On the shelves of European supermarkets, packages that promise sustainability, circularity and reduction of emissions proliferate. But behind many “green” labels lies a very different reality: only a small part of the plastic declared recycled actually comes from waste, while the dominant share continues to derive from oil.
This is what emerges from a recent investigation by The Guardian, which points the finger at the practices of the petrochemical industry and against a European regulatory system that is increasingly closer to legitimizing mechanisms considered by many experts to be a form of greenwashing. In essence, according to the study, the key strategy on which the industry is focusing is pyrolysisa chemical technology presented as capable of converting plastic waste into a so-called “pyrolysis oil”, i.e. a raw material declared recycled.
In reality, however, this oil can only represent a minimum share, because it must be mixed with approximately 95% of naphtha of petroleum origin so as not to compromise the functioning of industrial plants. As a result, despite being classified as plastic recycling, the process does not reduce dependence on fossil fuels at all.
“Circular” plastic that remains fossil
Many large food brands use packaging produced with materials supplied by the petrochemical supply chain linked to the Saudi giant Aramcoone of the largest corporate emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. Its subsidiary Sabic, together with other players in the sector, has been promoting plastic as a “circular” and climate-compatible solution for years.
In practice, however, this plastic remains almost entirely of fossil origin. The heart of the system, as we mentioned, is the so-called chemical recycling through pyrolysis, a very energy-intensive process that transforms plastic waste into a reusable oil as a raw material. The problem is that this oil may represent only a small fraction of the total input – up to 5% – and must be mixed with around 95% virgin petroleum-derived naphtha to avoid damaging industrial plants producing new plastic.
The result is paradoxical: the entire process is still presented as “recycling”, while the use of fossil fuels continues to grow and, as we read in the Guardian, to support its environmental declarations, the industry leverages two legal but controversial mechanisms.
The first is mass balance: an accounting technique that allows the share of recycled material to be attributed to specific batches of final product. In practice, even if a package contains only fossil plastic, it can be certified as “100% recycled” because a small amount of pyrolysis oil has been used elsewhere in the same production process.
The second is the calculation of “avoided emissions”. Companies subtract from their emissions those that would have been generated if the plastic waste had been incinerated. So, on paper, recycled plastic appears more sustainable than virgin plastic, even when the actual process produces more emissions.
In fact, according to various life cycle analyses, the entire supply chain from pyrolysis to final production can emit 6% to 8% more CO₂ than traditional plastic. The climate benefits emerge only thanks to theoretical calculations on avoided incineration.
Certifications under accusation and doubts about impartiality
Labels attesting to mass balance-based recycled content are issued by industry-led certification systems. This raises questions about the independence of audits, especially when commercial links emerge between auditors and petrochemical companies.
Some experts openly talk about tools that are closer to marketing than science. Environmental assessments, they argue, can be constructed by choosing favorable parameters and hiding the real climate impact. When the share of recycled material is minimal, the supposed carbon savings tend to disappear.
The risk is that along the value chain – right up to the product on the shelf – brands’ environmental claims become unreliable or misleading to consumers.
Is Europe towards the legalization of “greenwashing”?
Despite the criticism, the European Union is moving closer to a regulatory framework that could officially recognize mass balance as a valid method for demonstrating recycled content. Rules considered lax could come into force as early as 2026, with similar provisions expected in the UK the following year.
In recent years, petrochemical companies have intensified lobbying on European institutions, while at the same time making agreements to secure supplies of pyrolysis oil. All this while the mandatory recycled content objectives risk being achieved only technically, without a real reduction in waste and emissions.
As demand for fossil fuels declines in favor of renewable energy, plastic looms as one of the main growth drivers for big oil companies’ future profits. A perspective that makes it even more crucial to distinguish between a true circular economy and simple image operations.
For European consumers, the issue is anything but marginal: choosing truly sustainable products is becoming increasingly difficult in a market where even almost entirely fossil plastic can be sold as “recycled”.
The challenge now concerns transparency, stricter rules and independent controls. Without these elements, the risk is that the ecological transition remains just a label.
