focuses on addressing the existing knowledge gaps regarding the environmental and health impacts of microplastics, plastic litter, and harmful substances in both virgin and recycled plastics: Enhancing research knowledge of the negative health and environmental impacts of plastics and solutions to these.

2.1.1. National monitoring of coastal littering

National monitoring of coastal litter has been conducted since 2012 as a part of the monitoring programme of EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC). In Finland, monitoring is conducted three times a year in different parts of the coastline. Monitoring has been carried out by Keep the Archipelago Tidy Association (KAT) under the guidance of the Finnish Environment Institute (Syke). The number of monitored beaches has increased during the years from 8 to 15 and they constitute three different beach types: urban, peri-urban and rural beaches. The unit of measurement is the total number of macrolitter items, i.e. litter > 2.5 cm in size, per 100 m of coastline. All litter found in the survey area is counted and classified according to material and intended use (Haaksi 2012).

In the PlastLIFE project, the aim is to reduce coastal littering by at least 50% during the project. The baseline value is 49 litter items per 100 m of beach, which is the median beach litter abundance for Finland’s Baltic Sea subregion of MSFD for the period 2015–2016 (Hanke et al. 2019). The European

threshold value for marine coastal macrolitter is 20 items per 100 m. The target in the PlastLIFE project is to reduce the amount of macro litter to under 25 items.

Data and methods

The indicator value is derived from the annual national beach litter monitoring and used for MSFD status assessment. This value is directly used as an indicator value in the PlastLIFE monitoring. Indicator value of macrolitter items in 2023 and 2024 describes the median amount of all litter that yearly accumulates on the monitoring sites, including also categories of plastic, rubber and foamed polystyrene, across all beach litter monitoring events (including all monitoring beaches and seasons). Therefore, the indicator value used doesn’t differentiate the different beach types, seasons nor consider litter categories. More detailed analysis was made by Karppinen et al. (2025), the results of which are explained in more detail in Chapter 2.1.3. The calculation method for coastal macrolitter indicator values follow the guidance published by the European Commission (Van Loon et al. 2020). For this report, the monitoring data were received from the researchers of Syke.

Results

The amount of beach litter has decreased since 2015–2016 and from the baseline value for PlastLIFE monitoring (Figure 2). In 2023 and the starting year of the PlastLIFE project, the median value of the litter was 16 per 100 meters of Finnish coastline, which was under the target of 25 litter items of the PlastLIFE project. In 2024, the number increased to 26 litter items.

Number of litter items (all beach types)

Figure 2. Number of litter items per 100 meters of Finnish coastline. Median values represent all beach types and seasons. © Finnish Environment Institute. 2025.

2.1.2. Clean -up events of coastal litter

KAT organised their first beach clean-up and litter collection programme Clean Beach in 2014 (Clean Beach 2025a). The results of the MARLIN (Baltic Marine Litter) project during the years 2011–2013 revealed that Finland’s beaches had the highest amounts of litter of all the beaches included in the study. This result was a driving force to an establishment of Litter-free Beaches – clean-up campaign in 2014, which has been repeated annually since then.

The purpose of the Clean Beach programme is to clean up Finnish beaches, collect information and raise awareness about littering (Clean Beach 2025a). Clean Beach consists of clean-up events which can be organised by anyone who is interested in the subject. The organisers can be, e.g., associations, schools, towns, recreational groups, municipalities, companies and private persons. Clean-up events are not limited to seacoasts but can also be arranged on the coasts of inland waters (Karppinen et al. 2025).

The baseline set in the PlastLIFE project is 68 clean-up events per year (2018) and the target is 88 organised events per year.

Data and methods

In the Clean Beach programme, volunteers play a key role by joining beach cleaning events (Clean Beach 2025b). Different organisers joining the programme report back to KAT on all litter gathered at their clean-up events using a litter collection form. Reported forms allow the Association to track the number of individual clean-up events carried out. This information is used in the PlastLIFE monitoring. Reporting information was received directly from KAT. Only events with litter amounts reported to KAT were considered.

Results

The number of clean-up events reported to the programme has increased since 2014. In 2024, 101 events were organised with reported litter amounts (Figure 3). This exceeded the baseline by 33 and the goal for PlastLIFE monitoring by 13. There has been fluctuation in the number of clean-up events over the years, but overall, the number has been increasing

Figure 3. Number of clean-up events. © Finnish Environment Institute 2025.

2.1.3. Results of related assessments and studies

A status assessment of littering of the marine environment should be prepared based on the national monitoring of coastal littering, the amount of microlitter in surface water and bottom sediment, the number of macrolitter on the seafloor and floating in the water column and impacts to marine wildlife. The state of marine litter in Finland was assessed for the first time for the years 2017–2022 (Piepponen et al. 2024). However, only coastal littering was used in the assessment because there is not yet enough data available on the other types of littering to make a status assessment and their monitoring is still under development. Microlitter monitoring in the Finnish marine environment was started in 2020, when samples were collected from surface water and bottom sediment. A new environmental target for marine management regarding seafloor macrolitter monitoring is to have the monitoring method established by 2027 (Ekebom et al. 2023).

The European threshold value for good environmental status for marine litter is 20 pieces of litter per 100 m of coastline. The monitored beach is in a poor state in terms of littering if the threshold value is exceeded. In Finland, there was no overall significant increase in the total amount of beach litter in the monitored coasts in the monitoring period 2017–2022. Regarding microlitter and macrolitter on the seabed, a status assessment could not yet be made. The amount of beach litter in the Gulf of Finland (32.5 pieces per 100 m), the Archipelago Sea (28.8 pieces per 100 m) and the Bothnian Bay (34 piece per 100 m) exceeded the threshold value, and their status was classified as poor in terms of littering. However, the total amount of beach litter decreased between 2012 and 2022 in the Gulf of Finland and the Archipelago Sea. In both areas, the amount of plastic, metal, paper and wooden beach litter decreased, and in the Gulf of Finland and the Bothnian Bay (2015–2022) the number of SUP-products declined. Plastic was the most common material for beach litter and its share varied from 50% in the Bothnian Bay to around 80% of the total amount in the Kvarken and Gulf of Finland. Approximately 90% of the beach litter in Finland consists of plastics. (Piepponen et al. 2024)

The indicator value for coastal littering is derived from yearly beach litter monitoring as described in Chapter 2.1.1. The indicator does not differentiate the different sea areas, beach types, or monitoring seasons, and it considers all litter categories (2012–2022: 80 categories; since 2023 183 categories) This outlook differs from the review by Karppinen et al. (2025), where beach litter was analysed only focusing on the categories of plastic litter, foamed polystyrene and rubber. The same monitoring data has been used as the basis for the analysis, i.e. national monitoring of coastal litter. The development of the number of cigarette butts was examined separately from other plastic litter.

The amount of plastic beach litter was at its highest in 2014, after which the amount decreased (Figure 4A; Karppinen et al. 2025). One reason for the large amount of litter in 2014 was the location of one urban monitoring beach in Pihlajasaari, Helsinki, in the vicinity of the West Metro construction site. A large amount of shock tube detonators was found on the beach causing a high number of plastic items. Nevertheless, shock tube detonators alone do not explain the peak, but there has been more plastic litter in the first years of monitoring. When looking at the average number of plastic litter per different beach type, more plastic litter were found on urban beaches than on peri-urban and rural beaches (Figure 4A–C; Karppinen et al. 2025). The total amount of plastic beach litter has been decreasing on all beach types since the beginning of national monitoring. The numbers of foamed polystyrene and rubber litter have also decreased or remained low.

Figure 4. The average number (pcs=pieces) of plastic, foamed polystyrene and rubber litter on urban (A), peri-urban (B) and rural (C) beaches (1000 m2) in 2012–2024. Source: Karppinen et al. 2025.

The most common plastic litter item on Finnish beaches is a cigarette butt. The number of cigarette butts collected has been declining (Figure 5), but the new calculation method introduced in 2020 for the monitoring of cigarette butts does not allow comparisons of recent years with years prior to 2020. The calculation method of cigarette butts changed in 2020 from a smaller sub-area (10 m x 10 m square) to correspond to the guidelines of the MSFD Technical Group on Marine Litter (Galgani et al. 2023). After 2020 the calculation has been done from the whole monitoring area (min. 10 m x 100 m).

Cigarette butts with filters on beaches (pcs/1000 m2)

Change in calculation method

Urban beach Peri-urban beach Rural beach

Figure 5. The average number (pcs=pieces) of cigarette butts with filters on urban, peri-urban and rural beaches (1000 m2) in 2012–2024. The vertical dashed line denotes the change in the monitoring area. Source: Karppinen et al. 2025.

Other environmental and health harm caused by plastics was investigated by Karppinen et al. (2025), and they focused on the indicators of harmful effects of plastics identified in the PRfF: (I) the microplastics load and its impacts on water bodies and the soil, (II) Finns’ exposure to microplastics and (III) the number of published research concerning the environmental and health impacts of plastics, as well as the comprehensiveness of the topic. These indicators were examined through the published Finnish literature and by analysing their results and comprehensiveness under the specified topic.

According to Karppinen et al. (2025), the effects of microplastics in waterbodies and soil are not monitored regularly. Therefore, the impacts of microplastics to the Finnish environment cannot be estimated based on the existing information, nor can Finns’ exposure to microplastics More research is needed on exposure pathways and both daily and long-term exposure and potential accumulation of microplastics in the body (Fjäder et al. 2022). All in all, individual studies and reports are not sufficient to create an overall picture of the harmful effects of plastic on Finns or different environments in Finland.

A key finding of the review report ‘Harmful environmental and health impact of plastics’ by Fjäder et al. (2022) was that environmental research related to plastics has so far focused heavily on the aquatic environment, and especially on the marine environment, although it is estimated that the majority of plastic emissions are directed to the terrestrial environment. But there is not much research on the actual

environmental effects of microplastics in aquatic environments either, especially in freshwaters, as research focuses on the exposure of marine organisms and the harm caused by exposure.

Microplastic loading and its effects on soil have been studied mainly on agricultural soil or in bottom sediments of waterbodies. The MicrAgri project (2023) focused on microplastics in agricultural soil and their emissions, effects and means of reduction. The results showed that microplastics in soil cause changes in soil properties. Biodegradable plastic and cellulose changed the soil microbial community and at high concentrations reduced the amount of ammonium, nitrate nitrogen and soluble carbon in the soil, and changed the water retention capacity of the soil. In addition, increased microbial activity accelerated the soil carbon dioxide content and can reduce the oxygen content in the soil. The soil's deteriorating oxygen status and water retention may possibly be responsible for the reduced reproduction and oxidative stress of earthworms. The effects of microplastics from PE-film in soil were found to be limited compared to biodegradable plastics, but they were found to increase the stress response of earthworms (Selonen et al. 2023).

2.1.4. Discussion

Although the amount of coastal littering has decreased since 2016, the overall status of beaches in terms of littering has been assessed as poor in three out of five coastal areas in Finland Nationally, further efforts must be made to reduce the amount of litter to achieve the threshold value for good status.

So far, initiatives taken to achieve the goal to reduce littering of the environment and set in the PRfF and PlastLIFE have included monitoring of macrolitter in the marine area and raising public awareness and activity on littering. In the PRfF, the reduction of littering is directly related to the updated Programme of Measures of the Marine Strategy 2022–2027 and to the GD which aims to reduce the consumption of SUP-packaging. For example, actions done in cities and industry and effective waste management were assessed in the programme as the most important measures to prevent environmental littering (Laamanen et al. 2021). However, experts found no clear evidence that existing measures will sufficiently reduce littering to meet goals, noting that the causes of littering remain unclear.

Implementation of the PRfF has certainly increased the visibility of plastic littering and kept the issue of plastics under discussion. Various campaigns and co-operation with organisations that maintain civic activity may have partly contributed to the reduction of coastal littering. The increase in interest and activity among citizens is at least evidenced by the fact that the number of clean-up events reported to the Clean Beach programme has increased since 2014. However, the link between behavioural change and reduced coastal littering is challenging to assess.

The PRfF’s emphasis on the marine environment overlooks large parts of the ecosystem, such as inland waters or beaches and terrestrial habitat, although it is known that the majority of plastic emissions are directed to the terrestrial environment While there is not yet enough data on the other types of littering (etc. microlitter in surface water and bottom sediment) or finalised monitoring methods available, it does not remove the fact that no concrete action has been taken to address macro- or microlittering in other areas. Furthermore, the overall picture of the harmful effects of plastic on humans or different environments in Finland relies on individual studies and surveys, which makes it difficult to develop the necessary solutions to address the problem.

Overall, one programme or project alone cannot solve a major system-level challenge, and focusing on marine areas and influencing citizens' behaviour is not enough for comprehensive change. For example, the obligation to litter monitoring could be added to the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EY) for inland waters, in line with the inclusion of marine litter monitoring in the MSFD (2008/56/EC). New concrete, innovative and easy-to-reach solutions and experiments are needed to reduce littering and its impacts on the environment.

2.2. Avoid unnecessary consumption of plastics and promote the reuse of plastics

One goal of the PRfF is to reduce unnecessary plastic use, targeting a 30% decrease in consumption by 2030 compared to 2022 levels. The programme defines ‘useful plastics’ as a material that has positive qualities in terms of the environment (Ministry of the Environment 2022). For this reason, what is seen as unnecessary consumption is, for example, the use of plastic in single-use products and overpacking of products. Unnecessary plastic use is often associated with the adverse environmental impacts of plastic, such as pollution caused by SUP-products. Sustainable product design, reuse or the replacement of plastic with other materials are seen as key means of reducing unnecessary plastic consumption. The PRfF defines three key indicators for tracking progress: (1) including data on the reduction in plastic (tonnes) used in single-use portion packages, (2) assurance that the total amount of non-plastic materials in such packaging does not surpass 2022 levels, and (3) monitoring the percentage trend in the use of plastic films within construction supply chains. These have been addressed in various Green Deal (GD) agreements, covering areas such as SUP-packaging, construction plastics, and plastic bags (Chapter 2.2.2).

Plastic consumption is also connected to its end-of-life impacts, such as littering and waste generation. Therefore, the indicator selected in the PlastLIFE is the annual total amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated per capita in Finland.

Efforts to promote plastic reuse is tackled in the PRfF by phasing out SUP-products at public events and replacing them with reusable alternatives. As an indicator, the PRfF proposes tracking the number of companies offering reusable food packaging, like cups and containers. Beyond promotional measures, the PRfF also includes a statistical indicator related to the reporting of reusable plastic packaging, which is part of producer responsibility and publicly available. The initial introduction of a reusable package to the market is recorded as 'placed on the market', while its subsequent uses are recorded as 'reused’. There are no statistical data available on the reuse of plastic products other than plastic packaging. (Karppinen et al. 2025)

2.2.1. Amount of municipal solid waste

Official Statistics of Finland publishes the total amount of MSW generated in households and services annually and per capita (Official Statistics of Finland 2025a). The amount is recorded in accordance with the reporting requirements of the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC).

The PlastLIFE project aims to reduce the amount of municipal waste generated per capita in Finland from the 2021 level of 629 kg.

Data and methods

The amount of MSW generated in years 2021–2023 was reported using the existing data published by Statistics Finland (Official Statistics of Finland 2025a) and compared with the baseline value of 2021. Statistics for 2024 will be published in December 2025.

Results

The amount of MSW has decreased since 2021, from the baseline value for PlastLIFE monitoring (Figure 6). In 2022 the amount of MSW generated was 521 kg per capita, which is 108 kg less than in 2021. In 2023 the amount had decreased to 466 kg per capita. Between 2002 and 2023, the amount has been lower than this only in 2002 and 2003, 458 kg and 465 kg per capita, respectively.

Figure 6. The amount of MSW generated per capita in 2021–2023.

Source: Official Statistics of Finland 2025a.

2.2.2. Results of related measures: Green Deals

There are diverse ways to reduce unnecessary consumption of plastics. Voluntary agreements can be used to guide operators to reduce plastic use. GD agreements are voluntary commitments that are developed to promote the achievement of environmental and sustainable objectives (Ministry of the Environment 2025). The purpose of GDs is to promote or complement the implementation of current legislation. The targets can be set to be more ambitious than laid down by law and at the same time further regulation is avoided. The GD agreement is concluded between the State and parties that have a key role in achieving the desired change, e.g., business operators or public bodies. The voluntary agreements include targets that can be reached in a relatively short term.

There are three national GD agreements that promote reducing unnecessary consumption of plastics: GD on plastic packaging, GD on plastics in construction and GD on plastic bags. The aim of the plastic packaging agreement is to reduce the numbers of single-use cups for beverages and certain food packaging made entirely or partly of plastic (Ministry of the Environment 2025). The target of this agreement is to reduce the amount of plastic litter in the environment and to promote CE The agreement is part of the implementation of the SUP Directive on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. The objective of the GD on plastics in construction is to increase the volume of separately collected plastics from construction and its supply chain, to optimise and minimise the use of plastic film and to increase the use of recycled plastic film in the plastic film production. The GD on plastic bags was developed to support the reduction target set in the Directive (EU) 2015/720 to reduce the use of lightweight plastic bags with thickness of 15–50 microns to less than 40 bags per person per year by 2025. Besides, or in place of it, Member States may decide to stop offering lightweight plastic bags free of charge at retail locations.

Karppinen et al. (2025) examined the implementation of the mentioned GD agreements, excluding GD on plastic bags, and their effects in relation to the main objective refuse of PRfF The impacts of the plastic bag GD have been assessed in an interim report prepared by Syke (Ministry of the Environment 2023). The parties who have joined the GD on plastic packaging and plastic bags select at least a minimum number of measures specified for the sector (Ministry of the Environment 2023, Karppinen et al. 2025). Progress of the measures are followed by indicators defined by participants and reported to a public Sitoumus2050-website. The information obtained from GD public reporting is qualitative and

general in nature and cannot be used on its own to monitor the indicator proposed in the PRfF for plastic packaging. The quantitative data used for monitoring the plastic packaging GD is obtained from producer responsibility reporting starting from 2023. Therefore, the results don’t cover companies outside the producer responsibility. Reporting is required by law under the Government Decree on Packaging and Packaging Waste (1029/2021) from all producers defined as producers of packaging under the Finnish Waste Act (646/2011). Data is collected by Finnish Packaging Recycling Rinki Oy, which is a nonprofit service company owned by Finnish industry and retail trade

Sector-specific coverage targets for the GD agreement have been reached at the end of 2023, and by June 2024, 25 companies had committed to the plastic packaging GD (Sitoumus2050 2025a, Karppinen et al. 2025). The reporting of the amount of plastic used in the plastic packages is implemented through producer responsibility reporting (Karppinen et al. 2025). The reduction in the amount of plastic used in the single-use cups for beverages and certain food packages is compared to the baseline set in the agreement, which is an estimate calculated by Rinki Oy for the year 2022. According to the results, the amount of plastic in food packages has decreased by 50 tonnes and in beverage cups by 6.2 tonnes between 2022 and 2023, equalling to about 1.5% decrease in the total use of plastic (Figure 7).

The amount of plastic used in the single-use cups for beverages 1,000

The amount of plastic used in food packaging

Figure 7. The amount of plastic used in food packages and single-use beverage cups in 2022 and 2023. The data for 2022 are based on an estimate calculated by Rinki Oy. Source: Karppinen et al. 2025 3,183

The GD of plastics in construction concerns plastic films in the construction supply chain and construction. Plastic films refer to polyethylene-based plastics, as well as stretch wrap and shrink wrap plastics used for packaging and indoor protection. Plastic films have been estimated to be a material flow which can significantly increase the reuse and recycling rates of plastics in the construction sector. One goal of the GD is to optimise and reduce the consumption of plastic films in an environmental and sustainable manner. The agreement defines the measures and indicators for monitoring separately by sector for companies, municipalities and organisations and member associations. The agreement is valid until the end of 2027. (Ministry of the Environment 2020)

In the spring of 2023, in contrast to the original plan of the agreement, the construction industry unions and the Ministry of the Environment jointly decided that the parties joining to the agreement will

choose the measures and set the baseline and the goals to the end of 2027 for themselves to follow (Karppinen et al. 2025). The solution made has been affected by challenges related to competition neutrality and the processing of sensitive data. Quantitative targets for the agreement were set in the spring of 2024.

Parties can set quantitative targets for separate collection, reduction of consumption, preparation for reuse and recycling, and portions of plastics films made from recycled materials (Ministry of the Environment 2020). Reporting of the implemented measures and their results is done annually on the Sitoumus2050 website. As a result of the change to the agreement in 2023, the reported data to the public website does not include information on the amount of collected, consumed or recycled plastic films (Karppinen et al. 2025). The baseline and the achievement of the targets by joined parties are reported qualitatively, e.g., accomplished /not accomplished, or yes/no/partially. Thus, the GD agreement does not provide public data on how much the use of plastic films has decreased. According to Karppinen et al. (2025), only one company is publicly committed to reducing the relative consumption of plastic films. In total, there were 22 companies and member associations committed to the agreement in the autumn of 2023

In 2016, the Ministry of the Environment and the Confederation of Finnish Commerce signed a voluntary GD for plastic bags, which aims to achieve the legislative target of less than 40 bags per person per year by 2025. The agreement can be terminated and replaced by legislative measures if desired if the targets set for 2025 are not achieved. Companies committed to the GD on plastic bags must promote the reduction of the consumption of lightweight plastic bags and prevent littering through advice, education, charging for bags, offering alternative shopping bags and product placement at checkouts. These measures mainly derive from the Directive (EU) 2015/720 on reducing the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags Companies committed to the GD report the implementation of the measures taken annually on the publicly available website (Sitoumus2050 2025b). The official reporting of plastic bag consumption is part of the producer responsibility reporting obligation and carried out through producer organisations and reported to the Commission annually. Reporting has been carried out since 2018. The consumption of plastic bags per person in 2022 was 64 and in 2023 approximately 61. The consumption volumes per person for 2017–2023 are presented in Figure 8. In light of the statistics, the target set for 2025 is unlikely to be achieved.

Figure 8. The consumption of plastic bags per person per year from 2017 to 2023

Source: Karppinen et al. 2025

2.2.3. Discussion

It seems to be difficult to find the mechanisms or will to reduce the production and consumption of plastics other than the so-called unnecessary plastics. Finland has, along with other Nordic countries, actively contributed to global efforts to tackle plastic pollution. Currently United Nations member states are negotiating a legally binding treaty covering the entire life cycle of plastics. The negotiations started in 2022, and the treaty was scheduled to be finalised in 2025. However, no consensus has yet been found on the treaty. Provisions aimed at reducing the production and consumption of plastics are opposed by oil producing countries that do not want obligations related to the early stages of the plastic life cycle (Farge & Le Poidevin 2025). At this point the negotiations are to be continued, and the contents of the treaty are still open.

The chosen indicator of measuring the total amount of municipal waste does not directly measure the change in the plastic consumption referred to in the main objective O2. The indicator described in Chapter 2.3.3, which specifically tracks the proportion of plastics in mixed household waste, could also be utilised as a relevant indicator here Combining these indicators offers insight into municipal waste trends, as per capita waste alone may not reflect plastic waste changes, whereas the plastic share in mixed waste does.

The unnecessary consumption of plastic is reduced through voluntary GD agreements. However, the progress of the agreements can be monitored quantitatively only if reporting is required through other regulation, e.g., producer responsibility reporting obligation, as the case is with GDs on plastic packaging and on plastic bags. The effectiveness of these agreements is illustrated by how many parties have been committed to the agreement. The coverage of both of these agreements has been assessed as good: all major retailers of plastic carrier bags have committed to the GD on plastic bags (Sitoumus2050 2025b), and one- or two-thirds of the relevant companies and services and most of the domestic packaging manufacturers have committed to the GD on plastic packaging (Sitoumus2050 2025a). It is still an open question how the implementation and effectiveness of the GD agreement on plastics in construction and the reduction of plastic film use will be monitored. In addition, it remains unclear whether the requirement for competition neutrality on such an operating environment could prevent the monitoring of the agreement.

Among the producers subject to the producer responsibility obligations, only some have committed to GD agreements. Therefore, it is difficult to estimate, for example, whether the producer responsibility reporting figures used to monitor the fulfilment of GD for plastic packaging genuinely reflect success of the agreement, as number of participants are not comparable. Furthermore, how to evaluate the effectiveness of GDs on reducing plastic use if the driving force comes from sources outside the agreement such as other regulatory instruments or CE targets. Either way, the reduction of plastic use can be measured on plastic packaging and on plastic bags, and in both cases, the usage has been decreasing. However, the target set for plastic bags is unlikely to be met, which could lead to the agreement being replaced by legislative measures. For plastic packaging, it is too early to assess the success of the agreement.

The objective to reduce unnecessary plastic consumption has shown to be a very difficult issue and needs further actions, as the same observation is made in the analysis of complementary projects (see Chapter 4.2.2), the results of which show that few projects develop solutions to reduce unnecessary plastic consumption or promote reuse. Reducing consumption will be the biggest challenge of the next few decades, requiring abandoning familiar consumption habits and developing completely new business environments.

2.3. Enhance the recycling of plastics and recyclability of plastic products

One goal of the PRfF is to enhance the recycling of plastics. PRfF defines key indicators to monitor the recycling rate of plastic packaging waste and the amount of recycled and non-recycled plastic packaging waste, the indicators also selected in the PlastLIFE. These indicators exist as each Member State is obliged to collect monitoring data on the above-mentioned objectives and report them annually to the Commission under Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste. In addition to monitoring the recycling of plastic packaging, indicators have also been selected to monitor the amount of non-recycled plastic packaging. This complies with Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053, which requires Member States to determine the financial penalties applicable to non-recycled plastic packaging waste. The recyclability of plastics, like plastic packaging, has a significant impact on achieving recycling targets. This is supported by the target set in the EU Plastics Strategy, according to which all packaging placed on the market must be reusable or easily recyclable by 2030 (European Commission 2018).

The PRfF also aims to promote the recycling of plastics other than packaging. The indicators selected for the PRfF utilises GD monitoring, which were discussed in Chapter 2.2.2. and the amount of plastics in the mixed MSW (Chapter 2.3.3). Karppinen et al. (2025) noted that there is only limited data available for plastics other than packaging, as their recovery and recycling are not monitored separately (Karppinen et al. 2025). Data is currently limited to national statistics on separately collected plastic from municipal waste, information reported under Section 117c of the Waste Act (646/2011), and separate reports.

2.3.1. Recycling rate of plastic packaging waste

The packaging recycling rate is calculated using the amount of recycled packaging waste in relation to the amount of packaging placed on the market in a given year. Due to the short lifespan of packaging, the amount of packaging placed on the market can be considered equal to the amount of packaging waste generated, as outlined in Directive (EU) 2018/852. Each member state is obliged to report the recycling rate annually to the Commission. The reporting enables monitoring of packaging recycling targets set by the EU (50% by 2025 and 55% by 2030, under Directive 94/62/EY).

Data and methods

Packaging is subject to producer responsibility and the companies that import packaged products or package them in Finland have financial responsibility for arranging the recovery and recycling or other waste management of the packages they place on the market (Finnish Waste Act 646/2011). Companies have mainly transferred the practical arrangements to producer organisations, which charge companies according to the amount of packaging they place on the market. Packaging data is collected via the producer responsibility system and published and reported to the Commission by the responsible authority (Pirkanmaa ELY-Centre 2024).

Results

The recycling rate in 2019 was 42% and decreased to 26% by 2020. However, the recycling rates are not comparable due to the change in the calculation method. The method for calculating the recycling rate of packaging waste was refined in 2020. From that year onward, only plastic waste that is processed into new material is counted as recycled. Previously, all separately collected plastic waste was considered recycled, even though it could include incorrectly sorted or non-recyclable material that was

removed during pre-treatment or sorting, before reaching the recycling phase. Additionally, starting in 2020, the statistics must also account for packaging outside the scope of producer responsibility – such as that introduced to the market by free-riders, private imports, or foreign online retailers. The recycling rate has fluctuated, increasing from 29% in 2021 to 31% in 2022 and subsequently decreasing to 29% in 2023 (Figure 9). In this context, it is evident that the 50% recycling target set for 2025 is unlikely to be met.

Recycling rate

Figure 9. The recycling rate of plastic packaging waste between 2019–2023 and the EU target set for 2030 in percentage (%). *The recycling rate of 2019 is not comparable with the recycling rates of 2020–2023 due to the change in the calculation method. Source: Pirkanmaa ELY-Centre. 2024.

2.3.2. Recycled and non-recycled plastic packaging waste

The two indicators selected in PlastLIFE are the recycled amount and the non-recycled amount of plastic packaging waste. EU Member States are required to report both figures to the European Commission in accordance with Directive 94/62/EC and Council Decision 2020/2053. Within PlastLIFE the goal is to increase the volume of recycled plastic packaging waste to 73,326 tonnes, being 55% of the packaging volume placed on the market in 2019. The year 2019 was selected as baseline year because the most recent data available during the project preparation phase was from that year. In comparison, the baseline year 2019 and year 2023 recorded recycling volumes of 56,208 tonnes and 46,595 tonnes, respectively. The same baseline year has been selected for non-recycled plastic packaging waste, and similar comparability issues apply. In 2019, the amount of non-recycled plastic packaging waste was 77,112 tonnes, rising to 112,503 tonnes in 2023. PlastLIFE together with the complementary measures aims to reduce this figure to 60,000 tonnes or less per year.

Data and methods

The data sources used to determine the quantity of recycled plastic packaging waste, and the amount of packaging placed on the market, are discussed in Chapter 2.3.1. as they relate to calculating the recycling rate. In PlastLIFE, the amount of non-recycled plastic packaging waste is defined as the portion of packaging placed on the market that does not enter recycling. An alternative approach would be to estimate the non-recycled amount based on waste analysis (see Chapter 2.3.3)

Results

The data on recycled and non-recycled plastic packaging waste for the years 2019–2023 is presented in Figure 10. Between 2020 and 2023, the amount of recycled plastic packaging waste has remained below the 2019 level of 56,208 tonnes. However, the 2019 figure is not directly comparable due to changes in the calculation methodology introduced in 2020. Since then, the recycled amount has shown a steady increase until 2022: 41,201 tonnes in 2020, 48,448 tonnes in 2021, and 49,283 tonnes in 2022, the amount decreasing to 46,595 in 2023 (Figure 10). However, the PlastLIFE target remains distant—an additional 26,731tonnes must be recycled to reach the goal of 73,326 tonnes.

In contrast, the amount of non-recycled plastic packaging waste has fluctuated during the years under review, making it difficult to identify a clear trend. The amount of non-recycled plastic packaging waste increased significantly from 77,112 tonnes in 2019 to 115,913 tonnes in 2020, largely due to changes in the calculation method. This upward trend continued in 2021, reaching 117,451 tonnes, followed by a slight decrease to 111,490 tonnes in 2022 and 112,503 tonnes in 2023. The PlastLIFE target reducing non-recycled plastic packaging waste to 60,000 tonnes or less remains far out of reach. The amount of unrecycled plastic packaging in 2023 is 52,509 tonnes above the target. Consequently, the target for recycled packaging waste is easier to achieve than the one set for non-recycled waste.

Recycled and non-recycled plastic packaging waste (1,000 t)

Amount of recycled plastic packaging waste (t/year)

Amount of non-recycled plastic packaging waste (t/year)

Figure 10. The amount of recycled and non-recycled plastic packaging waste between 2019–2023 and the target set in the PlastLIFE for 2035 *2019 is not comparable with 2020–2023 due to the change in the calculation method. Source: Pirkanmaa ELY-Centre 2024.

2.3.3. Plastics in the mixed municipal solid waste from households

Official Statistics of Finland (2025b) records the total amount of municipal waste generated annually, but data specifically on the plastic content within this waste is not available. Therefore, composition studies have been used to estimate the plastic content in mixed waste. These studies offer the most precise insights into household municipal waste composition, whereas similar studies for mixed waste from other sectors are less common and thus provide less reliable data (Karppinen et al. 2021). The chosen

2019* 2020 2021 2022

2023 Target set for 2035

indicator in PlastLIFE is the mass percentage of plastic present in mixed household municipal waste and the volume of plastic in mixed MSW. The baseline year selected is 2020, during which plastic was estimated to make up 17% of mixed household waste and mixed MSW to contain 281,981 tonnes of plastic. The target is to reduce the figures to 10% or less or to 166,000 tonnes.

