On the 18th of March, PubAffairs Bruxelles hosted an afternoon of discussion on the role of the circular economy principles in enhancing the EU’s sustainable competitiveness and achieving climate neutrality. The event was also a timely opportunity to discuss how circular economy principles will fit in the Clean Industrial Deal with Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea, Director, Circular Economy, European Commission, DG ENVI; Jurgen Tiedje, Head of Unit, Industrial Transformation, European Commission, DG RTD; Mathias Bach Kirkegaard, Environmental Attaché, Danish Permanent Representation to the EU; Jeannette Baljeu MEP (Renew/NL) and Antoine Oger, Interim Executive Director, Institute for European Environmental Policy. Jean Hornain, CEO, Citeo gave some introductory remarks and participated in the panel discussion while Luis Planas-Herrera, Member of the Cabinet of Commissioner Jessika Roswall, gave a keynote speech.*
The debate was moderated by Emily Waterfield, Freelance Journalist & Editor.
*Speakers have participated in a personal capacity. Their views do not necessarily represent the views of their respective employers
Emily Waterfield, the moderator, briefly described the issues at stake related to the enhancing of the circular economic model, the fostering of the EU’s sustainable competitiveness and the achievement of climate neutrality. She then introduced Jean Hornain, Citeo’s CEO, for him to give the introductory remarks.
In the opening remarks of his address, Jean Hornain highlighted that Citeo is a non-profit organisation that was established three decades prior by consumer goods companies with the express objective of mitigating the environmental impact of packaging. It was noted that the concept of “extended producer responsibility” (EPR) originated in France over three decades ago. He also explained that Citeo’s mission is indeed to reduce, reuse and recycle all packaging in order to achieve a circular economy.
The speaker subsequently emphasised that the organisation represents approximately 80,000 companies and manages 1.6 billion euros in revenues, all of which is directed towards the reduction, reuse and recycling of packaging. He further noted that the recycling rate of packaging in France stands at 70%, emphasising the notion that the circular economy is advantageous for the planet, the economy and national sovereignty.
Nevertheless, he also acknowledged some ongoing challenges, particularly concerning plastics. It was explained that plastic poses significant challenges in terms of management, primarily due to its extensive utilisation and the competitive pricing of virgin plastic imported from Asia. He also asserted that this setting has prompted a number of recyclers to call into question the continued viability of investing in European recycling infrastructure. The central challenge, he continued, is to establish a truly circular economy for plastics in Europe.
The speaker placed significant emphasis on the urgency of the matter, asserting that immediate action was imperative for the benefit of both the planet and the Old Continent. Furthermore, he called for an evaluation of the necessity for a “Buy European Act” or a comparable measure, while underscoring the imperative for the establishment of a functional circular economy, particularly for the case of plastic.
The moderator subsequently introduced Luis Planas-Herrera, Member of Cabinet of Commissioner Roswall in order for him to give the introductory remarks.
Luis Planas-Herrera began his speech by underlining the European Commission’s commitment to the promotion of a circular economy model. He described the discussion as timely, stressing that circularity is not only crucial for sustainability, but also to strengthen the competitiveness of European industry. In the context of recent geopolitical developments, he also emphasised the growing need to safeguard Europe’s economic security, highlighting circularity as a key driver of long-term growth.
He went on to highlight that both the Letta and Draghi reports, as well as the Competitiveness Compass, notably the first major strategic document of the second von der Leyen Commission, all emphasise the role of circularity in promoting innovation and resilience. He then observed that the circular economy approach has the potential to contribute significantly towards the achievement of climate neutrality, accounting for nearly a quarter of the necessary carbon reductions. Furthermore, he suggested that advancing circularity models could contribute to a more autonomous economy, as well.
Despite the introduction of EU Circular Economy Action Plans, respectively in 2015 and 2020, Mr Planas-Herrera acknowledged that progress is still lagging behind its potential, with the circular resource use rate stagnating at 20%. He suggested a collective effort to increase this figure, particularly in light of intensifying global competition for resources. He also highlighted the strategic importance of recycling critical raw materials (CRMs) to support clean technologies and the EU’s green transition, while acknowledging the challenge of low CRM recycling rates.
