Plastics and Sustainable Development – Identifying and Quantifying Ecodesign Strategies for Plastics.

Plastics and Sustainable Development – Identifying and Quantifying Ecodesign Strategies for Plastics - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Glob Chall . 2026 Mar 23;10(3):e00033. doi: 10.1002/gch2.202500033 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Plastics and Sustainable Development – Identifying and Quantifying Ecodesign Strategies for Plastics Venkateshwaran Venkatachalam Venkateshwaran Venkatachalam 1 Institute of Plastics and Circular Economy, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Garbsen, Germany Find articles by Venkateshwaran Venkatachalam 1, ✉ , Sebastian Spierling Sebastian Spierling 1 Institute of Plastics and Circular Economy, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Garbsen, Germany Find articles by Sebastian Spierling 1 , Mikołaj Owsianiak Mikołaj Owsianiak 2 Section for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Environmental and Resource Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark 3 Centre for Absolute Sustainability, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark Find articles by Mikołaj Owsianiak 2, 3 , Frederik R Wurm Frederik R Wurm 4 Sustainable Polymer Chemistry, Department of Molecules and Materials, Faculty of Science and Technology, MESA + Institute for Nanotechnology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands Find articles by Frederik R Wurm 4 , Leonie Barner Leonie Barner 5 School of Chemistry and Physics, Faculty of Science, Centre for Environment and Society, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Find articles by Leonie Barner 5 , Hans‐Josef Endres Hans‐Josef Endres 1 Institute of Plastics and Circular Economy, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Garbsen, Germany Find articles by Hans‐Josef Endres 1 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Institute of Plastics and Circular Economy, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Garbsen, Germany 2 Section for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Environmental and Resource Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark 3 Centre for Absolute Sustainability, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark 4 Sustainable Polymer Chemistry, Department of Molecules and Materials, Faculty of Science and Technology, MESA + Institute for Nanotechnology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands 5 School of Chemistry and Physics, Faculty of Science, Centre for Environment and Society, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia ✉ Corresponding author. Revised 2026 Mar 2; Received 2025 Jan 17; Accepted 2026 Mar 5; Collection date 2026 Mar. © 2026 The Author(s). Global Challenges published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13093836  PMID: 42016552 ABSTRACT In 2015, the United Nations introduced the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to address major global challenges in sustainable development. Different industrial sectors are held accountable by their stakeholders for how their actions can contribute to achieving these goals. Among others, the plastic sector has come under scrutiny due to its linearity, characterized by low recovery rates after use and adverse effects on the environment resulting from uncontrolled disposal. Therefore, focus should be given not only to improving production processes and developing regulatory frameworks to manage plastic wastes but also to product design, as composition and construction determine whether products can be effectively recovered and recycled after use. Ecodesign is an approach that seeks to integrate different environmental considerations as early as during the design phase by focusing on the entire lifecycle of a product. To understand how plastics influence various dimensions of sustainability, a systematic literature review was conducted to examine the impact of plastics across different indicators of SDGs and their relationship to different ecodesign strategies. Based on the findings of the review, this study aims to identify plastic‐specific ecodesign strategies that can enhance resource efficiency and material recoverability. Furthermore, to compare and quantify these ecodesign strategies, a new methodological framework is proposed. Keywords: ecodesign, plastic, recycling, resource efficiency, sustainable development A comprehensive literature review was conducted to understand how the scientific literature addresses plastics in relation to different aspects of sustainable development. From the qualitative assessment of the literature, the impacts of plastics across their lifecycle on sustainable development were identified, along with the relationship of the literature to different ecodesign strategies. Based on this assessment, plastic‐specific ecodesign strategies were identified, and a methodological framework was proposed to quantify them. 1. Introduction The magnitude at which plastic is produced and consumed across the world has resulted in an exponential increase in the generation of plastic waste [ 1 ]. The plastic sector, unlike other materials such as glass and metals, has so