Recycling Policy Should Focus on Reduction, Not Throughput

Recycling is one of the most representative tools of environmental policy. There is an expectation that expanding source separation and raising recycling rates can reduce the environmental burden associated with resource use and waste disposal. In fact, the government and local authorities have continuously invested in expanding source-separation systems and related facilities and programs in order to raise recycling rates.

However, a higher recycling rate does not automatically mean that the amount of waste generated will decline. According to the OECD, municipal waste generated in member countries exceeded 770 million tons in 2023, with average per capita generation reaching 552 kg. This was 39 kg higher than in 2015. Recycling and recovery have expanded, but total waste generation is still increasing. This is why it is difficult to judge the performance of the circular economy on the basis of the recycling rate alone.

To assess the effectiveness of recycling, it is necessary to examine item-specific characteristics and costs together. What matters is which kinds of waste are recycled and how they are recycled. Paper, plastic, food waste, glass, and metals all differ in their production and consumption structures, recovery value, and recycling technologies. Accordingly, there are limits to applying the same recycling-rate target to all categories and evaluating project performance solely on that basis.

Plastic is an area where there is considerable room to improve the effectiveness of recycling. If mixed plastics are sorted more precisely and the quality of recycled feedstock is improved, that can help reduce the use of virgin materials. On the other hand, if large volumes are collected but cannot actually be used as raw materials because of contamination or quality problems, even a high recycling rate is unlikely to lead to meaningful environmental results. Ultimately, what matters is not the amount collected itself, but how much of the recovered resource actually returns to the production process.

A different approach may be needed for food waste. In a situation where a substantial amount is already being recycled, it may be more effective to reduce the amount of food being thrown away in the first place than to raise the recycling rate by a few more percentage points. Expanding collection, transport, and treatment facilities further also requires additional costs and energy. If limited resources are to be allocated, policymakers should compare which has the greater environmental benefit: programs that marginally raise recycling rates or programs that reduce waste generation itself.

Recycling also entails costs. Collection, transport, washing, sorting, and processing all require labor, equipment, and energy. Rather than assuming that recycling always reduces environmental costs, we should consider both the costs incurred in the process and the resource and environmental costs saved through recycling.

Accordingly, the criteria for evaluating recycling programs also need to change. It is not enough to look only at how much waste was sent to treatment facilities or by what percentage the recycling rate increased. We must also examine how much actual waste generation was reduced, how much of the recovered waste was used as recycled feedstock, how much virgin material it replaced, and how much it cost to achieve those results.

Policy priorities should likewise change in line with these criteria. Investment can be concentrated in areas where improving the quality of recycled feedstock and expanding the market for it lead to actual resource savings. By contrast, in areas where recycling rates are already high and the gains from additional improvement are limited, it is necessary to compare the effects of source reduction and other policy tools.

Recycling is not an end in itself but a means of reducing environmental burdens. Recycling programs should be evaluated not by throughput or recycling rates, but by their actual effects on waste reduction, resource savings, and input costs. Resources should be concentrated on programs with large benefits, while programs with low marginal returns should be shifted toward source reduction or other approaches. What matters is not the recycling rate itself, but environmental performance relative to cost.

Hyun-jo Choi, Researcher, Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: 재활용 정책, 처리량보다 감량 효과를 봐야

Author: Hyun-jo Choi

Date: 2026-10-22

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=press&pn=1&idx=29647