Risk Factors for Poland to Achieve the European Commission’s Recycling and Landfill Targets and Their Effects on Waste-to-Energy Conversion: A Review

Abstract

Poland is highly likely, as per a European Commission report, to fall short of meeting the 2025 targets related to the preparation for re-use and recycling of municipal waste and packaging waste. The risk of not meeting the municipal waste recycling targets stands at 27%, while for packaging waste, it is estimated at 30%. Recycling rates play a pivotal role in gauging the efficiency of waste management systems, as well as in monitoring progress toward a circular economy. Taking into account the considerable likelihood of Poland not achieving the recycling targets, the authors of the paper found it imperative to identify the risk factors associated with Poland’s failure to meet the European Commission’s recycling and landfill targets within the waste-to-energy context. Additionally, they sought to evaluate the potential for the development of the waste-to-energy concept in Poland. The research objectives were fulfilled through the literature review method. By employing the classification of factors outlined in a SWOT analysis, the authors highlighted which of the identified risk factors could or should be considered strengths or weaknesses, opportunities or threats to the Polish recycling process. Mapping out future courses of action will enable decision-makers in Poland to address the weaknesses in recycling, capitalize on opportunities arising from the socio-economic situation in Poland, and formulate plans to mitigate the identified threats. Undertaking such initiatives has the potential to enhance recycling rates in Poland and facilitate the broader application of waste-to-energy practices.

1. Introduction

In the “Waste Early Warning Report” [1], published on 8 June 2023, the European Commission identified EU countries that are likely to fall short of the 2025 targets related to the preparation for re-use and recycling of municipal waste and packaging waste, as well as the 2035 target of curbing municipal waste landfill. Poland is among these countries. According to the EC report [1], the risk of Poland failing to meet the targets for municipal waste recycling was estimated at 27%, while for the target concerning packaging waste, it was projected to be 30%. As illustrated in Figure 1, each of the 27 EU member states is at risk of failing to achieve the target of preparing for re-use or recycling at least 55% of municipal waste by 2025. Additionally, they are at risk of not reaching the target of recycling at least 65% of packaging waste by 2025.

With the growing population and economic expansion, the increasing production of waste presents a substantial challenge for environmental management and sustainable development. According to World Bank data, global annual waste production is expected to reach 3.4 billion tons by 2050 [3]. The significant emissions of greenhouse gases and pollutants resulting from inadequate waste treatment will not only intensify the impact of global warming but also jeopardize human health. In Poland, landfilling currently stands as the predominant method of waste disposal, contributing not only to the release of high concentrations of greenhouse gases but also to groundwater contamination and the extensive consumption of land resources. These drawbacks inherent in traditional waste processing technologies present a formidable challenge to both environmental quality and sustainable development.

The global economy has experienced rapid development since the 20th century. However, the unregulated exploitation of natural resources has given rise to undeniable issues, including global environmental degradation, resource wastage and depletion, and environmental pollution. Mass consumption and indiscriminate disposal have brought to light the planet’s limitations. Furthermore, industrial economies generate vast amounts of waste, quickly filling available landfill sites with a lack of viable alternatives. In several countries, manufacturers are now obligated to take responsibility for the entire life cycle of a product, especially concerning recycling and waste re-use. Various factors, such as diminishing nonrenewable resources, stringent environmental and occupational health and safety regulations, and increasing consumer preferences for environmentally friendly products, underscore the urgent need for achieving comprehensive sustainable development in industrial activities [4].

Solid waste management poses a global challenge that affects people worldwide. Both individuals and governments make decisions regarding consumption and waste management, influencing daily health, productivity, and the cleanliness of communities. However, insufficient waste management calls for immediate measures at all societal levels. As Poland undergoes development, its waste management situation is also evolving [5]. The rise in prosperity among the population and the migration to urban areas correlate with an increased per capita waste production. Additionally, swift urbanization leads to the creation of larger population clusters, making waste collection and the acquisition of land for waste processing and disposal more challenging.

Municipal waste management is expensive. In developing middle-income countries, the management of municipal solid waste (MSW) often constitutes over 10% of municipal budgets. Local authorities typically bear the responsibility for waste management, but they encounter constraints in terms of limited resources, as well as challenges related to planning, finances, and monitoring. Given these factors, achieving sustainable waste management becomes a complex endeavor amid the pursuit of economic growth, with the majority of low- and middle-income countries and their cities dealing with formidable challenges. The repercussions of inadequate waste management are tragic and disproportionately impact the impoverished, who frequently lack access to proper care and have minimal influence over formal or informal waste disposal near their residences [3].

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is recognized as a renewable energy source, with substantial quantities present in numerous locations globally. The waste-to-energy concept has gained widespread acceptance in many countries as a means of generating electricity and thermal energy while addressing environmental concerns associated with landfill of municipal solid waste. In light of diminishing conventional energy sources, challenges to energy security, and growing societal awareness of environmental issues, there is a global trend toward developing programs facilitating the generation of electricity from renewable sources [6].

2. Methods

Literature reviews are diverse in many aspects, so there are many different typologies adopting a variety of classification criteria [7,8]. The most commonly cited reviews in the literature include full systematic review, meta-analysis, rapid review, traditional literature review, narrative review, research synthesis, and structured review [9]. Booth, Sutton and Papaioannou [7] proposed to divide reviews according to SALSA (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis and Analysis—stages of conducting a review) criteria, i.e., according to the importance and quality of the different stages of conducting reviews: critical review, integrative review, literature review, mapping review systematic map, meta-analysis, scoping review, systematic search and review.

