Across European supermarket aisles, packaging emblazoned with claims such as “recycled,” “circular,” or “sustainable plastic” has become commonplace. Yet mounting evidence suggests that many of these labels overstate environmental benefits, masking the continued dominance of fossil-based plastics in consumer packaging.

Recycled Claims, Fossil Reality

A growing share of food and consumer goods packaging marketed as recycled remains overwhelmingly derived from virgin fossil fuels. Large multinational brands, including Kraft Heinz and Mondelēz, source plastics from Sabic, the petrochemical subsidiary of Saudi Aramco. Saudi Aramco is widely recognised as the world’s largest corporate greenhouse gas emitter and has actively opposed international efforts to curb plastic production under the proposed UN plastics treaty.

Sabic and similar producers promote their materials as “circular” or climate-aligned, despite the fact that only a very small fraction of the plastic originates from actual post-consumer waste. Critics argue that this reframing allows fossil-based plastics to be repositioned as a sustainability solution, even as plastic pollution and emissions continue to rise.

Chemical Recycling and the Pyrolysis Question

At the heart of the controversy lies chemical recycling, particularly pyrolysis. This process converts plastic waste into pyrolysis oil, which can then be used as a feedstock in new plastic production. In practice, however, pyrolysis oil often accounts for no more than around five percent of total inputs. The remaining share is typically virgin naphtha, a petroleum-derived material required to keep industrial cracking facilities operating safely.

Helmut Maurer, a former senior expert at the European Commission, has argued that this creates a structural contradiction. The process is presented as recycling, yet it relies on substantial additions of fossil feedstock, effectively expanding fossil fuel use rather than displacing it.

Read more: UK Competition Authority Signals Retailers Could Be Liable for Greenwashing Claims Passed Down the Supply Chain

Mass-Balance Accounting and Consumer Perception

Despite these limitations, companies are legally permitted to label products as fully recycled through mass-balance accounting. Under this system, recycled input is allocated mathematically rather than physically. A small quantity of recycled feedstock entering a production system can be credited to selected product batches, even if the final plastic item contains no recycled material at all.

Lauriane Veillard of Zero Waste Europe has criticised this practice as fundamentally misleading, arguing that consumers reasonably expect recycled content claims to reflect the physical composition of the product they purchase.

Carbon Accounting and Disputed Climate Benefits

Some producers also rely on avoided emissions accounting to support climate claims. This approach assumes that recycling plastic prevents incineration and therefore avoids associated emissions. When these hypothetical savings are subtracted, companies can report net carbon benefits.

However, Sabic’s own life cycle assessment indicates that its chemical recycling process emits six to eight percent more carbon than producing plastic from virgin fossil feedstock. The claimed climate benefit only materialises once avoided incineration is factored in, a methodological choice that many experts dispute.

Independent researchers have raised concerns about the credibility of such life cycle assessments, pointing to close relationships between companies and reviewers. According to critics, these assessments are often structured to produce favourable outcomes rather than to reflect real-world emissions accurately. Margaux Le Gallou of the NGO Ecos has warned that inflated carbon savings can be amplified through mass-balance credits, ultimately making downstream brand claims unreliable.

Explore OneStop ESG Marketplace: Regulation and Compliance

Regulatory Shifts and the Risk of Normalised Greenwashing

Industry lobbying has played a significant role in shaping forthcoming regulation. The European Union is expected to formalise the legality of mass-balance labelling from 2026, with similar rules anticipated in the United Kingdom from 2027. These changes could allow companies to meet recycled-content targets on paper, while continuing to rely heavily on virgin plastic production in practice.

This regulatory direction arrives at a time when fossil fuel demand for energy is projected to decline. The International Energy Agency has warned that plastics could become a key growth market for oil and gas companies, heightening concerns that “recycled” packaging claims may increasingly serve as a commercial shield for expanded plastic production.

What This Means for Consumers and Markets

For European consumers, the proliferation of recycled plastic labels risks creating a false sense of progress. For regulators and investors, the debate highlights deeper questions about transparency, accounting integrity, and whether current rules genuinely support circularity or merely rebrand fossil-based systems.

As recycled-content targets tighten and scrutiny of greenwashing intensifies, the credibility of packaging claims may become a defining issue for consumer trust. Whether upcoming EU and UK frameworks curb misleading practices or entrench them will shape the future of sustainable packaging across Europe.

Explore ESG Solutions on our marketplace - OneStop ESG Marketplace.

Keep abreast of the top ESG Events on OneStop ESG Events.

OneStop ESG Educate: Your go-to source for top ESG courses and training programs tailored to your needs.

Stay informed with the latest insights on OneStop ESG News.

Discover meaningful career opportunities on OneStop ESG Jobs.