South Korea Moves to Strip Energy Recovery from Recycling Statistics to Align with Global Standards

Why South Korea is rewriting how it counts recycling

South Korea plans to stop counting the burning of plastic and other waste for energy as recycling, a change that will lower the country’s headline recycling rate but align it with international practice. The Environment Ministry has begun reviewing legal definitions and statistical methods so that incineration for power or heat, long treated as “thermal recycling,” will be reported separately as energy recovery. The shift is designed to restore confidence in national data, steer subsidies toward real material recovery, and bring policy closer to European Union and United States standards.

Thermal recycling has been part of the national recycling rate since 1999. That convention helped factories such as cement kilns replace coal by co firing shredded plastic and tires, and it supported waste to energy facilities that feed electricity or district heat into the grid. It also made South Korea’s statistics look stronger than they would under a stricter definition that counts only material turned back into products. Officials now aim to codify the separation of energy recovery from recycling in law, building on a statistical split the ministry introduced in late 2024. The rulemaking will include consultations with industry and experts, and full implementation could take until around 2028, given the need to revise laws and subsidy frameworks.

The recalibration comes as plastic waste generation remains high and public trust in recycling data has eroded. In 2022, South Korea generated 103.9 kilograms of plastic waste per person, more than twice the average across developed economies tracked by the OECD. Environmental groups and researchers have argued that official rates overstated true material recovery. A joint 2023 analysis by Greenpeace and Chungnam National University reported that only 16.4 percent of household plastic sorted for recycling in 2021 became new plastic, while 32.6 percent was burned and 12.8 percent was landfilled. Resetting the yardstick is meant to set a clear baseline for a circular economy that keeps materials in use for as long as possible.

What thermal recycling is and why it will no longer count

Recycling can mean two very different things. Material recycling transforms a product back into raw material for new goods, whether through mechanical processes like grinding and re extrusion or chemical routes that depolymerize plastic into monomers or feedstock. Energy recovery burns waste to produce heat or electricity. It displaces fossil fuels but destroys the material itself. The European Union’s waste hierarchy places energy recovery below recycling, and U.S. agencies draw a similar line. This distinction matters because mixing the two inflates recycling rates without reflecting how much material actually returns to the economy.

South Korea’s review focuses on ending the practice of counting energy recovery as recycling, not on banning incineration. Some thermal processes, such as co firing plastic at cement plants, will continue to operate under permits, but they will be reported in a separate category. Chemical recycling remains an evolving area. Turning plastic into fuel is typically treated as energy recovery, while turning plastic into petrochemical feedstock, such as naphtha substitutes used to make new polymers, can qualify as recycling in some jurisdictions if strict traceability and quality rules are met. Clear definitions will be essential as facilities invest in new technologies.

How much the numbers change

The change is likely to reshape headline statistics. In 2023, the household waste recycling rate was reported at 58.7 percent. Of that, 46.2 percent came from material recycling and 12.5 percent from thermal recycling. For all plastic waste, including industrial sources, thermal recycling made up about 29.5 percent of what was counted as recycled. Removing energy recovery from the numerator would drop the household recycling rate by more than 10 percentage points. For plastic specifically, the measured rate could fall by roughly 30 percentage points.

Household recycling tallies

Confusion often arises from the gap between what households sort and what reprocessors can actually use. Contamination, mixed materials, food residue, and fluctuating commodity prices reduce how much sorted waste becomes new products. The Greenpeace and Chungnam National University study highlighted this gap, finding that less than one fifth of household plastic sorted for recycling in 2021 made it into new plastic. The rest was burned, landfilled, or lost in processing. Separating energy recovery from recycling will not fix those material flow problems by itself, yet it will reveal them more plainly and help target interventions where they matter most.

Plastic waste from industry

Industrial and commercial streams, including packaging film, pallets, and process scrap, contribute heavily to plastic tonnage. When prices for recycled resin weaken or quality falls short of specifications, stockpiles can grow and loads get diverted to incineration. Advanced processes like pyrolysis promise to turn hard to recycle plastics into oil for fuel or into petrochemical feedstock, but costs remain high and climate benefits depend on the specific pathway. Clear accounting will push investments toward options that actually return plastic to the value chain.

