Plastic Waste in Romania: Between European Union Commitments and Actual Realities

Abstract

Plastic waste management in Romania represents a critical challenge, situated between ambitious European Union (EU) circular economy commitments and the complex realities of national implementation. The analysis was carried out following the methodological steps and transparent reporting guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Out of 200 studies included in this study from major databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) only 77 were retained. This systematic review critically synthesizes existing scientific evidence regarding this disparity through the lens of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The analysis highlights three critical findings. Firstly, regarding the status of LCA research, a significant scarcity of primary data for Romania is revealed, with existing studies predominantly relying on static attributional methods that fail to capture dynamic market shifts. Secondly, concerning the alignment with EU directives, the results indicate a severe ‘compliance gap’. While the implementation of the Deposit-Return System (SGR) has successfully diverted Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) streams, the infrastructure for other plastic fractions remains stagnant, contradicting the efficiency required by EU targets. Finally, regarding strategic recommendations, it is demonstrated that current policies are hindered by a lack of LCA institutionalization. Consequently, the adoption of dynamic LCA models and harmonized reporting standards is proposed as a necessary mechanism to bridge the disparity between sustainability objectives and local operational realities.

1. Introduction

The plastics problem is a cross-border one, with major implications for the environment, public health and economic sustainability. In the context of the accelerated growth of the production and consumption of plastics, traditional waste management systems have proven insufficient to counteract the negative effects of their accumulation in ecosystems [1,2]. The phenomenon of microplastics and nanoplastics worsens the situation, as these particles enter the food chain and eventually reach the human body. In addition, traditional recycling is limited by the diversity of additives and the degradation of polymers. Therefore, emerging technical solutions, the development of plastics and the design of new polymers are considered promising alternatives but are faced with economic and technological barriers [3]. The European Union (EU) has addressed the plastic issue through a well-defined legislative framework, but fragmented in implementation [4]. Since 2019, the Circular Economy Action Plan and the European Green Deal represent the main pillars of the community policy on this topic. However, there are difficulties in the uniform implementation at national levels. Although the European Union positions itself as a global leader in plastics regulation, discrepancies between European legislation and the collection guidelines of each member state, together with high infrastructure costs, limit the effectiveness of the measures [5]. Consequently, the plastics issue in the EU remains one of harmonization between technical innovation and legislative coherence, with an emphasis on integrating emerging solutions into a practical and uniform framework [6]. Figure 1 presents a comparative diagram of legislative versus technical solutions in this field.

To successfully navigate the requirements of European directives and ensure a real transition to sustainability, an assessment methodology capable of capturing the interconnections between technological processes and their environmental impacts is needed. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a well-established tool for the holistic assessment of waste management systems [16]. With the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy and the binding targets set out in the Waste Framework Directive and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, the EU has set a clear path towards sustainable resources management. These commitments aim to increase prevention, high-quality recycling, and the phasing out of single-use plastics [17].

As a member of the European Union, Romania has an obligation to align with the EU’s key targets on waste management, particularly regarding plastic waste. The reality is that there are persistent gaps: recycling rates remain among the lowest in the EU, separate collection infrastructure is underdeveloped, and landfill continues to dominate waste treatment. This discrepancy between EU commitments and the reality in Romania highlights the complexity of implementing circular economy principles in contexts marked by economic, social, and institutional barriers. In this analysis, life cycle assessment (LCA) proves to be a crucial tool [18]. By systematically assessing the environmental impact of plastic waste management options, from prevention and reuse to mechanical, chemical, and energy recovery pathways LCA provides evidence-based information on which strategies deliver the greatest environmental benefits. It highlights the potential of recycling to replace virgin plastic production, it quantifies avoided emissions, and it identifies trade-offs between different technologies [18]. Furthermore, when integrated with complementary tools such as life cycle cost (LCC) and social LCA (SLCA), it enables a holistic assessment that goes beyond environmental indicators to include economic feasibility and social implications. In Romania’s case, LCA may serve as a bridge between political ambitions and practical realities, guiding decision-makers toward solutions that are both environmentally friendly and socio-economically viable [19]. While the application of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to plastic waste has been extensively documented in Western Europe, the literature regarding Eastern European and EU-accession countries remains fragmented. Recent regional studies have focused on specific technological pathways; for instance, research in comparable countries like Croatia or Hungary.

Hadzic et al. (2017) is studying LCA in Zagreb focusing on the transition from landfill to a circular system with recycling, anaerobic digestion and incineration [20]. The differences between the study conducted for Croatia and its applicability in Romania derive mainly from the infrastructural, institutional and compositional particularities of the waste streams. Zagreb already has composting facilities, recycling facilities for construction waste and a relatively consolidated separate collection system, while in Romania these elements are insufficiently developed or fragmentarily implemented. Also, the separate collection and recycling rates are significantly lower in Romania, which limits the material and energy recovery potential estimated in the Croatian scenario. The composition of municipal waste differs, with variable shares of the biodegradable fraction and plastics, directly influencing the performance of anaerobic digestion and incineration processes. In addition, European regulations were transposed and applied with greater delays in Romania, and the systems for capturing and valorizing biogas from landfills are often non-existent or non-functional, which changes the balance of emissions and environmental savings [20]. According to the study conducted by Kaczkó et al. (2024) which is based on the LCA methodology for the transition to a circular system by increasing recycling and reducing landfilling, with the integration of energy from waste into national networks [21].

The differences between Hungary and Romania in terms of the applicability of the LCA study are not only related to the level of infrastructure but also to the way in which it influences the modeling results. In Hungary, the existence of a functioning incinerator and biogas capture systems allows landfill reduction scenarios to generate quantifiable positive effects on emissions and circularity, while in Romania the lack of these facilities makes the same scenarios more hypothetical than operational. Moreover, the higher separate collection rate in Hungary provides a realistic basis for achieving recycling targets, while in Romania the low level of fragmented collection reduces the credibility of similar projections. Consequently, the differences are not only descriptive, but also structural: what in Hungary can be modeled as a feasible transition towards circularity, in Romania remains a difficult objective to achieve without major systemic changes [21]. However, these regional findings cannot be directly extrapolated to the Romanian context. Unlike its Central European counterparts, Romania faces a distinct set of challenges characterized by a historically high reliance on landfilling, a lack of municipal incineration infrastructure, and a developing collection network. Consequently, a critical literature gap exists: the absence of a systematic review that evaluates how this unique infrastructure deficits perform environmentally when juxtaposed with high-level EU circularity targets.

This analysis aims to enrich the specialized literature on LCA as applied to plastic waste management in Romania, in comparison with European Union legislation. The goal is simple, to find out what the real scientific situation is in comparison with the targets imposed by the European Union through the directives imposed. To keep things focused, this study leans on three main questions: (a) What is the current status and scope of LCA studies applied to plastic waste within the specific context of Romania? (b) To what extent do the conclusions and results of the identified LCA studies support or contradict the efficiency and feasibility of current European Union commitments and directives regarding national plastic waste management in Romania? (c) What are the key implications and recommendations, based on the synthesized LCA data, for improving and strategically aligning plastic waste management in Romania with the European Union’s sustainability and circularity objectives? While regional studies exist, there is a notable scarcity of systematic reviews specifically juxtaposing EU circular economy commitments with the LCA-based realities of the Romanian plastic sector.

