New data from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre shows that plastic was the only major packaging material to grow between 2011 and 2025. The findings reveal a difficult reality: more recyclable packaging does not necessarily mean less packaging.
Europe has spent more than a decade promoting lightweighting, recycled content, circular design and alternatives to virgin plastic. Yet the amount of plastic packaging placed on the market has continued to rise.
A new study by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre estimates that plastic packaging volumes increased by approximately 11% in absolute terms between 2011 and 2025. Plastic was the only major material category to show a clear upward trend, while total packaging quantities remained broadly stable.
The result creates an uncomfortable contrast with the direction of European packaging policy. It does not mean that sustainability initiatives have achieved nothing, but it shows that improving recyclability is not the same as reducing material consumption.
Plastic was the only material still growing
The JRC model covers food and beverages, home care, beauty and personal care, and pet food across 19 Member States representing more than 97% of the EU population. Together, these categories account for roughly 75% of the European consumer packaging market.
For 2024, the study estimated that 42.8 million tonnes of packaging were placed on the market in the countries and categories analysed. This included 32.3 million tonnes of glass packaging, 5.9 million tonnes of plastic, 2.3 million tonnes of metal and 2.1 million tonnes of paper-based packaging.
Glass accounted for around 75% of the total packaging weight, largely because it is considerably heavier than other materials. Plastic represented a smaller share by mass, averaging almost 14 kg per person, but it was the only major category whose absolute volume increased consistently over the study period.
This distinction matters. Comparing materials only by weight does not reveal how many packaging units are used, how much product they contain or what environmental impact the complete system generates. At the same time, plastic’s relatively low weight should not obscure the significance of an 11% increase.
Lightweighting may reduce the amount of material used in each pack. Those savings can nevertheless be offset when more packaged products are sold or when packaging expands into new consumption occasions.
Europe does not have one packaging market
The study also reveals substantial differences between Member States: plastic packaging volumes remained relatively stable in Belgium, France and the Netherlands, while countries including Ireland, Poland and Romania recorded increases. In 2024, per-capita volumes ranged from approximately 8 kg in Sweden to almost 16 kg in Germany.
Consumption habits are part of the explanation. In Italy, bottled water represents approximately 46% of the plastic packaging included in the national estimate. In Sweden, it accounts for only around 6%.
PET is the largest polymer category in most of the markets analysed, mainly because of bottled water and soft drinks. In Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden, however, polypropylene volumes exceed those of PET, reflecting a different mix of products and packaging formats.
These differences show why European packaging reduction cannot depend on material rules alone. Drinking habits, retail systems, reuse models, product categories and national infrastructure all influence how much packaging enters the market.
Common EU objectives remain necessary, but achieving them will require different strategies in different countries.
Recycling progress does not automatically reduce plastic use
Much of the packaging sustainability debate has focused on what happens after a package becomes waste. Design-for-recycling criteria, recycled-content targets, collection systems and improved recycling technologies are all essential. They can increase material recovery and reduce dependence on virgin resources.
However, they do not automatically prevent packaging from being produced: a market can improve its recycling rate while continuing to consume more plastic. It can also place more technically recyclable packaging on the market without reducing the total amount of material that collection and recycling systems must manage.
This is the central paradox highlighted by the JRC data. Europe may be improving the circularity of individual packaging formats while still increasing the absolute volume of plastic circulating through the economy.
For brands, the distinction is important. Moving from a difficult-to-recycle structure to a recyclable one is a meaningful improvement, but it is not necessarily material reduction. Adding recycled content may reduce virgin plastic use without changing the total weight of packaging placed on the market. The point is that recyclability, circularity and prevention are connected, but they are not interchangeable.
The JRC findings establish a baseline for the PPWR
The study arrives at a decisive moment for the European packaging sector: the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation entered into force on 11 February 2025 and will generally apply from 12 August 2026. Its objectives include minimising packaging quantities, reducing the use of primary raw materials and making all packaging placed on the EU market recyclable in an economically viable way by 2030.
The JRC findings should not therefore be interpreted as proof that the PPWR has failed. The period analysed ends before most of the Regulation’s requirements begin to apply.
Instead, the figures provide a difficult starting point against which future progress can be measured and explain why the PPWR must go beyond traditional recycling targets. If plastic packaging volumes continue to grow, better recycling alone may struggle to produce the reduction in resource consumption and waste generation that European policy is seeking.
The effectiveness of the new framework will ultimately depend on whether it changes absolute material flows, not only the technical characteristics of individual packaging formats.
The next phase must address volume
The findings do not support replacing plastic with another material at any cost: plastic provides low weight, barrier performance, product protection and manufacturing efficiency across many applications; a heavier alternative may increase transport emissions, while insufficient packaging can shorten shelf life and create more product waste. So the challenge is not to identify one universally sustainable material. It is to use less material overall while maintaining the performance required by the product.
This means eliminating unnecessary components, improving product-to-packaging ratios, reducing oversized formats and introducing refill or reuse systems where they can work effectively. Where single-use plastic remains necessary, minimum material use should be combined with recyclability, recycled content and reliable collection.
The JRC data shows that Europe has not yet achieved that balance. Packaging may be becoming lighter, more recyclable and more technically sophisticated, but plastic volumes are still moving in the opposite direction. The success of the next phase of Europe’s packaging transition will therefore be measured not only by better design, but by whether the total quantity of material placed on the market finally begins to fall.
Until then, Europe’s packaging paradox will remain unresolved.