The systematic literature review procedure can also be carried out in a three-stage division [10]: Stage I. Planning the review: Phase 0—Identification for the need for a review, Phase 1—Preparation of a proposal for a review, Phase 2—Development of a review protocol; Stage II—Conducting a review: Phase 3—Identification of research, Phase 4—Selection of studies, Phase 5—Study quality assessment, Phase 6—Data extraction and monitoring progress, Phase 7—Data synthesis, Stage III—Reporting and dissemination: Phase 8—The report and recommendations, Phase 9—Getting evidence into practice. The authors used a systematic literature review, conducting it with the following stages: (1) Research Question, (2) Research Protocol, (3) Literature Search, (4) Data Extraction, (5) Quality Assessment, (6) Data Analysis and Results, (7) Interpret Results [11] Wright, Brand, Dunn, Spindler 2007. The systematic literature review was conducted on 13 November 2023.

In the first stage of the systematic literature review, the authors formulated the following research question, which determined the scope of the review:

• RQ: What factors may contribute to the risk of Poland’s failure to meet its 2025 targets for preparing for re-use and recycling of municipal waste and packaging waste?

This question took the form of the aim: to identify risk factors for Poland’s failure to meet the European Commission’s recycling and waste-to-energy targets. In order to achieve the main goal, specific objectives were formulated:

• Identifying, analyzing, and sorting out the risk factors for Poland’s failure to meet the European Commission’s 2025 targets for preparing for re-use and recycling of municipal waste and packaging waste;
• Assessing the possibility of developing the waste-to-energy concept in Poland in connection with meeting the European Commission’s 2035 target for reducing municipal waste landfills.

Next, the authors developed a protocol, that is, a detailed plan for a systematic literature review, in which they determined the scope of the study and the selection of methods for data analysis and synthesis. In the next step, the authors selected the subject of the study, i.e., identified the collections of publications and keywords. Scopus and Web of Science databases were selected for the study. To complete the study, the authors also used other sources, such as conference materials, references found in primary sources, the Internet, and publications recommended by experts. The authors extracted the following keywords: risk factor, recycling; landfill, target, Poland, Europe, waste-to-energy. The steps performed allowed the authors to move on to the next stage, that of excluding and including publications in the study, known as cleaning the database. The authors evaluated the titles and abstracts of the publications, excluding those publications that were not related to the issue under study. A narrowed number of publications were subjected to full-text analysis by the authors. At this stage, too, those publications that were not related to the issue under study were excluded from the study. As a result, a database was created as a basis for the analysis and synthesis of the results. The obtained results of the analysis, together with interpreting, were presented by the authors in the form of a scientific article.

The first step was to perform an analysis of the literature available in the Scopus database. The bibliometric analysis of the literature carried out was the result of restrictions introduced to advanced search in the Scopus database on 13 November 2023. The authors created the datasets presented in

Table 1. Datasets developed within the Scopus database (13 November 2023).

No.	Query String	Number of Publications
1.	TITLE-ABS-KEY ((risk AND factor) AND (recycling) AND (landfill) AND (target) AND (Poland))	0
2.	TITLE-ABS-KEY ((risk AND factor) AND (recycling) AND (landfill) AND (target) AND (Europe))	0
3.	TITLE-ABS-KEY ((recycling) AND (landfill) AND (target) AND (Poland))	4
4.	TITLE-ABS-KEY ((risk AND factor) AND (recycling) AND (landfill) AND (“waste-to-energy”))	5
IN TOTAL		9

.

The following query string was initially entered for the search: TITLE-ABS-KEY ((risk AND factor) AND (recycling) AND (landfill) AND (target) AND (Poland)). The search resulted that no documents matching the keywords were found. The search was modified by extending the scope and introduced the following query string: TITLE-ABS-KEY ((risk AND factor) AND (recycling) AND (landfill) AND (target) AND (Europe)). Expanding the scope of the search in the Scopus database of publications did not affect the number of results, and again no documents matching the keywords were found. The next step was to limit the number of keywords. The following query string was introduced into the advanced search: TITLE-ABS-KEY ((recycling) AND (landfill) AND (target) AND (Poland)). Only 4 documents (3 articles and 1 conference paper) were selected from the database. Without applying any time limitations, it was found that all texts were published between 2015 and 2023. The searched publications were interdisciplinary and related to the following research areas: Environmental Science (4), Energy (3), Business, Management and Accounting (1), Earth and Planetary Sciences (1), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (1), Engineering (1), Social Sciences (1).

The small number of searched publications in the Scopus database prompted the authors to change the keywords again and introduce another query string: TITLE-ABS-KEY ((risk AND factor) AND (recycling) AND (landfill) AND (“waste-to-energy”)). The result of the search was 5 new documents (4 articles and 1 book chapter), and none of the publications were repeated as a result of the search using the previous string. Again, with no time constraints, it was found that all 5 texts were published between 1994 and 2023. The topics of the publications were contained in only 2 research areas: Environmental Science (4) and Engineering (1). In summary, a search in the Scopus database using as many as four keyword combinations allowed the selection of only 9 publications.

In the next step, the authors subjected the Web of Science Core Collection database to a search using the same keywords (

Table 2. Datasets developed within the Web of Science Core Collection database (13 November 2023).

No.	Query String	Number of Publications
1.	TS = ((risk AND factor) AND recycling AND landfill AND target AND Poland)	0
2.	TS = ((risk AND factor) AND recycling AND landfill AND target AND Europe)	0
3.	TS = (recycling AND landfill AND target AND Poland)	4
4.	TS = ((risk AND factor) AND recycling AND landfill AND (“waste-to-energy”))	1
IN TOTAL		5

).