Trust, transparency, and the global rulebook

South Korea’s move comes while governments are negotiating a global plastics agreement and debating how to define success. Countries that support production limits want the treaty to include measures across the life cycle, from design and materials to end of life. Others focus on improving waste management and recycling. Even amid those differences, there is broad acceptance that energy recovery is not the same as recycling. Aligning national statistics with that principle makes cross border comparisons more reliable and reduces the risk of greenwashing.

The OECD has warned that without ambitious policy, plastic use and waste in East and Southeast Asia are set to nearly double by mid century, with millions of tonnes leaking into rivers and seas. Transparent reporting is a foundation for practical action. The EU’s reporting rules separate recycling from energy recovery. U.S. guidelines take a similar approach. When governments, cities, and companies use the same definitions, performance claims are easier to verify, and incentives can be tuned to reward genuine material recovery.

As negotiations grind on, the chair of the UN committee leading the talks, Ecuador’s Luis Vayas Valdivieso, urged delegates to keep pushing toward workable solutions while acknowledging the slow pace of consensus building.

The reality is that we must be pragmatic. Progress is possible, but our work is far from complete.

Delegations from Africa, Latin America, and many island states argue that credible data and strong measures are essential to protect people and ecosystems from the growing tide of plastic. Rwanda’s lead negotiator Juliet Kabera urged colleagues to match public expectations with firm commitments.

Stand up for ambition. The treaty must be fit for purpose and not built to fail.

The global context reinforces South Korea’s domestic pivot. If a treaty eventually sets common reporting rules, the country will already be aligned. If the talks stall, national policy will still benefit from clearer metrics and better targeted funding.

The scale of South Korea’s plastic problem

High living density, fast retail turnover, and a strong culture of gifting and presentation have shaped a packaging heavy marketplace. The pandemic accelerated the shift to home delivery of food and goods, pushing up disposable packaging even as the country maintained strict separation of waste streams. While South Korea’s sorting culture remains robust, the material arriving at reprocessors is not always suitable for high value applications, and global markets for recycled resin have been volatile.

Academic research quantifies the surge in delivery related packaging. A 2020 assessment found that online food delivery in South Korea used about 72.93 kilotons of plastic packaging, dominated by polypropylene and polyethylene terephthalate. The bulk of environmental impact occurred during raw material production. The study concluded that multi use containers can cut impacts by roughly 46 to 83 percent compared with disposables, although they can increase certain toxicity indicators that require management. The findings echo a simple idea: preventing waste at the source and designing for reuse deliver larger gains than relying only on end of life fixes.

Pandemic, e commerce, and delivery waste

Food delivery and e commerce have become part of daily life, and the associated packaging has outpaced improvements in disposal capacity. When virgin plastic is cheap, recycled resin struggles to compete. That price gap narrows the business case for collection, sorting, and washing, especially for flexible films, colored containers, and mixed materials. Clear definitions of recycling, along with stable demand through public procurement and recycled content rules, can help anchor the economics of reprocessing even when commodity cycles turn.

Policy shifts on packaging, labels, and producer responsibility

South Korea’s extended producer responsibility system (EPR) has operated since 2003, charging fees that rise when packaging is harder to recycle. Recent updates have gone further. Producers must grade the recyclability of their packaging and display that grade. Labels have been simplified to discourage materials that contaminate recycling streams. For plastic bottles, clear PET is rewarded, while PVC labels are being phased out. Shipping packaging is now covered by the same design principles, and attachments like straws or decorative add ons are discouraged to improve sortability.

Rules also push recycled content in products and encourage local governments to purchase goods made with recycled materials. Plans for a deposit return on disposable cups aimed to lift collection quality for food service items. That policy encountered legal and operational challenges and moved slower than expected, reflecting the tension between convenience and waste reduction. At the same time, new restrictions on items such as plastic straws and stirring sticks have nudged habits without severely disrupting daily routines.