Data and methods

Suomen kiertovoima (KIVO) compiles a national estimate of the composition of mixed household waste based on the most comparable and recent studies since 2006. Composition studies have been carried out by waste facilities in various municipalities. (KIVO 2024)

Official Statistics of Finland (2025b) publishes the amount of MSW and mixed MSW generated in Finland annually. The latest statistics published are from 2023. The statistics do not provide more detailed information on the distribution of waste sources, so it is not possible to divide it into waste produced by households and waste produced by administration, services and business. Salmenperä et al. (2016) has estimated that 65% of the MSW is produced in households and 35% in other sectors. A similar assessment has not been made regarding mixed MSW. For PlastLIFE, the plastic waste indicator utilises the total amount of mixed MSW and data on the composition of mixed MSW from households. The estimate does not consider the possible dirtiness of the plastic, which can be up to 29% of the total weight for packaging in mixed MSW from households (Kaartinen & Aalto 2025). It's important to note that the percentage and the total weight used in the indicator evaluate different waste streams.

Results

Figure 11 shows the estimated share of plastics in mixed household waste in 2020, 2023 and 2024, the years when KIVO published the composition estimates. In 2020, mixed household waste was estimated to contain on average 17% plastic. This proportion rose to 17.8% in the 2023 estimate, before slightly declining to 17.3% in 2024. As a result, there has been no overall reduction since the 2020 baseline, and progress towards achieving the target of reducing plastic content to 10% or less has not been made. However, the range of results from composition studies is wide and in 2024 it was 10.2–23.5%. This shows that even the most optimistic estimate falls short of meeting the target.

Share of plastics in the mixed MSW (%)

Figure 11 The estimated share of plastics in mixed municipal solid waste from household waste in 2020, 2023 and 2024. Source: KIVO 2024

Figure 12 shows the amount of plastic in mixed municipal waste for the years 2020–2023. The estimate for 2020 is based on data about the composition of mixed household waste from that year (17%), while the estimates for the following years use the most recent data available from 2024 (17.3%). The amount of plastic waste in mixed municipal waste increased from 2020 to 2021, after which the amount has decreased. In 2023, mixed municipal waste contained an estimated 208,497 tonnes of plastic. This is 42,497 tonnes more than the target set in PlastLIFE.

The volume of plastic in mixed municipal waste (1,000 t/year)

Figure 12. The estimates for volume of plastic in mixed municipal waste in 2020–2023.

Source: The Official Statistics of Finland 2025b. KIVO 2024.

2.3.4. Results of related assessments and studies

Key questions of plastics recycling (2023–2025) project examined how various underlying factors, such as recycling process efficiency and waste collection practices, influence the overall recycling rate of plastic packaging. The results indicate that the recycling rate is heavily influenced by the waste stream into which plastic packaging is disposed to. Meeting recycling targets requires a higher share of packaging to be directed into separate collection rather than to other waste streams. In a scenario where all packaging ended up in separate collection, the recycling rate was 60–70%. However, since it is unrealistic to expect all packaging to be sorted to separate collection, additional measures are needed, such as extracting packaging from mixed waste and enhancing recycling technology efficiency. The findings highlight that achieving the recycling targets for plastic packaging waste require substantial improvements in the volume of separately collected packaging, the sorting of these collected fractions, the material recovery from sorted fractions, and the output efficiency of recycling facilities. (Salminen et al. 2025). Moreover, Ruokamo et al. (2022) identified inadequate accessibility to waste collection infrastructure as the predominant factor hindering the sorting and recycling of plastic packaging within Finnish households. This observation is corroborated by findings from a more recent household survey conducted as part of PlastLIFE.

There is little information on the recycling of plastics other than packaging, as their recovery and recycling are not monitored separately. Like packaging, vehicles and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) fall under producer responsibility obligations. However, because recycling targets for these product categories are based on overall product mass, data specific to plastic recycling is not available in the statistics (Salminen et al. 2025). According to Karppinen et al. (2025) some limited data is available through Official Statistics of Finland’s municipal waste statistics, which report the

quantities of separately collected plastic waste by treatment method, a data which partially includes packaging waste (Official Statistics of Finland 2025b).

Karppinen et al. (2025) emphasised that plastic recyclability is a complex issue influenced by multiple factors, including the material composition and separability of plastic products, the efficiency of collection systems, available recycling technologies, the environmental impacts of recycling processes, and market dynamics – such as the competitiveness of recycled materials compared to virgin plastics. Research that comprehensively considers the above-mentioned issues is currently not available. (Karppinen et al. 2025)

Regarding market dynamics and demand for recycled plastics, Ruokamo et al. (2022) suggest that whereas both experiences and preferences related to recycled plastic products are found to be relatively positive among Finnish consumers, product availability and labelling require more attention. Overall, the findings from Ruokamo et al. (2022) imply that there is room in the market for new consumer products made of recycled plastics.

2.3.5. Discussion

Plastic recycling is not monitored comprehensively and most attention has been given to plastic packaging waste. This focus is evident in the chosen indicators, which measure the quantities of recycled and non-recycled plastic packaging. These show that Finland is still far from achieving the EU target for recycling plastic packaging. As plastic packaging represents only 42% of the estimated total plastic waste, this approach overlooks significant volumes of plastic found in other waste streams (Salminen et al. 2025). To improve understanding of other plastic waste streams, it is essential to develop statistics on their recovery and recycling. However, at present, data on plastics beyond packaging is still scarce. (Karppinen et al. 2025, Salminen et al. 2025). The recyclability of plastics is also a complex topic which needs further research. Currently, there are no indicators set in PlastLIFE or PRfF that would directly provide information on the recyclability of plastics (Karppinen et al. 2025).

2.4. Replace virgin plastic manufactured from fossil raw materials with recycled plastics or sustainably produced renewable materials

EU legislation and jointly agreed targets and commitments encourage the use of recycled plastic. The EU Plastics Strategy aims for all plastic packaging on the market to be easily recyclable by 2030 (European Commission 2018). Conversely, the SUP Directive drives demand for recycled plastic by requiring that 25% of single-use PET bottles be made from recycled material by 2025.The PRfF highlights several key considerations for replacing virgin plastic manufactured from fossil raw materials with recycled plastics, including ensuring the recyclability of plastic products, identifying suitable applications for recycled plastic, and guaranteeing the safe use of recycled plastics The PRfF does not establish any indicators for recycled plastic usage, and there is currently no statistical data available on the quantity used in Finland. (Karppinen et al. 2025). In contrast, the considerations on replacing virgin plastic with recycled materials brought up a range of other issues, including the need to evaluate the environmental, climate, and health impacts of substitute materials, as well as the potential need to enhance companies' material expertise and promote awareness of existing alternatives. The indicators identified in the PRfF include product development and new business financing, monitoring the number of new companies and the development of the industry's turnover, as well as assessments of the climate and environmental benefits of substitute materials (Karppinen et al. 2025) The indicator set in PlastLIFE is monitoring the demand for primary plastics in Finland.

2.4.1. Demand for primary plastics

PlastLIFE uses annual primary plastic demand, measured in tonnes, as its indicator. The target is to keep yearly usage at or below 520,000 tonnes, which has been calculated as being 80% from the usage volume of 2019. However, due to the update of the 2019 estimate, the baseline for primary plastic use has been found to be too low and should be 154,000 tonnes higher, at 674,000 tonnes. The target can be achieved by reducing the use of primary plastics or by increasing the use of secondary plastics.

Data and methods

The original data used in the estimate was obtained from Hurskainen et al. (2021). This data has been later updated and the data sources and results have been described in detail in Chapters 5.1.1. and 5.2.1. respectively. The usage volume of primary plastics has been calculated by subtracting the use of secondary plastics from the overall use of plastic raw material.

Results

The initial primary plastics used in 2019 was 650,000 tonnes, the new estimate being 842,000 tonnes. The primary plastic use in 2021 decreased from 2019 with 3,000 tonnes to 839,000 tonnes (Figure 13). The original and updated targets of 520,000 tonnes and 674,000 tonnes are still far from being achieved

Demand for primary plastics (1,000 t/year)

Figure 13. The amount of primary plastic used annually in 2019 and 2021. 2019* is the old estimate which was updated and presented as 2019. © Finnish Environment Institute. 2025.

2.4.2. Results of related assessments and studies

The GD of plastics in construction has five optional measures to monitor the share of recycled plastic in the raw materials used in the construction supply chain and construction. Nine participants have chosen

one measure according to which they can either monitor the amount of recycled raw materials used in the production of plastics or the use of recycled raw materials in packaging. The overall goal of the agreement is that by the end of 2027, at least 40% of plastic films used in the construction sector is made from recycled plastic. (Karppinen et al. 2025)

As the construction industry associations and the Ministry of the Environment jointly decided in 2023 that each party committed to the agreement defines its own baseline and sets quantitative targets based on the baseline level, the publicly available reporting data does not include numeric data (see Chapter 2.2.2.). Therefore, the GD agreement itself does not provide data on how much virgin plastic use has been replaced with recycled plastics or other renewable materials. Furthermore, it’s an open question how the targets set in the agreement will be verified, when data can’t be collected from companies due to competition neutrality reasons (Karppinen et al. 2025)

2.4.3. Discussion

A single indicator is used to monitor the replacing of fossil-based plastics with recycled or renewable alternatives. However, the indicator does not provide details on which sectors are making the transition and what alternatives are being used. It also doesn't clarify whether changes in fossil plastic use are driven by a shift to recycled or renewable materials, by the absence of such a shift, or by other factors. Currently, the construction GD does not provide additional statistics that could serve as an indicator here. The lack of quantitative data might not only hinder the monitoring of the progress but also reduce the transparency and reliability of the agreement as a promoter of the CE of plastics. Although the trend in fossil-based plastic use between 2019 and 2021 showed a decrease, indicating progress, the target remained far off, and no current estimate is available.

Strengthening demand for alternative materials plays a key role in changing the raw material base. Future requirements for the use of recycled plastic, specified, e.g., in PPWR, are expected to increase the demand. According to discussions with the industry, the challenge for domestic producers is achieving competitive prices compared to global market prices. Otherwise, alternative materials will mainly be purchased from Asia, where marketing is aggressive and production costs are lower but European quality standards are not necessarily met. In 2024, China alone accounted for approximately 30% of global recycled plastic production and about 35% of bio-based plastics production (PlasticsEurope 2025).

3 PlastLIFE impacts on the circular economy of plastics

In this chapter, the impacts of PlastLIFE are evaluated by utilising data from PlastLIFE monitoring activities. The monitoring tools were developed and adopted during the first phase of the project.

First, the impacts of PlastLIFE are assessed from the viewpoint of the specific project objective, ‘Maximised impact through dissemination’ (Chapter 3.2.1). Dissemination and outreach activities are summarised and analysed thematically following the themes of the Plastic Roadmap for Finland (PRfF; see Chapter 1.1). Analysing the reporting data collected continuously in the project enables a quantifiable evaluation of which PRfF themes and objectives have been most frequently addressed in PlastLIFE activities. Moreover, the findings from this analysis are used to identify which themes or activities may require increased attention in the second phase of the project

Second, the impacts of PlastLIFE activities on promoting the circular economy (CE) of plastics are evaluated in relation to the overall project objectives and the objectives of the PRfF (Objectives O1-O4, see Chapters 1.1 and 1.2).

3.1. Data and methods

During the first year of the project, several reporting tools were adopted to support project documentation, monitor task progress, and evaluate the impact of project activities. PlastLIFE partners regularly update these tools with both quantitative data, such as figures related to dissemination and outreach, and qualitative descriptions that reflect the overall progress of each task. The first data source utilised in the impact analysis of this chapter are the Excel-form monitoring spreadsheets, which include numerical information on organised and attended events, publications and media visibility, categorised thematically following the PRfF (Chapter 1.1). Relevant to overall project objectives, participant numbers and knowledge increase are monitored in PlastLIFE organised events along with details on publications, such as reader numbers and publication types. Additionally, monitoring spreadsheets are used to monitor specific task objectives, such as media visibility targets related to project communication However, it is not always possible to gather precise data for every activity. Thus, the overall impact of the project would be greater than presented in Chapter 3.2.1 if all activities were fully accounted for.

In addition to quantitative data, the monitoring spreadsheets also include concise biannual updates describing the progress of each task, hence providing the basis for the qualitative impact analysis of PlastLIFE tasks. This information is complemented by annual summaries prepared by PlastLIFE partners, which provide an overview of key activities and achievements throughout the year. Additionally, partners report progress of the work in PlastLIFE internal meetings such as work package meetings, morning coffee webinars and annual consortium meetings.

In addition to PlastLIFE internal monitoring, the visibility of themes and issues related to CE of plastics and PlastLIFE in the national media were analysed by Retriever, to inform and support the development of communication strategies for the second phase of PlastLIFE. Retriever is a professional media monitoring and analysis service, which aggregates content from a wide range of sources,

including traditional print and broadcast media, online news platforms, and social media channels. The main findings of this analysis are reported in Chapter 3.2.1

3.2. Results

3.2.1.

Outreach and dissemination

To ensure that the targets of the PRfF are achieved, knowledge, results, good practices and pilots developed in PlastLIFE activities need to be adopted widely by the Finnish public. This requires disseminating the project results in written form (media and publications) and in presentations. To ensure wider exploitation of the PlastLIFE project, ambitious goals for dissemination activities have been set. Overall, PlastLIFE aims to organise at least 200 events with at least 10,000 participants and publish at least 100 blogs and news articles with 10,000 readers and 70 reports and articles. Moreover, to ensure high impact of dissemination activities, an indicator was placed for event participation: knowledge of 7,000 individuals has been increased after participating in PlastLIFE organised events. This indicator shows how stakeholders have gained and adopted information from these events.

This chapter summarises outreach and dissemination activities carried out during PlastLIFE until June 2025 following the themes of the PRfF (Chapter 1.1). In addition to PlastLIFE organised events, the participation of PlastLIFE partners in other (internal and external) events is analysed to evaluate the scope of networking. The continuous reporting practices established early in the project allow for assessing which themes need more activities in the second phase of the project and analysing which stakeholder groups have been reached.

Communication channels available for the project results dissemination are also addressed in this chapter to analyse reach. PlastLIFE has several targets related to different communication channels, such as for the media releases, (target at least 20), number of social media followers (target at least 4,000), social media campaigns (at least 6-8) with at least 5,000 reactions per campaign, number of users for Rosgis web service for reporting litter observations (target at least 10, 000) and web-service visits (target at least 20,000).

Publications

By June 2025, PlastLIFE had produced altogether over 300 publications. Collectively, publications of PlastLIFE reached an audience of over 440,000 readers. It is important to note, however, that this figure primarily reflects media-type publications, and may not fully capture the impact of other publication types. In relation to the project-level publication objectives, the first phase of PlastLIFE achieved 64% of the targeted blog and news articles, and 58% of the planned reports and articles.

Most publications during the first project phase have been different media activities, with social media posts and news articles being the most frequently published formats (Figure 14). By June 2025, PlastLIFE produced over 200 social media posts, including almost 40 news articles. Also, a range of professional publications, such as articles, reports and scientific publications, were produced (Figure 15).

Media publications (06/2025)

14. Number of media publications.

Reports and articles (06/2025)

15 Number of published reports and articles

PlastLIFE publications most frequently addressed the themes of ‘Utilisation of recycled plastics’, ‘Alternative solutions’, ‘Novel business models’ and ‘Littering’. Other topics, like ‘Health and environmental impacts’ and ‘Decreasing unnecessary consumption’ were also addressed quite regularly (Figure 16). Altogether, all PRfF themes have been covered in the publications of PlastLIFE in the first phase.

Figure

Figure

Publications by theme (06/2025)

Recycling

Utilisation of recycled plastics

Alternative solutions

Novel business models

Littering

Health and env. Impacts

Decreasing unnecessary consumption

Collection

Other

Construction and demolition

Agri- and horticulture

International co-operation

Reuse

Export

Figure 16 Publications categorised by themes of the PRfF (Chapter 1.1). When interpreting the image, it should be noted that publications can contribute simultaneously to several themes.

Events

PlastLIFE organised events

By June 2025, PlastLIFE partners had organised almost 100 events (Figure 17). These events were participated by approximately 3,200 individuals.

Number of events organised by PlastLIFE (06/2025)

17. Number of events organised.

Figure

Overall, the number of events by the end of the first project phase will be close to or more than 50% of the overall project objective of 200 events. During the second project phase more effort is needed to engage a wider audience more actively. Based on the monitoring data, stakeholder groups such as municipalities representatives, business, research and experts as well as NGOs have often been involved in PlastLIFE activities or events. Engaging additional groups, such as decision-makers and the general public, should be more in the focus of future activities. Moreover, reporting of PlastLIFE events needs to be intensified in the second phase of the project Participant number was not reported for all events, so evidently PlastLIFE has reached more participants than reported. Based on the feedback received, PlastLIFE events have been successful in increasing knowledge of participants. On average, 90% of participants in events where feedback was collected reported an increase in their knowledge. Likewise, 71% of these participants reported that they were able to expand their networks, and 52% that they would change their behaviour after the event. By extrapolating the finding that 90% of participants reported increased knowledge to all PlastLIFE events, we can estimate that the project has increased knowledge of around 2,800 individuals.

This estimate is somewhat unreliable, as feedback forms were not collected from all events Hence an important area for improvement during the second project phase is feedback collection in organised events, along with reporting the total number of participants

Figure 18 shows the number of PlastLIFE organised events categorised in themes (see Chapter 1.1) of the PRfF. Overall, PlastLIFE events have covered most of the themes of the PRfF. Most of the themes have been covered on more than 20 occasions, with recycling being the most covered topic. The reporting data indicates that only a limited number of littering-themed events were organised. However, littering emerged as the most frequently addressed theme in events where PlastLIFE experts participated (see Figure 20). Moreover, PlastLIFE events concerning littering, such as clean-up events, have been categorised in the ‘Other’ category.

Events organised in PlastLIFE by theme (06/2025)

Other

Recycling

Health and env. impacts

Utilisation of recycled plastics

Alternative solutions

Agri- and horticulture

Decreasing unnecessary consumption

Collection

Novel business models

Construction and demolition

Littering

International co-operation

Export

Figure 18 Events organised by PlastLIFE categorised in themes of the PRfF (Chapter 1.1). Note: Theme ‘Other’ includes events, in which no theme was reported, events that concerned general promotion of the CE of plastics or other themes that were not defined in the list of themes and action packages, such as ‘reuse’ or ‘LCA’.

Participation in other than PlastLIFE events

In the first project phase, by the end of June 2025, PlastLIFE partners had participated in over 200 events (Figure 19). PlastLIFE experts have given presentations in internal and external workshops, seminars and international conferences, acquired knowledge on, e.g., new technology in fairs, given and carried out interviews as well as participated in general knowledge exchange. The number of participants was estimated for around half of these events in the reporting data, adding up to 79,600 participants.

Number of events participated in (06/2025)

Figure 19. Number of events participated by PlastLIFE partners.

Littering has been the most frequently addressed theme in events attended by PlastLIFE partners. Recycling has been the second most common theme (Figure 20). Apart from these, PlastLIFE partners have engaged in networking and disseminating project results across a wide range of themes quite evenly.

Event participation by theme (06/2025)

Littering

Recycling

Alternative solutions

Utilisation of recycled plastics

Other

Decreasing unnecessary consumption

Health and env. Impacts

Novel business models

Agri- and horticulture

Collection

International co-operation

Construction and demolition

Export

Figure 20. Event participation by themes of the PRfF (Chapter 1.1). Note: Theme ‘Other’ includes events, in which no theme was reported, events that concerned general promotion of the CE of plastics, project management or other themes that were not defined in the list of themes and action packages, such as ‘LCA’.

Communication channels

During the first phase of PlastLIFE (by 5/2025) a total of 7 media releases (of targeted 20) were distributed. These generated a lot of media visibility: 21 published newspaper articles, 3 magazine articles, 4 professional articles, 84 web site articles, 4 background interviews, 3 radio and 2 TV interviews, 3 podcasts, 4 participations in social media discourse, and 1 ‘other’ media hit.

Social media campaigns have proven to be an effective tool for dissemination, since 9 campaigns (target 6–8) have reached more than 80,000 recipients (target at least 5,000 reactions per campaign). PlastLIFE’s own social media channels have 2,800 followers (target at least 4,000), the web-site visits numbered 10,700 (target at least 20,000) and the web service for reporting litter (Rosgis) reached 2,010 users (target 10,000) through an intensive campaign in social media in spring 2025.

Media analysis for strengthening PlastLIFE communication

A media analysis was carried out in summer 2025 by Retriever with the purpose to explore how the Finnish media covers topics related to plastics and how these correlates to the PlastLIFE themes. The analysis examined the tone of reporting, key actors and journalists involved in reporting as well as which keywords are emphasised. This analysis informs and supports the development of communication strategies for the second phase of the PlastLIFE project.

The analysis found that the most visible themes were plastic recycling, consumption and littering. These were especially visible in regional and/or local media. The professional media focused on business, innovation and expertise with a positive tone. The national media was more investigative and concerned especially on health and/or environment hazards. The economic media was critical of regulation in coverage of legislation and policy. The local media emphasised litter impacts and recycling projects.

The following recommendations were drawn from the media analysis for implementing the communication in PlastLIFE during the second project phase (2026–2029):

• Highlight innovations and new research to gain coverage.

• Focus/link messaging on prominent keywords.

• Target story suggestions to selected actors/journalists.

• Emphasise co-operation between large companies and research bodies.

• Increase press release distribution via STTInfo.

• Strengthen collaboration with recycling/environmental organisations.

• Boost social media presence to gain media attention.

• Prepare and encourage experts for media interviews.

• Use consumer-relevant and relatable story angles.

• Analyse key journalists’/actors’ tone for engagement opportunities.

3.2.2. Overview of PlastLIFE activities promoting the circular economy of plastics

PlastLIFE consists of nine work packages, which all include several activities carried out by a consortium partner or several partners in collaboration. During the first project phase, collaboration between partners has grown and enabled an increasingly transdisciplinary approach to the plastic challenge. Collaboration and communication with stakeholders also outside of the consortium has been advanced from the very start of the project to promote reaching and engaging all Finns to join the work towards the sustainable CE of plastics.

The Finnish Environment Institute (Syke) has the overall responsibility of the project coordination, management, communication (both nationally and internationally) and dissemination as well as

monitoring and gathering data for project impact assessment. The impacts of activities related to coordination, management, communication and dissemination are reported in the previous chapter within the outreach and dissemination impacts. The activities on monitoring and data gathering are not separately reported, but this report is the result of the extensive monitoring and data gathering. Separate chapters are dedicated for the plastic accounting activities (Chapter 5) that generate increasingly detailed data on the plastics flows in Finland and for the life cycle assessment (LCA) activities (Chapter 6) producing an evaluation of the climate change impacts of the CE of plastics (Horn et al. 2025).

The Ministry of the Environment (MoE) has the overall responsibility for the PRfF and updating of the roadmap. Stakeholder awareness of the PRfF has been raised due to intensive communication along the PRfF work in co-operation with the PRfF co-operation network. The MoE has arranged annual stakeholder forums for the implementation of the PRfF and dissemination of the project results to the stakeholders. The PlastLIFE results are communicated to the network regularly but also policy developments at national level are communicated to project partners. The MoE has given support for negotiations on the global plastics agreement, launched in February 2022 under the auspices of the UN Environment Conference. The MoE is responsible for the renewal of the Waste Act into a Circular Economy Act and this reform will most likely have an impact also on circular plastic policy. PlastLIFE is following the legislation reform closely.

All tasks and activities within the project have specific targets. The targets are to be met by the end of the project and the after-life period, i.e. by year 2035. Hence, it is evident that most targets have not yet been met at this stage. In the following, a summary is presented on the impacts of individual activities on the four main project objectives (O1-O4, see Chapters 1.1 and 1.2). The organisations responsible for the implementation of the activities are identified. Quantitative estimates are given for some task-specific targets, but in most cases, the impacts are presented with a qualitative description. Deliverables, reports, theses and articles produced through the PlastLIFE activities are listed in Annex 2 and are not comprehensively referenced in the main text.

Reduce littering of the environment and other environmental harm caused by plastics

Keep the Archipelago Tidy Association (KAT) and Syke have worked together on littering to increase public awareness of littering and its harmful impacts, to activate citizens and municipalities to reduce littering, and to improve management and monitoring of the littering problem. KAT’s Clean Beach Programme has increased knowledge and engaged people to take part in and organise beach clean-up events (Chapter 2.1.2) and report their litter observations (materials, quantity) with Clean Beach litter reporting. Clean Beach Sponsor School Programme has focused on increasing children’s knowledge about littering and its harmful impacts by involving currently 66 (target 28) schools/scout groups in the programme. The groups originate from diverse regions in Finland, 44 being from Finnish coastal areas, 12 from lake areas, 8 from Åland islands and 2 from Lapland. The programme provides materials and engages the children in different activities against littering.

KAT’s Storm Drain Campaign (Palo 2024) to nudge anti-littering behaviour and raise awareness on how plastic ends up in waterways in urban areas, has been successfully implemented in the streets of in total 18 municipalities reaching an estimated 854,000 passers-by (target 500,000). Print&Media, Finland's leading professional media for graphic and visual communications, selected the campaign as one of the best domestic print productions of 2024 out of nearly 50 campaigns. The distinctive design of stickers placed around storm drains on the streets was praised to also attract the attention of children. A social media campaign was connected to the Storm Drain Campaign reaching around 72,000 user accounts with informative pictures and short videos about litter and littering and that encouraged people to take action.

Syke has been gathering information on the harmful impacts of plastic litter for a public database (targeted to include at least 25 most common plastic litter types). This information can be used in KAT

and other partners’ educational materials. Syke has also developed a monitoring method for plastic construction waste in aquatic environments and is piloting it in Helsinki starting in 2023 and Turku in 2024 (co-operation with KAT). Additionally, a questionnaire collecting observations on the harmful effects of macroplastics on Finnish fauna (both wild animals and livestock) has been launched by Syke, targeted to veterinarians, veterinary hospitals and animal protection associations.

Citizens have been activated and engaged in anti-littering behaviour through the Rosgis web service for reporting litter (rosgis.syke.fi, developed by Syke), and related communication material (news release, cartoon, video, social media posts). Rosgis has already attracted 2,730 users (target 10,000) whose observations (nearly 830) will help researchers determine the origin of the waste and block its pathways into nature. The service has been disseminated also by taking part in several public events and fairs, targeted at potential user groups such as teachers, recreational sailors and boaters, fishermen and hunters and gardeners. Additionally, the first of the six planned art interventions has been carried out to raise awareness and challenge people to take action against littering. The intervention called Selkie skin was implemented during the Kotka Maritime Festival 2025 and attracted visitors’ interest and lively discussions on the plastic issue. Kotka Maritime Festival had 255,000 visitors.

The PlastLIFE consortium members and their networks were invited by Syke to participate in the national ‘Million trash bags’ campaign organised by Yle (The Finnish Public Service Media Company) in 2023 and 2024. In 2024 well over the aimed 100 bags of litter was cleaned from the environment due to the joint efforts. The knowledge of the great public on the negative impacts of plastic litter on nature was increased through PlastLIFE expert interviews given to the media during the campaign.

Better knowledge to reduce health and environmental risks and enhance the safe CE of plastics has been promoted by the University of Jyväskylä (JyU Bio and JyU Chem) and Syke. Syke has raised awareness of safe CE by presentations in seminars and has generated literature reviews of potentially harmful additives in plastics to broaden the knowledge of project partners and stakeholders. Chemically safe CE of plastics has been promoted by Syke through identification and analyses of hazardous substances in artificial turfs and agriplastics. Syke and JyU Bio have a battery of biotests that they use to provide information on the ecotoxicity of waste plastics. JyU Bio has also improved understanding of the effects and risks of natural and synthetic particles in freshwater environments, as well as facilitated environmental authorities to make informed decisions on the appropriate management of microplastics (Zhou et al. 2025).

Challenges and recommendations concerning biodegradable plastics in water and soil as well as their performance in biowaste treatment have been addressed by JyU, Syke and Finnish Biocycle and Biogas Association (FBB), respectively. JyU Bio has tested the biodegradability and toxicity of biodegradable and conventional plastics in the northern water bodies concluding that biodegradability of soildegradable and compostable plastics differs in brackish and lake waters (Huovila 2025). Taipale et al. (2023) found that the degradation of plastics is influenced by the structure of the microbial community, water temperature, nutrients, humus content, and salinity. The degradation rate in brackish and fresh water was three times faster in the summer than in the autumn, winter or spring (Vesamäki et al. 2024). However, the current biodegradability standards are set only for the marine environment and do not take into consideration the seasonal temperature variations in Finland (Vesamäki et al. 2024). Testing with Daphnia magna revealed that most biodegradable plastics are health-safe (Yli-Tuomola 2025). The problem of poor degradability has emerged also in biogas production studied by FBB, and in soil, as brought up for the agricultural biodegradable plastics by Syke and Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke).

Awareness on plastic pollution in agricultural soils through, e.g., biodegradable plastics ending up in the soil from mulching films or fertilizers made from biowaste contamination of soils, has been raised by Syke and FBB. Syke has written articles, given presentations and chaired specific sessions in international and national conferences and webinars (e.g., Räisänen et al. 2024, Selonen 2025) as well as in workshops aimed for agricultural operators. FBB has studied the degradation of biodegradable bags at

three Finnish biogas plants. Not all tested biobags degraded during biogas processing in accordance with the EN 13432 standard. Paper bags degraded the best, and biodegradable biowaste bags with OK Compost HOME or DIN+ certification degraded reasonably well. The final product (digestate-based fertilizer) contained variable amounts of impurities based on starch, cellulose, and plastic. The amount depended on both the feedstock used and the processing technology of the plant. Starch- and cellulosebased impurities eventually degrade at the site where the product is applied. Overall, the quality of the feed material affects the quality of the final product, hence better biowaste sorting is needed and all biogas process stages are important. It is important to participate in the updating of EN13432 standard for assessing the biodegradation of packaging. FBB has drawn 12 recommendations concerning the entire biogas value chain: including recommendations on how to clarify legislation, how to improve the quality and efficiency of biowaste recycling and how to prevent the entry of non-degradable materials into biowaste. (Virolainen-Hynnä 2025)

The findings from JyU, Syke and FBB concerning biodegradability of plastics provided a basis for policy recommendations aimed at decision makers (Kauppi et al. 2025, Chapter 7.2) that were communicated in a meeting organised to Finnish members of the European Parliament, to be considered in future action in legislating and standardisation processes for biodegradable plastics. In addition, the topic has been widely discussed in the media, e.g., in a national TV broadcast (Huomenta Suomi, MTV3). Articles on the biodegradation of plastics in soil have also been published earlier in a journal for experts. (Kauppi et al. 2025).

Chemicalisation of the environment has been reduced and the use of recycled plastics increased by JyU Chem by developing reusable selective filters from recycled plastics for adsorbing pharmaceuticals and heavy metals from waste waters. Koskinen (2024) repurposed waste EPS by applying a simple chemical modification, transforming it into an adsorbent material capable of capturing pharmaceuticals from aqueous solutions. The added functional groups significantly enhanced the material’s adsorption capacity tested with anti-inflammatory drugs: up to 75% of naproxen and 99% of diclofenac were captured on the modified polystyrene under the tested conditions (Koskinen 2024). Mattila (2024) examined how heavy metals interact with plastics, particularly in 3D printing and with waste plastics. Adsorption on plastics was found to depend on both pH and plastic type (Mattila 2024).

Avoid unnecessary consumption of plastics and promote the reuse of plastics

Reuse of plastic packaging and products has been promoted by the transition arena process coordinated by Syke that visioned a systematic change to the transition from overconsumption and single use to reuse of plastics in Finland (Salmenperä et al. 2025a). The co-creative process (3 transition arenas, 4 group discussions, described in more details in Chapter 7.3) has produced understanding of the possibilities and limitations of reusing plastics as well as identified needs for CE policy of plastics, research and development, demonstrations and experiments to promote reuse of plastic consumer packaging, transport packaging and consumer products. The results can be channelled into the future update processes of the PRfF (Chapter 7.3). Additionally, PlastLIFE continues work to promote reuse, e.g., through co-operation with municipalities and other event organisers to compensate the current singleuse culture in various types of events by mobilising reusable packaging and products.