2. Materials and Methods

The review was conducted using three electronic databases: Scopus (https://www.scopus.com/, accessed on 6 November 2025), Web of Science (https://www.webofscience.com/, accessed on 6 November 2025), and Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/, accessed on 6 November 2025) [22]. The analytical framework was constructed in strict adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This methodological approach facilitated the comprehensive review of a substantial body of literature, filtered through rigorously defined parameters to enhance data validity. The implementation of this protocol followed the four established phases, Identification, Screening, Eligibility, and Inclusion, thereby ensuring procedural transparency and reproducibility throughout the article selection and analysis process [23].

The PRISMA methodology was applied for the data collection and systematic review stages, as presented in Figure 2. The following keywords were used in combination: “plastic waste” AND “life cycle assessment of plastic waste in Europe” (or “Eastern Europe” or “Romania”) AND “life cycle assessment from the legislative perspective of the European Union” (in Romania or Eastern Europe) AND “Romania’s compliance with European Union legislation on plastic waste”. To ensure reproducibility, exact search strings were constructed using Boolean operators (AND, OR) and truncation symbols (*) to capture all relevant variations in the terms.

The primary search syntax targeted three main concepts: (1) Plastic Waste, (2) Life Cycle Assessment, and (3) The Geographical/Legislative Context. The exact search string used for the Scopus and Web of Science databases was: TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“plastic waste” OR “municipal solid waste” OR “polymer”) AND (“LCA” OR “Life Cycle Assessment” OR “environmental impact”) AND (“Romania” OR “Eastern Europe” OR “EU compliance”))*. For Google Scholar, a simplified version of this string was used due to character limits, ensuring the coverage of the same key concepts.

The search returned a significant number of publications. Only papers published in English (criterion 1) and between 2018 and 2025 (criterion 2) were included. The studies selected for this research include works in the fields of environmental science and sustainability (criterion 3), grouped by publication type: research articles, reviews, book chapters, and technical reports (criterion 4).

The compliance criterion required that the publications refer to the concept of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) or mention aspects related to LCA in the context of plastic waste management and Romania’s alignment with European Union legislative requirements. The selection process followed strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, as detailed in

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the analysis.

Criteria	Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Time period	Publications between 2018 and 2025	Publications before 2018
Language	English	Languages other than English
Document type	Research articles, reviews, book chapters, and technical reports	Editorials, conference abstracts,
Topic relevance	Focus on plastic waste and LCA methodology within EU/Romania context	General waste management without LCA focus; Studies outside the European geographic scope
Methodology	Studies providing quantitative environmental impact data	Descriptive studies without data; Duplicate entries

.

To ensure the scientific rigor of the review, a quality assessment was performed on the selected articles. Since a standard medical tool (like CASP) is not fully applicable to environmental engineering, a modified quality checklist was developed based on PRISMA and JBI guidelines for systematic reviews. Each study included was evaluated against the following four criteria:

• Clarity of Scope: Is the goal of the LCA clearly defined (functional unit, system boundaries)?
• Methodological Transparency: Are the data sources (LCI) and impact assessment methods (LCIA) clearly reported?
• Relevance: Does the study address the specific context of plastic waste management or EU legislative compliance?
• Robustness of Conclusions: Are the findings supported by the presented data?

3. An Overview of European Union Legislation on Plastic Waste

The resources management of resources and environmental protection represent central policy priorities of the European Union’s policy framework. The EU has established and enforced a comprehensive legal structure that promotes sustainability through the advancement of more intelligent and efficient resource utilization. As a response to the growing challenges posed by climate change, pollution, and the depletion of natural resources, the Union has implemented a series of legislative measures and strategic initiatives aimed at facilitating the transition toward a circular economy [24,25]. These are not merely broad concepts, are concrete rules aimed at reducing waste, reusing materials, improving recycling, and ultimately shrinking our environmental footprint. Plastic is a prime example. It is ubiquitously embedded in the economy, present in everyday life, and the sheer volume consumed is staggering. The catch? It sticks around in the environment and recycling it is not easy. That is why plastic shot up the list of EU priorities [26]. Over the past two decades, European laws have shifted dramatically. Now, there are clear directives and regulations covering every stage: producing, using, collecting, and processing plastic waste. Some of the biggest milestones include the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC), the European Strategy for Plastics (2018), the Single-Use Plastics Directive (2019/904), and new proposals on when plastic stops being waste, what they call End-of-Waste criteria [27,28,29]. Figure 3 presents a statistic of plastic in the European Union.

EU rules on plastics are central to its environmental policies and its broader push toward a circular economy. The main objectives are reducing pollution, encouraging people to reuse and recycle more plastic, and forcing manufacturers to take greater responsibility for the waste they create. The 2019 Single-Use Plastics Directive bans a whole list of products that hurt the oceans. There are specific requirements too, like making sure bottle caps stay attached, clear labeling, collection targets, and eco-design standards [30]. The Waste Framework Directive puts the waste hierarchy and the “polluter pays” principle front and center [31]. At the same time, the EU is revising its rules on packaging and packaging waste, setting tough new goals to cut down on unnecessary packaging, boost recyclability, and encourage reusable containers and standard designs. The European Strategy for Plastics aims for all plastic packaging to be reusable or recyclable by 2030. That is fueling new ideas and funding for sustainable options [32]. These laws have a major impact on the industry, and companies must comply with strict technical and compliance rules, but this also forces them to come up with new solutions, such as biodegradable packaging and better recycling technologies [33]. When EU countries put these rules into practice, it means that recycling systems must be efficient and operate separately. This places emphasis on building a strong infrastructure for collecting recyclable materials and ensuring the full functioning of the entire system [34]. Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, as amended by Directive 2018/851, defines uniform technical requirements at European Union level for the end-of-waste status of plastics. This is an essential step in strengthening the circular economy and ensuring sustainable resource management. These criteria aim to reduce legal uncertainty, promote the free movement of recycled materials within the internal market, and contribute to environmental protection by encouraging the use of secondary raw materials. Accordingly, the Joint Research Centre (JRC) has proposed that these criteria be applied to thermoplastic polymers and their mixtures, excluding polymers that have undergone chemical recycling. The category of excluded materials also includes hazardous waste from the Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) category, Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and hazardous medical waste. Plastic is one of the most widely used materials in the modern economy, but also the most problematic in terms of waste management [27,35]. The European Union has identified plastic as a priority flow for establishing uniform criteria for end-of-waste (EoW) status, with a view to promoting the circular economy and reducing environmental impact. The European Union has imposed certain requirements for quality and traceability: periodic monitoring (minimum 6 months), certified quality management system, external verification every 3 years, declarations of conformity for each batch, and exclusive use for the manufacture of plastic materials. The impact of the regulations leads to increased use of recycled materials and easier access to the market but also requires investment in infrastructure. For member states, it symbolizes the harmonization of national criteria, the reduction in bureaucracy in the cross-border transport of recycled materials, and support for the objectives of the European Green Deal. According to data provided by the European Commission, Portugal, Spain, and Finland have complied with this initiative and implemented end-of-waste (EoW) criteria for plastic [27].

