Expanded polystyrene (EPS) remains a subject of debate in packaging and environmental policy. But beneath the headlines, a more nuanced picture emerges—one built on long-term infrastructure, verified recyclability, and measured environmental data. In an extended interview with PackMarkedføring, Chresten Heide-Andersen of EPS-branchen outlined where public perception diverges from documented practice, and why overlooking EPS may risk undermining established circular value chains.
Function before Form: Why EPS Still Dominates Large-Appliance Packaging
Electrolux Group recently announced a material shift in its packaging for smaller kitchen products—replacing EPS with certified, recyclable paperboard and reducing ink usage. These changes align with efforts to lower material footprints and increase circularity across consumer products.
But when the same logic was applied to large white goods, the results were counterintuitive. According to Maria Chiara Frijia, Electrolux’s Sustainable Materials Innovation lead, switching to all-paper packaging for large appliances actually increased environmental impact. The switch required significantly more material volume, leading to higher CO₂ emissions and more solid waste, while also undermining product protection in humid environments.
The result: Electrolux retained EPS for core protective functions while beginning to incorporate recycled content into EPS, polyethylene film, and fiber-based components. As Heide-Andersen notes, this outcome reinforces what circular materials advocates have emphasized for years: the recyclability of a material is only part of the equation—system performance, durability, and logistics must also be considered.
EPS Recycling: “At Scale” and In Practice
Public misconceptions about EPS are common, Heide-Andersen acknowledges—but they are often outdated or misapplied. Claims that EPS “can’t be recycled” are not supported by global practice. According to recent data shared in the interview, EPS packaging—particularly transport packaging—is among the most widely recycled plastic formats worldwide.
“EPS is recycled ‘at scale’ and ‘in practice’ in more than 38 countries across four continents,” says Heide-Andersen. “That means it meets the international threshold for real-world recycling performance.”
These terms—at scale and in practice—are not rhetorical. They are part of the definitional framework used by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess whether plastic products qualify as “recyclable” under international circularity targets. They refer not just to the theoretical possibility of recycling, but to the existence of operational collection, processing, and market pathways.
EPS transport packaging currently achieves a global recycling rate of around 40%, with even higher performance in countries that have implemented extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes. In Norway, for example, EPS recycling rates exceed 80%, primarily due to robust logistics systems and integration with packaging take-back schemes.
The key variable is not recyclability, but whether a region or system chooses to collect EPS. Where collection exists, the material is recoverable and marketable—particularly when kept clean and sorted at source.
Correcting the Marine Litter Narrative
Environmental debates around EPS often reference its presence in marine litter. But as Heide-Andersen cautions, much of the referenced data comes from shoreline counts, which significantly skew the visibility of light and voluminous items.
“Some studies suggest EPS makes up 40% of shoreline litter by item count—but this doesn’t reflect reality at sea,” he explains.
Such studies are limited to surface or beach findings. According to current marine plastic analysis methodologies, around 80% of plastic waste sinks—meaning shoreline studies are not representative of total marine dispersion. In contrast, mass-based assessments show that EPS contributes less than 0.5% of ocean plastic by weight, despite making up more than 3% of global plastic production.
Heide-Andersen also emphasizes that marine pollution risk varies dramatically by product type. Single-use food containers and disposable cups—now banned in the EU and several other regions—carry higher leakage risk. In contrast, large EPS forms used in appliance packaging are dense, high-volume, and nearly always handled through structured waste channels.
EPS Lifecycle: Multiple Reuse Pathways
Material lifespan is another often-misunderstood factor. Contrary to assumptions that EPS is single-use, the material can undergo mechanical recycling up to seven times without degradation in structural integrity. After that point, thermal re-expansion using pentane gas allows further reuse, while still offering a lower environmental impact than virgin production.
Additionally, EPS can be subjected to chemical recycling, where it is broken down into its original monomer components and reconstituted into new EPS raw material—enabling, in theory, infinite recyclability.
“EPS can be recycled almost endlessly through a combination of mechanical and chemical technologies,” says Heide-Andersen.
He adds that mechanical densification and resale is already economically viable in many regions. Clean, white EPS collected at recycling centres or housing estates can be compacted and resold into international markets for use in insulation, furniture, and new EPS applications.
A Danish Uptake: Local Systems Show What’s Possible
In Denmark, EPS-branchen has worked directly with municipalities to support collection schemes at recycling centres and within housing blocks. These systems are relatively easy to implement, especially in urban areas with structured waste contracts. Heide-Andersen notes that citizen participation is strong:
“When people buy a refrigerator or oven, they know where the packaging goes. EPS containers are easy to identify and fill. That’s why more and more municipalities are starting to offer separate collection.”
The result is a functional, low-contamination material stream with clear environmental and economic returns. These real-world examples contrast sharply with the impression—still prevalent in some design circles—that EPS is inherently linear or unrecyclable.
Competitive Claims and Industry Messaging
The interview also addressed growing concerns about marketing narratives that portray EPS as outdated or non-circular, especially from paper-based packaging competitors. While acknowledging the importance of innovation in sustainable materials, Heide-Andersen warns against false dichotomies.
“We’ve seen claims that highlight the recyclability of paper by stating or implying that EPS cannot be recycled. That’s not accurate—and it’s damaging to established recovery systems.”
He points out that industry-level standards and data must drive decisions, not assumptions. Circularity depends not just on what a material is made of, but on how it is handled across its lifecycle.
Takeaway: System Logic, Not Material Prejudice
This conversation reframes EPS not as a legacy material, but as a circular resource with measurable and scalable benefits. While single-use EPS in food packaging has been phased out in many regions—including across the EU—its role in protective packaging for appliances, pharmaceuticals, and temperature-sensitive goods remains vital.
As the Electrolux case illustrates, system substitution must weigh product protection, CO₂ outcomes, and end-of-life recovery—not just material label. Where EPS is collected and processed as part of a system, it performs well on all counts.
Heide-Andersen concludes with a strategic reminder: “Circularity isn’t about picking winners—it’s about building systems that work.”