Citizens have been activated to tackle unnecessary consumption of plastics within a citizen pool of 140 participants established by Syke. Citizens are encouraged with different tasks to innovate best practices or solutions for reducing unnecessary consumption of plastics, e.g., by increasing reuse. The first task of the pool was to find ways to reduce the consumption of plastic carrier bags. The solutions and recommendations are utilised in the MoE’s and the retail sector's Green Deal work towards reducing the consumption of plastic bags (to the EU target of 40 bags/person/y) (Pitkänen et al. 2024a, Chapter 2.2.2). In their second task the members of the citizen pool evaluated new types of deposit-based packaging concepts (Hurtig & Colley 2024). The responses are utilised in research conducted by the

University of Lapland (ULapland) and Syke on finding ways to increase the recycling of plastics. The third task activates the pool members to generate ideas on how to prevent littering.

Citizens’ relations towards plastics and plastic products have been studied by collecting plastic stories in five workshops organised together with the Scouts, Martha association and Rotary clubs. Also, materials for schools and clubs for children and the youth have been prepared and are freely available in the online Mappa.fi service for educators. An article for natural sciences teachers’ magazine (Pitkänen et al. 2024b), blog post and scientific article on people’s relationship with plastic products have been written. The stories will provide material for Syke in assessing unsustainable vs. sustainable plastic citizenship and how the latter could be promoted.

Avoiding unnecessary consumption of plastics has been promoted by repurposing old sports clothing into fan products for the RoPS football club and using old tennis balls for acoustic/decorative panels. Co-design activities by ULapland, e.g., with Residuum waste management company have increased consumer and citizens engagement in recycling and reducing consumption. The Residuum case engaged participants both from the company in the co-design workshop and from the public in the study for users. Virtual reality and gamification have been used as tools in design and learning, e.g., in the Residuum case and in producing an educational sorting game, escape demo, e.g., for tourists.

Awareness on how to reduce the amount of plastic use in construction, including infrastructure building and renovation projects has been raised through City of Helsinki studies and activities and disseminating the lessons learned to 9 cities (target at least 10) that cover 28.8 % (target 33%) of the population in Finland. Knowledge has additionally been gained of the most significant plastic streams in the city’s infrastructure construction: cable protection pipes and filter fabrics (Telén 2023). Also, valuable information has been gained of artificial turfs and of the key points in project planning and procurement where critical decisions regarding circularity and material solutions are made. A new national network has been established for organisations interested in circularity of artificial turfs, led by the City of Helsinki to further share information about artificial turf problems and solutions. The first innovative procurement pilot (target 2–3) using the dynamic purchasing system, is being carried out for artificial turf end-of-life solutions by the City of Helsinki.

Awareness on plastic use and recycling in the food chain as well as on managing hazardous substances in CE has been raised by presentations in seminars and webinars.

Enhance the recycling of plastics and recyclability of plastic products

The sorting, separation, collection and recovery of plastics waste originating from different sources (from consumers, plastics companies, agriculture & horticulture, construction & demolition) has been increased by several PlastLIFE partners. LAB University of Applied Sciences (LAB UAS) has enhanced plastic networking and co-operation in Päijät-Häme and South Karelia regions by contacting plastic recycling operators (a total of 50) and mapping their needs for education and material knowledge for developing new business in the plastic recycling sector. Cluster activities are planned based on the questionnaires, workshops and discussions. In addition, material studies will be carried out (target 12 materials, e.g., composites), i.e. testing of the material properties, and evaluating processing techniques for the plastics industry use.

The properties of agriplastic materials have been studied by Karelia University of Applied Sciences (KUAS), University of Turku (UTU) and Syke to produce information on the recyclability of the materials. KUAS has used long-term stress testing (e.g., weather tests) to study how storing agriplastics outside on the ground affects their properties and results in microplastic emissions. The results will be communicated to farmers to motivate them in proper ways of storing plastic materials and show how collecting and pre-treating plastic waste correctly can be economically feasible. Syke is analysing the hazardous substances and ecotoxicity of agriplastic samples provided by UTU from their experiment

areas as well as samples collected by a co-operative agriplastic related Finnish project Kestävä maatalousmuoviketju (KeMu, Jamk 2025).

Recycling of agriplastics in North Karelia has been promoted by KUAS through the development of a prototype product, which has been made from various materials: 100% PE-LLD plastic waste and a composite material combining agricultural plastic waste and biochar. However, the focus of KUAS in the production of new products has been on PE-LLD plastic waste originating from agriculture. The recycling capacity of the region has been increased by Vaahterinen, by setting up facilities for utilising agriplastics waste as raw material for, e.g., infrastructure products. In co-operation with the KUAS, Vaahterinen has tested the functionality of PE-LLD-agriplastic as a raw material of PE-composite.

Plastic waste from construction and demolition (C&D) activities has been used by LUT University to produce seven pilot products (target 7) with analysed properties to test the potential of mixed plastics as raw material. Information on the availability and properties of the C&D waste plastics in different phases of C&D practices together with challenges of logistics and legislation has been produced by LUT University. They have also studied the utilisation possibilities for separated C&D waste plastics using novel solutions such as artificial intelligence and lignocellulose nanofibers. The evaluation work of the use safety of the recycled plastics from C&D is well on going (target 6 pilots) and the possibilities of enhancing the properties of recycled plastics with organic/inorganic nanoparticles has been studied by LUT University. The evaluation of C&D waste plastic product safety focusing on volatile organic compounds and heavy metals has been finished (Rikalainen 2025). Furthermore, Muovipoli, City of Helsinki, LAB UAS and Aalto University have organised a workshop in co-operation, to seek solutions for the recycling of plastic pipes at renovation sites.

Information and knowledge on the end-of-life options and solutions of artificial turfs have been produced by the City of Helsinki, Syke, JyU Bio and LUT University (Nyroos 2025). No recycling possibilities for turfs currently exist in Finland, although 35 artificial turfs reach their end-of-life each year in Finland (Seppälä et al. 2024). Analyses of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) did not prevent recycling of the turf materials, but evaluation of recyclability of crumb rubber continues (Syke, JyU Bio) (Fjäder et al. 2025, Perkola & Fjäder 2025). The LCA focusing on end-of-life phases of artificial turf revealed that recycling artificial turf locally and reusing crumb rubber achieves best environmental outcomes (Falsafi et al. 2025). Further LCA studies will be conducted to cover all life cycle stages of artificial turf at LUT University.

Better knowledge and regular monitoring of citizen behaviour has been sought through conducting the first of two planned citizen surveys addressed to 5,000 randomly selected Finnish citizens. The results have been presented for operators responsible for organising recycling in practice, as well as reported in a professional journal (Räisänen et al. 2025). According to the results, the main driving force for sorting was that respondents perceived it as an important duty. On the other hand, the factors hindering sorting were related to how easy and accessible it was considered to be, as well as to the level of trust in the actual recycling of plastics (Räisänen et al. 2025). In addition to sorting behaviour, the survey also studied respondents’ preferences for recycled and bio-based plastics. These results will be published in a scientific journal in the second phase of the project. Knowledge on citizens sorting behaviour has also been gathered by interviewing people especially about sorting of detergent packaging at homes. Based on the results, the most significant barriers to sorting plastic are limited space in homes, unclear sorting instructions, the distance to sorting points, and certain plastic packages (such as meat packaging) being perceived as particularly challenging. The interview results are in line with the survey findings, strengthening the insight into barriers to sorting.

The knowledge, know-how, and capacity to carry out the sustainable circular transition of the plastics system has been increased by producing educational material, such as education courses for continuous learning, podcasts, e-learning materials, guidance etc., by LAB UAS, KUAS and ULapland on recycling (O3) as well as on reducing (O1), refusing (O2) and replacing (O4). The materials provide information and know-how to enable business and society to develop towards plastics circularity. First

demo version of sector specific educational material has been produced for the agricultural and horticultural sector operators by Luke, Syke and UTU to increase recycling and reduce unnecessary consumption of plastics within the sectors and increase common understanding of the potential of the circular bioeconomy to meet the sustainability goals. Moreover, the toolkit for generating new business models (by Aalto) enhances the innovation of business that is founded on recycling of plastics or production of products that are recyclable at their end-of-life stage. The secondary raw materials that are developed for packing materials (Luke) consider recyclability as one feature. In addition, a harmonised Food Packaging LCA methodology following the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) guidelines is being developed by Luke to increase the harmonisation of LCA analyses for food packaging in Finland (Katajajuuri 2024, Khan & Katajajuuri 2025).

The collaboration within the agriplastic value chain has been improved by UTU, LAB UAS, Muovipoli and FBB in co-operation with Syke and Luke by organising workshops and interviews among the different actors in the value chain. The collaboration enhances plastic collection, reprocessing and utilisation of recycled plastic materials (Kivistö & Saarinen 2025).

Replace virgin plastic manufactured from fossil raw materials with recycled plastics or sustainably produced renewable materials

Virgin fossil plastic raw materials have been replaced with recycled plastics or sustainably produced renewable materials by Orthex Finland and KB Components (former Plastone). Orthex Finland has replaced fossil raw materials with bio-based and circular alternatives in four household storage products and sorting solutions. The products are sold in 8-14 European countries outside of Finland. The aim is to find new raw material solutions for old, existing products. Food contact products are especially challenging. In 2024 eight new raw materials have been tested. Orthex Finland aims to double the share of products made of recycled or renewable raw materials by 2035. At the PlastLIFE start (end 2022) the share of bio-based and circular raw materials of the company’s overall raw material consumption was 13.6%, and 16.6% by the end of 2024. The absolute increase in the use of recycled or renewable raw materials has been 38%.

The use of virgin fossil raw materials and combustion of plastic waste have been reduced by KB Components (formerly Plastone) through utilising clean and well-known materials from plastics industry side streams in products manufacturing. An ear speculum intended for use by veterinarians was designed to be made from two different raw materials, HD-PE and PBT, and manufactured in mass production for test marketing (Plastone 2023; Vuorinen 2024). The product has also been exported. The sales channel needs to be developed still to reach its full potential.

Alternative designs and alternative materials for reducing the plastics needed in plastic packaging (e.g., Mehukatti packaging) and other plastic products have been developed and tested by ULapland. Alternative materials such as Mycelium (mushroom-fibre developed by Luke) was used to produce prototypes of acoustic panels and a cold container.

Replacement of plastic mulching materials has been developed by Luke (Tuohimetsä et al. 2025). Organic liquid mulching solutions have been developed and tested. Three pilots (target 3) and four demonstrations (target 3) have been carried out with great success (with audiences from 200 to several thousands of visitors). Biodegradation and ecotoxicity tests of liquid mulch have been performed in JyU Bio. Spreading technology of liquid mulch has been developed. Several business contacts have been created, and business logic scenarios developed concerning commercialisation of liquid mulch and potential uses of it in various environments.

New, sustainable bio-based materials from particularly 2nd generation feedstocks (side streams and under-utilised biomass) have been developed by Luke to replace fossil-based plastics in packaging solutions (Ruuttunen & Korpinen 2025). Fibres from hop and tomato stems were utilised to partially replace virgin fibres of softwood kraft pulp. Pilot scale paperboards were produced and calendered, finally the

boards will be coated with gelatin-based material developed by Luke from fish side streams. This entity is tested as a container to replace plastics. Mycelium-based material has also been developed and tested. Fungal strain and lignocellulosic fibres have been selected and fermented in Luke and design and moulding using 3D printed equipment was carried out by ULapland. Ecotoxicity of the developed materials has been tested by JyU Bio, initial results showing relatively low toxicity in relation to polypropylene (PP) plastics. Techno-economic assessments (TEA) are performed for the developed materials and will be followed by environmental impacts assessment with LCA (Luke). A holistic, life cycle-based method (SCORE system) is being developed by Luke for assessing the environmental sustainability of food packaging in terms of their overall environmental impact and technical performance (see previous chapter). The system will be used to produce information on the sustainability of alternative packaging regarding food products and to assess packaging options that are in the market.

Support for companies in innovating and developing alternative sustainable products and business models is provided in the form of a MIRO-based Innovation toolkit developed by Aalto University and utilised in workshops organised jointly by Aalto and Muovipoli. The toolkit introduces users to ecosystem thinking enabling one to search for substitutes for the pre-existing value chains and business models in the search for a more sustainable future. The toolkit is freely available on the internet (kiertotalousratkaisuja.fi > Tietoa meistä > Ajankohtaista > Innovation Toolkit) and it has been introduced in several events aimed at companies. Furthermore, it has also been utilised and tested, e.g., by Orthex Finland, UTU, City of Helsinki and LAB UAS. Muovipoli is additionally developing the concept of sustainable materials clinique to further support companies in searching and evaluating circular or bio-based materials to compensate conventional plastics in their production. Networking events and publications of Muovipoli (e.g., Pietikäinen et al. 2024, Syvänne 2025, Weiström 2024) continuously increase the knowledge of companies and other plastic chain operators on sustainable and circular solutions to compensate fossil based raw materials in plastics.

Stakeholder co-operation

The implementation of the Plastics Roadmap for Finland (PRfF) is an ambitious challenge which requires activation of all levels of the Finnish society. The PlastLIFE consortium has during the first project phase included 17 partners whose networks and activities together with the complementary measures and stakeholder engagement shall reach all parts of Finland, various groups of the public, businesses, operators and experts, policy and decision makers as well as researchers and scientists.

The most relevant stakeholder groups that PlastLIFE has engaged with during the first phase of the project are 1) the PRfF co-operation network chaired and led by the Ministry of the Environment (MoE) and the Ministry of Employment and the Economic Affairs (MoEE, vice chair), and 2) the PlastLIFE Advisory group consisting of Borealis Polymers (leading the most important complementary measure, SPIRIT programme), VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, NG Group (formerly Fortum), Association of Finnish Municipalities and Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency TUKES, the Finnish Packaging Association, the Event Industry, European Chemicals Agency ECHA, The Association of Finnish Cities and Municipalities, Suomen Kiertovoima KIVO, and Recycling Industries of Finland. Additionally, Muovipoli network consists of a significant amount of plastic industry representatives as well as other operators of the plastic value chain. All these groups have been regularly updated on the progress and activities of PlastLIFE. Furthermore, PlastLIFE has interacted with several national projects that do significant work in promoting the CE of plastics.

The role of companies in reaching the CE of plastics is crucial. PlastLIFE has engaged the plastics industry via beneficiaries and their networks as well as via complementary measures and their networks. The most relevant complementary measure from this perspective is the SPIRIT programme, led by Borealis Polymers engaging 100 companies and organisations in their ecosystem.

Municipalities have an important role in disseminating CE solutions into the activities within the municipal organisations as well as to the citizens. PlastLIFE has started co-operation with municipality network participants to promote reuse within municipalities and to activate citizens in fighting against littering.

On top of the Finnish audiences, PlastLIFE has reached international audiences through co-operation, collaboration and knowledge exchange with other LIFE projects. PlastLIFE participated in LIFE projects’ conference session in the 11th International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management in Rhodes, Greece in June 2024, connecting with 9 other LIFE projects. PlastLIFE also participated in plastics’ related LIFE projects’ networking meeting in Riga, Latvia in November 2024 where 4 LIFE projects got together, shared knowledge, good practices and familiarised themselves with each other. Belgium’s LIFE project Cmartlife was consequently invited to share their results in the PlastLIFE organised webinar on reuse in the Spring of 2025 (‘PlastTalk – Sustainable packaging: Reuse highlights from Europe and Finland’). PlastLIFE has also been involved in establishing a networking group between the environmental agencies of the Nordic countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland, meeting regularly to exchange information, solutions for current challenges and results of different plastics related projects and initiatives. PlastLIFE has also been representing Finland in the European Environment Agency’s partnership network; ‘European Environment Information and Observation Network’. been active in Barents’ Network co-operation as well as European Environmental Protection Agencies’ network in particular its informal interest group on plastics, hosting a meeting for the group in the fall of 2024 in Helsinki.

Decision makers have been a key target group for PlastLIFE’s international reach. PlastLIFE presented solutions for the plastics challenge in a LIFE platform meeting on plastics in November 2024 and solutions for the construction sector in a LIFE platform meeting on construction in October 2024. The Finnish members of the European parliament were invited to hear results on biodegradability of plastics in September 2025.

Also, frequent participation in different international seminars has been a core PlastLIFE activity.

3.3. Discussion

PlastLIFE has progressed as planned during the first phase of the project. Minor delays in some activities have not influenced the overall schedule of the project. However, most of the task and work package specific targets have been set to be met by the end of the project and the after-life period, i.e. by year 2035. Hence it is evident that at this stage most targets are not yet met. However, the project activities have been able to promote all the four main objectives of the project and the PRfF (O1-O4, Chapters 1.1 and 1.2). Direct impacts have been generated on Objective 1, reducing littering and other negative impacts of plastics, and Objective 4, replacing virgin plastic manufactured from fossil raw materials with recycled plastics or sustainably produced renewable materials. The impacts on O1 can be seen in the indicators concerning littering (Chapter 2.1), especially in the number of clean-up events. In contrast, the impacts on O4 are not shown in the indicators on primary plastics demand (Chapter 2.4), which is explained partly by the updated data used for calculating plastic material flows (as described in Chapters 5.1.1 and 5.1.2), and partly by the fact that the changes made in raw material use, e.g., by Orthex Finland, are not immediately reflected in the statistics used for the indicator.

PlastLIFE activities promoting Objective 3, enhancing the recycling of plastics and recyclability of plastic products, have concentrated on plastic waste from agricultural and horticultural activities as well as from C&D activities. Therefore, the impacts of PlastLIFE are not reflected in the project indicators, which monitor the progress in recycling plastics packaging. Task specific targets have been set in PlastLIFE for recycling of both agricultural plastics and C&D waste plastics but have not yet been reached. However, a lot of educational material has been produced or is under production for different audiences

to provide knowledge and support on taking measures towards increasing plastics recycling in general and specifically in the agricultural and horticultural sector and C&D sector.

Objective 2, avoiding unnecessary consumption of plastics and promoting the reuse of plastics is by far the most difficult of the four main objectives to promote and to monitor Unnecessary consumption can be interpreted differently by different people. Single-use items can be often, but not always considered unnecessary, since they can be compensated with durable, reusable solutions to some extent. PlastLIFE has produced action recommendations for promoting reuse of plastic consumer packaging, plastic transport packaging as well as plastic products. Social media campaigning and presentations in various events have brought the messages to the plastic value chain operators and public. However, real progress in reuse requires a systemic change which in turn requires a dialogue to resolve various conflicts of interest (Chapter 7.3). Citizen activation and operator education to increase awareness on how to reduce unnecessary consumption have been carried out by PlastLIFE, but the results of such activities will become visible only after some years.

PlastLIFE has performed well in outreach and dissemination, yet additional efforts are required to measure impacts of PlastLIFE events and activities to participants Good progress was made towards achieving the numerical objectives for events during the first phase of the project. However, feedback from event participants should be gathered more efficiently during the second phase, as the indicator value for knowledge increase was behind the project objective. Also, more detailed reporting on event themes and participants shall be encouraged in the second phase to get a more comprehensive picture of stakeholder engagement, networking and behavioural change. Similarly, the project advanced effectively towards its publication targets in the first phase by carrying out outreach and dissemination activities across all themes identified in the PRfF (Chapter 1.1). Among these, littering and recycling were particularly prominent

To conclude, PlastLIFE has progressed as planned and is well on the way to reach the task specific objectives. However, the overall project objectives, that go beyond the reach of PlastLIFE activities, show that we still have a lot to do to achieve the sustainable CE of plastics and we need the whole society, on all levels, to work together towards the goal.

4 Overview of complementary activities promoting the circular economy of plastics

PlastLIFE is planned to widely cover the Plastic Roadmap for Finland (PRfF) and its objectives and themes to promote the implementation of the PRfF. Nevertheless, the full implementation of the PRfF requires additional measures, and financing in several themes is needed. Therefore, a wide range of projects and activities complementary to the PlastLIFE must be carried out to promote the implementation. This chapter describes the identified complementary measures promoting each of the PRfF objectives and themes.

As defined by the LIFE Programme, these complementary measures are funded by sources other than the LIFE Programme. These complementary measures are monitored in the PlastLIFE project to identify needs for developing additional measures to further support the implementation of the PRfF.

This report from phase 1 of the PlastLIFE provides an overview on the impacts of complementary measures to the targets of the project and the PRfF. The aim of this analysis is to identify the links between complementary measures, projects or activities, and the objectives and measures defined in the PRfF. The impacts are examined in correspondence to the main objectives (O1–O4) and themes that are determined from the proposed measures of the PRfF (see Chapter 1.1). For phase 2 of the PlastLIFE, the complementary measures will be enforced in areas where there is most need for activities based on the analysis. This is done by promoting mobilisation of new projects and activities and funding for the complementary measures required for obtaining the sustainable circular economy (CE) of plastics. The PlastLIFE project aims at mobilising national and/or EU funding for such complementary projects 150 M€ by 2035.

In the planning phase of the PlastLIFE project (2021–2022), it was identified that additional measures and funding is required in especially three themes to ensure full implementation of PRfF These specific themes were:

• Infrastructure investments, research and development aiming at significantly improving the recovery rate of plastics waste,

• Human welfare - Increasing the scientific knowledge and understanding of impacts of plastics on human welfare and

• Plastics in agriculture and horticulture - Promote the recycling and replacement of plastics in agriculture and horticulture.

Progress on these themes during the first project period is discussed in Chapter 4.2.4.

In the planning phase also five complementary projects were identified that are closely linked to PlastLIFE and the three above listed themes. These five projects are followed more closely during the project: PRIMUS (PRIme Manufacturing of crystal glass Under innovative Solution), Plastics2Olefins (Recycling plastic waste into high-value materials – Closing the Loop), SPIRIT (Sustainable Plastics Industry Transformation), PARC (Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals) and PAPILLONS (Plastics in agriculture: impacts, lifecycles & long-term sustainability). The results of these projects will be presented in Chapter 4.2.4 in connection with the three themes to assess the progress in the themes. These projects are also used to monitor the realisation of two other objectives of the PlastLIFE

project: Transforming plastics industry into the CE and enhancing the safe CE of plastics for the wellbeing of humans and the environment.

In addition to the projects mentioned above, a wide range of complementary measures are monitored on a general level to generate a more comprehensive picture of the progress of PRfF implementation Complementary measures are examined in correspondence to the main PRfF objectives (O1–O4) and 15 themes. Monitoring has been carried out since the start of the PlastLIFE project in late 2022. Two analysis reports have been published since: The first report (Rinne et al. 2023) is an overview of how the work done in the PlastLIFE project and the complementary projects connect to the main PRfF objectives (O1–O4) and themes and contribute to achieving a sustainable CE of plastics in Finland. The second analysis report (Saarenaho & Rinne 2025) builds on the first report and describes the status in 2024 as well as how complementary projects have contributed to achieving the targets and which are the thematic areas that need additional measures.

4.1. Data and methods

Monitoring of the complementary measures focus on projects that have started after the publication of the LIFE Programme call for applications in 2021. This analysis includes projects and activities started between 2021 and 2024 (Annex 3). However, it is likely that there are even more projects and activities related to plastics than we have presented. If such measures are revealed during the future monitoring of complementary measures, they will be added to the upcoming analysis. In addition, the sustainable CE of plastics is promoted in companies through various internal activities, from which public information is not available for monitoring purposes.

Information on new projects has been obtained from websites, media and stakeholders. The main website that is regularly followed is Research.fi which is a service offered by the Ministry of Education and Culture. Research.fi collects and shares information on research conducted in Finland and funded from public resources. Media sources include industry online magazines (especially Finnish Circular Economy News), news sites such as Yle.fi and companies' own bulletins. Occasionally, information has also been searched using a search engine (Google). We also learn about new projects through co-operation with stakeholders in the field of CE of plastics. These stakeholders include, e.g., organisations, associations and companies, and public administration. We collect information such as the project timeframe, partners involved, source of funding (EU/National) and funding instrument, and project description. Descriptions are used to link the projects to the four main objectives of the PRfF and 15 themes. Some projects can contribute simultaneously to more than one main objective and theme. For the three specific themes (see previous chapter) and realisation of two objectives (‘Transforming plastics industry into the circular economy’ and ‘enhancing the safe circular economy of plastics for the wellbeing of humans and the environment’) additional information on the progress has been examined through the results of the five more closely monitored projects and requested from relevant experts.

4.2. Results

4.2.1. Complementary measures promoting the overall objectives and ambition of PlastLIFE

The PlastLIFE project has defined indicators to measure the transition into a sustainable CE of plastics and numeric targets for monitoring the development. The objectives of PlastLIFE form a three-step hierarchy from the practical, operational objectives to the overarching objectives of the PRfF. The objectives of the PRfF (O1–O4, see Chapter 1.2) are monitored in PlastLIFE on a national level. To achieve these, also complementary measures have specific project objectives.

PlastLIFE aims for high overall impact and ambition which will be achieved by the project work packages (WPs), tasks, complementary measures, and stakeholder network co-operation The complementary measures may have impact on several PlastLIFE indicators, of which the most relevant are the following:

• Degree of the implementation of the PRfF (see Table 2, Chapter 1.2)

• Mobilising financing for complementary measures to promote the sustainable CE of plastics by at least 150 M€

• Recycling increases (O3, see Table 1, Chapter 1.2)

• Recycling rate of plastic packaging waste is increased to 55% or the amount of non-recycled plastic packaging waste is decreased to 60,000 tonnes a year, and recycling of all plastic waste is doubled.

• Decrease of 50% or from 156,000 to 78,000 tonnes of CO2-eq. per year in GHG emissions related to plastics waste treatment.

• Production and consumption changes (O4, see Table 1, Chapter 1.2)

• Reduction in the demand for primary plastics by at least 20% or to 520,000 tonnes.

The impacts of the complementary measures are followed during the PlastLIFE project and up to five years after its end. The number of complementary projects at the end of 2024 is 114 with a total funding of 551 M€. When funding is allocated to the start years of the projects, most of the funding has been granted or invested in 2022 and 2024 (Figure 21). PlastLIFE consortium has promoted mobilisation of 20.5 M€ of the overall funding.

Complementary funding (M€) per year

2022: 290M€

2023: 35M€

2024: 199M€

2021: 26M€

Figure 21 Complementary funding allocated for the years 2021–2024 based on the starting years of the complementary projects and actions. © Finnish Environment Institute. 2025.

Figure 22 shows complementary measures promoting the remaining three indicators. Complementary projects promote the objective of reducing the use of virgin plastic and increasing the recycling of plastic packaging. They also promote the goal of reducing GHG emissions, however this is a less obvious aim in the project descriptions, hence there is fewer linkages to this goal Still, promoting plastic recycling and reducing the use of virgin plastic can indirectly reduce GHG emissions.

Complementary measures linked to the PlastLIFE indicators

Reduction in the demand for primary plastics by at least 20% or to 520,000 tonnes.

Recycling rate of plastic packaging waste is increased to 55% or the amount of non-recycled plastic packaging waste is decreased to 60,000 tonnes a year, and recycling of all plastic waste is doubled. Decrease of 50% or from 156,000 to 78,000 tons of CO2-eq. per year in GHG emissions related to plastics waste treatment.

Figure 22. Complementary measures linked to the PlastLIFE indicators. When interpreting the image, it should be noted that projects and actions can contribute simultaneously to several indicators. © Finnish Environment Institute. 2025.

4.2.2. Complementary measures promoting the PRfF and PlastLIFE main objectives

The number of complementary projects has increased in all the main objectives of the PRfF during the monitoring period 2021–2024. This analysis covers a total of 114 projects with the total budget of 551 million euros. Most projects promote the main objective ‘Reduce’ (O1) (Figure 23). Moreover, these projects related to the reduction of plastic littering and environmental harm caused by plastics get the least funding. This means that projects that aim to reduce environmental effects of plastics are small research and development projects.

Complementary projects and funding in the PRfF main objectives

The main objectives of the Plastics Roadmap for Finland

Projects Funding

Figure 23. Complementary projects and their funding (M€) promoting the four main objectives of the PRfF. When interpreting the image, it should be noted that projects and actions can contribute simultaneously to several main objectives. © Finnish Environment Institute. 2025.

The main objectives ‘Recycle’ (O3) and ‘Replace’ (O4) became emphasised in the analysis. Projects that aim to increase the efficiency of plastic recycling promote the main objective ‘Recycle’ (O3), whereas measures that aim to replace fossil-based plastic with recycled plastic or bio-based materials promote the main objective ‘Replace’ (O4). ‘Recycle’ and ‘Replace’ are also the main objectives where most of the funding directed to the four main objectives is allocated. Funding is both research and development funding and public or private investment funding. The main objective ‘Refuse’ (O2) gets the least connections, meaning that few projects develop solutions to reduce unnecessary plastic consumption or promote reuse.

The funding for the projects exceeds million euros in 43 projects, hundred thousand euros in 49 projects and the remaining 18 projects have budgets over ten thousand euros or less. Funding information is missing for five projects or investments. For example, ICPLASTIC and PRIORITY projects are information and networking projects, i.e. only their meeting and training expenses are covered. There is also one LIFE project involved in the analysis, BIODIVERSEA LIFE-IP, because a significant amount of project work is related to the main objective reduce. Two measures, one R&D programme and one plant investment, total to around 300 M€. The next largest measures in terms of funding are four research and company projects and one company investment, comprising approximately 157 M€ from the total funding of the complementary measures. Seven infrastructure investments have been made by the end of 2024, with a total investment value of approximately 200 M€ for the six of them, which is nearly 36% of the total funding for complementary projects. Information for the seventh investment is not public. Overall, the six largest projects and infrastructure investments account for about 82% of the total funding for complementary measures.

Many projects that promote the main objective reducing the environmental impacts of plastics, have started in recent years. A total of 33 projects have started since 2023 (Figure 24). These focus on the reduction of environmental harm caused by nano- and microplastics. Projects and activities linked to the main objectives ‘Recycle’ (O3) and ‘Replace’ (O4) have been launched especially after 2022. Several of these are related to material development, such as bio-based plastics or other biomaterials, and to activities that increase and enhance recycling. Of the analysed projects and activities, 82 are still on-going and 33 were completed by the end of 2024.

Reduce (=49)

Refuse (=13)

Recycle (=42)

Replace (=36)

Figure 24. Complementary projects and activities linked to the main objectives of the PRfF by the start year of the projects. When interpreting the image, it should be noted that projects and actions can contribute simultaneously to several main objectives © Finnish Environment Institute. 2025.

4.2.3. Complementary measures promoting PlastLIFE main themes

Complementary projects and activities are mostly linked to the themes of the PRfF and the PlastLIFE project: ‘recycling’, ‘international co-operation’, ‘environmental impacts’ and ‘other’ (Figure 25). The theme ‘other’ covers themes that support the achievement of the goals of the PRfF or are related to a wide range of measures to promote the main objectives. These measures include education, regional cooperation, legislation, politics, monitoring, dissemination and communication of results. Compared to the first analysis of the complementary measures (Rinne et al. 2023), an increasing number of projects support the themes of ‘littering’, ‘alternative solutions’, ‘international co-operation’ and ‘environmental impact’.

The export theme has gained increasing connections after 2023 and 2024 analyses due to a changed method. In the current analysis, the assessment has been made based on the funding instrument, whereas previously it was based on project description. Business Finland is a funding organisation whose funding conditions include promoting exports. Therefore, all projects that are funded by Business Finland were counted as promoting export.

Other

Infrastructure

Novel business models

Avoiding unnecessary consumption

Environmental impacts

Health & Welfare impacts

Export

International cooperation

Agriculture & horticulture plastics

Construction & demolition

Alternative solutions

Utilisation of recycled plastics

Collection Recycling

Littering

Figure 25. Complementary projects and activities linked to the themes of the PRfF. When interpreting the image, it should be noted that projects and actions can contribute simultaneously to several themes. © Finnish Environment Institute. 2025.

Figure 25 shows that international co-operation is an integral part of the projects. It is likely that even more projects have international connections, which may have been overlooked due to the method of analysis based on project descriptions. The analysis also excludes internal functions of companies that promote the CE of plastics. The increase in the theme of environmental impacts compared to previous analysis is explained by the growth in research on micro- and nano plastics. The number of projects has also increased in the theme of new business models, which means that several companies are creating and developing new solutions.

The least projects are linked to the themes ‘construction and demolition’, ‘agriculture and horticulture plastics’ and ‘infrastructure’. The number of projects has remained unchanged compared to the previous analysis. The infrastructure theme only considers large plant investments to plastics recycling. The need for additional actions is recognised for ‘construction and demolition’, ‘agriculture and horticulture’, ‘health and welfare impacts’ and ‘avoiding of unnecessary consumption’ themes. Other themes may also need further action, but in this analysis the more precise qualitative content of the projects is ignored. For example, research may be needed on the environmental impacts of plastics, but based on our analysis, the theme is well included in the complementary measures, being the third most mentioned.