By introducing the Clean Industrial Deal (CID), he described it as the first initiative aligned with the decarbonisation goals outlined in the Competitiveness Compass. Indeed, he clarified that the CID sets out clear and ambitious targets, such as making Europe the global leader in circularity by 2030, an essential goal for long-term prosperity.
Achieving this transformation, he argued, will require a shift in business models and mindset across all sectors of society, highlighting Commissioner Roswall’s view that such change should involve citizens and public authorities alike, alongside, of course, private sector actors, as major contributors. He also called for a rethinking of consumption and production patterns to realise the full potential of circularity.
The first key area of focus he outlined was economic viability in order to make circular business models financially sustainable for both operators and investors. Mr Planas-Herrera then pointed out that virgin materials are still often cheaper than recycled alternatives, a disparity that must be addressed in order to create a compelling business case for circularity in Europe. He then presented four key areas of work currently being prioritised by the European Commission.
Regarding the question of stimulating demand for circular products and critical raw materials, he identified the EU public procurement reform as a powerful tool for change, given that it accounts for around 20% of the EU’s GDP. He also pointed to the potential of fiscal reforms and incentives to encourage reuse of second-hand products and reparability, in order to make these options more appealing than purchasing new items.
Concerning the issue of advancing the EU’s eco-design agenda, the speaker underlined the central role of eco-design in supporting circularity by remarking that the European Commission is working on the implementation of the Eco-Design for Sustainable Products Regulation, building on lessons learned from earlier experiences. Indeed, he specified, Commissioner Roswall hosted an Eco-Design Forum, with the first work plan expected by mid-April. The new framework will focus on key product categories such as textiles, iron and steel, targeting strategic goods along the value chain to accelerate the shift to a circular economy model, he added.
As far as unlocking the potential in specific waste streams is concerned, he emphasised the need to improve the recovery of raw materials from electronic waste (e-waste), where recycling rates remain below 40%. He also noted that evaluations of relevant directives are currently underway in order to enhance the efficiency of e-waste recycling.
Regarding the matter of creating a business-friendly environment, he stressed the importance of regulatory simplification. Without resorting to deregulation, he stated that the aim of this initiative is to eliminate unnecessary barriers and streamline rules, particularly in relation to end-of-waste criteria and extended producer responsibility schemes, so that circular markets can reach the necessary scale. He also noted that there is significant potential to review and rationalise the EU’s legislative framework to ensure coherence and alignment of all relevant policies.
Finally, Mr Planas-Herrera addressed the issue of investment mobilisation. He called for better alignment of financial flows to support business growth within the circular economy. He also referenced a recent announcement of €100 million in funding to boost clean manufacturing in Europe, and highlighted the forthcoming Circular Economy Investment Guide which will help identify infrastructure gaps and investment needs across the EU.
In conclusion, the keynote speaker pointed to the compelling need for infrastructure upgrades, particularly in response to the new export ban on plastics, and stressed the importance of processing such waste domestically and producing high-quality secondary materials. He closed his speech by reaffirming that, while investor engagement is critical, the success of a circular economy model ultimately hinges on the existence of a sound and viable business case.
Emily Waterfield, the moderator, gave the floor to Jeannette Baljeu MEP in order for her to elaborate on the issues at stake in this discussion from a parliamentary perspective.
Jeannette Baljeu MEP started her response by stating that addressing the circular economy is of critical importance. She then affirmed that the present moment is appropriate for advancing the discussion, especially given the significant uncertainty within industry regarding the next steps and the current positioning of active companies.
She referred to concerns previously raised about Europe’s global position and emphasised the importance of achieving materials independence. Whilst the environmental case for advancing the circular economy is clear, she stressed that it is equally vital from the perspective of securing access to critical raw materials. She also pointed out that several relevant matters have already been addressed during the last legislative term.