The search in the Web of Science Core Collection database was carried out using the same data sets used by the authors in the SCOPUS database. The following string was first used: TS = ((risk AND factor) AND recycling AND landfill AND target AND Poland). No search result was obtained in response. No search result was also obtained after entering the string: TS = ((risk AND factor) AND recycling AND landfill AND target AND Europe). In the third step of the search, the authors entered the string TS = (recycling AND landfill AND target AND Poland), which resulted in 4 results—2 publications were the same ones the authors identified by searching the SCOPUS database, while the other two publications were from conference proceedings (2016 and 2020). In the last step, the authors searched the database using the string TS = ((risk AND factor) AND recycling AND landfill AND (“waste-to-energy”)) receiving 1 result—it was a publication from the journal Waste Management from 2017. Three newly searched publications did not contain relevant information on the subject of the study, so they were excluded by the authors from the database of publications qualified for analysis.

The authors included in the database of publications qualified for analysis 4 publications from the SCOPUS base, 3 publications recommended by an expert/reviewer, and 8 publications obtained from the Internet. In the Web of Science Core Collection base, the authors classified 1 of the 4 results obtained, which was also the result of searches in the SCOPUS base. In total, the authors included 15 publications in the database. Referring to a synthetic review of the literature and based on the bibliometric analysis presented, the authors identified the need to add to the existing body of knowledge and examine the publications available on the Internet resources. At this stage, they obtained 8 publications closely related to the topic under study, which were included in the database of publications qualified for analysis. Despite a considerable volume of studies and a wealth of theoretical and empirical publications on recycling, the number of works specifically analyzing the risk factors associated with failing to meet the European Commission’s 2025 targets for preparing for re-use and recycling of municipal waste and packaging waste, along with the 2035 target for restricting municipal waste landfill, remains limited. The authors of the paper recognize the need to intensify research efforts in this domain, given the significant role recycling plays in the waste re-use process.

3. Comparison of Solid Waste Management Data in Poland with EU Averages

The data on waste management play a crucial role in local policy-making and planning. Understanding the quantity and types of waste generated, particularly in the context of rapid urbanization and population growth, enables local authorities to employ suitable management methods and anticipate future demands. Armed with accurate data, governments can prudently allocate budgets and land, assess suitable technologies, and engage strategic partners such as the private sector or non-governmental organizations in service provision [3].

Since the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste [12] came into effect, EU member states, including Poland, have made substantial investments in their recycling systems, encompassing collection systems, waste sorting and reprocessing equipment, and infrastructure. However, despite the similarity of recovery and recycling targets outlined in the PPW directive for all member states, the operational strategies designed to meet these targets vary significantly from country to country [13,14].

A total of 22.2 billion tons—that is the annual quantity of waste produced in the EU. Of this, more than one-fourth (27%) constitutes municipal waste, encompassing daily waste collected and processed by municipalities, primarily originating from households [15]. While there is considerable variation in waste quantity and management practices among individual EU countries, a discernible trend has emerged toward increased recycling and reduced landfill usage. Figure 2 illustrates the targets for municipal waste and packaging waste recycling (both total and by material), along with the specified target years outlined in the EU frame directive on waste and the EU directive on packaging and packaging waste.

To mitigate the quantity of waste and its environmental impact, the EU has established ambitious targets for waste recycling and landfill reduction, continually refining regulations pertaining to packaging waste. These efforts aim to propel the transition towards a more sustainable model, specifically, a circular economy [15]. EU authorities are actively promoting waste prevention and product re-use. Where such practices are not feasible, the preference is for recycling, including composting, followed by the utilization of waste for energy generation. Dumping waste, such as in landfill sites, represents one of the least expensive but most environmentally and health-detrimental options. In November 2022, the European Commission introduced draft legislation on packaging, proposing improvements to packaging design, such as clear labeling to facilitate re-use and recycling. The legislation also encourages a shift towards biobased, biodegradable, and compostable plastics [15].

Although the average quantity of municipal waste per capita in the EU increased from 2018 to 2021, individual member states demonstrate varying trends. Notably, while the majority of EU countries experienced an increase in per capita waste, a decline was observed in Malta, Cyprus, Spain, and Romania. In absolute terms, the highest quantity of municipal waste per capita is generated in Austria, Luxembourg, Denmark, and Belgium, whereas the lowest amounts are found in Spain, Latvia, Croatia, and Sweden. A noticeable trend is the correlation between wealthier countries and higher per capita waste production.

In 2022, Poland produced 13,420,000 tons of municipal waste, marking a 1.9% decrease from 2021. The per capita quantity of municipal waste decreased from 360 kg in 2021 to 355 kg in 2022. Concurrently, in 2022, the amount of separately collected waste stood at 142 kg per capita [17], including:

• Biodegradable waste—51 kg per capita (49 kg in 2021);
• Glass—21 kg per capita (21 kg in 2021);
• Bulky waste—17 kg per capita (20 kg in 2021);
• Mixed packaging waste—15 kg per capita (16 kg in 2021);
• Paper and cardboard—15 kg per capita (14 kg in 2021);
• Plastics—14 kg per capita (14 kg in 2021).

In Poland, noticeable disparities exist across regions. Specifically, the voivodeships in Western Poland reported significantly higher per capita municipal waste production in 2022 compared to those in the east of the country. The highest per capita waste ratio recorded in 2022, at 422 kg, was in Lower Silesian Voivodeship, while the lowest value occurred in Subcarpathian Voivodeship, with 243 kg of municipal waste produced per capita for the year. The factors influencing these variations in the quantities of municipal waste produced include not only the population size but also consumption patterns [18].

