The State of Recycling in America: How Well-Designed Policy Can Help Build a Circular Economy

In 2021, Eunomia Research & Consulting collaborated with the Ball Corporation to publish The 50 States of Recycling Report, a state-by-state analysis of common packaging materials based on 2018 data. A session at WASTECON® last October led by Megan Lane and Asami Tanimoto highlighted the findings of this report and ongoing research to improve the US recycling system. “When we published this back in 2021, it was the first comparative analysis looking at material-specific recycling rates on a state-by-state basis,” noted the presenters. Since every state recycles differently—some include residential and commercial data, while others count waste-to-energy as recycling—the report was designed to provide direct comparisons using consistent criteria. 

One of the initial steps in the analysis was to separate fiber and flexible plastics data from the recycling rates. Why? “Cardboard counts for 66% of the recycling stream by weight, and cardboard, especially in the commercial sector, has a very high recycling rate, particularly with the Amazon effect,” the duo explained. This high rate can obscure the performance of other types of packaging. While recycling rates that include cardboard generally appear strong, removing cardboard data from the analysis reveals that most states’ recycling rates drop below 20%. “The states that are the exceptions have something called bottle bills: deposit return systems,” which underscores the importance of policies that support recycling systems. 

Bottle bills, also known as deposit return systems or recycling refunds, require consumers to pay a deposit when purchasing a product, such as glass bottles or aluminum cans, and receive a refund when the packaging is returned. “States with recycling refunds are recycling 49% of their beverage containers in a closed loop,” compared to just 7% in states without such policies. 

“The ten states that have [a bottle bill policy] account for 27% of the US population, but they are essentially making up most of the materials that are actually recycled,” the presenters explained. Remarkably, 51% of all beverage containers recycled nationally come from these ten states. The team emphasized the role of producer responsibility organizations in ensuring that deposit or refund values are high enough to incentivize consumers to return materials. These systems can also encourage individuals to pick up litter, benefiting society as a whole. 

The research predicts significant economic benefits from combining Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) with recycling refund legislation. For example, in Washington state, annual benefits could rise from $870 million to $1.3 billion. 

Recycling participation rates vary widely across the country. The West Coast, Northeast, and Great Lakes regions generally have high levels of access, while states along the Gulf Coast tend to have lower access. “This does not mean that we’re going to go to Montana tomorrow and start working on recycling,” explained the presenters. Instead, the focus should be on states with larger populations where there are tons of materials to be recovered. California, Texas, and Florida, for instance, have the highest potential for material recovery. 

Another major obstacle to improving US recycling rates is household participation. Over 37 million tons of recyclable material are lost annually due to improper sorting at the household level. “What’s common across all the EPR laws out there is an element of education and outreach. There’s going to be more funding coming into engaging with the community, engaging with households, and hopefully that will help with [creating] behavior change at the households,” the pair explained. If more counties and states advocate for EPR legislation, the speakers confirmed that “we could be moving 2.8 million tons more of recycling materials into the system.” 

“Every material has an opportunity for improvement, even materials like cardboard or aluminum cans,” the presenters concluded. By addressing these challenges through well-designed policy, investment, and engagement, the US can move closer to building a circular economy.