Table 2. Quantitative thresholds for recycled plastics according to Joint Research Centre (JRC).

Indicator	Numerical Threshold	Observations	References
Foreign materials (EU)	≤2%	From the weight of the dry material (without moisture)	[27]
Foreign materials (export)	≤0.5%	Only for PE, PP, PET *
Minimum sampling frequency	Once every 6 months	For composition and contaminant analysis
POPs (persistent organic pollutants) content	Below the limits in Annex IV Reg. (EU) 2019/1021	Thresholds vary depending on the substance

* Note: Polyethylene (PE), Polypropylene (PP), Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET).

presents the quantitative thresholds for recycled plastics according to Joint Research Centre, while

Table 3. Member states that have implemented end-of-waste criteria according to the European Commission in correlation with the European Union targets.

Country	Numerical Threshold	EU legal Target (by 2025 and 2030)	Observations	References
Portugal	≤2%	50%—2025 55%—2030	Compliance with technical specifications	[27,36]
Spain	≤2% (UE), ≤0.5% (export)		Export allowed only for PE, PP, PET
Finland	It is not specified exactly		Stricter criteria on contaminants and monitoring

depicts the member states that have implemented the end-of-waste criteria considering the European Commission in correlation with the European Union targets.

Bernadeta Baran’s analysis entitled “Resource (in)efficiency in the EU: a case of plastic waste” provides insight into how the European Union manages plastic waste flows, highlighting systemic deficiencies that affect resource efficiency and limit progress towards a truly circular economy. The study starts from the fact that effective plastic recycling is low compared to total demand, covering only 5–10% of annual requirements. Approximately 49% of the plastic produced is collected and only a third is recycled, with the rest being used for energy recovery or landfilled, leading to significant losses of valuable resources. The analysis focuses on sectors such as packaging, construction, the automotive industry, and electrical and electronic equipment, revealing marked differences in recycling performance depending on the type of polymer, the degree of contamination, and the complexity of the products. In addition, multiple technological, economic, legislative, and social barriers are identified that prevent the effective closure of the plastics cycle. These include the lack of adequate sorting and recycling infrastructure, high processing costs compared to the price of virgin plastic, fragmented national regulations, and unsustainable consumer behavior [37].

Table 4. Key quantitative indicators on plastic waste management in the EU.

Indicator	Value	Notes	References
Total plastic demand in the EU	58 million tonnes/year	Includes all sectors and polymer types	[37]
Total plastic production in the EU	49 million tonnes/year	Domestic production only
Post-consumer plastic waste collected for treatment	29 million tonnes/year	Represents 49% of plastic production
Share of collected plastic waste that is recycled	32.5%	Based on Eurostat and Plastics Europe data
Share of collected plastic waste used for energy recovery	42.5%	Incineration with energy recovery
Share of collected plastic waste sent to landfill	25%	Final disposal
Plastic waste recycled as % of total plastic demand	5–10%	Indicates low circularity
Share of new plastic materials derived from recycled plastics	6%	Secondary raw material input
Share of plastic waste exported outside the EU	46%	Often to countries with low environmental standards
Foreign material threshold for recycled plastic (EU use)	≤2%	Based on dry weight
Foreign material threshold for recycled plastic (export)	≤0.5%	Only for PE, PP, PET * polymers
Sectoral share of plastic demand—Packaging	39.6%	Highest contributor to plastic waste
Sectoral share of plastic demand—Building and Construction	20.4%	Long lifespan materials, low waste generation
Sectoral share of plastic demand—Automotive	9.6%	Complex materials, low recyclability
Sectoral share of plastic demand—Electrical and Electronic Equipment	6.2%	High contamination, legacy additives

* Note: PE = Polyethylene; PP = Polypropylene; PET = Polyethylene Terephthalate.

presents the key quantitative indicators on plastic waste management in the EU.

According to statistics compiled by PlasticsEurope, approximately 59 million tonnes of plastic were produced, of which approximately 12 million tons were produced in a circular manner. The percentages are classified as follows: 80.3% fossil-based; 13.2% mechanically recycled (post-consumer); 5.4% mechanically recycled (pre-consumer); 1% bio-based and bio-attributed; and 0.1% chemically recycled (post-consumer). The top plastic-producing countries are Belgium, The Netherlands, and Germany, with the latter producing the highest percentage of circular plastics—22%. In the European Union, plastics are categorized by polymer type; the percentages can be seen in Figure 4 [38].

In 2022, an estimated 32.3 million tonnes of post-consumer plastic waste was collected. Initial data shows an increase in the return of long-life products reaching the end of their life cycle, mainly from the construction, household goods, leisure, and sports sectors. For the first time, in 2022, the share of separately collected plastic waste is slightly higher than that of mixed collection streams, as presented in Figure 5 [38].

In 2022, four countries showed post-consumer plastics waste recycling rates exceeding 35%, and 16 countries still had recycling rates under 25%, according to PlasticsEurope. Among the countries with poor recycling performance are the following: Bulgaria 24%, Estonia 23%, Romania 22%, France 21%, Hungary 21%, Greece 20%, and lastly Malta with 5% [38].

4. Does Romania Meet the Requirements Imposed by European Union Legislation? A Case Study

Plastic waste management in Romania reflects a complex transformation, marked by legislative, institutional, and technological changes that began in the beginning of the 21st century and continue to this day. Before Romania joined the European Union, the national plastic waste collection system was virtually non-existent. Plastics were disposed of by storage in non-compliant areas or by uncontrolled incineration, and transport and storage infrastructure was limited, with responsibility for waste management falling exclusively to local authorities [39]. In the absence of a clear legislative framework, plastic collection and recovery were carried out through informal practices, with negative effects on the environment. Since joining the European Union, Romania has begun the process of legislative harmonization, transposing EU directives on waste and packaging into national law. The principle of extended producer responsibility was introduced, and the first authorized systems for the collection and recycling of plastics, such as PET and HDPE, were implemented. At the same time, investments were made in waste treatment infrastructure and in the development of compliant ecological landfills, contributing to more efficient and transparent management of plastic flows [38,40].

Public authorities and private operators have expanded the selective collection network so that most localities have been equipped with collection points for plastic and metal, and the implementation of the “pay as you throw” system has encouraged waste separation at source, with producers being subject to tax obligations designed to encourage recycling. This stage was characterized by the development of sorting centers and a gradual increase in the recovery rate of plastics. Romania is currently in a process of transition to a circular economy, in line with the European Circular Economy Package and the Single-Use Plastics Directive. Adopted measures include the introduction of a mandatory tax on thin plastic bags, the development of the National Waste Management Plan 2023–2030, and the launch of a PET packaging return system [41]. Digitalization of waste traceability and stepping up efforts to educate the population are essential to achieving the European target of 50% of plastic packaging by 2025.