She subsequently noted that Europe was undergoing a transition, stressing that this was not a simple shift from a linear to a circular economy model. Rather, she explained, the transition will require time and imply challenges for both consumers and producers. She also questioned how policymakers could best facilitate this transition, and affirmed her support by emphasising the steps to be taken.
MEP Baljeu further argued that further research was required and that increased cooperation with member states was essential. She referred to the European Commission’s earlier speech on this question, but sought further clarification on how EU countries could work more closely together. She then raised concerns about the potential for different national definitions and regulations in hindering progress, citing her experience in Rotterdam, where differing definitions of biofuels between the Netherlands and Belgium prevented the mutual recognition of certain materials as raw resources. Elaborating on this experience, she identified such inconsistencies as barriers that needed to be overcome at the EU level.
In addition, the speaker welcomed the European Commission’s work on simplification, clarifying that this does not imply reducing ambitions or goals, but rather making processes more efficient and coherent. As a member of the IMCO Committee, she emphasised the importance of establishing common definitions across the EU and expressed interest in understanding how the European Commission intends to support this process. Whilst recognising the essential role of EU member states, she stressed the need for the European Parliament to advocate for a unified European framework.
She also recalled that she was the shadow rapporteur for the initiative report on public procurement, which is currently under review. She explained that her focus was primarily on ensuring that procurement decisions were considered in terms of both economic and environmental impact. She then highlighted the variation in procurement systems across EU member states, raising the question of how local procurement could be better aligned with the circular economy goals.
Finally, she emphasised the importance of investing in circular economy infrastructure, recalling her previous involvement with the Committee of the Regions and noting the enthusiasm of several regions to become circular plastic hubs. However, she also cautioned that pursuing the same ambition independently would risk fostering fragmentation. She concluded by arguing that achieving a truly circular economy model requires not only mechanical recycling capabilities, but also chemical recycling infrastructure, something that could not be feasibly established in every region. These, she concluded, were some of the key issues she wished to address.
The moderator noted that two key themes had emerged consistently from the discussion: strategic autonomy and collaboration. Although these concepts may seem contradictory, both are essential to advancing the circular economy agenda. With this in mind, Emily Waterfield invited the speakers to further reflect on these themes or address the legislative priorities required to support the development of a circular economy.
Mathias Bach Kirkegaard started his reply by noting that around 2,000 truckloads of plastic are still dumped into the ocean every day, equating to one rubbish truck’s worth every second. He emphasised that such practices were surely not the way to achieve circularity. Instead, he said, what is needed are viable business cases, and welcomed the European Commission’s commitment to this agenda. He then argued that circularity is crucial not only for environmental reasons, but also to ensure economic security, long-term growth, competitiveness and decarbonisation.
He then outlined three cross-cutting challenges. Firstly, from the perspective of an EU member state, the crucial issue is political will, particularly the willingness to compromise. In this connection, Mr Kirkegaard observed that willingness often disappears when difficult decisions are to be made, with EU countries reverting to “business as usual”. He also observed that EU member states tend to prioritise retaining their own administrative control over reducing burdens for businesses.
To address this, he argued that it is necessary to move beyond national narratives and adopt a more business-oriented and EU-wide perspective. However, he also acknowledged that this can be challenging, as the Council of the EU remains a forum where national interests are understandably promoted. Nevertheless, he emphasised that EU member states have a responsibility to ensure that the circular economy remains high on the EU agenda. He added that change is also needed within the European Parliament, where political will should be expressed through pragmatic action rather than symbolic political statements.
Secondly, he asserted that, while the circular economy model would benefit some sectors, it would inevitably disadvantage others. He elaborated on this question by stating that certain industries, such as manufacturing, could experience significant growth, while others might temporarily contract. Both the European Council and the European Parliament, he argued, must seize these opportunities whilst ensuring that no one is left behind. From a business perspective, he noted that companies already investing in circular solutions would likely find new opportunities, whereas those less engaged with the green agenda could face challenges. Circular public procurement, for example, could generate new business prospects for some, but require others to rethink and reinvest in their operations, he highlighted.