Long standing national goals include cutting plastic waste and raising the share that is recycled. Aligning the legal definition of recycling with international practice will not, on its own, recover more plastic. It will clarify what counts, make targets credible, and direct money toward the systems that can actually turn waste into new materials.

What changes for cities, companies, and waste facilities

Reclassifying energy recovery has concrete financial effects. Today, waste that qualifies as recycled can be exempt from landfill fees and can boost performance scores for local governments and companies, which influence grants and subsidies. Once energy recovery stands in its own category, those benefits will diminish for incineration and co firing at cement plants. Municipal budgets, waste contracts, and corporate reporting will need to adapt. The ministry expects a phased transition, with legal revisions and funding criteria updated through the middle of this decade and full roll out around 2028.

Fees, subsidies, and performance scores

Performance indicators will place greater weight on material recovery. Landfill and incineration fees are likely to play a larger role in decision making for hard to recycle items. Local governments may adjust collection rules to improve quality, such as stricter separation of clear bottles, films, and colored plastics. Companies can expect tighter criteria for eco labels and environmental scoring that reward design for recyclability, standardized packaging formats, and post consumer recycled content. Procurement agencies can help stabilize demand by preferring goods made with local recycled resin.

Pyrolysis and chemical recycling

Chemical processes are expanding, but the details matter. When plastic waste is turned into fuel, the material is not returned to the cycle and the process counts as energy recovery in many places. When plastic is turned into feedstock that becomes new polymer, some jurisdictions accept it as recycling if rigorous mass balance and quality rules are in place. Carbon impacts vary by process and energy source. South Korea’s new definitions will need to reflect those distinctions so that incentives flow to options that truly regenerate material. Cement kilns that co fire plastic will still help reduce the use of coal, yet they will no longer lift recycling scores. That should shift focus to source reduction, reuse, and high quality reprocessing.

Better sorting can improve yields, and technology is helping. Startups and facility operators are deploying optical sorters, robots, and image recognition systems to separate materials with higher precision. Deposit return for beverage bottles continues to underpin high quality PET flows. Where reuse is viable, refill and take back models can limit waste at the source and reduce costs over time once networks are established.

How citizens and industry can cut waste without lowering living standards

Design choices and daily habits can reduce waste while keeping convenience. Packaging that uses one material, avoids dark colors, and peels off labels cleanly is easier to recycle. Companies can standardize bottle shapes, cap types, and resins to fit sorting lines. Retailers and delivery platforms can pilot multi use containers for popular menu items and offer simple return points. Municipalities can add fee discounts for clean, well sorted recyclables and support local hubs for washing and reuse.

Policymakers are also weighing ideas such as plastic credits that allow firms to offset packaging footprints by paying for collection elsewhere. Researchers caution that credits can mask real impacts if they fund incineration or do not prove additional collection, and they can shift waste burdens to regions with weaker infrastructure. Systems built on EPR, recycled content mandates, design standards, and clear reporting have stronger track records. Companies that want to lead can publish material specific data, set reuse targets, and build supplier partnerships to secure stable flows of recycled resin.

Energy recovery will still handle residues that are not feasible to recycle. The priority is to reduce how much waste reaches that point. By redefining recycling, South Korea is replacing feel good numbers with hard numbers. That transparency can unlock better design, smarter investment, and more credible progress toward a circular economy.

At a Glance

• South Korea will stop counting energy recovery as recycling and will report it separately.
• The change aligns with EU and U.S. practice and will lower headline recycling rates.
• In 2023, 12.5 percent of the household recycling figure came from thermal recycling.
• For all plastic waste, about 29.5 percent of what was counted as recycled was energy recovery.
• Household recycling could drop by more than 10 points once energy recovery is excluded.
• The measured plastic recycling rate could fall by about 30 points under the new method.
• Legal revisions and subsidy changes point to full implementation around 2028.
• Per capita plastic waste reached 103.9 kilograms in 2022, well above the OECD average.
• Policy updates on packaging design, recyclability labels, and EPR will remain central.
• Clearer metrics aim to boost real material recovery, not just waste to energy output.