‘Recycling’ and ‘utilisation of recycled plastics’ became emphasised when looking at the distribution of funding for the themes (Figure 26). The theme of infrastructure is highlighted, since infrastructure needs, in general, large investments of millions. Based on the funding figures, further action is needed to address the themes of avoiding unnecessary consumption, construction and demolition, agriculture and horticulture, and plastic collection. When considering further measures, it should be kept in mind that only those themes whose importance has been highlighted in the PRfF, have been considered in this analysis. Therefore, the analysis ignores other sectors that are relevant to the CE of plastics

4.2.4. Analysis of specified themes and closely followed projects

Utilisation of recycled plastics; 373 M€

Recycling; 451 M€

Collection; 11 M€

Littering; 14 M€

Infrastructure; 198 M€

Alternative solutions; 213 M€

Agriculture & horticulture plastics; 8 M€

Health & Welfare impacts; 8 M€

Other; 20 M€

Construction and demolition; 2 M€

International cooperation; 62 M€

Export; 254 M€

Environmental impacts; 36 M€

Avoiding unnecessary consumption; 7 M€

Novel business models; 258 M€

Figure 26. The funding of complementary projects and actions (M€) on the themes of the PRfF. When interpreting the image, it should be noted that projects and actions can contribute simultaneously to several themes. © Finnish Environment Institute. 2025.

During the project planning three specific themes were identified to require additional measures and funding to ensure full implementation of PRfF. Furthermore, five different complementary projects were recognised as being closely linked to PlastLIFE and monitored closely during the project. The results of these projects are presented below together with the three themes.

4.2.4.1. Infrastructure investments, research and development aiming at significantly improving the recovery rate of plastics waste

Theme infrastructure includes measures promoting the development of chemical recycling to enable the utilisation of plastic not suitable for mechanical recycling, but also measures for increasing the collection, separation, processing and recovery of plastics waste for mechanical recycling. The development of chemical recycling is proceeding in ongoing work by companies and research institutes. Construction of infrastructure needed for recycling calls for investments, which also have been and are implemented by industrial operators outside of PlastLIFE. At the application phase it was identified that

complementary measures are required for increasing the recovery of other plastic waste flows, such as plastics in waste electric and electronic equipment and plastics in textiles, in building and operating the practical plastics recovery infrastructure and generating markets for secondary plastics raw materials. The status of plastic recycling in Finland was explored in the project Key questions of plastics recycling (2023–2025). There are eight mechanical, two chemical and one physical plastic waste processing plants in operation in Finland in 2025. The annual total production capacity of the recycling plants is at least 72,000 tonnes of recycled plastic, of which 63,000 tonnes are produced by mechanical and 8,000 tonnes by chemical recycling. The recycling capacity is increasing, as at least five pyrolysis plants, one plant based on plastic waste gasification and two sorting plants, one of which also recycles plastic mechanically, are planned to start operation over the next two years. In addition, the petrochemical industry in Finland aims to replace crude oil with pyrolysis oil or liquefied hydrocarbon products. (Salminen et al. 2025).

While Finland’s recycling capacity is increasing, the opposite trend has been observed in Europe, where at least 600,000 tonnes of plastics recycling capacity was lost due to ceased operations in recycling facilities. More than 20 projects have been ended due to various reasons, such as competitive capacity in China, Middle East and United States of America, as well as energy price, financial aids and taxes and EU-regulation. Moreover, the progress of chemical recycling is yet in a too early stage to achieve profits. (Ropponen 2025)

Plastic recyclers operating in Finland mainly process plastic packaging and side streams of plastic production. Some plants specialise in other plastic waste streams, such as agricultural plastics, pipes or plastic insulation materials. The plants under construction will make it possible to mechanically recycle hard plastic waste for the first time. The sorting and recycling capacity of consumer plastic packaging waste will also increase as a result of new plants and co-operation between companies. Still, plastic waste recyclers use mainly high- and low-density polyethylene (HDPE, LDPE) and polypropylene (PP) plastics as input material for their processes. This means that plastics that are hard to recycle are either not recycled at all or are recycled abroad. (Salminen et al. 2025)

The following three complementary measures (projects/programmes) are promoting the infrastructure theme and are closely followed in the PlastLIFE project: SPIRIT, PRIMUS and Plastics2Olefins.

The Sustainable Plastics Industry Transformation, SPIRIT programme (2022–2026) is aiming to change the entire plastics value chain as sustainable by addressing the following three key challenges together with active partners in a large ecosystem:

1. Transform the fossil feedstock into renewable and recycled feedstock,

2. Establish efficient systems for the large-scale mechanical and chemical recycling of plastics and

3. Carbon neutral production with electrification, green hydrogen and renewable energy.

The SPIRIT programme is aiming to replace 33% of primary fossil plastics with renewable or recycled plastics by 2030 and turn plastics production processes carbon neutral latest by 2045. Furthermore, 88 members have joined the programme, exceeding the target of 60 companies to join the ecosystem By the end of 2024, the total funding for the programme was over 90 M€ (according to the information available), which consists of funding from Business Finland and self-financing contributions of project partners. The total funding will increase thanks to projects that will start in 2025, the last operation year of the programme.

At the end of 2024, 19 partnership projects have been approved to the programme. Five projects have been completed by the end of 2024. The publicly available results of the programme's already completed projects are presented on the next page’s information box.

Results from SPIRIT partnership projects

Zero Ink (2022–2023) project researched and developed a laser marking solution that works on polymers. The project reached its goal and succeeded in replacing glued label markings with laser markings on individual food packages with a significant food supplier. In the future, the method can be developed and expanded into new application areas such as medical devices. A laser marking solution contribute also to a reduction in carbon footprint and cost savings for customers. (SPIRIT Programme 2025a)

UrbanMill (2022–2023) project developed an industrial chemical recycling concept for plastic waste to increase plastic recycling rates. This next-generation pyrolysis-based method recycles mixed plastic waste and experimental research was done in laboratory and pilot scale. The first pilot scale trials were made with pure LDPE and post-industrial multilayer film waste. Project increased knowledge and R&I capabilities on pyrolysis-based-recycling and development continues in the UrbanFactory project starting in 2025. The main target of this new project is to increase yields of pyrolysis products and the TRL level of the recycling concept. (SPIRIT Programme 2025b)

Forest CUMP (2022–2024) research project investigated different carbon capture technologies for producing renewable plastic raw materials from forest industry’s carbon dioxide emissions and waste incineration. Project partners investigated through pilot activities and modelling, how the biogenic carbon dioxide recovery chain can be adapted to existing petrochemical plants and the production of plastics such as polyethylene and polypropylene. The results obtained are encouraging and the low-temperature Fischer-Tropsch process is a technically and economically promising alternative for plastic production. (SPIRIT Programme 2025c)

MSWPlast project (2022–2024) investigated the possibility of recycling plastic from solid municipal waste and aimed to increase the understanding of the recyclability of plastics post-separated from mixed waste. In addition, the project examined policy measures for the post-separation of mixed waste in Finland and selected EU countries. Project consisted of a technical concept for material handling, a systemic model for integrating post-sorting into current value chains and a trial with an industrial waste management company Remeo. The results showed that advanced NIR technology plays a crucial role in separating plastic from mixed waste, and it is possible to produce high value renewable plastic from mixed waste. The study of the policy measures revealed that there are no legislative barriers to post-separation of mixed waste, but waste policy priorities are focused on source separation of municipal waste and indirect guidelines are shaping the waste management environment (Salmenperä et al. 2025b)

PRIMUS (2022–2025) aimed at upgrading of mechanical recycling and boosting mechanically recycled technical plastics, recycled hi-impact polystyrene (r-HIPS) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, (r-ABS) and elastomers, recycled thermoplastic vulcanizates (r-TPVs) and ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber (r-EPDM) in demanding applications in automotive sectors and in home appliances (VTT 2025). In the project, the presence of hazardous substances (brominated flame retardants, BFR) was studied in HIPS and ABS plastics via direct insertion probe mass spectrometry (Nissinen et al. 2025). The method used proved significant potential for the rapid quantification of BFRs from polymer matrices, which can promote more efficient plastic recycling. Grönlund et al. (2024) showed that BFRs can behave differently during the analysis meaning that BFRs dibrominated differently depending on the substance in question. Master's thesis about a comprehensive compositional analysis was made for selected waste plastic samples by using advanced analytical techniques. According to the results, more complex plastic mixtures require more versatile recycling solutions and more accessible and cost-effective quality compositional analysis (Helminen 2024).

Plastics2Olefins (2022–2027) is an ongoing project to demonstrate a novel plastics recycling process based on hightemperature pyrolysis while reducing the carbon footprint of operating plant by using renewably generated electricity (Plastics2Olefins 2025a). Project is aiming for a 70–80% reduction in the lifecycle GHG emissions compared to existing plastic recycling processes for unsorted plastic waste. After a scaled pilot plant to optimise process conditions, a demonstration plant for recycling of unsorted plastic waste will be realised at Repsol’s industrial site in Spain. The pilot plant has started to run in 2023, and the project has progressed on the technical installation of the pilot and preliminary tests have been conducted (Plastics2Olefins 2025b). The main product of the pyrolysis technology will be a gas instead of a liquid. The Finnish partner VTT is leading the development and testing of gas purification processes in the project (Plastics2Olefins 2025c). The work is focusing on removal of harmful contaminants, which can negatively affect downstream processes. A series of pilot- and laboratory-scale experiments have been finished successfully.

4.2.4.2.

Increasing the scientific knowledge and understanding of impacts of plastics on human welfare

The information on plastic litter, micro- and nanoplastics and harmful substances in plastics is constantly increasing, but it is also fragmented (Ministry of the Environment 2022). In addition, sufficient information is lacking about the harmful substances in recycled plastic. The scientific knowledge and understanding of impacts of plastics on human welfare has improved in recent years, but gaps in the basics makes it difficult to interpret the results in terms of risk assessment.

PlastLIFE includes activities on identifying and analysing hazardous substances in plastics and risks generated by these. However, impacts on human welfare are many-sided and hence the theme requires complementary measures. Finland needs its own research on the topic, but the importance of international research co-operation cannot be overridden.

In the PRfF, impacts of plastics on human welfare have been proposed to be monitored by the number of published research concerning the environmental and health impacts of plastics, as well as the comprehensiveness of the topic. The PRfF does not identify the method of data collection, specific topics or how often monitoring should be conducted (Karppinen et al. 2025). Karppinen et al. (2025) assessed the content and functionality of this indicator on a general level and the results do not indicate the general state of research on the health effects of plastics in Finland. In general, the health and welfare effects of plastics have been studied in individual research projects These studies have focused on the health effects of microplastics. Still, the exposure routes and health effects of microplastics in Finland are unclear (Selonen et al. 2025).

Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) is an independent state-owned expert and research institute that carries out research on human welfare impacts in Finland. It investigates substances and compounds that are harmful to human health, such as phthalates and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds. Therefore, research on welfare impacts is more of a study of specific chemicals that are used, e.g., in plastics rather than study of welfare impacts of plastics in general THL together with Finnish Institute of Occupational Health and other Finnish partners are also involved in the international projects that study harmful substances used in plastics. One such research project is the European partnership for the assessment of risks from chemicals, PARC, which aims to develop chemical risk assessment to protect human health and the environment (PARC 2025a). PARC is increasing knowledge of chemical risk assessment and promoting advanced research and European co-operation. The results will help launch European and national strategies to reduce risks posed by hazardous chemicals

Finnish partners are involved in 13 on-going sub-projects of PARC. These projects are focusing on for example developing a system to monitor chemicals in the environment (PARC 2025b), testing assessment tools for hazardous substances in consumer products and articles (PARC 2025c) and closing critical data gaps on bisphenol-A (BPA) alternatives for human health (PARC 2025d). In addition, there are several scientific publications released in the PARC that are related to the hazardous substances used in plastics and human welfare (PARC 2025e). Studies include a study of substances such as BPA (Mhaouty-Kodja et al. 2024), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (Olisah et al. 2024), phthalates (Salamanca-Fernández et al. 2024) and organophosphate flame retardants (Deepika et al. 2023). These articles are not published by Finnish partners, but the information they produce also increases knowledge nationally. The goal of the studies was to identify data gaps and gaps in chemical regulations and formulate the future directions for the research and to enhance chemical risk assessment methodologies and legislation for recycled plastics.

4.2.4.3. Promote the recycling and replacement of plastics in agriculture and horticulture

Plastics are used in a variety of applications in the field of agriculture and horticulture including the plastic mulch, different packages and greenhouses. There are numerous unresolved challenges in recycling of agriplastics, from the separation of plastics to their dirtiness and finally the recycling of plastics (Karppinen et al. 2025). A part of the plastic packaging used in agriculture and horticulture comes under the scope of producer responsibility and there are reception terminals where plastic packaging waste can be delivered free of charge. But the producer responsibility only applies to the packaging that are professionally placed on the market and not for the packaging used for farms own use, e.g., to pack feed or plastics that are used for mulch. Furthermore, producers with a turnover less than one million euros are not subject to producer responsibility (Ministry of the Environment 2022). This means that farmers out of the scope of producer responsibility must organise recycling or plastic waste management themselves in co-operation with networks and companies available in the field.

PlastLIFE includes activities for providing best practices for increasing material recovery and recycling options for agricultural and horticultural plastics and solutions for the use of recycled agriplastics. However, considering the heterogeneity of these wastes and the distribution of the waste producers, complementary measures are needed to solve practical challenges, such as collecting plastics from farms. Since the start of the PlastLIFE project, the collection of agriplastics has changed as Suomen Maatalousmuovien Kierrätys Oy, SuMaki, started its operation in 2023. SuMaki is a voluntary recycling community that develops a national system for the collection and recycling of agricultural plastics (SuMaki 2025). Manufacturers, importers and sellers of agricultural plastics have taken on voluntary producer responsibility for recycling agricultural plastics, such as silage films for bales and windrows and bale ropes and threads. The first operating year of SuMaki was successful in terms of collection volumes and the quality of the plastic delivered for recycling. Collected and recycled agriplastics are used as a raw material for manufacturing bale wraps in Finland.

Another challenge of agriplastics is the degradation of plastics used for multi-annual mulch in the Finnish climate and the resulting microplastic litter. Farms are already using different kinds of biodegradable films to replace conventional agriplastics, but not all the solutions are fully biodegradable. The EU has responded to the challenge by setting a restriction for the use of oxo-plastics that degrade into microplastics when exposed to sunlight and the use of intentionally added microplastics in various products, e.g., fertilisers used in agriculture and horticulture (Ministry of the Environment 2022).

The PlastLIFE project includes activities for developing solutions for replacing plastics in agriculture by bio-based alternatives. Still, further information is needed on the fate and pathways of agricultural plastics and their impacts on the environment and organisms and the suitability of replacing alternatives. The PAPILLONS Horizon 2020 project provides information on sources, behaviour and ecological effects of micro- and nanoplastics in agricultural soils and introduces safer practices, products and instruments for their restriction (PAPILLONS 2025a). The project examines the effects of plastics and biodegradable plastics on farmed soils from a wide range of perspectives. Spatial surveys in seven European countries are conducted to explore the role of agriplastics as a source of microplastics to soils and these plastics are compared to their biodegradable alternatives. Plastic material is tested by artificial ageing tests, and the effects of microplastics from conventional and biodegradable plastics on plant growth, soil interactions and plastic additive transfer is studied. PAPILLONS also measures food safety and security risks related to micro- and nanoplastic pollution and explores farmers' perspectives on the benefits and challenges of agricultural plastics through workshops and interviews.

PAPILLONS has published results from the European spatial survey monitoring of microplastic contamination in agricultural fields (PAPILLONS 2025b). Microplastics were found in all investigated fields including reference fields. There was great variation in the amount of microplastics per kilogram of dry soil depending on the field under consideration, ranging from 2,080 to 414,520 microplastic particles. Microplastic concentrations were higher in Southern Europe than in the North. In addition,

different types of plastics were identified, with polypropylene being the most common. Overall, the findings showed that plastic pollution in farm soils is a growing environmental issue, which needs a broad and integrated approach to solve the problem.

Workshops and interviews revealed that Finnish farmers are dissatisfied with biodegradable mulch films and do not trust in the labelling claims of the products and are therefore less willing to try new similar products (PAPILLONS 2025c). In the cold weather, biodegradable plastics did not decompose as expected but left behind a lot of small pieces that needed to be collected manually from the fields. This causes time-consuming additional work that can be avoided by using traditional plastics that can be collected in a single step without plastic breaking into pieces Still, farmers are generally open to using more sustainable options if they perform reliably under local conditions.

The effects of microplastics from biodegradable co-polyester polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) was studied on plant growth and defense mechanisms. The results showed that biodegradable microplastics can affect lettuce plants in several ways: on plant growth by deteriorating specific growth traits, by reducing shoot length and the number of leaves, and by decreasing nitrogen levels in leaves (Adamczyk et al. 2024). Furthermore, biodegradable microplastics caused oxidative stress and decreased chlorophyll content leading to reduced resilience of the studied plant. These findings were also supported by field plot study on the effects of micro- and nanoplastics on plants (PAPILLONS 2025d). Furthermore, microplastics from conventional and biodegradable mulching films can affect important soil functions, especially microbial activity and fungal communities, even at low concentrations (PAPILLONS 2025e).

PAPILLONS has also published a report on the degradation and fragmentation mechanisms of agriplastics (PAPILLONS 2025f) and a research article on how microplastics affect soil enzymes crucial for nitrogen acquisition (Xiang et al. 2025). For the development of future research, PAPILLONS’ policy brief summarises the key messages to European institutions and underline the remaining knowledge gaps (PAPILLONS 2025g). First, future EU and national research is needed on the degradability of biodegradable plastics in different soils and the long-term fate of plastics and their chemical additives in soil. Second, the impacts on soil health and food quality and the interaction of microplastics with other agricultural pollutants should be further investigated. Lastly, PAPILLONS recommends that a ‘low plastic content’ certification for biofertilizers should consider the addition of fertilizer during the long period and that it will not result in a measurable increase of microplastic level in soil.

4.3. Discussion

Since the establishment of the PRfF in 2018, interest in promoting the CE of plastics has steadily grown. By 2025 and since the beginning of the PlastLIFE project in 2022, over 100 plastics-related measures have been launched, most of which are still ongoing. It could be stated that new knowledge and experience are continuously being gained. However, the promotion of CE of plastics has been irregular in relation to the main objectives of PRfF, which emphasise reducing, recycling, and replacing. The objective of refuse still requires more attention.

Efforts to reduce plastic consumption have proven to be a challenging task to resolve. Reducing the overall production volume of plastics and plastic products is not a preferred approach, whereas avoiding unnecessary consumption is considered a desirable goal. So far, measures have mainly focused on reducing the consumption of specific plastic products, primarily SUP-products, replacing fossil raw materials with alternative materials and on changing consumer behavior. It is also worth noticing, that reducing plastic use, e.g., in agri- and horticulture, may cause an increase in the use of pesticides and this way have unpredicted and wide negative environmental impacts, which implicates the contradictions that reducing plastic use may have. However, there might be a potential risk that the responsibility for avoiding unnecessary plastic consumption is left at the individual level, where the consumers are expected to

reduce their use of plastic products (e.g., buy fewer plastic bags). Therefore, industry needs to actively seek solutions for producing long-lasting and durable products that can be reused, and for establishing return systems and industrial scale of reuse. Furthermore, plastic policy has not necessarily been a decisive driver for reducing the use of fossil raw materials in industry. For example, climate policy has effectively steered changes in production when efforts have been made to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from products and their transportation. Therefore, more precise and strategically aligned plastic policy may be necessary to effectively drive substantive change.

At the beginning of the first phase of PlastLIFE, additional measures were identified as necessary for the themes of ‘infrastructure’, ‘agriculture and horticulture’ and ‘health and welfare impacts’. The infrastructure surrounding the plastic recycling sector has developed rapidly, with new recycling and sorting plants under construction. Nevertheless, plastic recycling remains an emerging field, and new technologies, such as chemical recycling, are being introduced in Finland. A key unresolved question is how to recycle hard-to-recycle and chemically complex plastics. More practical pilots and experiments are needed to find alternative and chemically safe solutions.

In recent years, the recycling of agricultural and horticultural plastics has become more efficient since the voluntary recycling community SuMaKi began its operation. However, numerous challenges remain unresolved, particularly regarding the recycling of agriplastics and the safety risks posed by micro- and nanoplastic pollution in terrestrial environments.

The theme receiving the least national attention is the impact of plastics on human welfare. Although understanding of the health effects of plastics has increased, gaps in basic knowledge make it difficult to interpret findings for risk assessment. Protecting human health does not directly yield economic benefits, unlike other themes where benefits are mainly derived from plastic collection and recycling. Therefore, political will is essential to protect human welfare and the environment from cumulative and long-lasting effects of plastics

5 Plastics accounting provides novel insight into monitoring the circular transition of plastics

Plastics accounting provides data on the status and evolution of plastics flows in a given region and time. These flows cover all relevant stages of the production, use and recycling of plastics. This chapter examines the plastic flows in Finland, giving insights into the state of the CE by analysing the underlying data, the applied methodology and the key findings.

Plastic accounts consist of multiple supply and use tables. The first set of tables are plastic-type specific tables on the manufacturing, import, export and use of plastic raw materials The second set of tables contain the supply, import, export and use of plastics products. The third set of tables covers other products containing plastic such as paints, electronics and textiles. The fourth set of tables covers plastic packaging released on the market. The final set of tables contains the generation and recycling of plastic in waste and manufacturing of secondary plastics.

The plastic accounts are produced three times during PlastLIFE to provide a comprehensive picture on the state and development of the circular economy (CE) of plastics in Finland. They also allow targeting efforts to industries with the greatest challenges and potentials in the circular transition of plastics.

Two out of three sets of accounts are completed and documented in this report. The final accountancy will be completed at the end of phase 2 of the PlastLIFE project to assess its overall impacts. The first and second plastic accounts have been produced for 2019 and 2021/2022. The additional steps, plastic containing products and plastic packaging, have been compiled only for one year: products containing plastics for 2019 and plastic packaging for 2020.

5.1. Data and methods

Plastics accounting utilises the expertise and methodological advances in environmental and material accounting. To provide a comprehensive picture of the Finnish economy in the form of accounts, multiple data sources were used and combined. The data sources used in plastic accounts are shown in Table 3 and described in more detail below.

Table 3. Key data sources used in plastic accounts for plastic raw materials, plastic products, products containing plastic, plastic packaging and plastic waste.

Reports and publications

Results of plastic raw material accounts

Results of waste accounts

Unit-level enterprise data

5.1.1. Plastic raw materials and plastic products

The main data source used for the compilation of the supply and use tables of plastic raw materials (PRODCOM 2016) and plastic products (PRODCOM 2221-2229) was unit-level enterprise data on products, materials and supplies provided by Statistics Finland 1. The data contained survey material on production information of products and purchasing information of materials and supplies used in the manufacture of goods in production. Industry specific sample sizes of the survey data were determined by turnover and upscaled similarly to Jylhä et al. (2025). The turnover data was obtained from enterprise-level statistics, provided by Statistics Finland, including basic information about enterprises’ operations such as industry, location and turnover As the data on product, materials and supplies only covers the manufacturing sector, the use of plastic product by services and households was obtained from the disaggregated monetary supply and use tables provided by Statistics Finland (Official Statistics of Finland, OSF B) which were converted to volumes with Customs International trade statistics (Official Statistics of Finland, OSF A).

Finally, the upscaled dataset was improved by filling in data gaps with data from other sources mentioned below. Production and material use data from the compliance monitoring system for environmental permits (YLVA) was used. YLVA is operated by the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment and contains annual data reported by individual establishments in response to the requirements set in their environmental permits. Additionally, comparison of the upscaled data to publicly available company reports, confidential data from companies, import and export data enabled crosschecking and error correction. Imports and exports of plastic raw materials and plastic products were obtained from the Customs International trade statistics (Official Statistics of Finland, OSF A).

PRODCOM classification does not separate primary and secondary plastics. To estimate the use of secondary plastics the results of a questionnaire, conducted by Janeskari (2025), were used in addition to publicly available company information.

5.1.2. Products containing plastic

Plastic is widely used as a raw material or as parts in other products. Quantification of the amount of plastic embedded in other products is important for understanding the material flows of plastic. The amount of plastic embedded in products was estimated based on the results of the plastic raw material accounts and the disaggregated monetary supply and use tables provided by Statistics Finland (Official Statistics of Finland, OSF B) First, products used as part of the final products were identified from the monetary use table by expert appraisal. A reduced use table was created including only these products. Other products were excluded as they should not affect the plastic content of the produced product. For example, packaging materials and manufacturing machinery can contain plastic, but do not become a part of the produced product. Next, a similar operation was made for the supply table. A reduced supply

1 The unit-level enterprise data were provided by Statistics Finland (licence number TK/3246/07.03.00/2024)

Unit-level data from Statistics Finland are not freely available.

table was created by excluding products that do not contain plastic. This enabled the targeting of plastic use to the production of products that are relevant from a plastics point of view. The products in the reduced use table are the building blocks from which the products in the reduced supply table are made. The tables only contain manufacturing industries, as these are mainly responsible for the production of products.

The plastic raw material content per industry (kg/€) was calculated by using the results of plastic raw material accounts and the reduced supply table according to Eq. (1).

where ���� stands for industry and ���� for product. The first plastic intensity (kg/€), which is the plastic raw material intensity, per product was calculated as the weighted arithmetic mean by weighting the plastic raw material content by the reduced supply table (Eq. (2)).

Next, the plastic content was updated by adding the effect of the previously calculated plastic intensity on the plastic content utilising the reduced use and supply tables (Eq. (3))

The plastic intensity was updated similarly to the previous plastic intensity calculation (Eq. (2)). Eq.4 presenting the same in general form

The plastic content and plastic intensity were updated in turns according to equations (3) and (4) until the difference between consecutive sums of plastic intensities was smaller than 0.0001 kg/€. This was achieved after 10 repetitions.

Additionally, a small adjustment was made to the above calculation concerning plastic products (PRODCOM 2221-2229) because they were assumed to contain more plastic than other products. This was addressed in the calculation by replacing the original plastic contents of plastic products by their corresponding industries (NACE 2221-2229) plastic contents if it was higher than the original. The change in plastic content was addressed by reducing the plastic content of other products in the same industry.

Finally, plastic embedded in products produced in Finland was calculated by multiplying the monetary supply table with the plastic intensities and the plastic embedded in products used in Finland was calculated by multiplying the monetary use table with the plastic intensities. A similar way was used in making the estimates for imports and exports.

5.1.3.

Plastic packaging

Jylhä et al. (2025) describes a method to compile industry-specific accounting of plastic packaging placed on the market. The method used packaging data from the extended producer responsibility scheme and combined it with standard economic statistics The method consisted of three parts:

calculation for non-deposit packaging including reported and non-reported packaging, calculation for deposit packaging, and estimation for packaging imported privately and through international online shopping. Finland was used as a case example and the results presented in the article were used as part of the plastics accounting described in this report.

5.1.4. Plastic in waste and manufacturing of secondary plastics

Plastic waste accounts were collected by utilising previous work on waste accounts and plastic waste flows in Finland. Plastic waste data for 2019 was obtained from waste accounts by Haahti et al. (2024). These waste accounts cover separately collected plastic waste streams and cover thus only a small part of all plastic containing waste flows.

Plastic in various waste streams for 2022 was obtained from Salminen et al. (2025). In addition to separately collected plastic waste streams, this project also estimated the total volume of plastics in other waste streams

Data on manufacturing of secondary plastics was collected from the compliance monitoring system for environmental permits (YLVA) and yearly environmental permit reports of companies reporting to municipalities instead of YLVA. The production of secondary plastics was also added to the plastic raw material accounts as it re-enters the material flow of plastics.

5.2. Results

5.2.1. Plastic raw materials

Production, import, export and use of plastic raw materials was compiled for 10 different polymer types

The results for the years 2019 and 2021 are shown in Table 4. Polymers of ethylene, propylene or other olefins, and amino-resins, phenolic resins and polyurethanes had the largest production volumes in Finland. Together they covered 73% and 75% of all plastic raw material production in Finland in 2019 and 2021, respectively. The use of plastic raw materials was more evenly distributed across polymer types. However, polymers of ethylene and amino-resins, phenolic resins and polyurethanes had the largest usage volumes in Finland. Together they covered 57% and 56% of all plastic raw material used in Finland in 2019 and 2021, respectively. Overall, the use of plastic raw material remained constant, production and export volumes increased slightly, and import volumes decreased between the years 2019 and 2021.

The use of secondary plastics was estimated to be approximately 22,000 tonnes in Finland based on the questionnaire targeting plastic product manufacturers (Janeskari 2025), and publicly available company information. The use of secondary plastics was approximately 2.5% of the total use of plastics raw material.

Table 4. Production, import, export and use of plastic raw material by polymer type in 1,000 tonnes for 2019 and 2021.

raw materials

5.2.2. Plastic products

Production, import, export and use of plastic products was compiled for four different product groups defined by PRODCOM classification 2221-2229. The results for the years 2019 and 2021 are shown in

Table 5. Plastic plates, sheets, tubes and profiles (PRODCOM 2221) was the largest product group in production, import, export and use. The total production, import, export and use volumes increased slightly between the years 2019 and 2021.

Table 5. Production, import, export and use of plastic products by product type in 1,000 tonnes for 2019 and 2021.

5.2.3. Products containing plastic

Production, import, export and use of products containing plastics were calculated for the year 2019. The total amount of plastic embedded in products is shown in Figure 27. Six largest plastic containing product groups were separated from the total flow to illustrate the most significant plastic containing product groups in Finland.

Plastic embedded in production, import, export and use of products containing plastic in Finland in 2019

Pulp, paper and paperboard

Paints and varnishes

Production

712,000 t

Use

641,000 t

Products of wood

Wiring and wiring devices

Other chemical products , man-made fibres

Other general-purpose machinery

Import 385,000 t

Other products containing plastic

Export 455,000 t

Figure 27. Plastic embedded in production, import, export and use of products containing plastic in 2019. Six largest product groups separated from the total flow of products containing plastic. Data sources and methods for this figure are described in Chapter 5.1.2. © Finnish Environment Institute. 2025.

5.2.4. Plastic packaging

Based on Jylhä et al. (2025), the total plastic packaging placed on the Finnish market in 2020 was approximately 167,000 tonnes. The reported amount of plastic packaging in 2020 was 136,000 tonnes and accounted for 81% of the total packaging placed on the market. The remaining 32,000 tonnes were unreported packaging. Free-riders and companies with a revenue below 1M€ were the largest contributor to the unreported packaging by approximately 82%, meanwhile packaging imported privately and through international online shopping accounted for only a few percent of the total volume of packaging.

5.2.5. Plastic in waste and manufacturing of secondary plastics

Based on Haahti et al. (2024), the total amount of separately collected plastic waste was 122,000 tonnes in Finland in 2019, as shown in Figure 28. Additionally 7,000 tonnes of plastic waste was imported to Finland. The largest sectors generating plastic waste were manufacturing and households, with 56,000 tonnes and 39,000 tonnes of plastic waste respectively.

In total, 102,000 tonnes of plastic waste were utilised or disposed in Finland and 21,000 tonnes outside of it in 2019. The most common treatment methods for plastic waste were material recovery (61,000 tonnes) and energy recovery (58,000 tonnes), as shown in Figure 29. Approximately one third of the waste entering material recovery was treated abroad. The remaining 40,000 tonnes was treated in Finland and the amount of secondary plastics manufactured was approximately 23,000 tonnes. The manufacturing of secondary plastics was also included in the plastic raw material accounts as they reenter the plastic flow.

Plastic waste generation by sector in 2019 (1,000 t)

Import

Households

Services

Water, wastewater and waste management

Manufacturing

Mining and quarrying

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

Figure 28. Plastic waste generation by sector including also import of plastic waste in 2019.

Source: Haahti et al. 2024.

Based on Salminen et al. (2025), a total of 385,000 tonnes of plastic in various waste streams were generated in 2022. Plastics were found in many different waste streams, as shown in Figure 30. Plastic packaging was the largest type of waste plastic. From the generated plastic in various waste streams, 40,000 tonnes of secondary plastics were manufactured in Finland and 31,000 tonnes were recycled abroad. The remaining volume, 315,000 tonnes, went to energy recovery and other disposal.