Despite a rise in the quantity of waste produced per inhabitant in the EU, there has been an improvement in waste management, marked by an increase in recycling and composting and a decrease in landfill usage. According to 2021 statistics, 49.6% of all municipal waste in the EU was recycled or composted, representing a 3.6 percentage point increase from 2017. Notably, the 2030 target set by the EU for municipal waste re-use or recycling at 60% has already been achieved or surpassed in Germany, Belgium, Austria, and Slovenia [15].

Municipal waste landfills are virtually non-existent in Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Slovenia, and Finland, where incineration, along with recycling, plays a predominant role. Incineration is also utilized in Lithuania, Latvia, Ireland, Italy, France, Czechia, Slovakia, and Poland, but approximately one-third of waste still ends up in landfills. The proportion of landfill sites in the EU declined from 24% in 2017 to 18% in 2020. However, landfilling remains prevalent in the eastern and southern parts of Europe. From 2017 to 2020, landfilling notably decreased in Croatia, Poland, Slovakia, and Cyprus (by around 30 percentage points), as well as in Greece, Malta, and Romania (by around 20 percentage points) [15].

In Poland, collected municipal waste underwent the following processes [17]:

• Recovery—8,199,100 tons (61.1%), which includes the following:
  • Recycling—3,585,400 tons (26.7%);
  • Biological treatment (composting or digestion)—1,899,500 tons (14.2%);
  • Thermal treatment with energy recovery—2,714,100 tons (20.2%);
• Waste disposal—5,221,200 tons (38.9%), which includes the following:
  • Through thermal treatment without energy recovery—113,000 tons (0.8%);
  • Through landfill—5,108,200 tons (38.1%).

As of the end of 2022, Poland had 259 landfilling sites receiving waste, occupying a total land area of 1624 hectares. Ninety-two percent of these sites were equipped with degassing installations. As a result, approximately 111,162,000 MJ of thermal energy and around 102,487,000 kWh of electricity were recovered through the incineration of captured gas. During 2022, 11 landfilling sites, covering a total area of about 45.3 hectares, were closed. In the same year, 10,714 illegal dumping sites were eradicated, with around 25,000 tons of municipal waste collected from them [17].

Another seldom-addressed issue in scientific publications is the export of waste to non-EU countries. In 2021, 33 million tons of waste were exported from the EU to non-EU countries, marking a 77% increase compared to 2004. The primary destination for EU-exported waste was Turkey, receiving as much as 14.7 million tons (approximately 45% of all exported waste), followed by India (2.4 million tons) and Egypt (1.9 million tons). The waste exported to non-EU countries mainly included ferrous and non-ferrous metal scraps, as well as paper, plastic, textile, and glass waste. Ferrous metal scraps and glass waste from the EU predominantly reached the member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), while non-ferrous metal scraps, paper, plastic, and textile waste were primarily transported to non-OECD countries [15]. It is estimated that the largest waste exporters in 2022, especially in terms of plastic waste, were Germany, Holland, and Belgium [19].

4. Identification of Risk Factors of Poland’s Failure to Meet Recycling Rates

One of the key long-term waste management goals in Poland is to decrease the number of landfill sites and the volume of waste sent to landfills. This challenge can be addressed by enhancing the recycling rate in Poland, among other measures. The re-use of waste for the production of goods and services will help mitigate the risks and consequences associated with the creation of landfill sites, as outlined in

Table 3. Risks and consequences associated with the creation of landfill sites.

Risks Associated with the Creation of Landfill Sites

Consequences

– Risk of landfill gas emission; – Risk of unpleasant odor emission; – Risk of leaching emission; – Risk of bacteriological danger; – Risk of dust and fine waste fractions being spread; – Risk of explosion and threat to workers’ life and health; – Risk of the production of methane as a result of the decomposition of biodegradable components of waste (such as paper and food waste) *.

– Water and soil contamination; – Decrease in the value of the real estate within the affected area; – Greenhouse effect; – Damage to plants’ root systems by penetrating landfill gas; – Increased development of illnesses among people and animals; – Increased reproduction of rodents and birds feeding on landfill; – Damage to landscape; – Loss of life or permanent health impairment affecting workers.

* Source: own work based on [20,21].

.

It is crucial to emphasize that biodegradable components of waste, such as paper and food waste, release methane gas, which has a more significant negative impact on the environment than carbon dioxide [22].

The identification of risk factors for the non-attainment of recycling rates necessitates defining the concept of risk. While there is not a universally accepted definition of risk in the literature, among the commonly cited definitions are those proposed by international organizations. According to the FERMA risk management standard [23], developed by the Federation of European Risk Management Associations (The Institute of Risk Management—IRM, The Association of Insurance and Risk Managers—AIRMIC, ALARM The National Forum for Risk Management in the Public Sector), risk is defined as the combination of the probability of an event and its consequences, which can present opportunities for achieving benefits or threats to the success of a given undertaking [23]. Conversely, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) conceptualizes risk as the effect of uncertainty on objectives. The outcome of this effect, involving deviation from expectations, can be positive, negative, or both [24]. Another frequently cited definition comes from Paul Hopkin, who describes risk as “an event with the ability to impact (inhibit, enhance, or cause doubt about) the effectiveness and efficiency of the core processes of an organization” [25] (p. 16). When analyzing risk, consideration should be given to the causes of these risks, referred to as risk factors. Risk factors in the activity of economic entities can be categorized into controllable and non-controllable factors. Controllability refers to the degree of control that a given entity can exert over these factors. Risk factors in economic activity can further be broken down into the following [26] (p. 21):

• Controllable—subject to an economic entity’s control;
• Conditionally controllable (difficult to control)—controllability of these factors depends on the fulfillment of certain conditions (e.g., the passage of time, financial conditions);
• Non-controllable—those over which an economic entity does not have and cannot have control.