far been mostly linear, using fossil resources to produce plastic products and disposing of them after use with limited focus on recovery and recycling [ 2 ]. In countries that lack sufficient waste management facilities, this linear use has contributed to widespread mismanagement and uncontrolled disposal of plastic waste into the environment. This has led to an unprecedented accumulation of macro‐, micro‐ and nanoplastics [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Therefore, plastic wastes can end up in ecosystems such as oceans [ 6 ], lakes [ 7 ], rivers [ 8 ], wetlands [ 9 ], soils [ 10 ], and even the atmosphere [ 11 ], causing adverse impacts on both biotic and abiotic resources [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Global recycling rates of plastics remain low, highlighting structural challenges in plastic waste management. The Organization for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) in its 2022 ‘Global Plastics Outlook’ report estimates that only 9% of global plastic waste was ultimately recycled. While 19% of it was incinerated, 50% went to sanitary landfills and the remaining 22% of global plastic waste was disposed of in uncontrolled dumpsites, burnt in open pits or leaked into the environment [ 1 , 15 ]. The drivers of plastic leakage extend beyond the plastic product itself and include, for example, pellet spills during production and transportation, inconsistent regulatory frameworks for waste handling and consumer practices. Therefore, although plastics are often described as recyclable, recyclability in itself does not guarantee that plastic waste is actually recovered after use. Effective recovery of plastic waste depends on systemic factors such as establishing adequate waste recovery infrastructure [ 15 , 16 ]; replacing and recovering harmful additives used in plastics; prioritizing reuse and refurbishment over recycling in accordance with the waste hierarchy [ 17 , 18 ] (Prevention → Reuse → Recycling → Recovery → Disposal); and fostering markets for plastic recyclates [ 18 ]. Addressing these interconnected factors is essential to reduce plastic leakage and improve resource efficiency across the value chain. To quantify resource consumption and environmental impacts of plastics across their lifecycle, various assessment approaches exist. Some of the frequently used approaches include: (1) Material Flow Analysis (MFA) [ 19 ] which analyses the throughput (inputs and outputs) of process chains comprising extraction, transformation, manufacturing, consumption, recycling and disposal of materials [ 20 ]; (2) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) [ 21 ] which evaluates potential environmental impacts throughout a product's lifecycle [ 22 ]; (3) Material Input Per Unit of Service (MIPS) [ 23 ], which refers to the material consumption from cradle‐to‐cradle per unit of service or function [ 24 ]; (4) Eco‐efficiency [ 25 ], which examines the efficiency of economic activity with regards to nature's goods and services [ 26 ]. These approaches are typically applied after a product has been developed to quantify impacts across its lifecycle. However, they offer limited guidance for integrating resource efficiency optimization during the design stage. To enhance the sustainability performance of plastics across their lifecycle, an approach is needed that not only quantifies the resource consumption and environmental impacts, but also evaluates how design choices influence product lifespan, material composition, repairability and recyclability. These aspects must be identified and evaluated by plastic manufacturers as early as the product design phase. 1.1. Ecodesign Ecodesign is an approach that aims to minimize environmental impacts and maximize resource efficiency across a product's value chain during the product development stage [ 27 ]. The value chain refers to lifecycle stages of the product like raw material acquisition, production, processing, distribution, use, transport, disposal, and recovery, involving multiple stakeholders. During product development, product properties and the value chain are analyzed to identify shortcomings that limit resource efficiency and recoverability. Ecodesign strategies can then be applied to design new products by re‐evaluating existing product systems and value chains [ 27 ]. Moreover, ecodesign strategies can be implemented at different levels (process, product, sector, regional, national) to increase resource efficiency and the recoverability of products after use. Because ecodesign explicitly considers the entire value chain of products in use, it provides a suitable basis for designing future products with improved resource efficiency across their lifecycle. For this reason, the ecodesign approach was adopted in this study in preference to other approaches such as LCA, MIPS or eco‐efficiency. While other approaches are effective in quantifying impacts after product development, ecodesign enables the identification of challenges and design‐related measures that influence the sustainable production, consumption and recovery of plastics at an early stage. Common ecodesign strategies include, but are not limited to, implementing