Figure 20. Plastic waste treated in Finland and abroad by method in 2019. Source: Haahti et al. 2024.

Plastic packaging under producer responsibility, 161,000 t

Packaging-like products , 20,000 t

Mixed municipal waste, 44,000 t

Other separately collected waste, 2,000 t

Mixed construction waste, 28,000 t

Mixed demolition waste, 19,000 t

Agricultural and horticultural waste, 12,000t

Industrial waste, 58,000 t

Scrap vehicles , 11,000 t

WEEE, 20,000 t

Energy waste, 2,000 t

Hazardous waste, 300 t

Import, 7,000 t

Plastic litter, 2,000 t

5.3. Discussion

Plastic in waste, 385,000 t Recycling, 70,000 t

Energy recovery and other disposal, 315,000 t

In this report, plastic accounts for 2019 and 2021/2022 are presented In addition, accounts for plastic containing products and plastic packaging are reported for one year: products containing plastics for 2019 and plastic packaging for 2020. These accounts hence represent two out of the three accounts planned to be completed during the project. As the completed accounts are from nearby years, no significant trends are visible. The largest relative difference, 74%, is in the manufacturing volume of secondary plastics, showing an increase from 2.2% in 2019 to 3.5% in 2021/2022. The final update on the accounts will be completed at the end of phase 2 of the project. This update together with the previous accounts will enable the assessment of the overall developments of plastic flows in Finland.

Plastic accounts create a comprehensive picture of the flows of plastic materials in the Finnish economy by addressing the various stages of the manufacturing, use and recycling of plastics. The material flows of plastics are complex as they are used widely in different products and across practically all industries. There are plastic products, plastic packaging and a wide range of other products that contain plastic. Plastic raw material accounts can be calculated on a detailed level when polymer level information is available. For the manufacture and use of primary plastics this can be accomplished with small to moderate uncertainty, but the uncertainty increases substantially along the longer value chains. Tracking the polymer types and recyclability throughout the plastic flow proved to be very challenging and even the amount of plastic embedded in plastic containing products are only estimations as no accurate data is available. Calculating plastic volumes in waste was also difficult due to the same reason: plastic is present in many different waste streams and the content of plastic varies greatly depending on the waste stream Here, impurities also make a remarkable extra challenge for the accurate determination of the plastic content.

Figure 30. Plastic in various waste streams in Finland in 2022. Source: Salminen et al. 2025.

It is important to notice that plastic and plastic-containing products are used as intermediate products and thus the total use of plastic and plastic-containing products is not equal to the final use of plastics. The above data include all steps of production and use. Same plastic materials may (re)appear several times in such plastic flows due to the intermediary use of semifinished or finished plastic products such as plastic sheets or components. Future work includes identification of intermediate and final use of plastics so that the reappearance of plastic materials could also be accounted for.

The lifespans of plastic and plastic containing products vary greatly. For example, plastic packaging has a short lifespan, while builders’ ware made from plastic can be stored for decades in buildings and infrastructure. Plastics in vehicles represent a case between the plastics packaging and buildings. The varying length of lifespans causes challenges in estimating how much plastic remains in long-term use and how much this stock of plastic changes. This also makes the comparison between the long-term use of plastic and plastic waste generation difficult: plastic remaining in use reduces the amount of plastic waste and waste plastics from end-of-life vehicles or demolished buildings originate from an unknown year.

The final step of plastic accounts is the manufacturing of secondary plastics. This step creates a circular link to the flow of plastics as secondary plastics re-enter the flow as raw material. The secondary plastic production volumes were only 2.2% in 2019 and 3.5% in 2021 of the total plastic raw material produced in Finland. This illustrates that in the beginning of the 2020’s, CE of plastics is still a long way ahead.

6 Life cycle assessment on circularity of plastics

This chapter presents the national-level framework, PlastLIFE framework, grounded on life cycle assessment (LCA) and developed for Finland to assess the climate impacts of circular plastic systems over time. The first results obtained with the framework are discussed. PlastLIFE framework offers a tool to support the design and implementation of climate efficient CE strategies in Finland. It enables stakeholders to make decisions to promote increased recycling rates, novel value chain stages and reduced GHG emissions.

The transition to a circular economy (CE) for plastics requires robust analytical tools that can evaluate the systemic environmental impacts of alternative materials, technologies, and policy interventions. In this context, a national-level framework has been developed for Finland to assess the climate impacts of circular plastic systems over time. This framework is grounded in life cycle assessment (LCA) and integrates complementary methodologies such as material flow analysis (MFA) and scenario modelling. The goal of the framework is to provide a broad and evolving picture of how the system performs environmentally, and to track how different innovations and actions related to plastics affect the environmental performance of the system over time.

The core objective of the PlastLIFE LCA-based climate impact framework (PlastLIFE framework) is to track progress in the development of a CE for plastics in Finland and to assess the climate impacts of various process, material, and product large-scale innovations both prior to and following their implementation. This dual capability of the PlastLIFE framework enables both proactive evaluations, where potential trade-offs and synergies across the plastic value chain can be identified in advance, and retrospective validation, where actual environmental outcomes can be compared against expectations. Together, these approaches support continuous learning, adaptive policy design, and evidence-based decision-making in the transition towards a more circular and low-carbon plastic economy.

The PlastLIFE framework covers the full life cycle of plastics in Finland, from raw material extraction and production to use and end-of-life management. It accounts for both domestic emissions and those embedded in imports and exports, offering a comprehensive view of the national environmental footprint from both production and consumption perspectives. This distinction is essential for evaluating the broader climate implications of shifting to circular plastic systems in a globalised economy.

Aligned with established CE assessment methodologies, the PlastLIFE framework emphasises the need for systemic, comprehensive tools that can guide policy and industry actions. As noted by Peña et al2020; 2021), LCA is particularly suitable for evaluating CE strategies due to its capacity to quantify environmental impacts across multiple indicators and life cycle stages. Furthermore, by incorporating MFA and scenario-based modelling, the framework builds on previous work such as Van Eygen et al2018) enhancing the understanding of material flows and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with plastic waste management.

Ultimately, the PlastLIFE framework offers a robust yet flexible tool to support the design and implementation of climate efficient CE strategies in Finland. It enables stakeholders to make informed decisions that simultaneously promote increased recycling rates, novel value chain stages and reduced GHG emissions.

6.1. Methodology

The PlastLIFE framework is built on a combination of quantitative material flow accounts and life cycle emission data. It employs an iterative development process, incorporating feedback from LCA case studies and previous systemic analyses. The PlastLIFE framework is co-created by PlastLIFE partners and external LCA experts, ensuring methodological robustness and stakeholder relevance.

The underlying method, LCA, is a method used to assess the potential environmental impacts throughout a product’s life cycle i.e., from cradle to grave, and is generally seen as the most established and well-developed method in the area (see e.g., Wäger & Hischier 2015; Ness et al. 2007). Unlike in LCA-based modeling otherwise, all data and results of the PlastLIFE framework are compiled to cover the scope of one (1) year, instead of a product. The framework focuses on processes that occur in Finland. Imports and exports of plastics are quantified, but the source or destination countries and particular processing technologies are largely unknown.

6.1.1. Assessment steps

The assessment methodology of the PlastLIFE framework proceeds in following steps:

1. Material flow analysis (MFA)

The first step of the PlastLIFE framework is to utilise MFA to map the physical flows of plastics across the Finnish economy during one year. These material flows include weight assumptions for the material flows of various life cycle phases in Finland (inputs and outputs), including imports and exports during the year. The main life cycle stages covered by the PlastLIFE framework include raw material production, material production, intermediate and final product manufacturing, and end-of-life processes. The MFA is presented in Haahti et al. (unpubl.) and Jylhä et al. (2025).

2. Integrating emission factors for each life cycle activity

The second step includes the sourcing of emission factors – for each process phase from Step 1 – from the ecoinvent database. Ecoinvent is a comprehensive and widely used LCA inventory which includes various environmental impact datasets for plastics. The emission factors were collected from ecoinvent for the raw material extraction, processing and production, manufacturing and end-of-life stages. Product manufacturing is simplified to basic processes such as injection molding or extrusion, which can be found as processes in ecoinvent. End-of-life is modelled as energy recovery (excluding avoided production) or mechanical recycling, also directly found from ecoinvent. Domestic life cycle activities are adjusted to use Finnish electricity grid mix.The estimated impacts include direct emissions and emissions from other inputs like electricity and solvents. Future implementations may include stages that were currently left out due to data uncertainty, such as use phase, reuse, littering, or chemical recycling if applicable or technically feasible. From the database, low and high estimates are sourced, to cover a range of processes and their variability across technologies or other features. From these values, mean emission factors were obtained and applied.

3. Multiplying material flows with emission factors

Material flow data (weight based) are multiplied with respective mean emission factors and summed up, to form a comprehensive calculation of all emissions related to the Finnish circular plastics system during one year, including the imports and exports of materials, products and wastes during that year.

4. Scenario-based modeling

A scenario-based modeling approach is a key feature of the PlastLIFE framework, which supports the evaluation of future pathways with the highest environmental savings potential. Scenarios consider changes in material flows driven by economic growth, technological development, and consumption patterns. This aligns with recommendations from Nordahl & Scown (2024), who emphasise the importance of designing LCAs that reflect realistic scenarios and system boundaries

6.1.2. System boundaries and data coverage

The PlastLIFE framework quantifies material flows based on mass (weight) assumptions associated with distinct life cycle phases within the selected reference year. It encompasses the most critical life cycle stages, namely raw material extraction, material production, product manufacturing, and end-oflife processes, as illustrated in Figure 31 The use phase is currently excluded due to the absence of adequate data and realistic underlying assumptions. However, this phase, as well as improved assumptions for the fate of exported waste, and additional stages such as littering, may be incorporated in future developments of the framework, contingent upon the availability of more comprehensive data and methodological refinement.

Figure 31. Basic structure of the PlastLIFE framework illustrating the included life cycle stages. © Finnish Environment Institute.

Within the PlastLIFE framework, it is acknowledged that coverage of material flows (Step 1) diminishes further downstream the value chain due to missing product groups from the material flow data sets (textiles, paints, devices, cars), plastic stock build-up (buildings, infrastructure), and speculative waste consistency assumptions. Additionally, the PlastLIFE framework does not yet fully account for plastic stock build-up in infrastructure or the use phase of products. These limitations are consistent with challenges identified in broader LCA literature, where incomplete statistics and classification issues hinder accurate tracking of plastic materials

The ecoinvent database plays a central role in the PlastLIFE framework’s emission modeling. It provides detailed datasets for plastic production, processing, and disposal, including infrastructure and service-related activities. Even though the database does not publish Finland-specific datasets by default, the modification of datasets reflecting global, EU-average or other countries’ electricity mixes, for example, may be altered within LCA modeling software. This modification procedure has been utilised also in the framework calculation.

The representation of plastic product manufacturing in the framework is highly simplified. Due to the limited detail available in production statistics, only general processing methods - such as injection moulding and calendaring - could be assigned to each product group. In practice, manufacturing plastic products typically involves multiple, more complex steps. Additionally, there is uncertainty regarding the specific products included in each product group classified in the national statistics as ‘products made of plastics’. Not all plastic materials produced or imported into Finland are captured within these inventoried groups. Plastics are used in a wide range of manufactured goods, but unless a product is primarily made of plastic, its material flows could not be included in the framework.

6.1.3. Further modelling perspectives

Since the scope of the PlastLIFE framework is the yearly impact within a specified regional area (Finland), a national model of the climate impacts of plastics has traditionally taken either a production or consumption perspective (Horn et al. 2025):

• A production-based model includes emissions from all plastic-related activities within Finland, covering production, use, and waste management, but excludes emissions from activities abroad.

• A consumption-based model includes emissions across the full life cycles of plastics used in Finland, regardless of where the emissions occur. This includes emissions from imported products and waste sent abroad for recycling but excludes emissions from exported plastics and plastic products used elsewhere.

The system boundaries depend on whether the focus is on plastic materials or plastic consumer products, and both perspectives are valuable. The production perspective supports national emissions reporting and domestic policy decisions. The consumption perspective aligns with LCA and helps evaluate the broader environmental impacts of plastic use. It is essential to clearly state the chosen perspective when presenting results, as it determines the model’s relevance and interpretation. (Horn et al. 2025.)

The PlastLIFE framework applies both production and consumption-based emissions within the boundaries of Finland, but the results are presented separately in order to maintain clarity between the approaches. The reason for including both approaches is the Plastic Roadmap for Finland (PRfF) coverage, which considers both production and consumption stages. For example, even though plastic materials or products are produced in Finland but intended for export, we still need these to be covered by the framework. On the other hand, also imported products that are consumed in Finland, need to be covered

by the framework. Hence, the PlastLIFE framework takes the broadest possible approach, to avoid potential future sub-optimisation of environmental impacts. This allows for wider use of the results for different purposes, but also enables the selection of either approach, if strictly required.

Moreover, it is important to distinguish between attributional and consequential modelling approaches. Attributional modelling estimates the share of global environmental burdens attributable to a system, using average or specific data without considering substitution. In contrast, consequential modelling assesses how global environmental burdens change due to a system, often using marginal data and including substitution effects. A production-based perspective typically aligns with attributional modelling, while a consumption-based model can be either. However, each model should consistently follow one approach based on a clear research question, as mixing the two can lead to unclear interpretations. Both approaches are valid and complementary, but transparency about the chosen method is essential when presenting results.

In the PlastLIFE framework, the attributional model is primarily adopted, and no speculative substitution impacts are considered. Substitution is also not relevant for plastics recycling in Finland for use in Finnish processes. Instead, the reduced need for primary plastics is reflected by a reduced material flow of primary material. This can either occur in the same year (seldom the case), or in the following years, in which case following the yearly trends of material flows and climate impacts becomes relevant In short, the inclusion of speculative material substitution impacts is less important in a national model, compared to a product LCA, as the use of recycled material will become visible in the reduction of primary-material flows of the following years.

6.1.4. Monitoring versus design-based approach

A comprehensive assessment of CE strategies benefits from both ex-ante (pre-implementation) and expost (post-implementation) analytical approaches. The framework is primarily intended for a post-implementation assessment, i.e. an assessment that is performed after the year has passed and potential changes have been implemented. Hence, the assessment serves to monitor real-world outcomes, validate assumptions made during the design phase, and identify deviations between expected and actual environmental impacts. These retrospective evaluations are crucial for ensuring accountability, improving future planning cycles, and enhancing the adaptive capacity of CE policies and systems (Alaerts et al., 2019). In contrast, the framework may also be utilised for an ex-ante assessment, which is conducted prior to the implementation of new technologies, value chain stages, policies, or other modifications to the system and is primarily used to support design and planning processes. By applying LCA jointly with MFA and scenario modelling at this stage, decision-makers can explore alternative pathways, anticipate trade-offs, and optimise environmental performance early in the development process (Bisinella et al., 2021; Cucurachi et al., 2018). This proactive approach enables the integration of sustainability considerations into innovation and policy design, aligning with the principles of responsible innovation and systems thinking. Together, the ex-ante and ex-post approaches create a feedback loop that supports continuous improvement in the transition towards a low-carbon CE

6.2. Results

6.2.1. National climate impacts

The results of estimating the national-level climate impacts of the Finnish plastics system, based on a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach, integrate material flow data with corresponding emission factors. This allows for a comprehensive evaluation of the environmental performance of plastic-related flows

within Finland, including emissions linked to both imports and exports. Figure 32 presents the results from both the consumption-based and the production-based perspective, disaggregated across the main phases of the plastics value chain.

It is clearly visible that the material production phase is the dominant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in both consumption and production-based approaches. These emissions arise from: (1)material production within Finland for domestic use, (2) material production abroad associated with imported plastic products, and (3) domestic material production for goods that are subsequently exported. This pattern reflects the emission intensity of polymer and feedstock production processes, as well as the significant volume of upstream flows. The concentration of emissions in the early stages of the value chain in part reflects data availability and quality, which are higher for upstream industrial processes than for downstream or distributed life cycle stages in the PlastLIFE framework. The difference between the production and consumption-based emission contributions is visible in Figure 32, even though the total emission levels do not differ considerably. In the production-based approach the bulk of emissions arise from material production in Finland, which are then exported. On the other hand, in the consumption-based approach, the imported plastics (both as materials and products) represent the greatest share of the total emissions. In other words, the emissions from the exported materials and the emissions from the imported products to Finland are at comparable levels, although they are higher for the exported domestic production.

Figure 32. Comparison of the two accounting principles (consumption and production-based). Values shown are for the year 2021 © Finnish Environment Institute.

Another substantial contributor to total emissions is the end-of-life phase, particularly from incineration with energy recovery within Finland. These emissions are directly associated with the domestic management of plastic waste and highlight the need to evaluate trade-offs between energy recovery and alternative waste treatment options such as mechanical or chemical recycling.

Figure 33 illustrates the findings across the full plastics value chain. Each phase from raw material extraction to end-of-life treatment is depicted in sequence and includes emissions from both domestic and international flows. Notably, the product manufacturing phase shows significant cross-border movements, emphasising the embedded emissions in both imported and exported goods. This underscores the importance of analysing emissions from both territorial (production-based) and life cycle (consumptionbased) perspectives when developing national strategies for circularity and climate mitigation in the plastics sector.

Figure 33. Complete overview of the National Framework with combined consumption- and production-based results. Values shown are for the year 2021. © Finnish Environment Institute.

6.2.2. Comparison to the baseline

Climate impacts of the Finnish post-consumer plastic packaging waste management system in 2019 were selected as the baseline for the PlastLIFE framework. The results for the baseline, as presented in Judl et al. (2024), represent the GHG emissions (i.e., climate impacts) of the post-consumer plastic packaging waste processing system in Finland in 2019. The reported climate impacts were 178 kt CO2e when exports and credits from avoided production are excluded. Including exports, the total climate impacts were estimated at 182 kt of CO2e. The contribution of exports, energy recovery, and mechanical recycling were 2.3%, 95.7%, and 1.5%, respectively. The remaining 0.5% was attributed to collection

and sorting. When including avoided production, the potential net GHG emissions of the system were 155 kt CO2e or 151 kt CO2e if export is excluded.

The results calculated based on the PlastLIFE’s framework model for the year 2021 are, however, considerably higher. The climate impacts of plastic waste processing in Finland in 2021 were estimated to be 405 kt CO2e including exports, and 352 kt CO2e excluding exports. Like in the baseline presented in Judl et. al. (2024), the main contributor to the impacts was energy recovery, contributing to 83% of the impacts (96% when exports are excluded).

As the background data in the two models were largely the same, we identify several factors contributing to the misalignment of the PlastLIFE framework results with the baseline:

• Differences in the material flows where underlying statistics are not comparable. The MFA performed for the purpose of the PlastLIFE project is broader in scope than the baseline model from 2019, since plastic packaging waste flows are not limited to post-consumer plastic packaging, such as in Judl et al. (2024). Current material flow accounts also include plastic products other than packaging, and plastic waste from business Possible statistical errors cannot be ruled out either as waste statistics are challenging and often collected by surveys

• The baseline model from 2019 does not consider other exports of post-consumer plastic waste than those of separately collected waste that could not be processed domestically due to the then limited capacity of mechanical recycling facility. The waste flows used in PlastLIFE’s framework model, however, include considerably higher volumes of exported plastic waste.

• The effect of substitution is not explicitly taken into account in the PlastLIFE’s framework. While in Judl et. al. (2024) potential benefits of recycling and energy recovery in terms of avoided virgin material and energy production were individually (yet speculatively) presented, the PlastLIFE framework includes the benefits of recycling through, possibly, decreased demand for primary materials in that following years (see section 6.1.3). Moreover, possible credits from energy recovery are not accounted for in this framework. This increases the results of climate impacts derived from the framework model but does not in itself explain the large difference compared to the baseline.

The PlastLIFE framework MFA indicates a large increase in mechanical recycling (possibly due to the inclusion of separately collected PET bottles or retail waste). In the baseline calculation from 2019, the yield of mechanical recycling was considered to be very low, only 37%, and the reject was recovered for energy. It is expected that the yield has improved since. The industry presents a theoretical yield of 75% which is used in the PlastLIFE framework. There is, however, uncertainty with respect to this value and it has a consequence to the net impacts of mechanical recycling – if impacts of energy recovery of reject were considered. The inclusion of avoided impacts from energy recovery would decrease the net impacts to some extent, depending on the type of energy assumed to be avoided. Fuels with a higher emission factor (e.g., coal or peat) would cause a greater reduction of the net impacts of mechanical recycling compared to avoiding the production of low-carbon energy (e.g., wind energy).

6.2.3.

Limitations and future directions

Despite the strengths of the developed PlastLIFE framework in assessing the climate impacts of the Finnish plastics system, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the framework relies on a high level of aggregation of plastic flows, which can obscure material-specific dynamics and introduce gaps and/or overlaps due to incomplete or inconsistent data. This is particularly evident in areas where

plastics are embedded within non-plastic products – such as textiles, paints, and composites – making the plastics contained in them difficult to track and categorise accurately. Additionally, the increasing volume of e-commerce-related imports and exports poses challenges for accurately capturing cross-border material flows, especially when data is sparse or lacking in detail.

The modelling of product manufacturing and end-of-life processes is simplified to make the analysis computationally feasible, which contributes to reducing the precision of the results. Furthermore, the current scope excludes certain life cycle stages, such as the use phase and potential reuse systems, and chemical recycling, that could have significant implications for the environmental performance of circular strategies. In the future, the PlastLIFE framework could address these limitations by integrating these additional stages into the framework, provided that data availability and technical feasibility improve. Also, the unaccounted volumes of materials leaving the system (mainly littering) will be assessed in a more detailed manner in future iterations of the PlastLIFE framework.

7 The evolving policy environment of the circular economy of plastics

Plastic policy development is highly topical and evolving rapidly. This chapter summarises policy priorities and recommendations from PlastLIFE and complementary projects, providing an overview of some of the most important themes in the plastic regulatory landscape now and in the future.

During the first phase of the PlastLIFE project, and more broadly in the 2020s, the promotion of a circular economy (CE) for plastics has become an increasingly important priority in the EU’s environmental policy. In particular, the need to curb emissions and littering, as well as to strengthen the circularity of plastics has driven the development of new regulations. Starting with the 2018 Plastics Strategy and the preceding Circular Economy Action Plan, legislation has been updated and developed to reduce the environmental and health impacts of plastics. Many of these recent regulatory reforms have only materialised in the 2020s, and the effects of these are yet to be evaluated. The most significant recent and upcoming EU regulations concerning plastics are listed in Table 6.

Table 6. EU directives and regulations concerning plastics.

Directive / Regulation

General waste and circular economy framework

Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC)

Ecodesign Regulation (EU) 2024/1781

Waste Shipment Regulation (EU) 2024/1157

Harmful substances and microplastics

REACH Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 with its amendment (EU) 2023/2055

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Regulation (EU) 2019/1021

RoHS Directive (2011/65/EU)

Proposed regulation on plastic pellets (COM(2023)0645)

Euro 7 proposal (COM(2022) 586 final)

Specific applications

Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (formerly the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive) (EU) 2025/40

Single-Use Plastics Directive (EU) 2019/904

Fertiliser Regulation (EU) 2019/1009

Recycled Plastics Regulation (EU) 2022/1616

Regulation on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food (EU) 10/2011 with its amendment (EU) 2025/351

Subject

General principles for waste management and hierarchy

Sustainability requirements for products, including recyclability

Rules for shipping waste, including plastic waste export bans

Registration and restriction of chemicals, including microplastics

Ban and restriction of POPs

Restriction of hazardous substances in electronics

Prevention of microplastic pollution from industrial pellets

Prevention of microplastic pollution from vehicle tyres and brakes

Requirements for packaging design, recyclability, recycled content and biodegradability

Restrictions on specific plastic items and litter reduction

Rules for fertilisers, including plastic content in compostables

Safety requirements for recycled plastics in food contact

Safety requirements for plastics in food contact

Regulation has particularly targeted packaging, which is a key focus area since 40% of plastic use in Europe is in packaging (PlasticsEurope 2022), and over half of marine litter consists of plastic packaging (EEA 2023). Widening the scope from EU to the UN Members around the world, the negotiations on the global plastics treaty has gained wide attention and expectations. The challenging negotiations started in 2022 and aim at creating a legally binding treaty covering the whole plastics life cycle and ending the plastic pollution in all environments. At the time of writing this report, the negotiations have not yet reached a resolution. Discussions are still ongoing, particularly regarding the restriction of fossil-based plastic production, which is strongly opposed by oil-producing countries.

As an EU Member State, Finland reflects the priorities of EU policy. The initial push for promoting the CE of plastics in Finland came with the landfill ban on organic waste in 2016 (VnA 331/2013). That same year, consumer plastic packaging was brought under extended producer responsibility 2, and a nationwide separate collection network for plastic packaging was established. Finland was also the first country in the world to develop a national Plastics Roadmap (the Plastics Roadmap for Finland, PRfF), published in 2019, with the themes ‘Reduce, Refuse, Recycle and Replace.’ The roadmap was updated in 2022 (The Plastic Roadmap for Finland 2.0), and a new revision is currently being planned. The content of the current roadmap is discussed in more detail in Chapters 1 and 2.

One of the most significant ongoing national regulatory reforms is the preparation of the Circular Economy Act, which is being developed to replace the current Waste Act (646/2011). The reform aims to promote CE markets and thus boost Finland’s transition towards a CE. The planned Act will also implement any new EU legislation to be introduced and clarify the legislation concerning the waste sector The aim is to ease the regulatory burden and to create a more predictable operating and investment environment for CE actors.

PlastLIFE, as well as the ongoing and completed complementary projects have assessed the need for policy development, created policy recommendations and examined uncertainties related to the regulatory environment for certain CE themes. Themes that have become particularly important for Finland in terms of policy development include reuse, the biodegradability of plastics, and the advancement of recycling. This chapter summarises some significant findings from PlastLIFE and complementary projects.

7.1. Reducing microplastics emissions

The presence of microplastics in the environment has been studied for more than a decade, and their potential adverse effects have raised concerns among citizens, policy makers and the scientific community. In recent years, the European Union has taken initial steps to control microplastic emissions, and reducing the amount of microplastics released into the environment is one of the objectives of the EU's Green Development Programme. However, further action is needed. In order to target microplastic emission control measures effectively, information on the sources of emissions and their magnitude is needed. The MikroKeinot project conducted by the Finnish Environment Institute (Syke) and funded by the Ministry of the Environment studied the sources of microplastic emissions and existing regulation and made policy recommendations to mitigate microplastic emissions in Finland (Selonen et al. 2025).

The most significant emission sources identified were artificial grass fields, car tyres, road markings, paints, textiles, construction materials and plastic pellets used in the manufacture of plastic products and packaging. In addition, grey water and food waste from waterborne transport, biowaste, sewage sludge, sewage effluents, vehicle brakes, agricultural plastics and various nicotine products were identified as potentially significant sources for which a mass-based estimate could not be made. In addition, at

2 Before that, collection and recycling requirements of Packaging Directive (94/62/EC) were in practice fulfilled by packaging waste collection from companies.

a more general level, significant emissions may arise from industry, energy production and waste treatment. More information on these would be needed.

Regulations in Europe that directly affect microplastic emissions include REACH (EC) 1907/2006, which restricts the use of microplastics intentionally added to products, and Euro 7, which allows emissions from tyres and brakes to be addressed. In addition, the proposed regulation on plastic pellets aims at preventing plastic pellet losses. Microplastics emissions can also be indirectly addressed through other regulations and enforcement, addressing issues such as littering, product design, environmental permits, wastewater, drinking water and fertilisers. However, indirect regulation has not yet been used effectively and some emissions are not yet regulated.

The policy recommendations for controlling microplastic emissions were grouped into seven points: 1)Adequate resources to implement already adopted policy measures; 2) Increasing knowledge as a prerequisite for emission management; 3) Influencing the preparation of EU policy measures; 4) Guidance to support permitting; 5) Updating requirements and limit values as knowledge is gained; 6) Making the reduction of microplastic emissions an objective for innovation; 7) Monitoring and ex-post evaluation of the impact of policy measures.

7.2. Ensuring biodegradability

Biodegradable plastic products can be found, e.g., in agricultural use, packaging, biowaste bags, cutlery and carrier bags. The biodegradability label may serve as a selling point for individuals who believe that choosing biodegradable products promotes environmental friendliness. In reality, under Finnish environmental conditions and in biogas plants, plastics that meet current biodegradability standards degrade slowly or insufficiently (Selonen et al. 2023; Kauppi et al. 2025). When degrading in the environment, biodegradable plastics release the chemicals they contain to the environment where they end up. (Kauppi et al. 2025) A study published in 2023 (Selonen et al.) also revealed that fragments of biodegradable plastic might be present in agricultural soils for years after their use, highlighting the need for further research into their potential impacts on soil health.

EU-level policy developments also shape the future of biodegradable plastics. The EU policy framework on bio-based, biodegradable and compostable plastics (COM(2022) 682 final) outlines conditions under which these materials can contribute positively to environmental goals, emphasising the need for clear standards, appropriate applications, and sustainability throughout their lifecycle. Additionally, the upcoming Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period 2028–2034 is expected to, e.g., prepare recommendations on terminating national support for tarpaulins (COM(2025) 560 final)

Recommendations developed in the PlastLIFE project by Syke, the University of Jyväskylä, and the Finnish Biocycle and Biogas Association suggest ensuring biodegradability in all environments where biodegradable plastics may end up (namely soil, water bodies, recycling facilities and home composts). More specifically, the recommendations propose renewing EU biodegradability standards and establishing a mandatory certification system at the EU level. The effectiveness of certificates and biodegradability standards must also be verified under Finland’s cold conditions as well as in anaerobic conditions at biogas plants. If northern conditions were better acknowledged in standards and legislation, this would provide business opportunities for Finnish research and innovations. Additionally, chemical safety regulations should better account for the chemicals contained in biodegradable plastics to prevent the release of possible harmful and persistent substances into the environment. The biodegradable plastic production should enhance transparency of the chemicals and additives in plastics. (Kauppi et al. 2025)

7.3. Future activities for increasing reuse

Reuse refers to activity in which products or their parts are used again for the same purpose for which they were manufactured. Reuse can extend the life of a product and achieve environmental benefits compared to disposable and short-lived products. There are some requirements in legislation (e.g., (EU) 2025/40) to strengthen reuse, but so far promoting reuse has been lacking drivers and attention.

Systemic change such as transition to a CE, is slow and difficult to manage. A transition arena is a collaborative method where stakeholders work together to set a goal for the sustainability challenge at hand and develop pathways to achieve it, including the necessary actions to support these pathways. The transition arena helps to identify the needs and shortcomings of policy implementation and to direct the development of new innovations. The transition arena also suits for initiating experiments and support the discussion. (Hyysalo et al. 2019)

The transition arena was organised in the spring 2024 by the PlastLIFE project and focused on reuse, in particular reducing the consumption of single-use plastic packaging and increasing the efficiency of plastic products by extending product life cycles and increasing the resource efficiency.

The aim of the PlastLIFE transition arena was to support the implementation of the PRfF and its upcoming update, to create reuse goals and build action proposals, to increase understanding of reuse opportunities and limitations, to provide an initial impetus for experimentations, and to network and exchange information between re-use professionals, researchers and experts.

According to the results following recommendations were created: a systemic transition to the reuse of both plastic packaging and products requires a dialogue to resolve various conflicts of interest. The effects of reuse on the environment, economy, safety and social issues must be explored through multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral co-operation. Experiments and innovations are needed for the return systems and industrial scale of reuse. The participation of households must be supported by incentives, services, communication and education. Strong policy instruments are needed, such as tax incentives, financial support, target setting and quantity information of reuse. The attractiveness of new goods should also be weakened by regulation and influencing attitudes. (Salmenperä et al. 2025a)

7.4. Strengthening recycling

At the EU-level, several targets have been set for plastic recycling. The core recycling targets focus mainly on packaging, which must be fully recyclable by 2030. Before that, by 2025 50% of plastic packaging should be recycled. Finland is not going to meet this target, as the recycling rate in 2023 was approximately only 30% (Pirkanmaa ELY-Centre 2025). By 2030 the recycling rate target increases to 55% but the PRfF has set an even more ambitious target of 60% by 2030. Failure to meet the EU targets increases Finland’s plastics own resource fee to the EU. In addition to recyclability and recycling rate targets, the EU has also set minimum recycled content requirements for new plastic packaging. These vary between 10% and 35%, depending on the packaging type. For example, single-use PET beverage bottles must contain at least 30% recycled plastic by 2030. Targets have also been suggested for new plastic parts in cars, starting with 15% six years after entry into force, in the proposal for the End-ofLife Vehicles Regulation (COM(2023) 451 final).