4.1. Definition of Life Cycles Assessment

Life Cycle Assessment is one of the most widely used and standardized methods for assessing the environmental impacts associated with products, processes, or services. It is based on ISO 14040:2006 [42] and ISO 14044:2006 [43] standards and aims to provide a holistic view of resource flows and emissions by analyzing the entire life cycle, from raw material extraction to final disposal. This approach allows the identification of critical stages and supports decision-making based on objective data, contributing to the development of sustainable strategies and environmental impact [42,43,44]. LCA is characterized by a “cradle-to-grave” perspective that integrates all stages of the value chain. The literature emphasizes that the method has limitations, particularly related to uncertainties and time scale. The choice of time horizon, the application of discounting, or the temporal resolution of the inventory can significantly influence the results [45]. In addition, methodological differences between attributional and consequential approaches lead to divergent results, which require critical analysis and transparent communication of uncertainties. The usefulness of life cycle analysis lies in its ability to support public policy, corporate decisions, and research initiatives by quantifying environmental impacts. In practice, life cycle analysis is used to compare technological alternatives and evaluate the status. Life cycle analysis has been extended to the social dimension (SCLA) and to the economic dimension, thus leading to the development of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), thus integrating the three pillars of sustainability and providing a comprehensive assessment [46]. This method is in a continuous process of methodological refinement, moving from statistical models to dynamic approaches, capable of capturing the evolution of emissions and impacts over time. This transition represents the need to integrate the principle of sustainable development and to ensure the relevance of the results for current and future decisions. Therefore, LCA is not only a technical tool, but also a conceptual framework that contributes to understanding the complexity of sustainability [47].

Table 5. Types of life cycle assessment.

Type	Definition	Main Features	Utility	References
Attributional LCA (ALCA)	Analyzes the average impacts associated with the production of a product in a static system.	Uses average data; focuses on co-product allocation; retrospective approach.	Assessing the current impacts of a product or process.	[48]
Consequential LCA (CLCA)	Assess the impacts generated by future changes in production or consumption.	Uses marginal data; includes substitution effects and market interactions; prospective approach	Analysis of policies, future scenarios and market effects.	[49]
Dynamic LCA	Integrates the temporal dimension into inventory and characterization.	High temporal resolution; models emissions evolution and ecosystem sensitivity.	It provides more accurate results, relevant for short and long-term actions.	[50]

presents the types of LCA.

4.2. Romania—Life Cycle Analysis of Plastic Waste

The European Commission’s priorities are to minimize the generation of plastic waste and to promote resource efficiency, which could be achieved by increasing the recycling of this type of waste. Indeed, plastic packaging and the main polymers, such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polystyrene (PS), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), represent many plastics collected for recycling due to their widespread use. Unfortunately, Romania has very few life cycle assessment studies focused on plastic waste. The studies selected to outline the importance of applying LCA studies also have some drawbacks because not all of them are 100% focused on plastic waste generated in Romania [51]. Following the extensive PRISMA-based literature search restricted to the 2018–2025 period, only four studies were identified that specifically apply Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology to plastic waste management within the Romanian context. This scarcity itself is a critical finding, highlighting a significant gap in the national scientific literature compared to the abundance of legislative reports and general waste management analyses.

The study entitled Sustainability analysis of packaging waste management systems: A case study in the Romanian context conducted by [52], represents a systematic assessment of the sustainability of packaging waste streams in Romania, with a focus on the performance of the system based on the principle of extended producer responsibility. The analysis focuses on the period 2018–2020 regarding the separate reporting of plastic packaging flows, especially for PET, when the European Union introduced new requirements. Regarding plastic, the study highlights the environmental impact due to large volumes and long degradation times. All data was collected from official sources such as: the Environmental Fund Administration, Eurostat, and the National Waste Management Plan [52]. According to data from the Environmental Fund Administration’s reports, Romania managed to achieve the 55% recycling target for plastic, while the other scenarios indicated lower performance. In the case of PET, the recycling rate varied between 55% and 63%, with a noticeable decrease in 2019, which led to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and a decrease in socio-economic indicators. The methodology used, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Waste Reduction Model (US EPA WARM), allowed the quantification of the environmental and socio-economic impacts associated with plastic flows. The results showed that PET recycling generates negative emissions generates negative CO₂ equivalent emissions, reflecting the avoidance of virgin raw material production, and reduces energy consumption by substituting fossil resources. However, when both production and waste management are considered, the balance remains positive, indicating that recycling, although beneficial, does not fully offset the impact of plastic packaging production. From a socio-economic perspective, PET recycling has contributed to job creation and the generation of revenue and taxes, with peak values in 2018, but these benefits have declined in subsequent years, in parallel with the reduction in recycling performance. The conclusions of the analysis show that, for plastic waste, it is essential but insufficient to achieve sustainability goals. Romania faces structural limitations in separate collection and sorting infrastructure, which affects the quality of recycled material and the ability to meet European targets [52].

Table 6. Life cycle assessment for Polyethylene Terephthalate.

Year	PET Recycling Rate (%)	GHG Emissions (t CO2e/Year)—Waste Operations Only	GHG Emissions (t CO2e/Year)—Production + Waste	Energy Use (GJ/Year)—Waste Operations Only	Energy Use (GJ/Year)—Production + Waste	Jobs (Number)	Wages (Million USD)	Taxes (Million USD)	References
2018	63%	Significant reduction (negative values)	Increase compared to 2018 baseline	Significant reduction (negative values)	High but partially offset	~3.07	~138	~24	[52]
2019	55%	Higher impact (lowest performance year)	Increase compared to 2018 baseline	Maximum energy consumption	Highest in the period	~2.71	~123	~21.7
2020	61%	Significant reduction (similar to 2018)	Increase compared to 2018 baseline	Significant reduction	Slightly higher than 2018	~2.95	~134	~23.4

Note: t—tonnes.

presents the LCA for Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET).

The study entitled Sustainability Assessment of Single-Use versus Reusable Beverage Packaging Waste: A Romanian Case Study conducted by [53] addressed the issue of beverage packaging from a sustainability perspective, integrating environmental, social, and economic dimensions. The analysis focuses on single-use packaging flows compared to reuse scenarios, with 2019 as the reference year and projections for 2030 and 2040. In this assessment, plastic, especially polyethylene terephthalate (PET), plays a central role due to the volumes generated and its significant impact on the environment [53]. The methodology used combined material flow analysis with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Waste Reduction Model (US EPA WARM) tool, which allowed for the quantification of greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and socio-economic indicators. In 2019, data show that in Romania, waste from PET beverage packaging amounted to approximately 21,000 t, representing a significant proportion of total single-use packaging. The reported recycling rate for PET was 55%, with the remainder going to landfill. This performance led to emissions of approximately 3.73 × 10⁴ t of CO₂ equivalent, and the energy consumption associated with waste production and management remained high. The results show that PET recycling contributes to reducing emissions and energy consumption by avoiding the use of virgin raw materials, but it does not fully offset the impact of packaging production. The reuse scenarios introduced for 2030 and 2040 indicate significant reductions in emissions and energy consumption, of approximately 28% and 76.6% for emissions, and 20% and 60% for energy, compared to the reference year. However, even in these scenarios, climate and energy neutrality is not achieved, suggesting that reuse, while beneficial, must be complemented by measures to prevent waste at source and reduce packaging consumption. Overall, the research demonstrates that plastic, especially PET, remains a material with a major impact on the sustainability of the packaging waste management system in Romania. Although recycling and reuse bring significant improvements, they are not sufficient to achieve climate neutrality objectives, which requires a complex approach, based on prevention, reduction and coherent policies at national and European level [53].