Based on a literature review, the authors of the paper have identified the risk factors for Poland’s non-attainment of the set recycling rates (

Table 4. The risk factors for Poland’s non-attainment of the set recycling rates.

Risk Factors for Poland’s Non-Attainment of the Set Recycling Rates	Author/-s
Insufficient legislative changes in Poland aimed at increasing waste recycling and strengthening the enforcement of waste management legislation	Pietrzyk-Sokulska (2016) [27], Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28], Albin (2021) [29], Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection (2022) [30]
Insufficient awareness among Poland’s inhabitants concerning a circular economy and the benefits of waste separation and recycling	Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28], Albin (2021) [29], Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection (2022) [30], Kotlińska, Żukowska (2023) [31]
Insufficient environmentally friendly behaviors of the inhabitants of Poland related to waste separation for recycling	Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28], Albin (2021) [29], Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection (2022) [30], Kotlińska, Żukowska (2023) [31]
Insufficient investment expenditure in the realm of innovative technologies in the area of waste management	Pietrzyk-Sokulska (2016) [27], Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28], Antonopoulos, Faraca, Tonini (2021) [32], Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection (2022) [30]
Inadequate waste separation infrastructure	Pietrzyk-Sokulska (2016) [27], Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28], Albin (2021) [29], Antonopoulos, Faraca, Tonini (2021) [32], European Environment Agency (2022) [33]
Insufficient investment expenditure on waste separation infrastructure	Pietrzyk-Sokulska (2016) [27], Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28], Albin (2021) [29], Antonopoulos, Faraca, Tonini (2021) [32], European Environment Agency (2022) [33]
Inadequate waste treatment infrastructure	Pietrzyk-Sokulska (2016) [27], Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28], Albin (2021) [29], Antonopoulos, Faraca, Tonini (2021) [32]
Insufficient investment expenditure on waste treatment infrastructure	Pietrzyk-Sokulska (2016) [27], Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28], Albin (2021) [29], Antonopoulos, Faraca, Tonini (2021) [32]
Insufficient number of recycling experts in Poland	Albin (2021) [29]
Insufficient number of scientific studies (and their findings) on recycling	Pietrzyk-Sokulska (2016) [27]
Insufficiently restrictive system of punishments for inappropriate handling of waste in households (waste separation errors, illegal dumping sites, incineration in house boiler rooms, waste trading)	Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28], Albin (2021) [29]
Lack of a reward and punishment system incentivizing waste producers to reduce its quantity	Albin (2021) [29]
Too little responsibility on the part of producers (financial or financial and organizational) for the separate collection and preparation for recycling of packaging waste under Extended Producer Responsibility	Pietrzyk-Sokulska (2016) [27], Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28], Albin (2021) [29], Antonopoulos, Faraca, Tonini (2021) [32], European Environment Agency (2022) [33], Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection (2022) [30], Bajdor, Pawełoszek, Fidlerova (2021) [34]
Insufficient financial aid from the state to local government units for initiatives promoting environmentally friendly behaviors	Albin (2021) [29]
Insufficient technical assistance from the state to local government units for initiatives promoting environmentally friendly behaviors	Albin (2021) [29], European Environment Agency (2022) [33]
Insufficient economic mechanisms for waste prevention (e.g., packaging fees and packaging deposit system)	Albin (2021) [29], Antonopoulos, Faraca, Tonini (2021) [32]
No systemic payment solutions for households (e.g., pay-as-you-throw for households)	Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28]
Excessive quantity of collected/produced waste unsuitable for recycling	Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28], Albin (2021) [29]
Too few markets for raw materials recovered through recycling (lack of plants/factories receiving, e.g., recovered glass, waste paper, scrap metal)	Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28], Albin (2021) [29]
Incorrect design of the waste management system	Pietrzyk-Sokulska (2016) [27], Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28], Albin (2021) [29], Antonopoulos, Faraca, Tonini (2021) [32], Hopewell, Dvorak, Kosior (2009) [35], Bartoszczuk (2017) [36]
Low economic viability of recycling	Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28], Albin (2021) [29]
Lack of plastic and glass separation by color, issues arising from varying densities of materials	Antonopoulos, Faraca, Tonini (2021) [32]
Lack of stimulate competitiveness in the public sector and support municipalities in setting up waste collection companies	Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28]
Too low the value of the funds of the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management earmarked for loans and, above all, non-repayable aid for municipalities wishing to remove illegal hazardous waste landfills from their territory	Jarząbek, Juszczak, Szpor (2020) [28]
Insufficient control of the activities of the municipality and intermunicipal associations responsible for the functioning of the municipal waste management system in terms of legality, reliability and economy	Albin (2021) [29]
Too low requirements for products and packaging placed on the market to be processed rationally in the future	Albin (2021) [29], Antonopoulos, Faraca, Tonini (2021) [32], European Environment Agency (2022) [33]
Insufficient restrictions imposed on operators collecting or treating waste in proportion to the target to be met in such a way as to optimize the costs of their operations	Albin (2021) [29], Antonopoulos, Faraca, Tonini (2021) [32]
Insufficient research on best practices and monitoring (e.g., through a survey) municipalities’ implementation of the sorting obligation, obtaining feedback from them on challenges and barriers and developing tools to support them	European Environment Agency (2022) [33]
Too little use of modern sorting technologies used in mechanical–biological treatment (MBT) plants in Poland	Den Boer, Jędrczak (2017) [37]
Too little use of construction and demolition waste (CDW) in the construction industry, which should be increased by amending CDW regulations; improving data quality and harmonization; improving returns logistics and increasing market demand for secondary materials), including increasing the use of gypsum waste in the manufacturing of new plasterboard	Villoria Sáez, Osmani (2019) [38], Rivero, De Guzmán Báez, Navarro (2015) [39]
Too little share of returns logistics in corporate strategy	Vieira, Guarnieri, Nofal, Nofal (2020) [40], Richnák, Fidlerová (2022) [41]

).