Finland still has a lot to improve in plastics recycling, which is why several projects have been launched around the topic. The Muoviavain project, which ended in spring 2025, examined the current state, future prospects, and development opportunities of plastics recycling in Finland. The project generally concluded that more attention should be paid to the recycling of commercial packaging under producer responsibility. Additionally, recycling should be expanded to include other plastic waste streams beyond those covered by producer responsibility. By expanding the collection of plastic waste streams,

the raw material base for recycled plastic operators can be broadened. This creates stability in the sector and encourages investments. (Salminen et al. 2025)

The project identified 11 key issues in public governance and suggested solutions for them both nationally and on the EU-level. The most urgent national measures included:

1. Developing and implementing End-of-Waste (EoW) regulation

The promotion of plastic recycling is primarily monitored through the recycling rate. This approach emphasises the quantity of recycling rather than its quality. However, in a high-level CE, recycling should also be of high quality. The EU regulations introducing minimum shares of recycled materials create a need for legislation that ensures the high quality of recycled materials available on the market. The development of the EoW procedure, both nationally and at the EU level, plays a key role in ensuring the quality of recycled plastic.

2. Including waste incineration in the emissions trading system (ETS) without delay

Finland has not voluntarily included all waste incineration plants in the ETS. This will become mandatory in 2028 but it is recommended that the plants be included in the ETS without delay. Emission charges provide an incentive to reduce incineration and improve plastic sorting.

3. Turning plastics own resource fee into an incentive for recycling businesses

Since 2021, the EU member states have paid a fee of 0.80€/kg of non-recycled plastic packaging waste to the EU budget. For Finland, in 2022, the total amount was around 90 M€. Currently, the cost is covered by all taxpayers, contrary to the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Disincentivising waste incineration and incentivising post-sorting of plastic waste from mixed waste would encourage the recycling businesses to take a bigger part in minimising the own resource fee.

4. A national position on how Finland prepares for the development of product-specific regulations

Under the Ecodesign Regulation, product-specific regulations may be introduced for all plastic products in the future. These regulations could include requirements related to, for example, the use of recycled plastics, recyclability, and hazardous substances. Finland should consider its role in the preparation of these regulations and be ready to offer independent expertise, even on a tight schedule

5. Monitoring the impacts of modulated producer responsibility fees

Producers can influence the recycling fees for plastic packaging waste, waste from electrical and electronic equipment, and end-of-life vehicles through product design. This fee scale (known as modulation) defined by producer responsibility organisations sets lower fees for products that are easier to recycle. So far, the impacts of modulated fees on recycling are unclear. This needs to be monitored, and if needed, the fees need to be further developed so that they are truly incentives for CE based product design and recycling.

6. Preparing a knowledge-based national position on Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU)

One of the emerging feedstocks for plastics in the future is captured CO2. However, the regulation of these CCU-plastics remains unclear and does not provide a solid framework for operations. More precise guidelines are needed at the EU level, and Finland should prepare a national position on the matter.

7. Introducing a priority system for PET bottles based on the Swedish model

The current deposit system for PET bottles does not guarantee that the collected material is recycled into new bottles. The system should support the minimum recycled content targets for PET beverage bottles. A model could be taken from Sweden, where the producer responsibility organisation for PET bottles has mandated that all transparent PET from bottles must be used for new bottles, and Swedish companies have priority purchasing rights for PET flakes.

8. Clarifying and justifying the direction of Research, Development, and Innovation (RDI) funding policies

It is unclear whether there are guidelines for the allocation of public support for the CE of plastics. The promotion of the CE of plastics should be considered as part of industrial and innovation policy

7.4.1. Boost for recycling from post-sorting

Finland is troubled by low recycling rates for both municipal solid waste (MSW) and plastic packaging waste while the majority of plastics in MSW ultimately end up in mixed fractions diverted to incineration. Due to upcoming legislative revisions in the EU, which introduce mandatory recycled content targets for plastic packaging, the demand for plastic waste feedstock in the recycling industry is expected to increase. Post-sorting of residual MSW has been suggested as one possible solution for increasing recycling.

The MSWPlast project (zu Castell-Rüdenhausen et al. 2025) studied the potential for extracting plastics from mixed wastes, aiming to increase plastics recycling while reducing environmental impacts from incineration. A large-scale sorting trial conducted at Remeo’s sorting plant indicated there is significant potential for post-sorting in Finland.

The findings highlight the potential for recycling plastics from residual MSW. Industrial sorting of these plastics can enhance Finland's recycling performance and provide valuable raw materials for the domestic plastic industry. International benchmarking supports the conclusion that residual MSW is a significant source of recyclable plastics. Recycling these plastics, instead of incinerating them, would also reduce fossil CO2 emissions.

Modern post-sorting plants can efficiently extract plastics with high yields and purity. However, plastics from residual waste are dirtier than those collected separately and require thorough washing for mechanical recycling. Chemical recycling is also a viable option, though it has a lower output yield. To reach full potential, all post-consumer plastic waste, including separately collected plastic packaging, must undergo industrial sorting and washing before recycling. While industrial post-sorting efficiently extracts plastics and metals, other materials often end up in incineration due to lack of market demand.

Although Finnish waste policy has traditionally been built on source separation, Finnish legislation does not provide for obstacles to the post-separation of plastics from mixed municipal waste. The policy environment for the centralised sorting of mixed waste includes many indirectly related regulations and other policy instruments such as fees, taxes or strategies and voluntary agreements. New significant policies are also being planned: For example, including waste incineration as part of emissions trading could create new incentives for extracting plastic waste from residual MSW. Increasing the recycling rate of plastic packaging would also economically benefit Finland by reducing payments to the EU for under-performance in recycling. (Salmenperä et al. 2025b)

The impact of the introduction of post-sorting technologies on municipal waste recycling is influenced, among other things, by the composition of the mixed municipal waste and, e.g., the share of biowastes in it. Additionally, post-sorting may reduce citizens' motivation to sort waste at the source. To

avoid this, communication about centralised sorting must be prepared carefully, and the importance of separation at the source must not be forgotten. (zu Castell-Rüdenhausen et al. 2025)

7.5. Discussion

The rapid increase in plastic production and consumption has led to a situation where regulation is being developed under significant time pressure. This urgency stems from the scale of plastic related environmental problems observed (such as marine pollution and CO2-emissions) and concerns about microplastics and harmful additives on health. However, effective regulation must be grounded in robust scientific knowledge. As presented in this chapter, knowledge gaps still exist in areas such as the sources and impacts of microplastics, and chemicals and additives in biodegradable plastics. Without a solid scientific base, it is difficult to target regulatory measures appropriately.

At the same time, as new regulatory measures are being implemented, it is important to monitor their impacts and adjust them as needed. For example, the implementation of modulated EPR fees requires an ex-post evaluation to ensure they truly incentivise circularity (Lifset et al. 2023). More broadly, the monitoring of the CE of plastics remains underdeveloped and requires further efforts (Karppinen et al. 2025). Improved data collection and indicators are essential for tracking progress and identifying bottlenecks.

Promoting the CE of plastics requires coordinated efforts across the entire value chain. Effective solutions depend on the flow of information and the inclusion of diverse and systemic perspectives, as was evaluated, e.g., for the promotion of reuse Due to the interconnections of the value chain, regulatory measures often produce co-benefits. Tackling littering, for instance, not only reduces visible waste but also mitigates microplastic pollution. Similarly, including waste incineration to the ETS can indirectly promote recycling by making incineration less economically attractive.

To ensure that EU-level regulation is suitable for national contexts, Finland should proactively develop and promote national positions on key issues. A good example is the revision of biodegradability standards, which should account for northern, cold climate conditions. Other examples of required national positions in Chapter 7.4 concerned preparing for product-specific regulations and CCU.

Reducing plastic consumption is a priority in line with the CE principles. However, reuse, which is an essential strategy for reducing consumption and the use of natural resources, has received limited attention and lacks sufficient incentives. Overall, measures to promote CE of plastics include both voluntary and mandatory approaches. In the case of Green Deal agreements, voluntary measures have faced challenges in tracking progress due to insufficient data (see Chapter 2). Similarly, the plastic bag agreement has not achieved its intended targets, highlighting the need to re-evaluate if stronger measures are needed.

Public discourse has also influenced national regulatory developments. A recent example is the debate surrounding fertilizers (Laine 2024), which prompted ministries to reassess legislative needs in response to public concern. This highlights the importance of inclusive and responsive governance in advancing the CE of plastics.

8 Suggestions for future priorities for promoting the circular economy of plastics in Finland

The main goal of the PRfF is a breakthrough in the CE of plastics by 2030. What does the situation look like in 2025? The previous chapters have examined the state of the plastics CE in Finland from the perspective of several indicators. This chapter presents a summary of these observations and reflects them against the four main goals of the PRfF and the PlastLIFE project. Based on the findings, future priorities and focus areas for PlastLIFE, the complementary measures as well as for the plastics policies are raised.

8.1. Main findings

The creation and implementation of the Plastics Roadmap for Finland (PRfF) has brought together actors from across the plastics value chain, as well as representatives from public administration, forming a solid foundation for collaboration and dialogue. Members of the Plastics Roadmap co-operation network have expressed a shared desire to promote the circular economy (CE) of plastics in Finland. The roadmap programme has also been considered necessary by decision-makers, as it has extended beyond individual government terms.

Reduce littering of the environment and other environmental harm caused by plastics

The status of coastal areas in Finland is mainly assessed as poor in terms of littering, and approximately 90% of beach litter consists of plastics. Although the amount of litter has decreased over the years, clearly the efforts have not been sufficient.

A key barrier in tackling littering more effectively is the limited knowledge on the sources of litter and how it impacts different environments. It is evident that systematic efforts are needed to effectively block the pathways through which plastics enter the environment. Littering is linked to factors such as the choices made by plastic producers, the functionality of recycling systems and citizen behaviour. It is also important to remember that plastic pollution does not respect national borders, meaning it can move freely between different environments. Therefore, the protection of marine environments, for example, must be done by international co-operation.

So far, research has primarily focused on marine environments. While marine-related studies remain important, there is a need to expand research to include freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems. Overall, it has been estimated that the majority of plastic emissions are directed at the terrestrial environment. Methods must also be further developed to improve the identification, monitoring and assessment of impacts. In summary, in order to target measures effectively and appropriately, a significant amount of new knowledge is still required, and securing funding for research is essential

The number of clean-up events under the Clean Beach programme indicates a rising public interest in reducing the negative impacts of littering. However, clean-up efforts do not address the root causes of the problem. Solving the issue requires both international and national measures that place obligations across the entire plastics value chain. In the end, the harmful impacts of plastics are most effectively decreased by decreasing the consumption of plastics.

The monitoring of littering and its impacts is described in more detail in Chapter 2.1.

Avoid unnecessary consumption of plastics and promote the reuse of plastics

Perhaps the greatest challenge in promoting the CE of plastics is reducing plastic consumption, as this requires a shift in established behaviour and the creation of entirely new business environments, for example, to enable reuse or produce repairable plastic products.

In the PRfF, unnecessary plastic use is defined to include, for instance, single-use products and excessive packaging. A reduction target of 30% has been set for such uses by 2030, compared to the levels in 2022. The reduction is primarily pursued through various Green Deal (GD) agreements (plastics in construction, plastic bags and single-use packaging).

As explained in Chapter 2.2, one challenge with the voluntary nature of GDs is that their impacts may be difficult to monitor unless data reporting is legally mandated. The number of companies that have joined the agreements may be the only indication of their effectiveness The data shows that the use of plastic in packaging and the number of plastic bags consumed have slightly decreased during the monitoring period. However, the target of 40 plastic bags consumed per person per year in 2025 will not be met, highlighting the need for legally binding measures

In the PlastLIFE project, the selected indicator for plastic consumption is the amount of municipal waste per capita, which has decreased by 163 kg from 2021 to 2023 (see Chapter 2.2) However, since municipal waste includes more than just plastic waste, it does not directly reflect changes in plastic consumption. The volume of plastic waste generated has been specifically evaluated in Chapter 5 of the report. The estimates of plastic waste for 2019 and 2022 are not directly comparable, making it difficult to identify a clear trend. Nevertheless, the data provides valuable insights for future projections (see Chapter 5).

So far, the reduction of plastic use has largely relied on voluntary measures. Their effectiveness is hard to verify and those quantities that have been evaluated show only a minor decrease. Yet, according to CE principles, reducing consumption and the use of natural resources should be the primary goal. This is further supported by plastics' life-cycle impact assessment (LCA), which reveals that the production phase is the dominant source of greenhouse gas emissions (Chapter 6).

Enhance the recycling of plastics and recyclability of plastic products

Both at the EU level and nationally, monitoring of plastic recycling focuses primarily on the recycling rate of plastic packaging, for which the EU has set a target of 50% by 2025. Finland is not expected to meet this target. It is worth noting that, according to estimates made this year (Salminen et al. 2025), plastic packaging accounts for less than half of all plastic in various waste streams, which highlights the need to include other plastic waste streams in CE monitoring.

The plastic accounts are filling the data gaps regarding data on the status and evolution of plastics flows in Finland (see Chapter 5). The comprehensive picture on the state and development of the CE of

plastics allows for targeting efforts to industries with the greatest challenges and potentials in the circular transition of plastics.

Another data gap was identified for monitoring the recyclability of plastics (see Chapter 2.3). Widening the knowledge base on the recyclability of plastics, and different plastic waste streams other than packaging, would help to understand the overall picture of plastic recycling possibilities in Finland.

Replace virgin plastic manufactured from fossil raw materials with recycled plastics or sustainably produced renewable materials

Virgin, fossil-based plastic is increasingly being replaced by alternative materials, such as recycled or bio-based plastics. EU regulation currently sets targets for the share of recycled content in plastic packaging, ranging from 10% to 35%, by 2030 depending on the packaging type, under the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (EU) 2025/40. In addition, recycled content requirements have been suggested for new plastic parts in cars, starting with 15% six years after entry into force, in the proposal for the End-of-Life Vehicles Regulation (COM(2023) 451 final). Similar targets may be introduced for other product groups in the future.

Monitoring the replacement of virgin plastic with alternative materials remains challenging (see Chapter 2.4). Currently, the PRfF does not include indicators for the use of recycled plastic or other substitutes, because there is no statistical data available on the quantities used in Finland. The indicator used in PlastLIFE monitors the demand for primary plastics in Finland, which has slightly decreased between 2019 and 2021. However, the demand for primary plastics does not directly reflect changes in the use of alternative materials, nor does it reveal the reasons behind any observed changes. The data for this indicator was produced through the PlastLIFE project, using a wide range of sources, and it is not readily accessible in existing databases. More detailed information, including data on specific polymer types and the use of secondary plastics, is provided in Chapter 5. According to the findings, the production of secondary plastics increased by 74% between 2019 and 2021/2022, rising from 2.2% to 3.5%. This highlights that, at the start of the 2020s, the CE for plastics is still in its early stages. However, the production of alternative materials is strongly influenced by demand, which has not been high so far. In the future, mandatory shares for recycled plastic, such as those set out in the PPWR, will increase demand. As the use of recycled plastic grows, ensuring that the material meets appropriate quality standards for various use applications becomes increasingly important, especially, when, e.g., chemical safety of the recycled material is necessary. This is already a profitability challenge for domestic recycling and production, as they face competition from lower-cost materials on global markets. Safety and quality requirements for materials produced outside Europe may differ from European standards

The GD for plastics in construction has set a goal that at least 40% of plastic films used in the construction sector should be made from recycled plastic by the end of 2027. As previously mentioned, a key challenge with GDs is verifying the progress, as data cannot be collected from participating companies due to competition neutrality constraints. The lack of systematic and sufficiently accurate monitoring makes it difficult to assess the use of alternative materials and thus the shift to a more sustainable raw material base. Finally, a major contributor to life-cycle impacts of plastics is its end-of-life stage, particularly incineration. To minimise climate impacts and evaluate the sustainability of meeting plastic recycling targets, it's important to examine the trade-offs between energy recovery and alternative waste treatment methods, like mechanical or chemical recycling.

Developing the monitoring of circular economy of plastics

The indicators proposed in the PRfF for monitoring its implementation are intended to follow the transition towards a CE for plastics in Finland. In Karppinen et al. (2025), trends, data gaps, and uncertainties

in the data were identified, and recommendations were provided to improve the indicator system. A key finding was the limited availability of information on the CE transition of plastics, with existing data being fragmented and making effective monitoring challenging. As a result, different measures and their indicators rely on the same data sources in the PRfF. Additionally, certain objectives, such as reducing plastic consumption and the use of recycled plastic or other substitutes, lack indicators.

Karppinen et al. (2025) offered several recommendations for defining indicators for the PRfF. First, indicators should be clearly defined, easy to interpret and measurable. Each indicator should represent the target, either independently or in combination with others, and should yield reliable and comprehensible results. The data source used must reflect actual changes. Second, it was recommended to reduce the number of indicators, avoid their overlaps and eliminate overly detailed indicators. Focusing on a few key figures that are easy to monitor may be more effective. Third, consistent and explicit terminology aligned with the data sources was emphasised. Finally, it was suggested to evaluate what kind of indicators could be useful (Figure 34). Since building a reliable and comprehensive monitoring system requires significant resources for data collection and analysis, the relevance of each indicator should be carefully assessed and prioritised. Furthermore, it may be necessary to determine which indicators should be developed nationally and which could be promoted at the EU level or through international co-operation. (Karppinen et al. 2025).

34. A good indicator for the national programme responds to the target, is clearly defined and is based on available data source Source: Karppinen et al. 2025

Figure

8.2. Needs for re-directing PlastLIFE

PlastLIFE has progressed as planned during the first phase of the project (Chapter 3.2.2). However, most of the task- and work-package-specific targets have been set to be met by the end of the project and the after-life period, i.e. by the year 2035. Hence, it is evident that, at this stage, most targets are not yet met. Nevertheless, the project activities have been able to promote all four main objectives of the project and the PRfF (O1-O4, Chapters 1.1 and 1.2). The impacts of the project on Objective 1 (‘Reduce littering of the environment and other environmental harm caused by plastics’) can be seen in the indicators concerning littering (Chapter 2.1), especially in the number of clean-up events. In contrast, although activities have been carried out directly towards the Objective 4 (‘Replace virgin plastic manufactured from fossil raw materials with recycled plastics or sustainably produced renewable materials’), the impacts are not shown in the indicators on primary plastics demand (Chapter 2.4). This is partly due to the updated data on plastic material flows (as described in Chapters 5.1.1 and 5.1.2), and partly due to the fact that the changes made in raw material use by PlastLIFE partners are not immediately reflected in the indicator.

PlastLIFE activities promoting Objective 3 (‘Enhance the recycling of plastics and recyclability of plastic products’) have focused on plastic waste from agricultural and horticultural activities as well as from construction and demolition (C&D) activities. Therefore, the impacts of PlastLIFE are not reflected in the project indicators, which monitor the progress in recycling plastics packaging. In contrast, the impacts of complementary measures, such as investments to recycling infrastructure, will be reflected in this indicator. However, it will take several years before the investments made are realised as recycling capacity.

In addition to enhancing co-operation within, e.g., agricultural plastic value chains, PlastLIFE is developing educational material to provide knowledge and support on taking measures towards increasing plastics recycling in general and specifically in the agricultural and horticultural sector and C&D sector. Through communication, PlastLIFE has promoted the widening of the knowledge base on recyclability of plastics and different plastic waste streams, other than packaging, and helped to understand the overall picture of plastic recycling possibilities in Finland.

Objective 2 (‘Avoid unnecessary consumption of plastics and promote the reuse of plastics’) is by far the most difficult of the four main objectives to promote and to monitor. Activities to inform and educate people about the challenges we face with plastics and to engage them in the work towards the CE of plastics have been carried out by several PlastLIFE partners, but the impacts are not yet visible. PlastLIFE has made a significant contribution towards Objective 2 by co-creating pathways for promoting reuse of plastic consumer packaging, plastic transport packaging as well as plastic products. However, real progress in reuse requires a systemic transition, which in turn requires a dialogue to resolve various conflicts of interest (Chapter 7.3).

To conclude, PlastLIFE has progressed as planned and is well on the way to reaching the task-specific objectives. Nevertheless, the evaluation of the work carried out towards the overall project objectives shows that we still have a lot to do to achieve the sustainable CE of plastics. Reaching this goal will require collaboration across all levels of society.

Focus areas for the second project phase

During the second project phase, on top of continuing and finalising the planned activities and collaborating closely with relevant stakeholders, PlastLIFE shall focus increasingly on communicating, disseminating and scaling up the results to increase the project impact.

Avoiding unnecessary consumption of plastics and increasing reuse shall get more emphasis from the PlastLIFE activities during the second project phase. Co-operation with municipalities and other

event organisers shall be continued and taken into practice. Events of various sizes can be utilised as test arenas for new practices, systems and solutions, e.g., to promote reuse and improve sorting and recycling, as well as raising awareness of event visitors on how they, in their everyday lives, can support the development of the CE of plastics.

Tailored communication content and events for different audiences will help get messages through to decision-makers, industry actors and citizens. PlastLIFE already has successful experience in, e.g., reaching out to decision-makers, such as members of the European parliament, with specific focused content on the biodegradability of plastics (Chapter 3.2.2).

The role of companies in reaching the CE of plastics is crucial. The SPIRIT programme (see Chapter 4.2.4) has been able to obtain engagement from a wide range of companies to join in the sustainable plastics industry transformation. Over 100 companies, directly or indirectly, have joined the SPIRIT ecosystem. PlastLIFE has been co-operating closely with SPIRIT and will continue co-operating during the second project phase. Moreover, the PlastLIFE activities shall more efficiently be marketed and disseminated to industrial operators to engage even more of them to the work towards the CE of plastics. PlastLIFE continues networking and has recently joined the 4R open innovation ecosystem that aims to create system-solutions to circular plastic business models (www: 4R ecosystem - CLIC Innovation 30.9.2025).

The CE of plastics cannot be reached unless all Finns participate in promoting it, Hence, citizen activation will have a specific focus during the second project phase. During the first project phase, citizens were activated through art interventions, Citizen pool and a Rosgis reporting tool (Chapter 3.2.2), and these activities will continue. Additionally, communication activities will emphasise participatory communication campaigns, which are already being planned for the second project phase. Municipalities have an important role in disseminating CE solutions into the activities of the municipal organisations, but also to the citizens. PlastLIFE has started co-operation with municipality networks to promote reuse and reduction of unnecessary consumption of plastic in events as well as to reduce littering. This work will continue.

In addition to enhanced communication and dissemination activities, there is a need for more knowledge and solutions concerning the circular economy of non-packaging plastics or for thermosetting plastics. Thermosetting plastics can be modified only once and have no common recycling systems. These plastics, and their CE solutions, such as reuse or recycling, are minimal at the moment and should be taken into consideration during the next phase of PlastLIFE.

8.3. Future needs for complementary measures

Since the establishment of the PRfF in 2018, interest in promoting the CE of plastics has steadily grown. PlastLIFE has monitored plastics-related projects and activities since the beginning of the project focusing on projects that have started after the publication of the LIFE Programme call for applications in 2021. By 2025, over 100 plastics-related measures have been launched, most of which are still ongoing. It could be stated that new knowledge and experience are continuously being gained. Considering the four main objectives of the PRfF (O1-O4, Chapter 1.1), most measures have been focusing on promoting O1, O3 and O4. However, projects promoting O1, related to the reduction of plastic littering and environmental harm caused by plastics, are small research and development projects and have received the least funding. The objective O2 on avoiding the unnecessary consumption of plastics and promoting the reuse of plastics, requires much more attention.

Avoiding unnecessary consumption of plastics has proven to be a challenging task to resolve. So far, measures have mainly focused on reducing the consumption of specific plastic products (primarily SUP-products), replacing plastics with alternative materials and on changing consumer behaviour. PlastLIFE has researched reuse as one alternative to reduce the use of plastics and to also reduce the plastic

waste, e.g., in transition arena work, but more actions are needed. Also, Packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR) is designed to promote business and innovations in Europe, demanding reduction in packaging waste generation, a decrease in pollution and an increase in packaging recycling and reuse. This will have an impact on the packaging industry and thus on the plastic industry in the coming years.

At the beginning of the first phase of PlastLIFE, complementary measures were identified as necessary for the themes of ‘infrastructure’, ‘agriculture and horticulture’ and ‘health and welfare impacts’. The infrastructure surrounding the plastic recycling sector has developed rapidly, with new recycling and sorting plants under construction. Nevertheless, plastic recycling remains an emerging field, and new technologies, such as chemical recycling, are being introduced in Finland. A key unresolved question is how to recycle hard-to-recycle and chemically complex plastics. More practical pilots and experiments are needed to find alternative and chemically safe solutions. The role of industry operators is crucial for achieving the CE of plastics; in building the capacity for recycling, in finding recycling solutions for a broader variety of plastics, in developing solutions for compensating fossil raw materials in plastic manufacturing as well as in developing sustainable and durable alternatives for single-use plastics where possible. An example on how the whole industrial value chain promotes the plastics circularity is the SPIRIT ecosystem, which already reaches over 100 operators promoting the required change in the plastics industry, but remaining operators are also invited and needed to participate.

In recent years, the recycling of agricultural and horticultural plastics has become more efficient since the voluntary recycling community SuMaKi began its operation. However, numerous challenges remain unresolved, particularly regarding the collection and recycling of agriplastics and the safety risks posed by micro- and nanoplastic pollution in terrestrial environments.

The theme receiving the least national attention has been the impact of plastics on human welfare. Although understanding of the health effects of plastics has increased, gaps in basic knowledge make it difficult to interpret findings for risk assessment. PlastLIFE is supporting health by investigating the chemical safety of the recycling of some waste materials. Notable is that, while protecting human health may not directly yield economic benefits, it can significantly benefit public health and help reduce the overall costs of the healthcare system. Nevertheless, political will is essential to protect human welfare and the environment from the cumulative and long-lasting effects of plastics.

8.4. Future needs for policy development

The rapid growth in plastic production and consumption has created an urgent need for regulation, driven by the scale of environmental and health concerns as well as the goal of reducing the use of natural resources. However, effective regulation must be based on solid scientific knowledge. As highlighted in this report, significant knowledge gaps remain, for example regarding microplastics, the chemical composition of biodegradable plastics and product life extension through reuse. These gaps hinder the ability to design targeted and effective regulatory measures.

As new regulatory instruments are introduced, their impacts must be systematically monitored and evaluated. For instance, modulated Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) fees require ex-post evaluation to determine whether they effectively incentivise circularity. More broadly, the monitoring of CE progress in plastics remains underdeveloped. Improved data collection and indicators are essential for identifying bottlenecks and guiding future actions.

To ensure that EU-level regulation aligns with national needs, Finland should proactively develop and promote national positions. The revision of EU biodegradability standards to reflect northern climate conditions is one such example. Other areas requiring national position include, e.g., product-specific regulation and carbon capture and utilisation (CCU). Also, the implementation of the Packaging and packaging waste regulation (PPWR) will bring revision needs for national legislation. In the coming years, several delegated and implementing acts, as well as guidance documents, are expected from the

Commission to further specify the requirements of the PPWR. In these processes, Finland and PlastLIFE could take an active role in keeping decision-makers informed about latest research results and expert conclusions on them.

In a global perspective, achieving agreement in the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations by the United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee is essential. Negotiations haven’t been easy, and according to the news, compromises are needed to find solutions to finalise the Treaty. Furthermore, the Treaty could also provide us with information on matters that we could incorporate into the national programme, for example to prevent plastic pollution. As Finnish representatives who participated in negotiations have said, the most important step would be to finalise the treaty as a starting point for future negotiations to reduce pollution and consumption of plastics (Toikka, personal communication 2024). Reducing consumption is a core CE principle, yet reuse of plastics has received limited attention and lacks sufficient incentives, also in national actions.

In general, both voluntary and mandatory measures are used to promote CE, but voluntary approaches have shown limitations. For example, Green Deal agreements have struggled with progress tracking due to insufficient data, and the plastic bag agreement has failed to meet its targets, suggesting a need to reassess the balance between voluntary and binding measures.

Overall, the future policy efforts supporting the CE of plastics should pay attention to issues such as the safety of plastics, preventing plastic emissions into the environment and ensuring the quality of recycled plastic. At the same time, innovation and new business opportunities should be encouraged, e.g., to support reuse. Finally, the development of a comprehensive indicator framework is essential for monitoring progress and guiding decision-making in the transition towards the CE of plastics.

Abbreviations

ABS Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene

BFR Brominated flame retardants

BPA Bisphenol-A

C&D Construction and demolition

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

CCU Carbon capture and utilisation

CE Circular economy

EC European Commission

EPR Extended producer responsibility

EPS Expanded polystyrene

ETS Emission trading system

EU European Union

FBB Finnish Biocycle and Biogas Association

GD Green deal

GHG Greenhouse gas

HDPE High-density polyethylene

HIPS Hi-impact polystyrene

JyU University of Jyväskylä

KAT Keep the Archipelago Tidy Association

KIVO Suomen kiertovoima ry.

KUAS Karelia University of Applied Sciences

LAB UAS LAB University of Applied Sciences

LCA Life cycle assessment

LDPE Low-density polyethylene

Luke Natural Resources Institute Finland

LUT Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology

MFA Material flow analysis

MoE Ministry of the Environment

MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive

MSW Municipal solid waste

NGO Non-governmental organisation

PBAT Polybutylene adipate terephthalate

PBT Polybutylene terephthalate

PE Polyethylene

PEF Product environmental footprint

PE-LLD Polyethylene Linear Low Density

PET Polyethylene terephthalate

PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PP Polypropylene

PPWR Packaging and packaging waste regulation

PRfF Plastic Roadmap for Finland

R&I Research and innovation

r-ABS Recycled acrylonitrile butadiene styrene

r-EPDM Recycled ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber

r-HIPS Recycled hi-impact polystyrene

r-TPVs Recycled thermoplastic vulcanizates

SuMaki Suomen Maatalousmuovien Kierrätys Oy

SUP Single-use plastic

Syke Finnish Environment Institute

TEA Techno-economic assessment

THL Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare

ULapland University of Lapland

UTU University of Turku

WEEE Waste electrical and electronic equipment

YLVA Compliance monitoring system for environmental permits

References

Adamczyk, S., Zantis, L. J., van Loon, S., van Gestel, C. A. M., Bosker, T., Hurley, R., Nizetto, L., Adamczyk, B. & Velmala, S. 2024. Biodegradable microplastics induce profound changes in lettuce (Lactuca sativa) defense mechanisms and to some extent deteriorate growth traits Environmental Pollution 363(2): 125307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2024.125307

Van Acker, K., Rousseau, S., De Jaeger, S., Moraga, G., Dewulf, J., De Meester, S., Van Passel, S., Compernolle, T., Bachus, K., Vrancken, K., & Eyckmans, J. (2019). To-wards a more direct policy feedback in circular economy monitoring via a societal needs per-spective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 149, 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.06.004

Bisinella, V., Christensen, T. H., & Astrup, T. F. 2021. Future scenarios and life cycle assessment: Systematic review and recommendations. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26(11), 2143–2170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01954-6

Clean Beach 2025a What is the Clean Beach programme? https://www.siistibiitsi.fi/en/what-is-the-clean-beachprogramme/ [Visited 26.8.2025]

Clean Beach 2025b. Litter reporting. https://www.siistibiitsi.fi/en/litter-reporting/ [Visited 26.8.2025]

Cucurachi, S., Van Der Giesen, C., & Guinée, J. (2018). Ex-ante LCA of Emerging Technologies. Procedia CIRP, 69, 463–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.005

Deepika, D., Prasad Sarma, R., Schuhmacher, M. & Kumar, V. 2023. Development of a rat physiologically based kinetic model (PBK) for three organophosphate flame retardants (TDCIPP, TCIPP, TCEP) . Toxicology Letters 383(1): 128-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2023.06.006

Ekebom, J., Korpinen, S. & Laamanen-Nicolas, L. (toim.) 2023. Merenhoidon ympäristötavoitteiden tarkistaminen 2024. Tausta-asiakirja merenhoidon kolmannen toimeenpanokierroksen ensimmäiseen osaan. Kuulemiseen käytettävä tausta-asiakirja.