Table 7. Life cycle assessment presented in this study.

Scenarios	PET Recycling Rate (%)	GHG Emissions (t CO2e/Year)	Emissions Reduction Compared to 2019	Energy Consumption (GJ/Year)	Energy Reduction Compared to 2019	References
2019 reference	55%	≈3.73 × 104	-	High (maximum in range)	-	[53]
2030—Reuse 20%	65% EU targets	−28% vs. 2019	Moderate discount	−20% vs. 2019	Significant discount
2040—Reuse 75%	65%	−76.6% vs. 2019	Major reduction, but not neutrality	−60% vs. 2019	Significant reduction, but not “net zero”

Note: t—tonnes.

and

Table 8. Life cycle assessment used in this study.

Scenarios	Percentage of Recycled Plastic	CO2-eq/Year Savings (t)	Observations	References
50% sorting performance	~50% of plastic collected separately	≈18.000 t	Moderate benefits	[54]
70% sorting performance	~70% of plastic collected separately	≈23.000 t	Greater benefits
Recycling + anaerobic treatment	Recycled plastic + treated wet fraction	≈40.000 t	The most favorable scenario; applying circular economy principles

Note: t—tonnes.

present the life cycle assessment used for this study based on various scenarios.

The study Carbon footprint of waste management in Romania in the context of circular economy elaborated by [54] is a detailed analysis of how circular economy principles can be applied in municipal waste management, with a focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and recovering secondary resources. The research is based on a case study conducted in the municipality of Timișoara, using the LCA methodology and the GaBi tool, in accordance with the CML 2001 methodological framework. Plastic accounts for approximately 12% of total waste, including plastic film, PET bottles, and expanded polystyrene. The results show that recycling has the greatest potential for reducing CO₂ equivalent emissions, due to the direct substitution of virgin raw materials. In the scenario with a sorting rate of 50%, the savings were estimated at around 18.000 t CO₂-eq/year, and at 70% at around 23.000 t CO₂-eq/year. The optimal scenario, which combines plastic recycling with anaerobic treatment of the organic fraction, led to savings of approximately 40.000 t CO₂-eq/year. Non-recycled plastic waste can be used in cement factories and has been shown to bring moderate energy benefits, but less than those obtained through recycling. The conclusion of the study is that plastics play a central role in reducing the carbon footprint of the waste management system, and the population’s performance in sorting and the quality of the infrastructure are decisive for the effective application of the principles of the circular economy [54].

The study Comparative Analysis of Plastic Waste Management Options: Sustainability Profiles, [55] provides a detailed assessment of various waste management options in the United States and the European Union, but also includes a study related to Romania, using the same US EPA WARM methodology. The results showed that recycling is still the most sustainable option, with negative CO₂ equivalent emissions and a significant reduction in energy consumption due to the substitution of virgin raw materials. The overall conclusion of the study focuses on the fact that Romania needs to improve its collection and sorting infrastructure in order to increase the recycling rate and reduce dependence on landfills, so as to align with the objectives of the circular economy [55].

Table 9. Life cycle assessment based on various management options.

Management Options	GHG Emissions (kg CO2e/kg Plastic)	Energy Consumption (GJ/kg Plastic)	Benefits/Limitations	References
Recycling	Negative values (avoid virgin production)	Significant reduction (primary resource substitution)	The most sustainable option; depends on collection and sorting performance	[55]
Incineration with energy recovery	≈2.3 kg CO2e/kg	Moderate (partial energy recovery)	Energy benefits through fossil fuel substitution, but high emissions
Landfill	≈0.11 kg CO2e/kg	No recovery	Reduced emissions, but negative impact on eutrophication and land use

presents the LCA applied to various management options, while

Table 10. Similarities and differences between LCA studies.

Articles	Similarities	Differences	References
Sustainability analysis of packaging waste management systems: Romanian case study (Gavrilescu et al., 2023)	All studies show that recycling reduces the impact	Includes socio-economic data (jobs, salaries, taxes)	[52]
Sustainability assessment of single use vs. reusable beverage packaging: Romanian case study (Seto et al., 2025)	Recycling and reusing reduce impact	The only study that analyzes reuse vs. single use beverage packaging	[53]
Carbon footprint of waste management in Romania (Berechet et al., 2019)	Recycling has the greatest positive impact	Analyze plastic in the municipal mix, not just PET	[54]
Comparative analysis of plastic waste management options (Enache et al., 2025)	All confirm recycling as the most sustainable	The only study with a direct comparison between recycling, incineration, landfilling	[55]

depicts the similarities and differences between LCA studies.

According to data provided by the National Agency for Environmental Protection (ANPM), the amount of plastic packaging placed on the market has increased steadily between 2017 and 2022, from 360,463 t in 2017 to 510,126 t in 2022. This trend indicates an increase in the consumption of plastic packaging, with a rise of approximately 41.5% in six years. However, data on specific plastic recycling is not presented separately, but is included in the total amount of recycled packaging waste, which has seen a relatively modest variation, ranging from 850,620 t in 2017 to 924,059 t in 2021, without a proportional increase in the volume of packaging placed on the market. This discrepancy suggests that, despite the increase in the amount of plastic placed on the market, Romania’s performance in recycling this type of waste has not improved substantially, reflecting the persistence of systemic deficiencies in separate collection, sorting infrastructure, and material recovery capacity [56].

Figure 6 illustrates the comparative evolution of plastic packaging waste quantities managed by Responsibility Transfer Organizations (OIREPs) between 2021 and 2024. The data reveals a distinct structural fracture in the national waste management system starting in 2024. Firstly, a sharp discontinuity is observable in the PET stream, which recorded a decline of 69.3%, dropping from 137,943 t in 2023 to 42,349 t in 2024. This statistical shift quantitatively validates the displacement effect caused by the implementation of the Deposit-Return System (RetuRO), which successfully diverted the high-quality beverage packaging stream away from traditional municipal collection circuits. However, a critical stagnation is evident regarding the “Other Plastics” fraction (including HDPE, LDPE and Polypropylene, PP), which plateaued at approximately 171,000 t annually throughout the 2022–2024 period without significant variance. This “flatlining” trend indicates that, outside the specific scope of the Deposit-Return System (RetuRO), the municipal collection infrastructure has failed to scale up its capacity. Consequently, a widening compliance gap persists for non-beverage packaging, posing a substantial risk to achieving the comprehensive EU recycling targets of 55% by 2030, as the system currently lacks the momentum to capture difficult-to-recycle fractions [57].

4.3. A Comparative Perspective Between Romania and European Countries Regarding the Life Cycle Analysis of Plastic Waste

Recent studies show that LCA is used to identify critical points and avoid impact transfer between life cycle stages, including in the field of plastics. At the same time, research on end-of-life modeling for plastic packaging shows methodological uncertainties and significant deviations between theoretical assumptions and actual recycling practices [58]. Romania faces the same type of problem, except that LCA is not systematically integrated into national legislation, which limits its relevance for decision-makers [57]. In other European countries, LCA is widely applied at the urban level for green infrastructure and waste management systems. Romania has similarities in terms of methodological challenges, lack of local data, and difficulties in modeling recycling flows, but it is at an early stage of application compared to Western European countries. However, there are convergences: the focus on single-use plastics and biomaterials, as well as the recognition of the need for harmonized standards for environmental performance assessment [59]. The essential difference remains the degree of institutionalization: in Western Europe, LCA is a public policy tool, while in Romania it remains predominantly an academic tool.