In a further step, using the division of factors adopted in the SWOT analysis, the authors indicated which factors can or should constitute strengths (S) weaknesses (W), opportunities (O), or threats (T) for the Polish recycling process. This stage may be the starting point for future empirical studies.

5. Introduction to SWOT Analysis

SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis is a tool that provides valuable information on internal and external factors with positive or negative effects on the development of an organization (or a certain phenomenon). Such information can prompt decision-makers to undertake the best actions [42]. One of the most popular divisions of factors, both in theory and practice, was proposed by Kotler [43] (

Table 5. SWOT analysis Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O), and Threats (T).

	Positive Factors	Negative Factors
	Strengths	Weaknesses
Internal factors	Internal capabilities that may help company reach its objectives.	Internal limitations that may interfere with a company’s ability to achieve its objectives.
	Opportunities	Threats
External factors	External factors that the company may be able to exploit to its advantage.	Current and emerging external factors that may challenge the company’s performance.

).

The authors utilized the classification of factors in a SWOT analysis as presented in Table 5 to analyze and categorize the identified risk factors for the non-attainment of the European Commission’s targets concerning preparing for re-use and recycling of municipal waste and packaging waste for 2025. In doing so, they outlined the directions for future steps that should be taken by Polish decision-makers. By determining which factors can or should constitute a strength or weakness, opportunity or threat to the Polish recycling process (

Table 6. Expected directions of actions of the Polish authorities—proposal to break down the risk factors for Poland’s non-attainment of the set recycling rates based on the breakdown of factors according to the SWOT analysis Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O), and Threats (T).

	Positive Factors	Negative Factors
Internal factors	Strengths Increased investment expenditure in the realm of innovative technologies in the area of waste management; Increased investment expenditure on waste separation infrastructure; Increased investment expenditure on waste treatment infrastructure.	Weaknesses Excessive quantity of collected/produced waste unsuitable for recycling; Low economic viability of recycling; Lack of plastic and glass separation by color, issues arising from varying densities of materials.
External factors	Opportunities Implementation of the comprehensive legal system in Poland aimed at increasing waste recycling and strengthening the enforcement of waste management legislation; Increased awareness among Poland’s inhabitants concerning a circular economy and the benefits of waste separation and recycling; Increased environmentally friendly behaviors of the inhabitants of Poland related to waste separation for recycling; Increased expenditure on recycling research; Increased responsibility on the part of producers (financial or financial and organizational) for the separate collection and preparation for recycling of packaging waste under Extended Producer Responsibility; Implementation of obligatory systems enabling reimbursement of the deposit for drink containers.	Threats Insufficiently restrictive system of punishments for inappropriate handling of waste in households (waste separation errors, illegal dumping sites, incineration in house boiler rooms); Insufficient financial aid from the state to local government units for initiatives promoting environmentally friendly behaviors; Insufficient technical assistance from the state to local government units for initiatives promoting environmentally friendly behaviors; Lack of systemic solutions such as pay-as-you-throw for households; Too few markets for raw materials recovered through recycling (lack of plants/factories receiving, e.g., recovered glass, waste paper, scrap metal); Inadequate design of the waste management system.

), decision-makers in Poland will be able to address the weaknesses of recycling, leverage opportunities arising from the socio-economic situation in Poland, and develop plans to mitigate existing threats. Undertaking these actions may contribute to increasing recycling in Poland.

For a recycling system to be effective, all its components should function properly. These elements include the following [27] (p. 143):

• The appropriate legislative policy of the State in favor of recycling, the development of waste treatment technologies, in particular with a view to maximizing the use of waste;
• Designing goods with the widest possible use of recyclable and material–homogeneous materials, which simplifies their subsequent dismantling and waste segregation;
• Designing goods that are combinations of different materials in such a way as to facilitate their subsequent separation into components made of homogeneous materials as much as possible;
• The design of the goods so that all (or a large part) of the waste deposited is reusable without treatment or with minimal cost of recovery;
• A system for marking both the packaging of products and the components of such products, in order to facilitate the identification and segregation of waste.

The European Commission provided recommendations for all 18 member states at risk of non-attainment of the main recycling targets for 2025. These recommendations include, among other things: reducing the quantity of waste unsuitable for recycling, increasing re-use, elevating the level of separate collection, expanding waste treatment capacity in terms of separation and recycling, enhancing waste management, and fostering consumer awareness [1].

6. Waste-to-Energy Potential as an Effect of Reducing MSW Landfill

Since EU member states are required to reduce municipal waste landfill to a maximum of 10% by 2035, the existing waste management system demands modification. Two major strategies are frequently analyzed in the literature [44]:

• Mechanical–biological treatment (MBT) using refuse-derived fuel (RDF) in power generation systems;
• Waste treatment in WTE facilities.

Figure 3 enables a comparison of “municipal waste landfill rates in Europe by country” in 2010 and 2020 along with “landfil target 2023”.

