3 Status of monitoring plastic share in waste streams in the Nordics

Summary

Nordic countries adopt different methods to monitor plastic waste as a share of specific waste streams but primarily in larger scale studies related to material flow analyses. These methods involve the use of plastic percentage factors in products or waste streams which, on its own, can pose as a simplified, resource-efficient approach to enhance regular monitoring and follow up. However, the appropriate selection of percentage factors, considering context-specific variations, is crucial for improving the reliability of estimates.

Most countries track the amount of plastic waste as an individual waste stream, or the share of plastic waste in mixed or residual waste. This section discusses the monitoring of plastic waste as a share of other specific waste streams, such as electronics, end-of-life (EoL) vehicles and textiles.

The method used to estimate plastic shares in waste streams varies amongst Nordic countries, which typically involve larger-scale and more resource intensive approaches such as material flow analyses using economic supply-use tables or conducting waste audits. Additionally, such efforts tend to be larger one-off studies rather than regular monitoring.

A method that is relatively informal, resource efficient and regularly replicable would allow for closer follow up and monitoring of the plastic shares in waste. However, one reason that this may not be standardized across countries is because it is not a requirement to report such figures in Eurostat (Tønder, 2025).

Below is a summary of the methods used by Nordic countries in more recent years, mainly based on information given by contacts at the respective statistics and environment authorities.

Table 2 Methods and efforts by Nordic countries to track plastic shares in waste streams in recent years

Country	Methods and efforts of tracking plastic
Denmark	Conducted an accounting of plastic flows in 2016 using physical supply-use tables which contains figures on product and waste flows. Standard percentage factors (derived from literature and various sources) for plastic content by product and waste types were applied to total volumes to obtain plastic content shares (Pedersen, 2025; Gravgård, et al., 2021; UNITAR & UNEP, 2025).
Finland	Currently developing a model to assess plastic content in waste streams, which involves applying estimated plastic shares from literature to generated waste volumes obtained from EPR statistics. In the example of WEEE, EEE was divided into seven product groups, and each had a different estimate for plastic shares (Johansson, 2025).
Iceland	Methods mainly focus on tracking plastic shares in total waste or specifically on plastic packaging or plastic waste, rather than shares of plastic waste in specific waste streams.
Norway	In 2023, Statistics Norway published a national plastics account which involves applying plastic fraction figures (in percentage) to total waste amount in a particular waste stream, to estimate the amount of plastic waste fraction in that waste stream (Berge et al., 2023). An update of this report will be published in 2025.
Sweden	In 2022, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency published a report on the mapping of plastic flows in 2020 (Fråne et al., 2022). For some waste streams such as electronics, standard percentage factors were used to estimate plastic content. An updated version of the plastic flows mapping for 2023 is expected in late June 2025.

As seen in the table above, one commonality amongst the methods used by Nordic countries is the application of standard percentage factors to estimate plastic content in products and waste as a proxy to estimate plastic share in specific waste streams. The application of standard percentage factors on its own may be a useful tool for informal regular monitoring.

3.1 Use of standard percentage factors as a standalone method

Using standard percentage factors to estimate plastic content share involves selecting a percentage that represents the proportion of plastics in a given product or waste stream. This percentage, derived from literature, studies or other sources, is then applied to the total quantity of the waste stream to calculate the estimated amount of plastics.

This method can be useful to provide a general estimation of trends to inform the development of strategies, policies and other actions. However, since figures from literature and studies can be highly context-specific, the chosen percentage should align with the socioeconomic context of its application. The assumptions behind the figure and its selection should also be clearly documented.

It is important to note that the plastic composition figures of a product can differ significantly from that of its respective waste stream, and as such, there are trade-offs between selecting product-based and waste stream-based figures. Product composition data is more accessible but does not always reflect waste stream composition due to delays between market introduction and disposal. Additionally, product design changes over time, so the plastic shares and types in waste streams may vary over time. On the other hand, waste stream composition data can reflect the waste stream more directly, but because they are often derived from waste audits or LCA studies set in specific socioeconomic contexts, they may not represent the context in which they are applied.

Therefore, there is a difference between selecting figures based on plastic composition in product and figures based on composition in the waste stream. Again, in this case it is important to consider the full assumptions and context behind the figure during the selection process.

3.2 Figures on plastic shares in products and waste streams

For illustrative purposes, this section presents a selection of percentage factors of plastic share in products and waste streams (and underlying assumptions) from literature and other studies, with the potential for application in a Nordic context. To the extent possible, studies in the northwestern European context were prioritized over global or other general figures. The criteria

Based on the respective criteria in the cost-benefit analysis of the report: “Harmonisation of plastic statistics in the Nordics”

for selecting waste streams are based on the severity of the issue in society, which is reflected in their priority on the political agenda and their potential impact if addressed, and wherever possible, connected to existing EWC codes. Waste streams that are composed predominantly of plastic (e.g. plastic packaging) are excluded because in such cases the standard factor can be assumed to be 100%.