Thirdly, Mr Kirkegaard acknowledged that waste reduction goals do not always align perfectly with circular economy objectives. Nevertheless, circularity can support broader strategic aims, such as reducing dependency on third countries, he clarified. He also stressed that, whilst regulatory frameworks should be kept as simple as possible, some obligations are necessary. He brought up the example of importation of recycled materials, which often raised concerns about the authenticity of their recyclability. In response to this phenomenon, the industry has called for the introduction of certification requirements to verify the quality and the content of recycled materials. Mr Kirkegaard also emphasised that businesses were not always opposed to regulation. On the contrary, he stated, they often welcome clear obligations that ensure a level-playing field and enhance the competitiveness of European firms.
In conclusion, the speaker welcomed the EU’s commitment to circular economy policies, even when driven by business or geopolitical interests rather than purely environmental goals. He acknowledged the difficulties, particularly where circularity does not fit neatly within existing narratives, such as “waste reduction at all costs“. Still, he argued, the priority must be sustained by political will, not just in declarations, but also in managing change effectively and realising the economic and social benefits of the green transition. Finally, he reiterated that the circular economy model is inherently complex and will require new rules. However, these rules must be sensible, enforceable and, ultimately, designed to strengthen European competitiveness and strategic autonomy, he concluded.
The moderator invited Antoine Oger to address the informational aspects of the circular economy. More specifically, the environmental data required and how to effectively engage and empower consumers.
Antoine Oger began by emphasising the crucial role of consumers in advancing the circular economy, particularly against the backdrop of the triple planetary crises, namely climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution that are expected to have profound and measurable effects on both daily life and the global economy. Citing recent researches, he warned that these crises could impact up to half of the global GDP by the end of the century, underscoring that a “business as usual” approach is no longer sustainable.
He explained that the circular economy is gaining traction because it presents one of the most promising and pragmatic solutions, offering both economic and environmental benefits. It supports competitiveness, facilitates a just transition, and significantly reduces environmental footprints, including carbon emissions and pollution. However, he also cautioned that the circular economy model is not a silver bullet. Despite the introduction of two Circular Economy Action Plans and the related legislation, he noted that progress has stagnated over the past decade.
Mr Oger stressed the need to shape market conditions to make circular business models viable, a goal which requires action on both the demand side and pricing mechanisms. He also acknowledged current EU initiatives, such as the Ecodesign Regulation, the Sustainable Products Regulation and the broader Circular Economy Action Plan, as key steps in the right direction. Yet, he argued that, for real change to occur, it is essential to clearly define and recognise what qualifies as circular goods and services, as this clarity is crucial for both production and trade. He also highlighted the need for financial incentives and profitability models to support circular practices.
From a consumer perspective, he stressed the importance of making sorting, reuse, and repair intuitive and accessible, since the second life of a product often depends on the consumer’s ability to correctly reuse or dispose of it. Finally, the speaker addressed the global dimension of the circular economy and emphasised that EU market rules must consider their impact on third countries, especially the least developed ones, as part of a broader discussion on strategic autonomy and responsible trade practices.
Emily Waterfield asked which legislative proposals should be prioritised to achieve a fully-fledged eco-design model and extend product lifecycles. She also inquired about the policy instruments the EU should adopt to fulfil the expectations set out in the Draghi report on the circular economy.
Jeannette Baljeu MEP responded by stressing the importance of focusing on demand-side measures, particularly in the business-to-business (B2B) sector. She suggested that increasing the mandatory share of circular materials in products could stimulate demand, even if it requires moving faster than the market would naturally evolve. She identified this approach as a potential solution worth of serious consideration.
She also shared insights from her discussions with chemical and plastic recyclers, who reported facing severe obstacles, the major among them being electricity supply issues, a challenge that affects several industrial sectors across multiple EU countries. She subsequently noted that these issues are part of the broader framework in which the industry must operate, and must be taken into account when designing effective policy responses.