Table 11. Data on LCA studies in Europe.

Author (Year)/Reference	Region/Country	Main Theme	LCA Results/Main Findings	Identified Limitations
Shevchenko et al., 2022 [60]	Ukraine	Bioplastics and circular economy	LCA applied biodegradability and end-of-life scenarios	Lack of infrastructure and clear standards
Mirabella et al., 2018 [61]	European Union	LCA at city/urban level	Integration into urban planning and green infrastructure	Insufficient data, non-uniform methodologies
Pellengahr et al., 2023 [45]	European Union	End-of-life modeling for plastic packaging	Analysis of deviations between assumptions and real practices	Incompatibilities between waste streams (e.g., PLA vs. PET)
Sala et al., 2021 [62]	European Union	EU policies and LCA	Integration into directives	Need for harmonization and avoidance of impact transfer
Briassoulis et al., 2019 [63]	European Union	Inventory of alternative end-of-life routes	LCA for reuse and recycling scenarios	Limited market, contamination of conventional waste streams
Kousemaker et al., 2021 [64]	European Union	LCA practices for plastics	Evaluation of mechanical and chemical recycling	Lack of dynamic datasets, difficulties in comparability
Prokic et al., 2025 [65]	Serbia	PET waste management in Serbia, EU alignment, microplastic concerns	LCA of three scenarios (landfill, recycling, incineration) using GaBi and ReCiPe. Recycling shows major benefits: avoided 24.5 M kg CO2 eq., reduced human toxicity and ecotoxicity.	Limited local data; lack of microplastic characterization factors; insufficient infrastructure; no legal framework for microplastics; reliance on generalized EU parameters.
Barjoveanu et al., 2023 [51]	Italy	PET trays sorting sustainability assessment in Italy. Comparing manual and automated sorting scenarios.	ISO 14040 based LCA using ReCiPe 2016. Compared baseline vs. manual/optical sorting scenarios. ~10% lower impacts in climate change.	Small net benefits (<3% in most categories). Energy recovery from incineration excluded. Assumed 100% substitution despite lower rPET quality. PET trays < 1% of recycled stream.
Joachimiak-Lechman et al., 2020 [66]	Poland (case study within EU context, CIRCE2020 project)	Application of life cycle–based tools (LCA, LCC, SLCA) to plastic waste management in circular economy	- Shows how LCA compares recycling, incineration, prevention strategies for plastics - Demonstrates substitution potential of recycled plastics vs. virgin production - Integrates LCC (economic costs) and SLCA (social impacts) for holistic sustainability assessment - Provides evidence for aligning national practices with EU circular economy goals	- Limited and fragmented inventory data for plastic waste streams - Methodological complexity (system boundaries, substitution assumptions) - Underdeveloped social indicators in SLCA - High costs for advanced recycling technologies - Need for harmonization of standards across EU
Arena et al., 2023 [67]	Italy (University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”), with EU relevance	Comparative LCA of energy recovery vs. chemical recycling for mixed plastics waste (MPW)	- Demonstrates that chemical recycling via advanced thermochemical treatments (ATT) can outperform energy recovery in terms of climate impact - Shows potential transition from a carbon-intensive to carbon-negative sector when recycling substitutes virgin feedstock - Highlights how LCA quantifies trade-offs between incineration (energy recovery) and recycling pathways - Provides evidence for EU policy to prioritize chemical recycling for complex MPW ** streams	Complex and unpredictable composition of MPW (heterogeneous polymers, additives, contaminants) complicates modeling - High CAPEX/OPEX * costs for chemical recycling technologies - Limited industrial-scale data, many results based on pilot or lab studies - Regulatory uncertainty regarding acceptance of recycled outputs - Methodological uncertainties (substitution rates, allocation choices) strongly influence outcomes
García-Gutiérrez et al., 2025 [68]	European Union (EU-27)	Comparative environmental and economic assessment of mechanical, physical, chemical recycling vs. energy recovery	- Provides EU-wide LCA and LCC using primary data from operators - Shows that recycling (mechanical, physical, chemical) generally performs better than energy recovery for climate change mitigation - Highlights that environmental performance depends on waste fraction (PET, PS, PE, MPO, tires, multilayer films) - Demonstrates that recycling can substitute virgin plastics and reduce fossil resource use - Integrates economic assessment (LCC) to evaluate financial viability alongside environmental impacts	- Lack of robust primary data for chemical and physical recycling (low maturity technologies) - High uncertainty in CAPEX/OPEX * and market prices for recyclates - Difficulty in establishing clear ranking between recycling technologies due to waste heterogeneity - Results highly dependent on EU energy mix assumptions - Recycling often incurs higher costs than incineration for certain waste streams (PS, MPO **, PE, tires, multilayer films)
Zaikova et al., 2022 [69]	Russia (Saint Petersburg and Leningrad Region)	Comparative LCA of current and alternative municipal solid waste (MSW) management scenarios	- Evaluates five scenarios: current system (S0), post-reform (S1), improved landfill gas collection (S2), increased incineration (S3), and separate collection with recycling (S4) - Demonstrates that separate collection and recycling (S4) delivers the greatest environmental benefits (lower GHG emissions, reduced resource use) - Shows how LCA can guide Russian waste reform by quantifying trade-offs between landfill, incineration, and recycling - Highlights importance of landfill gas capture in reducing climate impacts	- Limited availability of local inventory data for waste composition and treatment - Uncertainty in future projections (e.g., efficiency of incineration plants, landfill gas recovery rates) - Economic and social dimensions not fully integrated (focus mainly on environmental indicators) - Dependence on assumptions about energy mix and substitution rates - Institutional and infrastructural barriers to implementing separate collection at scale
Schwarz et al., 2021 [70]	Europe (EU context, The Netherlands case study)	Development of an LCA matrix model to assess environmental performance of different plastic recycling technologies	- Introduces an LCA matrix model covering 25 polymers and multiple recycling technologies (mechanical, chemical, dissolution, energy recovery) - Quantifies CO2 reduction potential: recycling top 15 polymers in Europe could cut emissions by ~73% (200 Mt CO2 eq) - Shows that primary recycling (closed-loop, dissolution) is optimal for engineering/high-performance plastics - Demonstrates that tertiary recycling (gasification, pyrolysis to monomers) performs best for commodity plastics (polyolefins) - Highlights importance of pre-treatment (sorting, cleaning) for maximizing environmental benefits	- Results depend strongly on purity and sorting efficiency of waste streams - Data gaps for innovative technologies (low TRL ***) - Quality reduction in secondary recycling not fully captured - System boundaries exclude collection/use phases, limiting comparability - Economic feasibility not assessed (focus only on environmental impacts) - Methodological sensitivity: assumptions on substitution and avoided products influence outcomes
Milios et al., 2018 [71]	Sweden (national case study within EU framework)	Assessment of environmental, economic, and social impacts of future plastic waste management scenarios	- Applies a plastic waste flow model integrating LCA (environmental impacts), LCC (economic costs/benefits), and social indicators (jobs) - Compares three scenarios: (A) meeting EU targets, (B) meeting targets + retaining plastics domestically, (C) meeting targets + banning incineration of recyclable plastics - Quantifies GHG savings, costs, and job creation for each scenario - Demonstrates that increased recycling can significantly reduce emissions and create employment compared to business-as-usual	- Results depend on assumptions about substitution potential of recycled plastics - Limited data on real economic costs (often replaced with EU averages) - Social impacts less quantified (indirect jobs estimated via multipliers) - Scenario C (ban on incineration) shows highest environmental/social benefits but very high costs, raising feasibility concerns - Methodological uncertainties: boundaries differ between LCA, LCC, and social assessment, making integration complex
Amadei et al., 2023 [72]	European Union (EU-27)	Macro-scale MFA of plastic flows across sectors and polymers (2019 baseline, 2025 scenarios)	- Provides quantitative input data (production, consumption, recycling rates, mismanaged waste, losses) that can be used in LCA models - Highlights recycling rates (~19% in EU-27) and sectoral contributions (packaging, construction, transport) - Identifies environmental release pathways (microplastics, macroplastics) relevant for impact categories in LCA - Supports scenario analysis (2025 projections) that can be integrated into prospective LCA	- Study is MFA ****-based, not a full LCA (no impact categories calculated) - Limited integration of environmental/economic/social indicators - Data gaps for certain sectors (healthcare, fishing) - Excludes chemical recycling differentiation (treated together with mechanical) - Results sensitive to assumptions on trade, stock variation, and mismanaged waste
Todorova et al., 2025 [73]	Bulgaria (Plovdiv) and Kazakhstan (Kostanay)	Comparative study of plastic waste management practices, household data, recycling systems, and legislative frameworks in two cities	- LCA not directly applied, but authors emphasize its relevance for assessing environmental impacts of recycling vs. landfilling - Suggests that life cycle–based tools could strengthen policy decisions and harmonize practices with EU circular economy goals - Highlights the role of LCA in quantifying benefits of improved collection and recycling systems	- Study limited to descriptive comparison, without full LCA modeling - Lack of detailed inventory data for plastic waste flows in both cities - Absence of integrated environmental, economic, and social indicators - Methodological gap: reliance on qualitative analysis rather than quantitative life cycle metrics