Table 3 Standard percentage factors of plastic content in products and waste streams

Product or waste stream	Plastic share (%)	Source and assumptions
Textiles
*Product*	68% plastic share - of the total global fibres placed on the market Of the total fibres placed on market globally (by polymer type): 57% polyester 5% polyamide (nylon) 3% polypropylene 2% acrylic 1% elastane (spandex)	(Textile Exchange, 2023) % Share of total global fibre market in 2023. Note: This source updates annually, so users should search for the latest available data.
*Waste stream*	In all shares 9% plastic share in “clothing” 7% plastic share in “home textiles” In “reuse” category 9% plastic share in “clothing” 8% plastic share in “home textiles” In “recycling” category 10% plastic share in “clothing” 6% plastic share in “home textiles”	(Brieger et al., 2021) Based on a waste audits of used textiles in Hamburg, Germany in 2021. A total of 15m3 or 1,968kg of used textiles were collected on a recycling yard and sorted. 70% was assigned to sorting group Reuse (i.e. has reuse potential) and 26% to Recycling (i.e. has recycling potential without differentiation from energy recovery as recycling). Bags and other residual material accounted for the remaining 4%.
WEEE
*Waste stream*	3%: Large equipment excluding solar panels 18%: Small equipment, screens and small IT 22%: Temperature exchange equipment 4%: Lamps	(Fråne et al., 2022) Based on data from 2020 by the Swedish Producer Responsibility Organization El-Kretsen. Note: the data combines several of the six categories (i.e. 1. Temperature exchange equipment, 2. Screens and small IT, 3. lamps, 4. Large equipment, 5. Small equipment and 6. Small IT) under the WEEE Directive into four categories.
EoL vehicles
*Product*	In a “modern automobile” 10% plastic by weight	(Mashek, 2016) Not geographically specific. Assuming internal combustion vehicle.
	In one “typical car”, plastic content broken down by polymer type: 37% PP, 27% PUR and PA 27% PE, PVC, ABS and PET 9% PC, PMMA, PBT and POM	(Matos, Santos, Simoes, Martins, & Simoes, 2023) citing multiple sources. Polymer composition in the total plastic share of a car. Type of car not specified. Assuming internal combustion vehicle.
	In a “mid-size” internal combustion vehicle, by weight: 9,4% plastic and composites 5% synthetic rubber/elastomers In a “mid-size” electric vehicle, by weight: 10% plastic and polymer composites 5,6% synthetic rubber/elastomers	(American Chemistry Council, 2024) It’s interpreted that synthetic rubber/elastomers are additional to plastic and polymer composites. Geographic context set in the USA.
Batteries
*Product*	In an electric vehicle lithium-ion battery pack, by weight: 2-6% plastic	(Duan, 2022) May assume figures are based on battery packs manufactured in China.
Car tires
*Product*	In passenger/light truck tire: 24% synthetic polymers 19% natural rubber 4% textiles (combination of polyester, rayon (semi-synthetic), nylon and aramid cord fabric) In a truck tire: 34% natural rubber 11% synthetic polymers	(U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association, 2025) Remainder of materials consist of various chemicals, steel and fillers. One may assume that the context is more relevant to the USA.

3.3 Conclusion

To illustrate the use of standard plastic percentage factors to estimate plastic shares in waste streams, this report section provided an indicative list of figures, their sources and the general assumptions made. However, further research and consideration of the assumptions behind the figures should be made by official statistics agencies before they are adopted in the production of statistics. Statistics producers should also assess whether the figures are appropriate for adoption specifically in their respective geographical context.

This conclusion section provides some commentary on the sources behind the various product or waste streams.

For textiles, data provided by Brieger et al. (2021) offers a granular and recent indication for the Nordic context, considering the waste audit was conducted within the last five years in a central European, relatively high-income city. The data offers granularity to covering the general stream as well as sub streams such as “recycling” and “reuse”. If the geographic context is not suitable, then plastic share in fibers placed on the market by the Textile Exchange (2023) could be used as a proxy. However, as the extended producer responsibility scheme on textiles is expected in the future, it is anticipated that data from advanced textile sorting facilities will be able to provide high quality data of textile waste composition. Therefore, it may not be worthwhile to invest significant resources in monitoring plastics solely within textiles at this stage.

On WEEE, data from the Swedish PRO El-Kretsen was identified, which is likely a good representation of other Nordic countries. However, certain WEEE categories have been combined to provide single figures. The shares vary between 4 and 22% across the different categories and the source does not specify whether the four categories indeed cover the entire waste stream of WEEE. To be able to apply these shares, the relative share of each category (of the full WEEE stream) must be considered.

The estimations of plastic fractions in end-of-life vehicles, batteries, and car tires are reliant on data at the product level since waste-stream level data was not found. The figures that were found allowed for further differentiation within one product type, such as differentiating between internal combustion and electric vehicles (for end-of-life vehicles), and between passenger and truck tires (for waste tires). This differentiation can provide greater nuance in monitoring plastic waste. While the geographic context of these data sources is more ambiguous, it does not necessarily mean they are not representative of the Nordic context, given the globalized nature of markets. Nonetheless, further research should be made if the figures are intended for official statistics production.