Turning to the Draghi report, she acknowledged that numerous enabling conditions must be established through regulation. Although not generally a proponent of heavy regulatory intervention, she conceded that regulation is sometimes necessary, if applied for the right reasons. She also emphasised that the Draghi report’s recommendations, particularly those related to energy supply and demand creation, must be translated into practical and supportive conditions to drive a faster and more effective transition towards a circular economy.
The moderator then relayed a question from the public, asking how sustainable competitiveness could be defined and achieved.
Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea explained that, as per the Circular Economy Act definition, sustainable competitiveness could be defined as the integration of environmental and resource efficiency imperatives with economic and competitiveness requirements. He summarised the core objective of the above-mentioned EU initiative as promoting circularity in a way that strengthens its business case and enhances its viability from a commercial perspective.
Emily Waterfield then asked Jürgen Tiedje how the new circular economy models differ from earlier approaches.
Jürgen Tiedje clarified that he approached the issue primarily from an industrial perspective rather than a purely circular economy standpoint. He described the evolution of the circular economy concept, from what was once considered a mere concept to tangible innovations and viable business models, and emphasised that more progress on the ground is underway than is often assumed.
Addressing the issue of competitiveness, he stated that it ultimately hinges on cost, data and global competition. For example, companies often simplify operations to cut costs, which in turn enables greater investment in innovation. He referenced an upcoming start-up initiative led by Commissioner Zaharieva under the Innovation Act, and posed the question of whether stakeholders are ready to seize the opportunities it presents.
Mr Tiedje noted that industry remains cautious about relying solely on recycling, instead pointing to the development of advanced materials that are specifically designed to extend product lifespans. This, he said, is a growing concern for companies seeking durability and cost efficiency. He also highlighted ongoing discussions with EU member states on circularity in materials design, noting that large firms such as Airbus are already exploring these methods as a way to reduce costs and improve performance.
He then indicated that the Commission issued the Advanced Materials for Industrial Leadership Communication in February 2024, which provides for embedding circularity into the design phase of materials’ design and development. He then stressed the importance of closer collaboration between innovators and industry, adding that 15 EU member states have already endorsed a new initiative aimed at advancing circularity. He finally announced that DG RTD will start preparing a proposal for an Advanced Materials Act, which has been announced in the Competitiveness Compass communication.
Turning to re-manufacturing, the speaker recalled an unsuccessful attempt to re-manufacture cars in the past, attributing its failure partly to branding challenges on the market. He also predicted that forthcoming end-of-life vehicle regulations could become a key driver in this area, especially for the automotive sector, and added that financial incentives could stimulate research and innovation, helping alleviate pressure on traditional recycling systems. He also identified strong potential in the re-manufacturing of other consumer goods, such as washing machines, although, he noted, this process would require fundamentally different assembly processes moving from ex post inspections of products to an ex ante diagnosis about the remanufacturing possibilities.
On the topic of data, the speaker highlighted the growing use of digital traceability in business operations. As, in his opinion, the semiconductor industry has been sceptical on circular economy initiatives, the speaker suggested that embedded chips could play a vital role in guiding the circularity of the economy. He also said that a second European Chips Act is being prepared, and stated that digital product design will increasingly require data sharing and export, as the private sector is becoming more open to this. He pointed to the growing use of digital twins in both materials design and re-manufacturing as examples of how data can support broader industrial transformation.
Finally, Mr Tiedje addressed the global dimension of the circular economy. He referenced the Critical Raw Materials (CRMs) Act, noting that the EU’s CRM recycling rate foresees a challenging target of 25% that will require major efforts and further innovation. Whilst acknowledging industry concerns over battery supply independence, he pointed to more optimistic prospects in materials such as aluminium , urging companies to assess not only the cost but also the risk across their supply chains as, in his view, circular economy principles offer a key tool for risk mitigation. The speaker concluded by encouraging the industry to think more ambitiously and reiterated that the core drivers for success in the circular economy are cost, data and global competition.
The moderator invited Jean Hornain to share the industrial perspective, stressing that the circular economy is a shared responsibility across the entire value chain. She asked him to elaborate on the role of business in this transition and how the European Commission should incorporate that perspective into its policymaking.
