February 18, 2026 14:40

In the PET market, Europe is now in a paradoxical situation: despite having the production capacity needed to meet domestic demand—both for virgin material and recycled—it has, over the years, become a net importer. Almost 40% of virgin PET and a similar share of recycled PET come from non-European countries.

According to Antonello Ciotti (pictured), President of Petcore Europe, the crux lies in market dynamics, which are demanding price levels incompatible with the production and recycling costs borne in Europe.

Let’s put a few numbers on the table.
As for virgin PET, Europe’s production capacity stands at around 3 million tonnes.
To this are added an estimated 2.6 million tonnes of rPET reported by recyclers, of which, however, only just over half is actually used. The ability to meet domestic demand, therefore, is not lacking: the real problem is low-cost imports from non-EU countries. Over the past two years, in fact, almost 800,000 tonnes of virgin PET and about 1 million tonnes of recycled PET have been lost. In many cases, these are idle plants that could restart in a more favourable market environment.

Last year, people were still asking whether—once the SUP Directive entered into force—the supply of recycled PET might not be sufficient to meet the needs of bottle producers grappling with mandatory recycled content.
Now we are discovering that it is demand itself that is scarce. What has changed in the space of a year or just over?
When the SUP Directive was adopted in 2019, beverage producers and bottlers committed to increasing recycled content, even beyond the minimum thresholds. This pushed recyclers to invest in new production lines. However, while the cost of recycled material remained relatively stable—because of the rigidity of supply—the price of virgin PET has meanwhile collapsed.
As a result, many operators have revised their targets downward: from 80–90% rPET in bottles they have dropped to 50%, and in some cases they have returned to the directive’s minimum requirement of 25%.
The SUP Directive has also failed to stimulate demand for recycled PET because it sets the minimum recycled-content target for Member States and provides no penalties for those who do not comply with the obligations.
There is also a structural factor: the cost of separate collection in Europe is around €500 per tonne, whereas in countries such as India or Egypt it is five to ten times lower, which represents a major competitive disadvantage. If waste is to be the key resource of the future, Europe starts from a weaker position and will have to close the gap through technological innovation.

Why does European recycled PET struggle to compete with imported material, despite the high technological level of plants?
Imported recycled PET is not subject to the same controls required for material produced in Europe. This is particularly relevant for food-contact material, which should come at least 95% from food packaging household waste and not from mixed waste or landfill. It should also be considered that many Asian countries have invested in recycling in recent years, often purchasing European technologies.
The result is that European recycled PET, in the form of food-contact-grade pellets, costs bottle producers around €1,300 per tonne—i.e., €100–200 more than imported material.
Virgin PET, by contrast, is currently priced about €200 per tonne lower than recycled material.

It also happens that, precisely because of these price differentials, virgin PET from non-EU countries is marketed in Europe as recycled material. A paradoxical situation.
In the absence of adequate border controls, phenomena of this kind are possible: the market is distorted precisely by the lack of checks on imports.

Beyond controls, what do you think of the decision—still unofficial—to allow PET from chemical recycling to be counted as recycled in bottles for the purposes of the SUP Directive, and to exclude, until November 2027, material of non-EU origin? Do you consider these two measures adequate?
Pending the text, I consider both positive, at least in the short term, to address the difficulties facing European industry. Opening up to chemical recycling could revive investment in depolymerisation processes, while limiting imports would give European recyclers some breathing space, while also allowing Member States to strengthen border controls.
I do not believe, however, that chemical recycling of PET can replace mechanical recycling, which is now well established. Given the higher costs, it will probably be destined for the more complex fractions that cannot currently be recovered in the bottle-to-bottle cycle—for example, because purity is insufficient for food-contact reuse.

In recent days, Petcore Europe—the PET value-chain association you chair—held its  Annual Conference. The theme was “how to regain competitiveness”. What were the main takeaways?
A constructive dialogue took place between businesses and institutions, also thanks to the strong participation of representatives of the European Commission, with the involvement of various Directorates-General (DG). The association’s role as a bridge between industry and European institutions was confirmed, with the aim of representing the sector’s critical issues in Brussels and proposing concrete measures to be adopted in the short term, such as separating customs codes for virgin and recycled PET, which would help improve market monitoring and controls. Moreover this year participation of ICIS with several presentations, added a global touch to the whole event.

You also attended the latest European Industry Summit in Antwerp. What was the mood among participants?
I believe that, this time, politics has understood the seriousness of Europe’s industrial crisis and the mistakes made in implementing the Green Deal in the previous legislature, adopting an approach that was at times naïve—in fact, the term “naïf” was often heard—in an increasingly complex global context. This helped accelerate deindustrialisation processes. As President Emmanuel Macron said, “we need to protect EU Industry without becoming protectionist”.
There is also growing consensus on the need to simplify the regulatory framework, as strongly emphasized by Chancellor Merz
Political winds in Brussels have definitely changed...

BIOGRAPHY. An engineering graduate with an MBA from Bocconi University, Antonello Ciotti has been President of the industry association Petcore Europe since 2022. In his long professional career he worked for many years at Dow before moving to the joint venture Equipolymers as Commercial Director. From 2016 to 2020 he was President of Corepla, the national consortium for the collection, recycling and recovery of plastic packaging.

© Polimerica -  Reproduction prohibited, all rights reserved