The utilization of municipal solid waste is a crucial issue in the process of energy transformation in Poland. Meeting the 2050 targets set in the European Union’s climate and energy policy necessitates not only a substantial reduction in energy consumption but, above all, a radical restructuring of the energy structure. Poland, one of the few EU countries with an archaic energy structure primarily relying on solid fuels, faces significant challenges. It should consistently increase the share of renewable energy sources (RES) and substitute hard coal in power engineering and heat engineering [46].

The research findings by L. Traven [47] demonstrate the quantity of energy that can be generated from municipal solid waste utilizing various technologies (

Table 7. Energy recovery potential per ton of MSW for the different waste-to-energy technologies.

Waste-to-Energy Technologies	Energy Recovery Potential per ton of MSW *
Incineration Pyrolysis and gasification Anaerobic digestion Landfill gas capture and use	2 MJ (electricity) 2 MJ (electricity) 0.04–0.09 MJ (electricity) 0.003 m3/min

* Based on [47].

).

The waste-to-energy concept is increasingly gaining traction among scholars as a way of generating electricity and producing heat, as well as tackling serious environmental challenges resulting from municipal solid waste landfill. Simultaneously, the current energy situation in Poland compels one to reflect. After the pandemic-related slowdown in 2020, 2021 was another year in a row marked by unexpected events in the energy sector, deviating from the previous years of stabilization. Europe experienced an energy crisis, with gas prices and CO₂ emission costs suddenly skyrocketing. The 2022 war reality led to even more uncertainty and disruption of the energy market, with the issues of energy security and independence from imported raw materials coming to the fore. The main conclusions concerning Poland’s energy situation, are presented in the report [48] as follows:

• The share of coal in electricity production in 2021 increased and stood at over 72%.
• The share of renewable energy sources decreased to around 17% despite record high production from these sources, which amounted to 30 TWh.
• In 2021, electricity production and consumption were at a record high, amounting to 179.4 TWh (+14% year-on-year) and 180.3 TWh (+5.4% year-on-year), respectively.
• Net import of electricity was the lowest in 5 years, amounting to 0.89 TWh.
• Generating capacity increased by 3.7 GW (to 53.5 GW).
• The capacity of conventional units remained stable for years, with growth recorded in the capacity of RES (+4.4 GW year-on-year), mainly photovoltaics (+3.7 GW year-on-year).
• Despite high prices of CO₂ emission quotas, energy production from coal was cheaper than production from natural gas, leading to an increase in the use of coal power and a decrease in the use of gas power.
• For the first time in years, wholesale prices of electricity in Poland were among the lowest in this part of Europe. This contributed to high exports and production.
• The weighted average price of CO₂ was EUR 53.13/t CO₂ in 2021. Poland’s income from the sales of CO₂ quotas was over PLN 25 billion in 2021.
• The prices of natural gas, and consequently those of electricity, increased throughout the region to record high values.

The processes of converting waste to energy have been attempted in various cities in Poland multiple times, but the majority of these attempts ended in failure. A series of setbacks resulted in a negative perception of this process, both among the public and investors. It is suggested that the primary causes of these failures were the absence of a robust political framework for waste-to-energy conversion and insufficient or non-existent financial and logistical planning. However, a positive shift in public mindset has occurred due to increased awareness and education. Additionally, the rising prices of fuels and energy have made waste-to-energy projects more attractive and economically viable. Available research findings emphasize the need to integrate the waste management system with waste reduction efforts, ensuring that energy security is achieved by harnessing the energy potential of municipal solid waste (MSW) [49].

In recent years, technologies for converting waste into electricity and heat (waste-to-energy) through thermochemical or biochemical processes have raised more concerns regarding their potential for improving resource utilization, mitigating environmental pressure, and enhancing economic benefits [4,50]. Common examples include incineration, landfill gas recovery, anaerobic fermentation, and organic waste gasification. Comprehensive studies, encompassing cost and benefit analyses as well as assessments of the environmental benefits throughout the life cycle, have been conducted for various waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies [50,51,52]. Moreover, the construction of a new incineration plant, from initial considerations to full operation, is a long-term process lasting at least 5–7 years. Subsequently, the operational phase ensues, spanning over 20 years [44].

M. Pavlas, M. Tous, L. Bébar, and P. Stehlík [53] identified potential locations for new WTE plants. The proposed construction sites are closely connected to existing, well-developed heating networks, enhancing the positive impact of their operation on the environment. The correlation between WTE plant efficiency and the appropriate facility location was described by M. Grosso, A. Motta, and L. Rigamonti [54]. In addition to WTE, it is important to utilize refuse-derived fuel (RDF), such as co-incineration in cement kilns, coal-fired power plants, etc. This approach would enable the achievement of MSW landfill targets while simultaneously contributing to the efficient generation of energy from waste.

7. Discussion

Recycling rates hold significant importance in assessing the efficiency of waste management systems and play a pivotal role in monitoring the progress toward a circular economy [55,56]. Additionally, recycling is believed not only to contribute to resource protection but also to enhance supply security, specifically critical raw materials [55,57]. Access to critical resources is crucial for the green transformation of Europe. The transformation of the recycling sector in Poland is imperative due to its role in ensuring the resource independence of Europe’s economy. In Poland, a staggering 13.8 tons of raw materials are consumed per capita annually, with only 10.2% of that quantity being recirculated. This indicates an 89.8% gap in the closed loop, with only one-tenth of all materials flowing through the Polish economy coming from secondary sources [58].