Jean Hornain began by emphasising the importance of making the circular economy function effectively in practice, identifying Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as a central mechanism. He described himself as a strong advocate of EPR, explaining that it creates a clear business case by requiring companies to contribute financially to eco-design, recycling, collection and reuse of materials. This monetary flow, he argued, is essential for enabling circular practices. Whilst acknowledging that EPR is not a silver bullet, he pointed to its growing adoption across Europe and internationally as evidence of its effectiveness. He also stressed the need for greater harmonisation at the EU level, particularly through common definitions and simplified regulatory frameworks, to enhance the efficiency and scalability of EPR systems.
Jean Hornain further underlined the necessity of establishing a viable economic model for circular solutions. He noted that, even when collection and sorting are funded, recycled materials can still be economically uncompetitive, sometimes costing up to €1,000 per tonne, making them more expensive than virgin raw materials. While circular economy models are proving more effective in automotive and carbon-intensive sectors, he pointed out that they remain less viable for plastics.
The speaker also identified re-manufacturing, including in packaging, as a promising pathway, citing local reuse initiatives that help reduce dependency on volatile raw material prices. He also stressed that public procurement policies should not be driven solely by price, and called for broader sustainability criteria to be considered in purchasing decisions.
As CEO of Citeo, he pointed to current minimum recycled content requirements, such as the 30% recycled plastic target for bottles, as a step in the right direction. However, he also raised concerns that cheaper imported recycled materials, particularly from China, make compliance difficult under current market conditions. He questioned which tools could make locally sourced recycled content more economically attractive, given that subsidised imports can undercut European producers.
Indeed, Jean Hornain cautioned against expecting businesses to consistently purchase higher-cost materials, as this would risk undermining European economic competitiveness. To address this imbalance, he proposed either the introduction of clear sustainability criteria in regulations or the provision of financial support through, for instance, subsidies or incentives, to offset the additional cost of using locally recycled content over cheaper imports.
Emily Waterfield relayed a question from the audience to Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea, asking which incentive policy measures are needed to encourage the industry to adopt circular practices, especially given the cost disparity between primary and secondary raw materials.
In response, Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea outlined the European Commission’s strategic vision for the upcoming Circular Economy Act and its broader circularity agenda over the next five years. He emphasised the need to align sustainability with competitiveness, whilst also addressing structural and economic challenges currently affecting stakeholders in the circular economy ecosystem.
He then acknowledged that many economic actors are experiencing a particularly difficult period, and stated that the European Commission intends to respond through a combination of actions under the Circular Economy Act and its complementary interventions, including regulatory simplification.
One major challenge, he noted, lies in the administrative burden faced by companies operating across borders, largely due to the inconsistent national implementation of EU directives, with special regard to the Waste Framework Directive. To address this issue, he called for further simplification, including amending the Directive itself. He proposed revising or repealing provisions related to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and end-of-waste criteria, replacing them with clearer, harmonised rules applicable across all 27 EU member states.
More specifically, Mr Ciobanu-Dordea advocated for removing the right of individual regions to unilaterally define end-of-waste criteria. He argued that, once waste is converted into a resource, it should circulate freely within the Single Market, just like any other good. Additionally, he criticised the EU’s own end-of-waste adoption procedures as being too slow and burdensome, calling for a streamlining process at the institutional level.
Drawing on lessons from recent initiatives such as the Net-Zero Industry Act, he highlighted the role of public procurement as a crucial policy tool. However, he warned that overly complex criteria could deter implementation. Instead, he recommended clear, concise procurement guidelines, ideally limited to three or four points and no longer than five lines, to ensure they are accessible and actionable for municipal authorities across the EU.
He further stressed that the challenges facing the circular economy are not only cyclical, but also structural, and have become increasingly acute. For example, plastic and textile recyclers are struggling due to insufficient demand, he specified. To address this question, he suggested that EU legislation could help aggregate demand, including through mandatory recycled content quotas and more robust public procurement requirements. He stressed the importance of broadening the focus beyond plastics, to include textiles, metals, steel and aluminium, as significant amounts of valuable scrap are currently being lost to third countries.