Note: * CAPEX—capital expenditure; OPEX—operational expenditure; ** MPO—2-Methyl-1,2-propanediol, MPW—mixed plastics waste; *** TRL—technology readiness level; **** Material flow analysis (MFA).

presents the data on LCA studies in Europe.

Romania is considered “at risk” of not meeting EU targets for 2025 on recycling plastic packaging waste and preparing for reuse/recycling of municipal waste, as well as the target of less than 10% waste disposal by 2035. The European Commission’s early warning assessments confirm significant delays, calling for accelerated separate collection, traceability, and treatment infrastructure. The data show a major gap between the targets set by the European Union and Romania: municipal waste recycling rate ~13.7% (target 55%—Directive EU 2018/851), packaging recycling rate ~39.9% (target 65%—Directive EU 2018/851), and landfilling ~74.3% (target <10% by 2035—Directive EU 2018/850). This report is made in March 2025 with data from 2022, which again shows the lack of data amortization and insufficient annual reporting [74,75,76].

Table 12. Comparative analysis of plastic waste management according to Eurostat [77].

Time	2020	2021	2022
GEO * (Labels)	kg per Capita	kg per Capita	kg per Capita
European Union—27 countries (from 2020)	34.61	36.25	36.24
Belgium	32	32.02	31.36
Bulgaria	NA **	23.25	22.95
Czechia	24.72	27.1	26.05
Denmark	39.27	36.3	38.55
Germany	39.71	41.09	39.78
Estonia	40.32	37.63	33.83
Ireland	60.86	72.95	66.16
Greece	NA	26.09	24.65
Spain	36	38.63	41.43
France	35.67	36.07	35.92
Croatia	16.83	18.11	19.26
Italy	37.16	38.4	39.45
Cyprus	19.91	22.35	23.29
Latvia	24.58	25.53	26
Lithuania	30.64	36.43	37.81
Luxembourg	39.08	37.18	35.85
Hungary	47.84	43.95	44.64
Malta	27.42	34.28	29.26
The Netherlands	31.76	31.13	31.14
Austria	33.55	33.67	33.17
Poland	NA	NA	33.12
Portugal	40	41.14	43.17
Romania	24.95	26.42	26.78
Slovenia	23.68	26.22	26.88
Slovakia	23.49	23.56	26.72
Finland	28.41	29.94	28.94
Sweden	24.03	39.11	32.98
Iceland	39.42	44.55	50.46
Liechtenstein	23.21	23.17	22.11

Note: * Geodata (GEO); ** NA—data not available.

presents a comparative assessment of plastic packaging waste generation per capita across EU member states based on Eurostat data (2020–2022). The quantitative analysis reveals a significant disparity in consumption patterns between Romania and the European average, highlighting a distinct “Generation Gap”. According to 2022 data, Romania reports a plastic packaging generation rate of 26.78 kg per capita, which is approximately 26% lower than the EU-27 average of 36.24 kg per capita. When juxtaposed with high-income economies such as Ireland (66.16 kg/capita) or Germany (39.78 kg/capita), the divergence is even more pronounced, with Romanian generation figures being less than half of those recorded in the highest-consuming member states. This lower generation baseline theoretically confers a strategic operational advantage. Unlike Western systems burdened by high volumes of waste driven by intense consumption, the Romanian waste management infrastructure faces a considerably lighter load. However, despite this comparative advantage in volume, national recycling performance remains suboptimal. The fact that the system struggles to manage even this reduced quantity (26.78 kg/capita) points to fundamental structural inefficiencies in collection and sorting mechanisms. Consequently, the low generation rate masks the severity of the management deficit; if Romania were to reach EU-average consumption levels without a corresponding infrastructure upgrade, the system would likely face collapse [77].

5. Discussion

There is a striking contrast between Romania and Western EU member states in terms of institutionalizing life cycle assessment (LCA) in public policy. While countries such as France and Germany are increasingly using LCA-based “eco-modulation” taxes to encourage the design of recyclable packaging, Romania’s legislative framework remains rigidly focused on weight-based (tonnage) targets rather than environmental impact. The lack of integration of LCA into the national decision-making process leads to less optimal strategies, in which policies prioritize the volumes of waste redirected to landfills without assessing the trade-offs in terms of the carbon footprint of transport and sorting inefficiencies. As a result, the national strategy lacks the precision needed to distinguish between high-impact and low-impact plastic streams, treating all tonnage as equal in terms of environmental impact. Analytically, this divergence creates a risk of “environmental burden shifting”; specifically, Romania may achieve high collection rates on paper, but with an overall negative environmental balance due to the energy-intensive processing of low-quality, contaminated plastics, a nuance that only LCA-based policy can detect. Data on plastic packaging waste managed by organizations responsible for transferring responsibility (OIREP) reveal a change in the Romanian market starting in 2024. As illustrated in Figure 6 (based on market data from 2021 to 2024), the market has undergone a significant shift. The implementation of the deposit-return system (SGR/RetuRO) has caused a sharp decline in the volumes of PET managed by traditional OIREPs, which fell by 69.3% in 2024 (42,350 t) compared to 2023 (137,940 t). This statistical change quantitatively validates the displacement effect, confirming that the flow of high-quality beverage packaging has effectively been redirected to the SGR infrastructure, at least according to the data. RetuRO has begun to have an environmental benefit in terms of PET packaging recycling, but there is still a major problem with other types of polymers that are collected together without rigorous traceability for efficient recycling into multiple plastic fractions.

