The words used to describe plastic recycling may be shaping public opinion more than the science itself. A new study from the University of Manchester argues that commonly used terms such as “upcycling” and “downcycling” can distort how plastic waste solutions are perceived sometimes masking their true environmental and economic impact. The research, conducted by the university’s Sustainable Materials Innovation Hub, calls for clearer, more evidence-based communication around plastic end-of-life strategies.
Published in Cambridge Prisms: Plastics, the paper questions whether directional labels accurately reflect sustainability outcomes or simply imply value judgments without sufficient analysis.
When Language Influences Sustainability
“Upcycling” typically carries positive connotations, suggesting that waste materials are transformed into higher-value products. “Downcycling,” by contrast, implies degradation into something less useful.
But according to the researchers, reality is far more complex.
A product labeled as “downcycled” may actually result in a high-value, long-lasting material with strong environmental benefits. Meanwhile, an “upcycled” pathway could involve greater energy consumption or environmental harm than alternative routes.
By assigning implicit value through terminology, stakeholders may unintentionally or strategically skew investment, policy debates, and public understanding.
Professor Michael Shaver, Professor of Polymer Science at the University of Manchester, explains that such language often lacks careful consideration of full life-cycle impacts. The team argues that sustainability decisions must be grounded in measurable environmental and economic outcomes rather than assumptions embedded in branding.
Beyond a One-Size-Fits-All Fix
The study emphasizes that no single recycling technology offers a universal solution to the plastic crisis. Framing any approach as inherently “better” based solely on terminology risks oversimplifying a highly interconnected system.
Instead, the researchers propose what they describe as a “spiral system” of reuse. In this model, plastics are treated not as disposable packaging but as valuable chemical resources comparable to crude oil that can be repeatedly transformed across sectors over their lifetime.
A yogurt pot, for example, could become a car component, later a park bench, and eventually be chemically broken down and remade into packaging again. Since materials like polypropylene are already used in automotive parts, appliances and construction materials, cross-sector reuse could generate greater long-term value than focusing exclusively on closed-loop packaging recycling.
Measuring What Truly Matters
The authors argue that moving away from direction-loaded terminology would allow plastic waste strategies to be judged on measurable criteria:
• Life-cycle environmental impact
• Carbon footprint
• Resource efficiency
• Economic value of end-products
Dr. Claire Seitzinger, lead author of the study, stresses that building a circular plastics economy requires systemic thinking. Policy, industry, and innovation must align across sectors, rather than competing through selectively framed narratives.
Rethinking the Plastic Conversation
As the global plastic waste crisis intensifies, clearer communication may be as important as technological innovation. Misleading or oversimplified language can obscure genuine trade-offs, delay effective policy, and reinforce fragmented solutions.
The study ultimately poses a practical question: when you finish a yogurt, what should the container become next another yogurt pot, a car part, a bench in a public park?
The answer, the researchers suggest, should not depend on persuasive wording. It should depend on rigorous environmental and economic evaluation.
In the race toward circularity, clarity may be one of the most powerful tools available.