Mr Ciobanu-Dordea also highlighted the need to improve the functioning of the Single Market for secondary raw materials by reducing internal trade barriers. He emphasised the importance of fostering the supply side in order to help close the cost gap between recyclates and virgin materials, thus improving price competitiveness.
On the international dimension, he acknowledged the challenge posed by imported circular materials from countries such as China and Indonesia. Whilst reiterating the EU’s commitment to open markets and international trade rules, he argued that products manufactured in Europe should include recycled content sourced from European waste. Similarly, products manufactured abroad should be allowed into the EU market only if they meet the same recycled content obligations, regardless of where the recycling occurs. Whilst such rules are relatively straightforward for plastic bottles, he acknowledged that they become far more complex in sectors such as automotive plastics, where global supply chains are more fragmented and difficult to trace.
The moderator relayed a question from the audience to MEP Jeannette Baljeu, seeking her views on the ongoing debate surrounding state-run Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes. The moderator also reported the concerns about the payment of EPR fees and the importance of ensuring that collected funds are used effectively for their intended purpose. More specifically, she asked for her opinion on the risk of some EU member states diverting those funds for unrelated uses.
Jeannette Baljeu MEP acknowledged that the misuse of EPR funds by EU member states was a significant challenge that needed addressing. She suggested that an agreement with some EU countries was feasible, provided that the funds were returned to the industry. However, she also noted that such an agreement would require the approval of finance ministers. She also highlighted a sector-specific issue regarding how these funds could be redistributed back to industry players and stated that, during transitional periods, lawmakers have a duty to support the industry, with the key question being how to finance such support effectively.
Jean Hornain also responded, agreeing that the question is highly relevant. He pointed out that some EU countries appeared to use EPR as a fiscal or fundraising tool. He also explained that the strength of EPR lies in public authorities setting clear targets and frameworks, while companies retain the ability to innovate, finance, and operate within them. He argued that, if a different approach is taken, it should not be labelled as EPR. According to the speaker, responsibility brings freedom, and added that he had yet to see an effective example of a state-owned EPR system, whilst suggesting that, if such models were adopted broadly across Europe or globally, they might prove less efficient.
The moderator then posed a question to Mathias Bach Kirkegaard regarding the Danish presidency’s priorities regarding the circular economy model and, as a follow-up question, she addressed Antoine Oger, asking how consumers, who often sort waste at home to some extent, could be further encouraged to embrace recycling practices.
Mathias Bach Kirkegaard said that the Danish presidency would prioritise greener choices and competitiveness, with a strong focus on the circular economy. He emphasised the Danish Presidency’s ambition to advance as many relevant legislative files as possible, particularly those concerning chemicals and circularity.
Whereas, Antoine Oger responded that price would remain a dominant driver of consumer behaviour. He stressed the importance of integrating sorting processes at the beginning of the product lifecycle to enable reuse and support viable business cases. Both consumers and buyers, he noted, are heavily influenced by cost, especially in regions with high energy prices. When offered two functionally similar products, individuals are inclined to choose the cheaper one.
Mr Oger also observed that the current economic system and value chains are largely linear, as this model is typically more cost-effective. The challenge, he said, is reshaping market conditions to enable circular practices. He then stated that, while financial incentives are essential, public and private funding is currently insufficient, and noted that existing revenues are often consolidated and repurposed into a single pool for redistribution. He also questioned how far financial incentives alone could go, given the enduring price sensitivity of consumers. As a possible solution, he suggested designing market mechanisms that make linear products more expensive. He concluded by calling for a transparent, inclusive and open debate, with special regard to industry stakeholders.
The moderator then invited further questions from the audience, and an attendee asked Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea whether future developments in biomaterials and recycling technologies would be considered in policymaking.
Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea responded that the upcoming EU Bioeconomy Strategy is being developed and is expected to be proposed by the end of the year. He explained that the strategy would outline a forward-looking regulatory approach, potentially including mandatory demand targets for specific materials.