Beyond market shifts, a critical methodological gap identified in the reviewed literature is the predominance of Attributional LCA (ALCA) over Consequential LCA (CLCA). Most existing studies on Romania provide a static “snapshot” of environmental burdens (ALCA), which assumes a constant technological background. However, for a transitional economy like Romania, specifically under the disruptive impact of the new SGR, ALCA is insufficient. It fails to capture the marginal changes in the wider market, such as how increased rPET supply affects the virgin plastic market prices and production levels. Therefore, future research must pivot towards Consequential LCA (CLCA) to accurately model these systemic market responses, rather than merely accounting for physical flows.

Going beyond general calls for investment, this analysis synthesizes methodological conclusions into applicable policy pathways.

Table 13. Strategic policy scenarios for optimizing plastic waste management in Romania.

Scenario	Current Policy Approach	Proposed Strategic Intervention	Projected Impact/Benefit
A. Dynamic LCA integration	Investment decisions are based on static LCA data (attributional), reflecting Romania’s historical, fossil-fuel-intensive energy mix.	Adoption of dynamic LCA modeling that accounts for the progressive decarbonization of the national electricity grid (2025–2030).	Long-term Asset Optimization: Shifts incentives towards recycling technologies that become carbon-negative in a green grid, avoiding “lock-in” investments in outdated tech.
B. Harmonized reporting standards	Recycling rates are calculated at the collection/sorting output, often including non-recyclable residues (impurities), leading to inflated performance figures.	Implementation of the stricter “Calculation Point” rule (Directive 2018/852), measuring weight at the entrance of the final recycling operation.	Infrastructure Sizing Correction: Likely statistical contraction of recycling rates (−10% to −15%) but ensures accurate capacity planning for the Deposit-Return System (SGR) and prevents capital waste.

presents two specific policy scenarios. These two scenarios aim at dynamic LCA integration and harmonized reporting, contrasting the current business-as-usual approach with the proposed interventions. As detailed in the table, the shift from static to dynamic LCA modeling is essential to ensure the viability of infrastructure investments in the context of energy network decarbonization. At the same time, the adoption of harmonized reporting standards, although it may lead to a short-term statistical contraction in reported recycling rates, is identified as an essential prerequisite for the accurate dimensioning of the emerging circular economy infrastructure (SGR).

The projection of Scenario A demonstrates that reliance on static characterization factors engenders a systemic undervaluation of material recovery pathways within the Romanian context. Under the current static modeling baseline, energy recovery processes are artificially favored by the high carbon intensity of the displaced fossil-heavy national grid, which inflates the calculated substitution benefits. However, analytically simulating the adoption of dynamic LCA reveals a direct inverse correlation between grid decarbonization and the environmental performance of waste-to-energy technologies. As the marginal energy mix becomes less carbon-intensive through 2030, the “avoided emissions” credit attributed to incineration diminishes, while the net carbon footprint of mechanical recycling processes declines proportionally. Consequently, from a strategic infrastructure perspective, this dynamic assessment warns against the long-term risk of “carbon lock-in” associated with new waste-to-energy facilities, indicating that capital allocation must prioritize mechanical recycling capacities to avoid asset stranding in a rapidly decarbonizing energy landscape.

Similarly, the analysis of Scenario B highlights that the implementation of harmonized reporting standards functions as a critical corrective mechanism for national infrastructure planning. The prevailing methodology, which quantifies recycling rates at the sorting facility output, systematically incorporates non-target residues, resulting in an artificial inflation of recovery metrics. The transition to the rigorous ‘Calculation Point’ methodology, measuring mass strictly at the entrance of the final recycling operation, inevitably precipitates a statistical contraction of reported rates. However, this recalibration is analytically indispensable for the techno-economic dimensioning of the emerging RetuRO. By eliminating the discrepancy between collected gross volumes and actual material yield, this standard compels a shift in capital investment strategy from merely expanding collection logistics to enhancing advanced sorting efficiencies, thereby mitigating the operational risk of processing under-capacity.

Limitations of the Review

Although this analysis provides a comprehensive overview, several limitations must be acknowledged:

• Data scarcity and latency: There is a lack of primary LCA data specifically for Romania, necessitating reliance on aggregated EU datasets. Additionally, national reports often exhibit a reporting lag (e.g., 2025 reports grounded in 2022 data), limiting real-time impact assessment.
• Methodological heterogeneity: The reviewed studies employ diverse system boundaries (cradle-to-gate vs. cradle-to-grave), limiting the feasibility of a direct quantitative meta-analysis.
• Predominance of attributional LCA: Most identified studies utilize attributional LCA (static snapshots), limiting the ability to predict the systemic market consequences (consequential LCA) of mechanisms like the SGR.

6. Conclusions

This review has confirmed the complex and multifactorial nature of plastic waste management in Romania, in the context of the imperative alignment with the European Union’s circularity commitments. The synthesis of existing LCA evidence reveals a notable discrepancy between political ambitions and the operational scientific reality, calling into question the effectiveness of current strategies for transposing European directives. The analysis shows that Romania is still developing in terms of integrating LCA as a fundamental decision-making tool in its transition to a functional circular economy. The country-specific LCA knowledge base remains insufficient, covering only limited segments of plastic waste streams and methodologies that are often attributional in nature, failing to adequately model the consequences of major legislative or investment changes. Therefore, current management decisions risk not being fully optimized ecologically and generating unintended impact transfers.

Extending this observation to the European Union level, although the European Union as a whole has a significantly higher volume of LCA studies and superior methodological integration into its policies, a fragmented analysis at the member state level reveals marked heterogeneity. Only a limited number of countries, predominantly those in Western Europe, demonstrate advanced maturity in the use of LCA for waste management, although even these operate with limitations inherent to systemic complexity. In contrast, developing countries, including Romania, continue to fall short of established performance targets, requiring urgent action.

A major systemic issue identified, affecting the consistency and applicability of studies, is the quality and lack of alignment of input data. The data required for LCA modeling is not always available in a transparent or standardized manner at the national level, creating significant uncertainties in comparative assessments.

Consequently, this review highlights the need for a two-pronged strategic approach. On the one hand, urgent investment is needed in the development of consistent LCA studies specific to Romania, focused on future policy scenarios. On the other hand, it is essential to strengthen a linear and transparent environmental and waste data collection system, thus facilitating the implementation of LCA as a pillar of national compliance and a genuine transition to a circular economy based on scientific evidence.