S. Andreasi Bassi, T.H. Christensen, and A. Damgaard [59] emphasized that modeling recycling processes is highly uncertain, as the benefits of recycling depend significantly on the actual quality of materials, technological efficiency, and the demand for recycled materials. Existing statistical data and numerous publications highlight that managing plastics poses the most significant challenge in solid waste management. The European Union has implemented measures to reduce plastic waste, but despite these efforts, the quantity of such waste remains substantial. According to [15] data, the most prevalent method of plastic waste disposal in Europe is energy recovery, followed by recycling. Surprisingly, approximately 25% of all plastic waste ends up in landfills, and half of the plastic collected for recycling is exported to non-EU countries. Reasons for exportation include a lack of capacity, technologies, or financial resources required to treat waste within the country.

Considering the significant political pressure to abandon waste landfills and implement high recycling targets in the EU, the authors emphasize the necessity of conducting a comprehensive investigation into the environmental efficiency of solid waste management in Poland. This research would provide a valuable quantitative contribution to political discussions on the development of European waste management, addressing regulatory and technological issues. The study by [59] reveals that recycling yields clear environmental benefits when the recovered materials are of high quality and can substitute other high-quality raw materials in various industries. However, the cited researchers did not observe a straightforward correlation between recycling rates and environmental impact. Nevertheless, they demonstrated that, in general, countries with higher recycling rates and limited waste landfills achieve better environmental outcomes in municipal solid waste management.

The balanced recovery of materials and energy from waste hinges significantly on the amount of energy recovered and what it substitutes. In the context of EU policies restricting waste landfills, the authors of this paper boldly conclude that a paradigm shift in solid waste management is imperative. This shift entails moving away from the traditional waste handling hierarchy to focus on quantifying the value of recovered materials and energy, as the benefits in waste management are contingent on what these recovered resources replace. As highlighted by L. Traven [47], municipal waste incineration stands out as a proven, reliable, and widely utilized process for energy recovery. Controlled incineration not only reduces waste volume and eliminates toxic chemicals but also consistently generates energy efficiently. Novel directions of research on waste incineration include integrating waste-to-energy facilities with thermal photovoltaic systems and capturing carbon dioxide from incineration plants. These advancements show substantial potential in supporting environmental protection initiatives. While conventional waste incineration is well-documented, future research must delve into alternative technologies for converting solid waste into energy, including advanced gasification and pyrolysis processes. Addressing challenges associated with these technologies is crucial for their industrial-scale implementation [60]. The authors believe that capitalizing on the possibilities presented by the waste-to-energy concept in Poland, especially in achieving the European Commission’s 2035 target for reducing municipal waste landfill, can positively impact not only municipal solid waste management and environmental conditions but also energy management.

8. Conclusions

The literature review enabled the authors to identify the risk factors for Poland’s potential failure to meet the European Commission’s targets for recycling and waste landfills in the context of waste-to-energy. To improve recycling rates in Poland, several measures should be implemented, including legislative changes, the introduction of instruments facilitating recycling development, and the active engagement of all market stakeholders. Establishing a comprehensive legal system that enforces waste management legislation and increases producers’ responsibility for separate collection and preparing packaging waste for recycling is crucial. This legal framework should also mandate the obligatory use of secondary raw materials in products and goods. Decision-makers need to prioritize the development of cooperation among market players representing different industries, recognizing that what constitutes waste in one industry may be a raw material in another. Boosting activities to raise awareness among the Polish population about the circular economy and the benefits of waste separation and recycling is another essential step. Behavior patterns of a country’s population significantly influence the success of separate waste collection, which, in turn, determines the success of recycling. Emphasizing education from a young age is recommended to enhance public awareness. A strength in the recycling process should be high-quality, modern infrastructure for waste separation and treatment, which can be developed through appropriate investment expenditure. In the investment process, it is vital to facilitate the development of the potential of innovative small and medium-sized businesses. An imminent threat to improving recycling in Poland is the insufficient number of markets for the raw materials recovered in this process. The development of such markets should focus on broadening the waste input stream into facilities that receive and re-use recovered raw materials.

The authors acknowledge the limitations of their research, encompassing subjective evaluations of risk factors and the inability to access and study all publications on recycling transformation in Poland. The authors are aware that the research method used, which is a systematic literature review, has limitations. The main limitation is reaching all publications on the topic under study, which have been published in all languages around the world. Attempting to reach and survey all publications involves an enormous amount of time and cost. Most often, systematic literature reviews are based on studies collected in selected scientific databases. Therefore, the results of the systematic literature review performed should not be generalized to the entire population [7,61]. Another limitation is the possibility of a niche and unfamiliar language of a scientific publication to the researcher, which causes difficulty in understanding the content of the publication. Some scientific publications contain incomplete information or no information at all, which is necessary to conduct a systematic literature review, which is another limitation of using this method. An important limitation of this research method is also that not all research results are published by researchers, which makes it impossible to include them in the systematic literature review performed [61,62]. When applying this research method to Polish-language publications, a limitation may be the low degree of digitization of Polish scientific databases, which increases the time consumption of the study. Worldwide full-text databases most readily accept English-language publications, marginalizing publications written in Polish, which contributes to the fact that they are not easy to identify. In addition, a large number of Polish researchers publish the results of their research in monographs, which are not included in full-text databases, which also complicates access to them [63].

The literature review facilitated the identification of risk factors, which were subsequently categorized into strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for the development of recycling in Poland. This classification serves as a foundation for future research, particularly for studies utilizing SWOT analysis to delineate strategies for recycling development in Poland. Subsequent research could also be broadened to incorporate interviews with recycling experts. An interesting direction for future research would also be to compare waste management strategies and challenges in Poland with those in other EU countries.