Regarding the narrow definition of biowaste under the Waste Framework Directive, Mr Ciobanu-Dordea noted that expanding the definition was not the main concern. Rather, efforts should focus on better utilising organic materials from various sources. He remarked that the industry was increasingly looking beyond traditional organic waste streams. A key objective of the new strategy, he said, was to elevate the role of organic waste and added that, if the uptake increases, broader policy changes may follow.
Another audience member asked Ciobanu-Dordea to clarify his earlier comments about potentially repealing the minimum Waste Framework Directive. He inquired whether this meant its full repeal or a transfer of its provisions to the Circular Economy Act, and whether the framework would become more specific as a result. The same attendee also asked Mathias Bach Kirkegaard whether Member States would support clearer definitions of responsibilities within EPR, particularly for producers, municipalities and waste management companies.
Mr Ciobanu-Dordea clarified that the aim was not to repeal minimum EPR requirements, but to replace them with harmonised, uniform requirements through regulatory intervention. He explained that, whilst EPR schemes have evolved at the national level, an ongoing debate exists about whether reforms should be technical or ideological. He stressed that the European Commission’s priority should be on performance criteria, not simply structural reform. Fiscal tools may have a role, he added, but using EPR as a fundraising mechanism is not ideal, he specified. The speaker concluded by stating that the European Commission is considering leveraging EPR schemes to promote circularity by encouraging products that are repairable, reusable, and longer-lasting, as well as by imposing a stronger quasi-fiscal burden on non-circular materials.
Mathias Bach Kirkegaard responded that, although EU member states often express initial support for harmonisation, they tend to raise many minor, country-specific issues during negotiations. In practice, he said, the answer to whether they would support more detailed EPR roles is probably negative.
An audience member asked Jürgen Tiedje how circularity could be harmonised across all sectors.
Jürgen Tiedje replied that future materials must be more circular by design. He said that, with industry support, a European Partnership in Advanced Materials would be launched under Horizon Europe in the first quarter of 2025. He underlined that the industry already sees circular design as a cross-cutting priority and that the upcoming Advanced Materials Act would support this direction.
Another attendee asked Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea how he planned to incentivise first movers in circular innovation.
Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea responded that demand creation is key, either through new markets or by redirecting existing ones. He cited the Packaging Regulation as an early example, noting the Commission’s mandate to set targets for biobased plastics. He called for this model to be scaled up, whilst carefully identifying where it would yield positive economic impact and which materials warrant a shift beyond plastics. He concluded by mentioning the forthcoming Clean Industrial Deal dialogue, which will support this transition.
The rest of the Q&A session covered the following issues: How the EU could maintain global leadership in the circular economy and sustainability innovation; preserving trust between EU member states and businesses; the concerns about whether necessary actions would happen at the scale and speed required to meet 2040 and 2050 targets; the dangers of deregulation; the success of the Eco-Design Directive as proof of the EU’s strength in green policymaking and urged continued leadership; the comparison between the US and the EU on innovation; the EU falling behind the US and China in technology; Europe’s leading role in circular innovation and materials; the translation of economic and public interests into regulatory requirements, whilst remaining technologically neutral.
Do you wish to know more about the issues discussed in this debate? Then check out the selected sources provided below!
European Commission, Competitiveness compass
European Commission, First circular economy action plan
European Commission, Circular economy action plan
European Commission, Clean Industrial Deal. A plan for EU competitiveness and decarbonisation
European Commission, Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation
Commissioner Roswall’s speech at the first meeting of the ‘Ecodesign Forum’
European Commission, Advanced Materials for Industrial Leadership
European Commission, Public procurement
European Commission, Critical Raw Materials Act
European Commission, Waste Framework Directive
European Commission, End-of-waste
European Commission, Commission launches public consultation on upcoming EU Bioeconomy Strategy
European Commission, European Chips Act
OECD, Extended producer responsibility and economic instruments
Bruegel, Mapping the road ahead for EU public procurement reform
Publyon, EU Circular Economy Act: how will it shape the future of the EU and your business?
Era Lern, New European Partnerships in Advanced Materials, Textiles and Photovoltaics