European Environment Agency (EEA) 2023. From source to sea — The untold story of marine litter. Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/from-source-to-sea-the-untold-story-of-marine-litter

European Commission 2018. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0028 [Visited 27.8.2025.]

Falsafi, A., Abdulkareem, M. & Horttanainen, M. 2025. Environmental impacts of artificial turf at end of life: A life cycle assessment approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 115, 107994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2025.107994

Farge, E. & Le Poidevin, O. 2025. Plastic pollution treaty stalled as Geneva talks end without deal. Reuters 15.8.2025. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/plastic-pollution-treaty-stalled-genevatalks-end-without-deal-2025-08-15/ [Visited 29.10.2025]

Fjäder, P., Korkalainen, M., Kauppi, S., Lehtiniemi, M., Salminen, J., Selonen, S., Setälä, O., Sillanpää, M., Sorvari, J., Suikkanen, S., Talvitie, J., Turunen, T., Virkkunen, H., & Ala-Ketola, U. 2022. Muovien haitalliset ympäristö- ja terveysvaikutukset. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 17/2022. 156 s. ISBN 978-952-11-5480-5. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/344374

Fjäder, P., Perkola, N., Näkki, P. Tirroniemi, J., Niemikoski, H., Ahkola, H., Setälä, O., Selonen, S. & Lehtiniemi, M., 2025. Tekonurmikenttien haitalliset aineet ja ekologiset vaikutukset. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 23/2025. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/597361

Galgani, F., Ruiz Orejon Sanchez Pastor, L., Ronchi, F., Tallec, K., Fischer, E., Matiddi, M., Anastasopoulou, A., Andresmaa, E., Angiolillo, M., Bakker Paiva, M., Booth, A.M., Buhhalko, N., Cadiou, B., Claro, F., Consoli, P., Darmon, G., Deudero, S., Fleet, D., Fortibuoni, T., Fossi, M.C., Gago, J., Gerigny, O., Giorgetti, A., Gonzalez Fernandez, D., Guse, N., Haseler, M., Ioakeimidis, C., Kammann, U., Kühn, S., Lacroix, C., Lips, I., Loza, A.L., Molina Jack, M.E., Noren, K., Papadoyannakis, M., Pragnell-Raasch, H., Rindorf, A., Ruiz, M., Setälä, O., Schulz, M., Schultze, M., Silvestri, C., Soederberg, L., Stoica, E., Storr-Paulsen, M., Strand, J., Valente, T., Van Franeker, J.A., Van Loon, W., Vighi, M., Vinci, M., Vlachogianni, T., Volckaert, A., Weiel, S., Wenneker, B., Werner, S., Zeri, C., Zorzo, P. & Hanke, G. 2023. Guidance on the monitoring of marine litter in European seas Publications Office of the European Union Luxembourg, 2023 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/59137, JRC133594.

Grönlund, K., Nissinen, V. H., Rytöluoto, I., Mosallei, M., Mikkonen, J., Korpijärvi, K., Auvinen, P., Suvanto, M., Saarinen, J. J. & Jänis, J. 2024. Direct Mass Spectrometric Analysis of Brominated Flame Retardants in Synthetic Polymers ACS Omega 9(30): 33011–33021. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.4c04059

Haahti, J , Kukkasniemi, K., Salminen, J., Savolainen, H., Pirtonen, H., 2024. Materials from Development of Waste Accounting (JÄTTIS) project. Unpublished.

Haaksi, H. 2012. MARLIN-projektin väliraportti - Puhtaat Suomen rannat – totta vai tarua? Pidä Saaristo Siistinä ry. 25 s. https://pidasaaristosiistina.fi/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/MARLINTiivistelma_Suomen_tuloksista.pdf

Hanke, G., Walvoort, D. J. J, van Loon, W. M. G. M., Addamo, A. M., Brosich, A., del Mar Chaves Montero, M., Jack, M. E. M., Vinci, M. & Giorgetti, A. 2019. EU Marine Beach Litter Baselines. Analysis of a panEuropean 2012-2016 beach litter dataset. TG ML report, EUR30022 EN. https://mcc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/main/dev.py?N=41&O=452

Helminen, K. I. 2024. Compositional analysis of waste plastic samples Master’s Thesis. Åbo Akademi University. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2024081364707

Horn, S., Judl, J., Karvonen, J., Dahlbo, H. & Ekvall, T. 2025. Framework for Assessing the Life Cycle Impacts of the Circular Economy of Plastics. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/plastlife/tulokset/

Huovila, E. 2025. Biohajoavien muovien hajoaminen järvi- ja murtovedessä. Master’s thesis, University of Jyväskylä. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202506165349

Hurskainen, P., Salminen, J., Balázs, A., Johansson, A., Kangas, A., Karppinen, T. K. M., Laturi, J., Mäyrä, J., Pohjola, J., Savolainen, H., Tuominen, S., Vihervaara, P. & Virkkunen, H. 2021. Novel methods for the accounting of forest ecosystems and circular materials (2019-FI-ENVECO). Methodological report / January 2021. European Statistics Action Grant (Environmental accounts and Ecosystem accounting) http://hdl.handle.net/10138/344039

Hurtig, K. & Colley, A. 2024. Voisiko panttijärjestelmää laajentaa? PlastLIFE-hanke. Kansalaispoolin ratkaisut ja suositukset 2/2024. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/plastlife/aktiivinen-kansalainen/kansalaispooli/ Hyysalo, S., Lukkarinen, J., Kivimaa, P., Lovio, R., Temmes, A., Hildén, M., Marttila, T., Auvinen, K., Perikangas, S., Pyhälammi, A., Peljo, J., Savolainen, K., Hakkarainen, L., Rask, M., Matschoss, K., Huomo, T., Berg, A., & Pantsar, M. 2019. Developing Policy Pathways: Redesigning Transition Arenas for Midrange Planning. Sustainability, 11(3), 603. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030603

Janeskari, J. 2025. The functioning of the market for secondary plastics in Finland (in Finnish) [online publication] https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202505306419

Judl, J., Horn, S., & Karppinen, T. K. M. 2024. Towards a Low-Carbon Plastic Waste Recycling in Finland: Evaluating the Impacts of Improvement Measures on GHG Emissions. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 4(1), 755–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-023-00306-w

Jylhä, H., Johansson, A., Sorvari, J. & Salminen, J., 2025. A novel method of accounting for plastic packaging waste. Waste Manag. 196, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2025.02.022

Kaartinen, T. & Aalto, S. 2025. Pakkausjätteiden tilastoinnissa käytettävän korjauskertoimen määrittäminen. Ympäristöministeriön raportti 28.2.2025.

Karppinen, T. K. M., Johansson, A., Rinne, P., Kauppi, S. & Sorvari, J. 2025. Muovitiekartan mittarit. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 2/2025. 173 s. ISBN 978-952-11-5737-0. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/592316

Karppinen, T. K. M., Salmenperä, H., Piippo, S., & Mönkkönen, I. 2021. Yhdyskuntajätteen koostumustiedon laadun parantaminen. Ympäristöministeriön julkaisuja 2021:24. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/163316/YM_2021_24.pdf

Katajajuuri, J.-M. 2024. Vertailun painopiste kokonaisvaltaiseen ympäristösuorituskykyyn. Pakkauslehti 1/2024. https://e-paper.pakkaus.com/p/pakkaus/1-2024/r/17/32-33/4381/1267575

Kauppi, S., Selonen, S., Taipale, S. & Virolainen-Hynnä, A. 2025. Threats and opportunities of biodegradable plastics Action recommendations. PlastLIFE. September 2025. Finnish environment institute http://hdl.handle.net/10138/600621

Khan, M.M.H. & Katajajuuri, JM. 2025. Exploring the Imperative and Rationale for a Unified Life Cycle Assessment Methodology for Food Packaging. In: Tynkkynen, N., Hakala, H., Leinonen, I., Varho, V., Åkerman, M., Harlin, A. (eds) Sustainability in Food Packaging. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-87492-5_5

Kivistö, H. & Saarinen, R. 2025. Näin paalimuovia voidaan kierrättää onnistuneesti. Circblog 10.6.2025. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/nain-paalimuovia-voidaan-kierrattaa-onnistuneesti/ KIVO 2024. Suomen Kiertovoima ry (KIVO). Koostumustietopankki. https://www.kivo.fi/toiminnantueksi/koostumustietopankki [Visited 27.8.2025.]

Koskinen, K. 2024. Functionalization of polystyrene and its use as an adsorptive material. Master’s thesis, University of Turku. https://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/177835?show=full

Jamk 2025. Kestävä maatalousmuoviketju. Projekti. https://www.jamk.fi/fi/tutkimus-ja-kehitys/tkiprojektit/kestava-maatalousmuoviketju

Laamanen, M., Suomela, J., Ekebom, J., Korpinen, S., Paavilainen, P., Lahtinen, T., Nieminen, S. & Hernberg, A. (toim.) 2021. Suomen merenhoitosuunnitelman toimenpideohjelma vuosille 2022–2027. Ympäristöministeriön julkaisuja 2021:30. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-361-198-6

Laine, T. 2024. Muovisilppua lannoitteeksi. Maaseudun Tulevaisuus. 23.9.2024. Available at: https://www.maaseuduntulevaisuus.fi/uutiset/b80d1e2a-036c-4136-a324-8f9adfcbb655

Lifset, R., Kalimo, H., Jukka, A., Kautto, P. & Miettinen, M. 2023. Restoring the incentives for eco-design in extended producer responsibility: The challenges for eco-modulation. Waste Management 168: 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2023.05.033

Mattila, R. 2024. Adsorption of heavy metals to plastics. Master’s thesis, University of Jyväskylä.

URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202409206000.pdf

Mhaouty-Kodja, S., Zalko, D., Tait, S., Testai, E., Viguié, C., Corsini, E., Grova, N., Buratti, F. M., Cabaton, N. J., Coppola, L., De la Vieja, A., Dusinska, M., El Yamani, N., Galbiati, V., Iglesias-Hernández, P. Kohl, Y., Maddalon, A., Marcon, F., Naulé, L., Rundén-Pran, E., Salani, F., Santori, N., Torres-Ruiz, M., Turner, J. D., Adamovsky, O., Aiello-Holden, K., Dirven, H., Louro, H. & Silva, M. J. 2024. A critical review to identify data gaps and improve risk assessment of bisphenol A alternatives for human health. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 54(10): 696–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2024.2388712

Ministry of the Environment 2020. Rakentamisen muovit. Rakennustyömaiden kierrätyskelpoisten muovijakeiden kierrätyksen tehostaminen ja kierrätysmuovituotteiden käytön lisääminen rakentamisessa. Muovitiekartta Suomelle. 9/2020. https://ym.fi/documents/1410903/40549091/rakentamisen_muovit_A4_v3.pdf/ [Visited 26.8.2025.]

Ministry of the Environment 2022 Reduce and refuse, recycle and replace. A Plastics Roadmap for Finland 2.0. https://ym.fi/en/plastics-roadmap-for-finland

Ministry of the Environment 2023. Muovikassi green deal –sopimuksen väliarviointi, kaudelta 2016 – 08/2023 (tiivistelmä) Ympäristöministeriön green deal –sopimusten arvioinnit 2. Muovikassi sopimuksen väliarviointi, joulukuu 2023

https://ym.fi/documents/1410903/40923421/Muovikassisopimuksen+v%C3%A4liarviointi+2023.pdf/2088b6 8b-b444-07bb-cb32c4f2a9ae5a3d/Muovikassisopimuksen+v%C3%A4liarviointi+2023.pdf?t=1705048308944

Ministry of the Environment 2025. Green Deal agreements. https://ym.fi/en/green-deals [Visited 26.8.2025.]

Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. 2007. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 60(3), 498–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.023

Nissinen, V. H., Grönlund, K., Heilala, N., Rytöluoto, I., Mosallaei, M., Korpijärvi, K., Auvinen, P., Suvanto, M., Saarinen, J. J. & Jänis, J. 2025. Quantification of Brominated Flame Retardants in Synthetic Polymers via Direct Mass Spectrometric Analysis Analytical Chemistry: 97(15): 8600–8608 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.5c00946

Nordahl, S. L., & Scown, C. D. 2024. Recommendations for life-cycle assessment of recyclable plas-tics in a circular economy. Chemical Science, 15(25), 9397–9407. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4SC01340A

Nyroos, E. 2025. Tekonurmi houkuttelee harrastamaan – mikä houkuttelisi hyödyntämään tekonurmimateriaalit? Circblog 1.4.2025. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/tekonurmi-houkuttelee-harrastamaan-mikahoukuttelisi-hyodyntamaan-tekonurmimateriaalit/

Official Statistics of Finland 2025a. Municipal waste by treatment method, 2002-2023. https://pxdata.stat.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/en/StatFin/StatFin__jate/statfin_jate_pxt_12qz.px/ [Visited 27.8.2025.]

Official Statistics of Finland. 2025b. Municipal waste by treatment method in Finland, 2018-2023. https://pxdata.stat.fi/PxWeb/pxweb/en/StatFin/StatFin__jate/statfin_jate_pxt_12cv.px/ [Visited 27.8.2025.]

Official Statistics of Finland (OSF A). Preliminary statistics on the international trade in goods [online publication]. ISSN 2243-4224. Helsinki: Finnish Customs. Access method: https://tilastot.tulli.fi/en/statistical-publications/international-trade-in-goods

Official Statistics of Finland (OSF B). Supply, use and input-output tables [online publication]. ISSN=1799-201X. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Access method: https://stat.fi/en/statistics/pt

Olisah, C., Melymuk, L., Audy, O., Kukucka, P., Pribylova, P. & Boudot, M. 2024. Extremely high levels of PBDEs in children’s toys from European markets: causes and implications for the circular economy Environmental Sciences Europe 36: 183. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00999-2

Palo, K. 2024. Mahanpuruja muovista – kampanja roskaantumista vastaan. Report of the stormwater campaign. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/plastlife/tulokset/

PAPILLONS 2025a Plastics in agriculture: impacts, lifecycles & long-term sustainability. www.papillonsh2020.eu [Visited 27.8.2025.]

PAPILLONS 2025b. MPs Contamination of European Agricultural soils: Results from the European Spatial Survey Monitoring. www.papillons-h2020.eu > The project > Milestones & Key Outputs > Practice abstract n°10. [Visited 27.8.2025.]

PAPILLONS 2025c. Agricultural Plastic (AP) use – Insights from three European countries. www.papillonsh2020.eu > The project > Milestones & Key Outputs > Practice abstract n°14. [Visited 27.8.2025.]

PAPILLONS 2025d. Effects of micro- and nanoplastics on plants – Field plot study. www.papillons-h2020.eu > The project > Milestones & Key Outputs > Practice abstract n°17. [Visited 27.8.2025.]

PAPILLONS 2025e. Conventional and biodegradable agricultural microplastics effects on soil properties and microbial functions. www.papillons-h2020.eu > The project > Milestones & Key Outputs > Practice abstract n°16. [Visited 27.8.2025.]

PAPILLONS 2025f. Degradation Rates of Agricultural Plastics www.papillons-h2020.eu > The project > Milestones & Key Outputs > Practice abstract n°12. [Visited 27.8.2025.]

PAPILLONS 2025g. Policy Brief - PAPILLONS’ Key Messages to European Institutions on Scientific Results, Remaining Knowledge Gaps and Policy Recommendations. www.papillons-h2020.eu > The project > Milestones & Key Outputs > Practice abstract n°11. [Visited 27.8.2025.]

PARC 2025a. Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals, PARC. www.eu-parc.eu. [Visited 27.8.2025.]

PARC 2025b. Parc projects. www.eu-parc.eu > Results >Projects > Developing a system to monitor chemicals in the environment. [Visited 27.8.2025.]

PARC 2025c. Parc projects. www.eu-parc.eu > Results > Projects > Testing assessment tools for hazardous substances in consumer products and articles. [Visited 27.8.2025.]

PARC 2025d. Parc projects. www.eu-parc.eu > Results > Projects > Closing data gaps on the hazards of BPA alternatives for human health. [Visited 27.8.2025.]

PARC 2025e. Scientific publications. www.eu-parc.eu > Results > Scientific publications. [Visited 27.8.2025.]

Peña, C., Civit, B., Gallego-Schmid, A., Druckman, A., Pires, A. C.-, Weidema, B., Mieras, E., Wang, F., Fava, J., Canals, L. M. I., Cordella, M., Arbuckle, P., Valdivia, S., Fallaha, S., & Motta, W. 2021. Using life cycle assessment to achieve a circular economy. The Internation-al Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26(2), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01856-z

Peña, C., Civit, B., Gallego-Schmid, A., & et. al. 2020. Using Life Cycle Assessment to achieve a circular economy [Position paper of the Life Cycle Initiative]. Life Cycle Initiative. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Using-LCA-to-achieve-circular-economyLCI-July-2020.pdf

Perkola, N. & Fjäder, P. 2025. Tekonurmien edut luovat haasteita materiaalien elinkaaren loppupäässä. Circblog 17.6.2025. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/tekonurmien-edut-luovat-haasteita-materiaalien-elinkaarenloppupaassa/

Piepponen, H., Laamanen-Nicolas, L., Korpinen, S., Back, M., Ekebom, J., Suomela, J., Lahtinen, T., Paavilainen, P. & Rinne, H. 2024 Suomen meriympäristön tila 2024. Suomen ympäristökeskus. https://www.ymparisto.fi/fi/luonto-vesistot-ja-meri/meri/suomen-meriympariston-tila-2024

Pietikäinen, P., Rainosalo, E. & Syvänne, J. 2025. CompositeCircle-hanke kehittää taloudellisesti kannattavia menetelmiä ja verkostoja lasikuituvahvisteisten polymeerikomposiittien (GFRC) kierrätykseen. Muoviplast 4-5/2025, 22-23. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muoviplast-4-5-2025/

Pirkanmaa ELY-Centre 2024. https://www.ely-keskus.fi/documents/1047981/0/Pakkaustilastot+20202022.pdf/1a5058c4-2bb2-215d-fd18-cbc02aac7398?t=1724927983911 [Visited 27.8.2025.]

Pirkanmaa ELY-Centre 2025. Pakkaukset ja pakkausjätteet 4.9.2025. https://www.elykeskus.fi/documents/d/tuottajavastuu/pakkaustilastot-2020-2023-pdf [Visited 7.9.2025]

Pitkänen, K., Peltola, T., Onali, A., Heikkilä, W. & Fjäder, P. 2024a. Miten vähennämme muovikassien kulutusta? Kansalaispoolin ratkaisut ja suositukset. PlastLIFE-hanke. Kansalaispoolin ratkaisut ja suositukset 1/2024. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/plastlife/aktiivinen-kansalainen/kansalaispooli/

Pitkänen, K., Peltola, T. & Mustonen, A.-R. 2024b. Mikä on muovin paikka arjessa? Natura 3/2024, s. 26-29.

PlasticsEurope 2022. Plastics – the Facts 2022. Available at: https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plasticsthe-facts-2022-2/

PlasticsEurope 2025. Plastics the Fast Facts 2025. Global and European plastics production and economic indicators. Available at: https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-fast-facts-2025/ [Visited: 7.11.2025]

Plastics2Olefins 2025a. The Plastics2Olefins Project. www.plastics2olefins.eu. [Visited 27.8.2025.]

Plastics2Olefins 2025b. Plastics2Olefins partners ready for next steps 5.12.2023 www.plastics2olefins.eu > News [Visited 27.8.2025.]

Plastics2Olefins 2025c. Presenting the Partners: VTT – Pioneering Gas Purification Solutions for Plastic Waste Valorisation 5.5.2025. > News [Visited 27.8.2025.]

Plastone Oy 2023. Product drawing. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/plastlife/tulokset/

Rikalainen, M. 2025. Product safety of recycled construction and demolition waste plastics. Master's thesis. Master's Programme in Mechanical Engineering. Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology LUT. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe202501143658

Rinne, P., Sorvari, J. & Dahlbo, H. 2023 PlastLIFEn ja täydentävien toimien vaikutukset kansallisen Muovitiekartan toimeenpanoon. Deliverable D1.5. Valmisteltu osana PlastLIFE SIP- hanketta. Available: https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/plastlifen-ja-taydentavien-toimien-vaikutukset-kansallisenmuovitiekartan-toimeenpanoon/

Ropponen, J. 2025. Prospects in recycling solutions and capacity Presentation in the Plastics Roadmap Cooperation network meeting, 18.9.2025. Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT).

Ruokamo, E., Räisänen, M., & Kauppi, S. 2022. Consumer preferences for recycled plastics: Observations from a citizen survey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134720

Ruuttunen, K. & Korpinen, R. 2025, Biopohjaisten muovia korvaavien materiaalien kehittäminen ja liiketoimintamahdollisuudet. Circblog 6.5.2025. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/biopohjaisten-muoviakorvaavien-materiaalien-kehittaminen/

Räisänen, M., Fjäder, P., Hagner, M., Heikkinen, R., Järvistö, J., Kauppi, S., Leppänen, M., Niemikoski, H., Nyyssönen, J., Palojärvi, J., Paukkunen, S., Perkola, N., Pohjonen, A., Pääkkönen, H., Pölönen, M., Pönni, V., Rasa, K., Rintala, N., Ruuska, S., Selonen, S., Seppänen, A.-M., Surakka, J., Tuovinen, A., Vaahterinen, J. & Yliskylä-Peuralahti, J. 2024. Maa- ja puutarhatalouden muovien kiertotalouden edistäminen PlastLIFEhankkeessa. Julk: Maataloustieteen Päivät 2024. Esitelmä- ja posteritiivistelmät. Suomen maataloustieteellisen seuran tiedote No 41. https://www.salaojayhdistys.fi/wpcontent/uploads/2025/08/Maataloustieteen-Paivat-2024-Esitelma-ja-posteritiivistelmat.pdf

Räisänen, M., Kauppi, S., Ruokamo, E., Tikkanen, T. 2025. Muovipakkausten lajitteluinto kasvuun! Uusiouutiset 3/2025. pp. 26–27. https://uusiouutiset.fi/muovipakkausten-lajitteluinto-kasvuun/

Saarenaho, I. & Rinne, P. 2025. PlastLIFE-hanketta täydentävien hankkeiden ja toimien vaikutukset kansallisen Muovitiekartan toimeenpanoon. Valmisteltu osana PlastLIFE SIP- hanketta. Available at: https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/plastlife-hanketta-taydentavien-hankkeiden-ja-toimien-vaikutuksetkansallisen-muovitiekartan-toimeenpanoon/ Salamanca-Fernández, E., Espín-Moreno, L., Olivas-Martínez, A., Pérez-Cantero, A., Martín-Rodríguez, J. L., Poyatos, R. M., Barbone, F., Rosolen, V., Mariuz, M., Ronfani, L., Palkovičová Murínová, Ľ., Fábelová, L., Szigeti, T., Kakucs, R., Sakhi, A. K., Haug, L. S., Lindeman, B., Snoj Tratnik, J., Kosjek, T., Jacobs, G., Voorspoels, S., Jurdáková, H., Górová, R., Petrovičová, I., Kolena, B., Esteban, M., Pedraza-Díaz, S., Kolossa-Gehring, M., Remy, S., Govarts, E., Schoeters, G., Fernández, M. F. & Mustieles, V. 2024. Associations between Urinary Phthalate Metabolites with BDNF and Behavioral Function among European Children from Five HBM4EU Aligned Studies. Toxics 12(9): 642. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12090642

Salmenperä, H., Sahimaa, O., Kautto, P., Haavisto, T., Dahlbo, H., Wahlström, M., Bachér, J., Laine-Ylijoki, J., Espo, J & Vahvelainen, S 2016. Policy instruments for increasing waste recycling. Publications of the Govenrment´s analysis, assessment and research activities 53/2016 (in Finnish) [online publication]. https://tietokayttoon.fi/julkaisu?pubid=15201

Salmenperä, H., Karppinen, T.K.M., Kauppi, S., Pitkänen, K., Dahlbo, H., Kyynäräinen, A., Markuksela, A., Lukkarinen, J. & Nielsen, S. 2025a. Muovipakkausten ja -tuotteiden uudelleenkäyttö - yhteiskehittämisellä kiertotalouteen (Reuse of plastic packaging and products - Co-development for the circular economy). Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 3/2025. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/593436

Salmenperä, H., Turunen, T., Markuksela, A. & Lukka, S. 2025b. Ohjauskeinot muovien erotteluun sekajätteestä. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 14/2025. 60 s. ISBN 978-952-11-5765-3. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/595265

Salminen, J., Rinne, P., Valve, H., Johansson, A., Turunen, T., Räisänen, M., Fjäder, P., Kautto, P. & FraserVatto, A., 2025. The key questions of plastics recycling (in Finnish) [online publication]. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/166239.

Selonen, S., Maunuksela, L., Palojärvi, A., Johansson, A., Kauppi, S., Räisänen, M., Sillanpää, M., Turja, R., Pelto-niemi, K. & Dahlbo, H. 2023. Mikromuovit maatalousmaassa – Päästöt, vaikutukset ja vähentäminen. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 21/2023. 93 s. ISBN 978-952-11-5586-4. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/359639

Selonen, S. 2025. Mikromuovit maaperässä. Natura 3/2025. https://www.naturalehti.fi/2025/09/26/mikromuovitmaaperassa/

Selonen, S., Fjäder, P., Forsell, V., Kautto, P., Kärkkäinen, N., Lehtiniemi, M., Näkki, P., Setälä, O., Suikkanen, S., Tirroniemi, J. & Turunen, T. 2025. Mikromuovipäästöt ja niiden rajoittamiskeinot Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 18/2025. 120 s. ISBN 978-952-11-5773-8. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/596679

Seppälä, H.-M., Viskari, V., Mönkäre, K., Mannonen, A., Westrup, A., Skog, J., Kymäläinen, M. & Nuotio, A.-K. 2024. Tekonurmien hyötykäytön selvitys 2024. Ramboll Finland Oy. Available at: https://www.hel.fi/fi/uutiset/muovisille-tekonurmimatoille-vaikea-loytaa-uusia-kayttokohteita-suomessa

Sitoumus2050 2025a. Muovisten kertakäyttöisten annospakkausten kulutuksen vähentämistä koskeva green dealsopimus. https://sitoumus2050.fi/ > Muoviset annospakkaukset [Visited 27.8.2025.]

Sitoumus2050 2025b. Muovikassisopimus (2016–2025). https://sitoumus2050.fi/ > Muovikassit [Visited 27.8.2025.]

SPIRIT Programme 2025a. Recently completed Zero ink project shows promising developments in laser markings for plastic products 4.4.2024 www.spiritprogramme.com > News & Events [Visited 27.8.2025.]

SPIRIT Programme 2025b. Advanced pyrolysis-based chemical recycling of mixed plastic waste 8.1.2025. www.spiritprogramme.com > News & Events [Visited 27.8.2025.]

SPIRIT Programme 2025c. Forest CUMP research project discovers ways to convert forest industry’s carbon dioxide emissions into raw material for plastics 8.1.2025 www.spiritprogramme.com > News & Events [Visited 11.4.2025.]

SuMaKi 2025. Maatalousmuovien kierrätysyhteisö Suomen Maatalousmuovien Kierrätys Oy www.maatalousmuovienkierratys.fi [Visited 27.8.2025.]

Syvänne, J. 2025. Uudet CCU- ja biomuovi-innovaatiot. Muoviplast 2/2025, 24. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muoviplast-2-2025/

Telén, B. 2023. Helsingin katu- ja puistohankkeiden muovivirtaselvitys. Diplomityö. Georakentamisen maisterinohjelma. Aalto-yliopisto. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:aalto-202308275103

Toikka, T. personal communication 21.11.2024

Tuohimetsä, S., Ruuttunen, P. & Marttinen, M. 2025. Uusia rikkakatteita marjojen viljelyyn. Puutarha & Kauppa 9/2025. s. 34-35.

Van Eygen, E., Laner, D., & Fellner, J. 2018. Circular economy of plastic packaging: Current prac-tice and perspectives in Austria. Waste Management, 72, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.040

Van Loon, W., Hanke, G., Fleet, D., Werner, S., Barry, J., Strand, J., Eriksson, J., Galgani, F., Gräwe, D., Schulz, M., Vlachogianni, T., Press, M., Blidberg, E. & Walvoort, D. 2020. A European Threshold Value and Assessment Method for Macro Litter on Coastlines. EUR 30347 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 202 ISBN 978-92-76- 21444-1, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/54369, JRC121707

Virolainen-Hynnä, A. 2025. Recommendations for the biodegradability of bioplastics. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/plastlife/tulokset/

VTT 2025. Reforming secondary plastics to become the primary raw material choice for added-value products https://cris.vtt.fi/en/projects/reforming-secondary-plastics-to-become-the-primary-raw-material-c [Visited 27.8.2025.]

Vuorinen, J. 2024. Final report of Plastone activity in PlastLIFE. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/plastlife/tulokset/ Weiström, S. 2024. Käyttöosuusvelvoite – Kohti hiilineutraalia kiertotaloutta. Muoviplast 1/2024, 20–21. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muoviplast-1-2024/

Wäger, P. A., & Hischier, R. 2015. Life cycle assessment of post-consumer plastics production from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) treatment residues in a Central European plastics recycling plant. Science of The Total Environment, 529, 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.05.043

Xiang, Y., Yao, B., Peñuelas, J., Sardans, J., Nizzetto, L., Li, R., Liu, Y., Luo, Y., Räty, M., Long, J. & Li, Y. 2025. Microplastic Effects on Soil Nitrogen Cycling Enzymes: A Global Meta-Analysis of Environmental and Edaphic Factors. Journal of Hazardous Materials 484: 136677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.136677

Yli-Tuomola, A. 2024. Biodegradable plastics toxicity on Water flea (Daphnia magna). Master Thesis, University of Jyväskylä. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202406275019

zu Castell-Rüdenhausen, M., Härkönen, M., Sormunen, T., Räsänen, P., Wallin, A., Rytöluoto, I., Mikkonen, J., Väre, E., Arnold, M., Ruismäki, W., Mäkelä, T., Salmenperä, H., Turunen, T., & Markuksela, A. 2025. Recycling plastics from residual municipal solid waste: Final report of the MSWPlast project. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. VTT Technology No. 439 https://doi.org/10.32040/2242122X.2025.T439

Zhou, G.-J., Vehniäinen, E.-R., Hiltunen, M., Rigaud, C. &Taipale S. 2025. Effects of microplastics and natural particles on the aquatic invertebrate Daphnia magna under different dietary quality scenarios. Oecologia Vol 207, 81 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-025-05723-2

EU and national legislation:

Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 of 25 September 2023 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards synthetic polymer microparticles. OJ L 238, 27.9.2023, pp. 67–88.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1616 of 15 September 2022 on recycled plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foods, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 282/2008. OJ L 243, 20.9.2022, pp. 3–46.

Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 of 14 January 2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food, OJ L 12, 15.1.2011, pp. 1–89.

Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 of 14 December 2020 on the system of own resources of the European Union and repealing Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom. OJ L 424, 15.12.2020, pp. 1–10.

Directive (EU) 2015/720 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 amending Directive 94/62/EC as regards reducing the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags. OJ L 115, 6.5.2015, pp. 11–15.

Directive (EU) 2018/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste. PE/12/2018/REV/2. OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, pp. 141–154.

Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. PE/11/2019/REV/1 OJ L 155, 12.6.2019, pp. 1–19.

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, pp. 1–73.

Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, pp. 19–40.

Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, pp. 3–30.

Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. Official Journal of the European Communities. L365/10-23.

Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (recast). OJ L 174, 1.7.2011, pp. 88–110.

Finnish Waste Act. The Statute Book of Finland 646/2011. https://www.finlex.fi/en/legislation/2011/646?language=fin

Government Decree on Packaging and Packaging Waste. The Statute Book of Finland 1029/2021 https://www.edilex.fi/lainsaadanto/20211029

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing plastic pellet losses to reduce microplastic pollution. COM/2023/645 final.

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles and engines and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, with respect to their emissions and battery durability (Euro 7) and repealing Regulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009. COM/2022/586 final

Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products, amending Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC. OJ L 2024/1781, 28.6.2024.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on shipments of waste, amending Regulations (EU) No 1257/2013 and (EU) 2020/1056 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006. OJ L 2024/1157, 30.4.2024.

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. OJ L 396, 30.12.2006. pp. 1–849.

Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on persistent organic pollutants (recast). OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, pp. 45–77.

Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC. OJ L 2025/40, 22.1.2025.

Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 laying down rules on the making available on the market of EU fertilising products and amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003. OJ L 170. 25.6.2019.

Annex 1.

PlastLIFE indicators, their basic and monitoring values and data sources

Table A1. Indicators for the national monitoring of the circular economy of plastics, their basic values and data sources as well as monitoring values from project phase 1.

Indicator description [unit]

Indicator value

Target Data source

1. Reduce littering of the environment and other environmental harm caused by plastics

1a) Coastal littering no. of litter items (median) per 100 m of coastline

1b) Number of clean up events

a) Baseline 2015-2016: 49, 2023: 16 2024: 26

b) Baseline 2018: 68, 2023:136, 2024: 101

a) ≤ 25 b) ≥ 88 Finnish Environment Institute (Syke), National Beach litter monitoring Number of clean up events organised by KAT’s Clean Beach campaign. Note! Only those events with litter amounts reported are calculated here.

2. Avoid unnecessary consumption of plastics and promote the reuse of plastics

2) Amount of municipal solid waste [kg/person]

Baseline 2021: 629 kg/person, 2022: 521 kg/person, 2023: 466 kg/person

≤ 629 kg / person Statistics Finland (Waste statistics, Municipal solid waste)

3. Enhance the recycling of plastics and recyclability of plastic products

3a) Recycling rate of plastic packaging waste [%]

3b) Recycled plastic packaging waste [t/year]

3c) Share of plastics in the mixed municipal solid waste from households [%]

3d) Amount of non-recycled plastic packaging waste [t/year]

3e) GHG emissions related to plastics waste treatment. Decrease of 50%.

a) Baseline 2019: 42 %, 2022: 31

b) Baseline 2019: 56,208 t, 2022: 49,283 t

c) Baseline 2020: 17% (or: 281,981 t), 2023: 17.8% (n=9, of which 2021: n=1, 2022: n=2, 2023: n=6, 10.2-23.5%)

d) Baseline 2019: 77,112 t, 2022: 111,490 t

e) Baseline 156,000 t of CO2-eq. per year in 2019. No comparable value derived from the PlastLIFE LCA calculation, according to which the overall GHG emissions for CE of plastics were 405,000 t CO2-eq. in 2021.

a) ≥ 55%

b) 73,326 t

c) ≤ 10% (or: 166,000 t)

d) ≤ 60,000 t

e) 78,000 t

Pirkanmaa ELY Centre

Pirkanmaa ELY Centre

Statistics Finland, Suomen Kiertovoima ry (KIVO)

Pirkanmaa ELY Centre

Calculations from PlastLIFE T9.4

4. Replace virgin plastic manufactured from fossil raw materials with recycled plastics or sustainably produced renewable materials

4) Demand for primary plastics [t / year]

DATA FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY, 2019: 830,000 t / year ≤ 520,000 Hurskainen et al. (2021), WP9 T9.3

Table A2. Indicators for PlastLIFE SIP project impacts monitoring, their basic values and data sources as well as monitoring values from project phase 1.

Indicator description

Indicator value(s) Target Data sources

5) Degree of the implementation of the PRfF

5a) Number of PlastLIFE and complementary projects / actions related to the PRfF main objectives

5b) A headline figure of PlastLIFE and complementary funding identified, secured and mobilised related to the PRfF main objectives

6) Outreach achieved

6a) Number of events organised

6b) Number of participants in the events organised

6c) Evaluation on the increased knowledge (% of respondents)

6d) Number of publications

6e) Number of web-site visits

a) 114

b) 20.5 M€ mobilised by PlastLIFE (of the overall 551 M€)

a) Target value not defined

b) 150 M€

a)–b) Complementary funding monitoring summaries

a) 06/2025: 96

b) 06/2025: 3,199

c) 06/2025: 90% of respondents on average

d) 06/2025: 319

e) 10,700

a) 200

b) 10,000

c) 70%

d) 100 blogs / news articles & 70 reports and articles

e) 20,000

a)–d) Monitoring spreadsheet, data from all partners

Data collected in June 2024 (same events reported multiple times were deleted)

a) PlastLIFE events

b) PlastLIFE events, participants

c) Feedback from PlastLIFE event participants

d) Publications, total amount

e) Google Analytics 4 data for syke.kiertotalousratkaisuja.fi

Table A3. Additional indicators monitored in PlastLIFE but not included in the report.

Indicator description

Employment effect

Networking and synergies with projects/initiatives

a) Direct employment effect (FTEs) of PlastLIFE, estimated based on budget expenditure b) Direct employment effect (FTEs) of PlastLIFE complementary activities estimated by total project budget (when data publicly available)

a) with LIFE projects

b) with other projects or initiatives (nationally/regionally/privately funded)

c) with other EU-funded projects

Revenue during or after project end, due to project outcomes

Catalytic effectFinancialCumulative investments triggered or finance accessed

Revenue from a mix of sources or from other sources

Indicator value(s)

a) 2022: 2 FTEs 2023: 261 FTEs 2024: 377 FTEs

b) By 2024: 4,450 FTEs (Total budget by 2024: 550,573,662 €)

a) 15

b) 16

c) 6

Funding from national or international sources expected to be mobilised during the project or five years after. The target is based on an estimate of the funding from Business Finland reserved for future plastics projects, expected investments in infrastructure promoting CE of plastics and EU funding.

551 M€

Target Data sources

a) 7 b) no target value

a) Project financial monitoring data

b) Public online data sources on complementary projects’ total budgets, complementary funding summaries.

a) 10 b) 25 c) 10

Monitored in connection with the monitoring of the complementary actions.

0 Most of the consortium partners are public entities, not able to generate revenues. The potential revenues of the consortium’s private entities are business secrets.

600 M€ Complementary funding monitoring summaries.

Annex 2.

Deliverables and other publications produced in the PlastLIFE SIP (2022–2025)

Deliverables

Note: If no other web-address is given, the deliverables are available from kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/plastlife/tulokset/

Aalto yliopisto 2025. Innovation toolkit. https://miro.com/templates/plastlife-innovation-toolkit/ . Deliverable D67 (D6.4)

Falsafi, A., Abdulkareem, M. & Horttanainen, M. 2025. Environmental impacts of artificial turf at end of life: A life cycle assessment approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 115, 107994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2025.107994 Deliverable D60 (D5.8)

Hakanen, E. & Holmström, J. 2023. Report on innovation management challenges for sustainable plastics. Deliverable D64 (D6.1)

Heikkilä, W., Räisänen, M., Kauppi, S. & Dahlbo, H. 2023. The Replication Strategy of the PlastLIFE SIP Project. Deliverable D97 (D9.12)

Heikkilä, W., Räisänen, M., Kauppi, S. & Dahlbo, H. 2023. Sustainability and exploitation strategy Deliverable D96 (D9.11)

Horn, S., Judl, J., Karvonen, J., Dahlbo, H. & Ekvall, T. 2025. Framework for Assessing the Life Cycle Impacts of the Circular Economy of Plastics Deliverable D88 (D9.3)

LAB UAS 2024. Description of the regional cluster and future roadmap. Deliverable D39 (D4.5)

LAB UAS 2024. Plastic recycling guidelines. Deliverable D40 (D4.6)

Muovipoli 2023. Analysis of missing know-how for implementation for each stakeholder group. Deliverable D73 (D6.10)

Palo, K. 2024. Mahanpuruja muovista – kampanja roskaantumista vastaan Report of the stormwater campaign Deliverable D12 (D2.1)

Plastone Oy 2023. Product drawing. Deliverable D36 (D4.2).

Ruokamo, E., Räisänen, M. & Kauppi, S. 2023. Kuluttajilta vihreää valoa kierrätysmuovien käyttöön Circblog 9.2.2023. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/kuluttajilta-vihreaa-valoa-kierratysmuovien-kayttoon/

Salmenperä, H., Karppinen, T.K.M., Kauppi, S., Pitkänen, K., Dahlbo, H., Kyynäräinen, A., Markuksela, A., Lukkarinen, J. & Nielsen, S. 2025. Muovipakkausten ja -tuotteiden uudelleenkäyttö - yhteiskehittämisellä kiertotalouteen (Reuse of plastic packaging and products - Co-development for the circular economy). Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 3/2025. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/593436. Deliverable D78 (D7.1)

Telén, B. 2023. Helsingin katu- ja puistohankkeiden muovivirtaselvitys. Diplomityö. Georakentamisen maisterinohjelma. Aalto-yliopisto. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:aalto-202308275103. Deliverable D53 (D5.1)

Tikkanen, T., Dahlbo, H., Kaunisto, J., Kauppi, S. & Heikkilä, W. 2024. Dissemination plan. Deliverable D87 (D9.2)

Vaahterinen Oy 2025. Study reports for PE composite. Deliverable D35 (D4.1). Not public.

Virolainen-Hynnä, A. 2025. Recommendations for the biodegradability of bioplastics. Deliverable D68 (D6.5)

Suomen Biokierto ja Biokaasu ry 2025. Biohajoavan muovin kierrätyksen lainsäädäntökehys. Report on the legislation that have impact on the recycling of bioplastics. Deliverable D66 (D6.3) https://biokierto.fi/wpcontent/uploads/2025/08/D6.3_Biohajoavan-muovin-lainsaadanto_final-1.pdf

Suomen Biokierto ja Biokaasu ry 2025. Biohajoavan muovin biohajoavuuskriteerien määrittely. Biodegrability criteria for bioplastic. Deliverable D65 (D6.2) https://biokierto.fi/wpcontent/uploads/2025/04/D6.2_Biohajoavan-muovin-biohajoavuuskriteerienmaarittely_loppuraportti_04122024.pdf?mc_cid=e61d50a7aa&mc_eid=73c6dc358e

Vuorinen, J. 2024. Prototype of the product developed by Plastone (photo of that). Deliverable D37 (D4.3)

Vuorinen, J. 2024. Final report of Plastone activity in PlastLIFE. Deliverable D41 (D4.7)

Other publications

Aalto, M. 2024. Application to detect toxicity of recycled plastics using boar spermatozoa motility. Master’s thesis, University of Jyväskylä.

Eerola, S. 2024. Miten syntyvät yritysten vihreän siirtymän innovaatiot? Circblog 11.9.2024. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/miten-syntyvat-yritysten-vihrean-siirtyman-innovaatiot-2/

Falsafi, A. 2025. Managing Artificial Turf Waste Sustainably: Insights from Life Cycle Assessment Circblog 17.2.2025. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/en/managing-artificial-turf-waste-sustainably-insights-fromlife-cycle-assessment/

Fjäder, P., Perkola, N., Näkki, P. Tirroniemi, J., Niemikoski, H., Ahkola, H., Setälä, O., Selonen, S. & Lehtiniemi, M., 2025. Tekonurmikenttien haitalliset aineet ja ekologiset vaikutukset. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 23/2025. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/597361

Frimodig, J. & Haukka, M. 2023. Removal of estrogens from aqueous solutions using 3D-printed polymers. Env Sci: Advances, 12

Huovila, E. 2025. Biohajoavien muovien hajoaminen järvi- ja murtovedessä. Master’s thesis, University of Jyväskylä.

Hurtig, K. & Colley, A. 2024. Voisiko panttijärjestelmää laajentaa? PlastLIFE-hanke. Kansalaispoolin ratkaisut ja suositukset 2/2024. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/plastlife/aktiivinen-kansalainen/kansalaispooli/ Katajajuuri, J.-M. 2024. Vertailun painopiste kokonaisvaltaiseen ympäristösuorituskykyyn. Pakkauslehti 1/2024. https://e-paper.pakkaus.com/p/pakkaus/1-2024/r/17/32-33/4381/1267575

Kauppi S., Forsell V., Maunuksela L., Selonen S., 2024. Biohajoavaa vai ei? Biohajoavat muovit maaperässä. Ympäristö ja Terveys -lehti 7/2024. s. 36-41. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/599484

Kauppi, S., Selonen, S., Taipale, S. & Virolainen-Hynnä, A. 2025. Biohajoavien muovien uhat ja mahdollisuudet. Suomen ympäristökeskus. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/600589

Kauppi, S., Selonen, S., Taipale, S. & Virolainen-Hynnä, A. 2025. Threats and opportunities of biodegradable plastics. Finnish Environment Institute. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/600621

Khan, M.M.H. & Katajajuuri, JM. 2025. Exploring the Imperative and Rationale for a Unified Life Cycle Assessment Methodology for Food Packaging. In: Tynkkynen, N., Hakala, H., Leinonen, I., Varho, V., Åkerman, M., Harlin, A. (eds) Sustainability in Food Packaging. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-87492-5_5

Kivistö, H. & Saarinen, R. 2025. Näin paalimuovia voidaan kierrättää onnistuneesti. Circblog 10.6.2025. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/nain-paalimuovia-voidaan-kierrattaa-onnistuneesti/

Koskinen, K. 2024. Functionalization of polystyrene and its use as an adsorptive material. Master’s thesis, University of Turku https://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/177835?show=full

Koskinen, K. & Perämäki, S. 2025. Jätemuoveista ratkaisuja vesienpuhdistukseen? Circblog 14.1.2025. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/jatemuoveista-ratkaisuja-vesienpuhdistukseen/

Kyynäräinen, A. 2024. Kuluttajapakkausten uudelleenkäyttö systeemisenä murroksena. Master's thesis, ItäSuomen yliopisto. http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:uef-20241811

Kyynäräinen, A., Markuksela, A., Salmenperä, H. & Kauppi, S. 2024. Uudelleenkäyttö Suomessa : Murrosareenalla uusia polkuja muovien kestävyyteen (Reuse in Finland – New pathways of sustainable plastics in the transition arena). PlastLIFE -hankkeen julkaisuja. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/587128

Kyynäräinen, A. 2025. Yhteiskehittämisellä ideoita muovien uudelleenkäyttöön – mistä lisää innovatiivisuutta? Circblog 10.3.2025. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/yhteiskehittamisella-ideoita-muovienuudelleenkayttoon-mista-lisaa-innovatiivisuutta/

Lehtinen, L. & Kyöstilä, N. 2024. Biohajoavien muovien kierrätys biokaasulaitoksilla. Circblog 12.12.2024. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/biohajoavien-muovien-kierratys-biokaasulaitoksilla/ Lehtinen, L., Nurkkanen, M., Raiko, A., Holopainen, S. 2024. Biomuovien toimivuus biokaasulaitoksella. Turun amk. Raportti Suomen Biokierto ja Biokaasu ry:lle. https://biokierto.fi/wpcontent/uploads/2025/05/T6.5.Biomuovien-toiminnallisuus-raportti_Final_Julkinen.pdf

Mattila, R. 2024 Adsorption of heavy metals to plastics Master’s thesis, University of Jyväskylä. URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202409206000.pdf

Nyroos, E. 2024. Viherrakentamisen muovivirrat syynissä. Viherympäristö-lehti 3/2024. s. 24-25. Nyroos, E. 2025. Tekonurmi houkuttelee harrastamaan – mikä houkuttelisi hyödyntämään tekonurmimateriaalit? Circblog 1.4.2025. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/tekonurmi-houkuttelee-harrastamaan-mikahoukuttelisi-hyodyntamaan-tekonurmimateriaalit/

Palo, K. 2024. Itämeri alkaa katukaivosta - ethän ruoki vesistöjä roskillasi? Circblog https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/itameri-alkaa-katukaivosta-ethan-ruoki-vesistoja-roskillasi/

Perkola, N. & Fjäder, P. 2025. Tekonurmien edut luovat haasteita materiaalien elinkaaren loppupäässä Circblog 17.6.2025. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/tekonurmien-edut-luovat-haasteita-materiaalien-elinkaarenloppupaassa/

Pietikäinen, P., Rainosalo, E. & Syvänne, J. 2025. CompositeCircle-hanke kehittää taloudellisesti kannattavia menetelmiä ja verkostoja lasikuituvahvisteisten polymeerikomposiittien (GFRC) kierrätykseen. Muoviplast 4-5/2025, 22-23. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muoviplast-4-5-2025/

Pitkänen, K., Peltola, T. & Kukkapuro, N. 2024. Sporkin ihmeellinen elämä: Partiolaiset kuvittivat muovisen tavaran elinkaaren. Circblog 14.11.2024. https://www.materiaalitkiertoon.fi/fiFI/Ajankohtaista/Circblog/Sporkin_ihmeellinen_elama_Partiolaiset_k(67089)

Pitkänen, K., Peltola, T. & Mustonen, A.-R. 2024. Mikä on muovin paikka arjessa? Natura 3/2024, s. 26-29.

Pitkänen, K., Peltola, T., Onali, A., Heikkilä, W. & Fjäder, P. 2024. Miten vähennämme muovikassien kulutusta? Kansalaispoolin ratkaisut ja suositukset. PlastLIFE-hanke. Kansalaispoolin ratkaisut ja suositukset 1/2024. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/plastlife/aktiivinen-kansalainen/kansalaispooli/

Pukkala, H. 2024. Use of plastics in textile industry - Exploring stakeholder perceptions, innovation challenges, and pathways to implementation MSc Thesis. Aalto University. https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/items/ebcdddb09b43-41b8-860a-aa511bb66792

Rasilainen, I., Lahtela, V. & Kärki, T. 2024. A review of plastic waste nanocomposites: assessment of features and applications. Discover Nano 19, 112. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11671-024-04062-0

Rikalainen, M. 2025. Product safety of recycled construction and demolition waste plastics. Master's thesis. Master's Programme in Mechanical Engineering. Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology LUT. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe202501143658

Ruuttunen, K., & Korpinen, R., 2025, Biopohjaisten muovia korvaavien materiaalien kehittäminen ja liiketoimintamahdollisuudet. Circblog 6.5.2025. https://kiertotalousratkaisuja.syke.fi/biopohjaisten-muoviakorvaavien-materiaalien-kehittaminen/

Räisänen, M., Kauppi, S., Ruokamo, E., Tikkanen, T. 2025. Muovipakkausten lajitteluinto kasvuun! Uusiouutiset 3/2025. pp. 26–27. https://uusiouutiset.fi/muovipakkausten-lajitteluinto-kasvuun/

Salmenperä, H., Kauppi, S., Karppinen, T.M. & Pitkänen, K. 2024. Uudelleenkäyttö etusijalle (Prioritizing reuse). PlastLIFE toimintasuosituksia. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/587127

Selonen, S. 2025. Mikromuovit maaperässä. Natura 3/2025. https://www.naturalehti.fi/2025/09/26/mikromuovitmaaperassa/

Seppälä, H.-M., Viskari, V., Mönkäre, K., Mannonen, A., Westrup, A., Skog, J., Kymäläinen, M. & Nuotio, A.-K. 2024. Tekonurmien hyötykäytön selvitys 2024. Ramboll Finland Oy. Available at: https://www.hel.fi/fi/uutiset/muovisille-tekonurmimatoille-vaikea-loytaa-uusia-kayttokohteita-suomessa

Syvänne, J. 2024. PlastLIFE-hankkeen vuosittaisessa seminaarissa asiaa muovien kestävästä kiertotaloudesta. Muoviplast 6/2024, 5. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muoviplast-6-2024/

Syvänne, J. 2024. Voisiko kaatopaikkojen muovit soveltua uusiomuovin raaka-aineeksi. Muoviplast 6/2024, 22. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muoviplast-6-2024/

Syvänne, J. 2025. New Plastics Center NPC kestävämpien vaihtoehtojen asialla jo vuodesta 2019. Muoviplast 1/2025, 24. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muoviplast-1-2025/

Syvänne, J. 2025. Uudet CCU- ja biomuovi-innovaatiot. Muoviplast 2/2025, 24. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muoviplast-2-2025/ Syvänne, J. 2025. HUUMA-hanke vauhdittaa biomuovien kehitystä - kohti kiertotalouden mukaisia materiaaliratkaisuja. Muoviplast 2/2025, 22. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muovilast-3-2025/ Taipale, S. J., Vesamäki, J., Kautonen, P., Kukkonen, J. V., Biasi, C., Nissinen, R., & Tiirola, M. 2023. Biodegradation of microplastic in freshwaters: A long‐lasting process affected by the lake microbiome. Environmental Microbiology, 25(12), 2669-2680. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.16177

Vesamäki, J. S., Laine, M. B., Nissinen, R., & Taipale, S. J. 2024. Plastic and terrestrial organic matter degradation by the humic lake microbiome continues throughout the seasons. Environmental Microbiology Reports, 16(3), e13302. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-2229.13302

Tuohimetsä, S., Ruuttunen, P. & Marttinen, M. 2025. Uusia rikkakatteita marjojen viljelyyn. Puutarha & Kauppa 9/2025. s. 34-35.

Weiström, S. 2023. PlastLIFE-hanke toteuttaa Muovitiekartta 2.0 -ohjelmaa ja luo kestävän muovien kiertotalouden Suomeen vuoteen 2035 mennessä. Muoviplast 4/2023, 14. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muoviplast-4-2023/

Weiström, S. 2023. Jäljitettävyys mahdollistaa uusiomuovin käytön kasvua. Muoviplast 5/2023, 18-19. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muoviplast-5-2023/

Weiström, S. 2023. Kiertotalous oli keskiössä PlastLIFE -hankkeen järjestämässä maatalousmuovien teemapäivässä Lahdessa. Muoviplast 6/2023. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muoviplast-6-2023/

Weiström, S. 2024. Käyttöosuusvelvoite – Kohti hiilineutraalia kiertotaloutta. Muoviplast 1/2024, 20–21. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muoviplast-1-2024/

Weiström, S. 2024. New Plastics Center NPC -seminaari – Muuttuvat muovit. Muoviplast 2/2024, 18. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muoviplast-2-2024/

Weiström, S. 2024. PlastLIFE-hankkeen konsortio kokoontui Joensuussa. Muoviplast 3/2024, 18-19. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muoviplast-3-2024/

Weiström, S. 2024. Kestävien materiaalien klinikka -konseptilla kehitetään uusia uusio- ja biomuovituotteita. Muoviplast 4/2024, 18. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muoviplast-4-2024/

Weiström, S. 2024. Hollannista oppia patjojen kierrätykseen. Muoviplast 5/2024, 22-23. https://muoviyhdistys.fi/lehti/muoviplast-5-2024/

Yli-Tuomola, A. 2024. Biodegradable plastics toxicity on Water flea (Daphnia magna). Master Thesis, University of Jyväskylä.

Zhou, G.-J., Vehniäinen, E.-R., Hiltunen, M., Rigaud, C. &Taipale S. 2025. Effects of microplastics and natural particles on the aquatic invertebrate Daphnia magna under different dietary quality scenarios. Oecologia Vol 207, 81

Posters

Karvonen, J., Ekvall, T., Dahlbo, H., Horn, S., Saukkonen, S. 2024. Including the impacts of littering in an LCA of circular economy of plastics (in Finnish conditions). 4th conference on Life Cycle Assessment of WasteJune 11th - 14th 2024

Khan, M. M. H., & Katajajuuri, JM. 2024. Food packaging, wasted food? A critical look at LCA methodologies in the food packaging industry. Paper presented at the SETAC Europe Conference.

Khan, M. M. H., Leino, K. M. & Katajajuuri, JM. 2025. Ensuring Environmental Integrity: A Critical Assessment of Mass Balance in Food Packaging LCA. Presented at the SETAC Europe Conference.

Leino, K. M., Khan, M. M. H. & Katajajuuri, JM. 2025. A Critical Analysis of PEF’s Circular Footprint Formula in the Context of Developing Harmonised Food Packaging LCA Guidance. Presented at the SETAC Europe Conference.

Räisänen, M., Fjäder, P., Hagner, M., Heikkinen, R., Järvistö, J., Kauppi, S., Leppänen, M., Niemikoski, H., Nyyssönen, J., Palojärvi, J., Paukkunen, S., Perkola, N., Pohjonen, A., Pääkkönen, H., Pölönen, M., Pönni, V., Rasa, K., Rintala, N., Ruuska, S., Selonen, S., Seppänen, A.-M., Surakka, J., Tuovinen, A., Vaahterinen, J. & Yliskylä-Peuralahti, J. 2024. Maa- ja puutarhatalouden muovien kiertotalouden edistäminen PlastLIFEhankkeessa. Julk: Maataloustieteen Päivät 2024. Esitelmä- ja posteritiivistelmät. Suomen maataloustieteellisen seuran tiedote No 41. https://www.salaojayhdistys.fi/wpcontent/uploads/2025/08/Maataloustieteen-Paivat-2024-Esitelma-ja-posteritiivistelmat.pdf

Selonen, S. 2024. Macro and microplastics in agricultural soils after use of conventional and biodegradable plastics MICRO2024, 23.-27.9.2024.

Selonen, S. 2025. Biohajoavien katemuovien hajoavuus suomalaisessa peltomaassa Maaperätieteiden päivät, 7.8.1.2025.

Selonen, S. 2025. Degradable or not – Field study, laboratory experiment and farmer survey on biodegradable, conventional and oxo-degradable plastics in northern climatic conditions. SETAC Europe 2025, 14.5.2025

Annex 3.

Complementary measures started 2021–2024 promoting the implementation of the Plastics Roadmap for Finland

Project

Webpage Duration

ACINMUA ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/acinmua-project 2023-2027

AI-TranspWood cordis.europa.eu/AI-TranspWood 2024-2026

ArcSolution nord.no/arcsolution 2024-2028

BaltiBlast interreg-baltic.eu/baltiplast 2023-2025

Beyond Circularity valmet.com/beyond-circularity 2022-2025

BIODIVERSEA LIFE-IP metsa.fi/biodiversea 2021-2029

BioFibreLoop biofibreloop.eu 2024-2027

Biokerä 2024-2025

Blue Circular Nets (CIRCNETS) interreg-npa.eu/circnets 2023-2025

Broadband active hyperspectral sensing for black plastic identification research.fi/funding/79837 2024-2025

Carbon2x ngnordic.com/carbon2x 2022-2025

CIRCEX utu.fi/circex 2023-2027

CircSyst circsyst.eu 2024-2027

Circular economy expert network (KiSu) kiertotaloussuomi.fi 2022Closed Plastic Circle espoo.fi/closed-plastic-circle 2022-2024

Composite shredding and treatment plant in Southern Finland kuusakoski.com/en/global/news/202 3 2023-2025

Computational Modelling of Cellulose Interactions for sustainable materials research.fi/funding/80254 2023-2024

Disrupted Waste Flows in a Broken World: A Critical Ethnography of the Circular Economy research.fi/funding/70008 2022-2026

Dissolution of Synthetic Polyamides research.fi/funding/81395 2024-2028

Effects of microplastics on earthworms in agricultural soil: comparison of traditional and biodegradable plastics research.fi/funding/69092 2022-2025

ELECTRO electro-project.eu 2022-2026

eMuovi jamk.fi/en/emuovi 2022-2024

Engineering protein secretion routes in Komagataeibacter rhaeticus to design growing functional materials research.fi/funding/69381 2022-2027

Extension of plastic packaging waste sorting capacity sttinfo.fi/tiedote/lamor-and-remeo 2024F3 - Films for future lut.fi/en/projects/films-future-f3 2022-2025

FinnCERES - Materials Cluster finnceres.fi 2022-2026

FlexFoam cordis.europa.eu/FlexFoam 2023-2024

FURIOUS cbe.europa.eu/furious 2023-2027

FUSILLI fusilli-project.eu 2021-2024

Helsinki-Uusimaa Circular Hub kiertotalouslaakso.fi 2022-2024

HICCUPS cbe.europa.eu/hiccups 2023-2027

ICEBERG arcticeberg.eu/project 2024-2026

ICPLASTIC cost.eu/actions/ICPLASTIC 2024-2028

INCREACE

increace-project.eu 2022-2026

Investment in the cracker furnaces borealisgroup.com/news 2024Kestoverkosto 2024-2024

Lamor & Resiclo - Recycling plant for plastics kauppalehti.fi/lehdistotiedotteet 2023LandSeaLot research.fi/funding/80444 2024-2028

LCA on reuse of packaging in the Nordics norden.org/lca-reuse-packagingnordics 2022-2024

Maatilojen muovit kiertoon (MuKi)

maaseutuverkosto.fi/maatilojenmuovit-kiertoon 2022-2024

MemCat memcatproject.eu 2024-2028

Merark 2022-2024

MicroPoly lut.fi/en/projects/micropoly 2022-2026

MikroKeinot 2024-2024

Mikromuovin kulkeutumisreitit ja sedimentoituminen Saaristomerellä (MIKS)

research.fi/en/results/funding/78579 2023-2025

Mon-Cell-Pack research.fi/funding/81274 2024-2028

Muoviavain syke.fi/projects/muoviavain-project 2023-2025

Muovitiekartan mittarit 2023-2024 NOMAD research.fi/funding/81277 2024-2028

PACKAGE-HEROES research.fi/funding/37716 2022-2023

PAPILLONS papillons-h2020.eu 2021-2025 PARC eu-parc.eu 2022-2029

PELLET syke.fi/projects/pellet 2024-2026

PELLETTIMERI 2023-2023

PLASTER syke.fi/projektit/plaster 2021-2025

Plastic chemical cocktails: fate and risks in freshwater ecosystems research.fi/funding/71399 2023-2027

Plastic packaging sorting facility project sumi.fi/sorting-plant-project 2024Plastic Rapids research.fi/funding/71387 2023-2023

Plastics – an unknown threat to agricultural carbon and nutrient cycles? A holistic approach research.fi/funding/81143 2024-2028

Plastics2Olefins plastics2olefins.eu 2022-2027

PlasticTrace plastictrace.eu 2022-2025

Plastix interregeurope.eu/plastix 2023-2027

PlastPyro eura2014.fi/plastpyro 2021-2023

Pohjaroska 1-3 syke.fi/fi/projektit/pohjaroska 2021-2024

Prenatal exposure to nano- and microplastics and early-life health risks research.fi/funding/78167 2023-2027

PRIMUS cordis.europa.eu/project/primus 2022-2025

PRIORITY ca-priority.eu 2021-2025

PULSE neste.com/project-pulse 2024-2030

Re:Fish centralbaltic.eu/project/refish 2023-2026

REBIOLUTION rebiolution-project.eu 2023-2026

Research and piloting platform for the VTT

Bioruukki piloting center vttresearch.com/vtt-bioruukki-pilotcentre 2023-2026

Saaristomeren salaisuus - Ensimmäiset mittaukset

Saaristomeren nanomuovipitoisuudesta research.fi/funding/81018 2024-2025

SA-PO research.fi/funding/78207 2023-2025

SEARCULAR cordis.europa.eu/project/searcular 2023-2026

Separation of microplastics from water using superhydrophobic silane-coupling-agent-modified geopolymer foam

research.fi/publication 2024-2024 SHIPAS

2024-2025

SOLMUP cordis.europa.eu/project/solmup 2023-2025

SPARKA syke.fi/fi/projektit/sparka 2023-2024

SPIRIT

• Bio4all

• Circular Plastic Pipes

• CO2 capture using superbases

• DREAM

• e-Propane

• Forest CUMP

• GreenARO

• isoSUS

• MSWPlast

• Plastex

• Plastics Circularity

• ReMatCh

• Reusify

• STAR

• SULKI

• SUSCAPO

• UrbanMill

• Zero ink spiritprogramme.com 2022-2026 STOPP stopp-project.eu 2024-2026

Summeri 1-5 2021-2027

The European Topic Centre on Circular Economy and Resource Use (ETC CE) eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-ce 2021-2026

Towards understanding the biological fate of submicron plastics: biotransformation, interaction with phagocytes and in vivo tests in zebrafish uef.fi/en/article 2023-2027 TREASoURcE treasource.eu 2022-2026 Uusioöljy-EEJ 2024-2025

ValueBioMat valuebiomat.fi 2022-2025

ViSS cordis.europa.eu/project/ViSS 2023-2027

VITAL vital-project.eu 2022-2025

WasteMatters projects.tuni.fi/wastematters 2022-2027

Wastewater treatment plant as a route for small microplastics to enter the environment research.fi/funding/78849 2023-2025

Wastewise Group Oy - Construction of new recycling lines wastewise.fi 2023WORM hanken.fi/worm 2024-2025

WREC logcluster.org/wrec 2021-2022

ZEvRA zevraproject.eu 2024-2026

Report of the PlastLIFE project coordinated by the Finnish Environment Institute:

The state of plastics circularity in Finland 2025

Review and evaluation of PlastLIFE SIP phase 1

ISBN 978-952-11-5808-7 (pdf)

Finnish Environment Institute, 2025.