Latest news
Reply to debate article about collection in material streams
Henrik Nilsson, head of Business Development and Community Relations at NPA, responds to the Fastighetsägarna Sverige’s debate article on Aktuell Hållbarhet.
In a debate article in Aktuell Hållbarhet on February 6, Rikard Silverfur at Fastighetsägarna Sverige writes that collection in material streams in the same way as in Denmark would simplify waste management significantly and increase the recycling rate in Sweden as well. Collection in material streams can seem attractive in terms of simplicity, but given the existing system of producer responsibility for packaging, one must question whether it really is that simple – and if such a change actually leads to increased material recycling and a more circular economy overall?
Interaction with the existing system for producer responsibility is not clear
In Sweden, we have had a functioning system for producer responsibility for packaging for more than 30 years, a system where the producers have and take responsibility for the collection and recycling of the packaging they put on the market. In Denmark, producer responsibility for packaging will now be introduced for the first time in 2025 as the last country in the EU. As far as we know, how collection in material streams should interact with producer responsibility there is not yet clear. We at Näringslivets Producentansvar believe that the issue of aggregated material flows is complex and needs further investigation.
Collection in material streams does not automatically lead to increased material recycling
It sounds simple and in many ways attractive to push towards aggregated material flows instead of having different systems for packaging and other products, not least for consumers. But there are also several aspects that need to be properly investigated before it can be determined with certainty that what is now being done in Denmark would contribute to an increased environmental benefit in Sweden as well. Collection in material streams does not automatically lead to increased material recycling overall.
No proposal for a financing model
Today, there are no clear proposals on how the recycling of sorted fractions that are not packaging should be financed. Without a developed financing model, costs for the collection risk affecting producers who already today take responsibility for their packaging. Collection in material streams also requires the development and construction of new flows and systems for further sorting and recycling, something that not developed today.
Material quality an important factor to take into account
Another aspect that needs to be considered is material quality. Based on today’s collection of packaging, we know that these usually have a more homogeneous quality compared to other product types. There are also extensive requirements for packaging regarding material composition linked to, among other things, food safety. Mixing other products into packaging collection streams risks contaminating recyclable packaging material which is a cleaner stream, which would reduce both the value and efficiency of the recycling process.
What has been described above is included in the consultation response that Näringslivets Producentansvar will submit to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency shortly, and we welcome a continued dialogue on the issue.
Henrik Nilsson,
Head of Business Development and Community Relations, Näringslivets Producentansvar
Read the reply in Aktuell Hållbarhet (in Swedish)
More Latest news
NPA refunds surplus packaging fees
As we approach the closure of the first half of 2025, the producer responsibility organisation Näringslivets Producentansvar (NPA) concludes that the invoiced packaging fees have exceeded the actual costs of collection and recycling. We are therefore refunding the surplus to our customers – in line with our non-for-profit business model.
Näringslivets Producentansvar introduces fossil-free transports
By the end of 2025, all transports within Sweden for which Näringslivets Producentansvar (NPA) is responsible will be 100 percent fossil-free. The decision is part of NPA's work to reduce climate impact and contribute to a more sustainable waste management.
Reply: producers should finance efficient collection, not household missorting
When Conny Udd and Jan Ridfeldt, CEOs of Tekniska Verken and Umeå Energi, argue that producers should replace sorted packaging waste, they miss a crucial principle: residual waste is a municipal responsibility. This is written by Henrik Nilsson, head of business development and community relations at Näringslivets Producentansvar, Henrik Oxfall, responsible for plastic issues at IKEM, and Mattias Philipsson, CEO of Svensk Plaståtervinning, in a reply in Aktuell Hållbarhet.