new material alternatives, optimizing production processes, waste recovery in production, creating new business models for recyclates, and eliminating hazardous chemicals in products. Examples of some of the ecodesign strategies implemented by organizations in the plastic sector are shown in Table S1 (SI1). Beyond identifying strategies, their progress across sectors and regions must be assessed and quantified over time. Quantifying ecodesign strategies helps sectors set goals and benchmarks to improve resource efficiency across regions. Although recent studies have examined ecodesign strategies for plastics [ 28 , 29 , 30 ] and their role as decision‐support tools for sustainable production and use of products [ 31 , 32 ], very few studies have focused on quantifying them [ 33 , 34 , 35 ]. Moreover, while plastic pollution and its adverse impacts on human health and ecosystems are well documented [ 36 , 37 ], limited research has explored the relationship between plastics, sustainable development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [ 38 , 39 , 40 ]. These studies examine the contributions and impacts of plastics across the SDGs but do not focus on ecodesign strategies. To date, no study has proposed a framework that identifies and quantifies plastic‐specific ecodesign strategies based on the impact of plastics across different aspects of sustainable development. 1.2. Objectives The main objective of this study is to understand the effects of plastics across the value chain on different aspects of sustainable development and to identify plastic‐specific ecodesign strategies. To achieve this objective, a comprehensive literature review was conducted using Scopus. Studies were identified in Scopus by combining the terms ‘plastics’ and ‘polymers’ with keywords derived from the indicators and targets of the SDG framework [ 41 ], which were chosen to capture the environmental, economic and social impacts of plastics discussed in the scientific literature. Using a set of screening criteria, the selected studies were allocated to the 17 SDGs and subsequently assessed for their interactions with other SDGs, based on the Scopus mapping framework and the authors’ own evaluation. The beneficial and adverse impacts of plastics on the environment, economy and society, as mentioned in the selected studies, were then qualitatively analyzed. This was followed by a qualitative assessment of the relationship between the selected studies and the ecodesign strategies proposed in the Life Cycle Design Strategy (LiDS) Wheel [ 42 ]. Based on the observations from this qualitative assessment, plastic‐specific ecodesign strategies and corresponding parameters for those strategies were identified. Building on this analysis, a preliminary methodological framework was proposed to calculate the Plastic Ecodesign Index Score (PEIS), based on the SDG Index score methodology [ 43 ]. PEIS enables comparison and quantification of the progress of ecodesign strategies at the product, sector, or regional level for a defined time. A practical example demonstrating the application of PEIS to a plastic product is provided, followed by a discussion of the study's limitations and the challenges associated with identifying and implementing ecodesign strategies. Understanding these ecodesign strategies and implementing a methodological framework such as PEIS can help the plastic sector develop a roadmap to address future challenges related to product recovery. Quantifying the ecodesign strategies can subsequently support their progress in designing products that can be recovered and recycled after use. The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses the screening criteria for the literature review and the allocation of selected studies to the 17 SDGs, followed by the qualitative assessment of the studies and their relationship to different ecodesign strategies. Section 3 presents the results and observations of the qualitative assessment, followed by the preliminary identification of plastic‐specific ecodesign strategies. Section 4 introduces the PEIS framework and provides an illustrative example of its application. Section 5 outlines the limitations of the study and the challenges associated with identifying and implementing ecodesign strategies for plastics. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper by summarizing the main findings of the study and discussing how the plastic sector can identify and implement ecodesign strategies in the future. 2. Materials and Methods This section describes the screening of studies for the literature review, as well as the methods used to qualitatively assess the impact of plastics on different aspects of sustainable development and the relationship of the selected studies to different ecodesign strategies. The conceptual framework adopted in this study to identify and quantify plastic‐specific ecodesign strategies is shown in Figure 1 . FIGURE 1. Open in a new tab Conceptual framework of the study illustrating how the literature on plastics and sustainable development was assessed to identify and quantify plastic‐specific ecodesign strategies. 2.1. Literature Review The literature review for this study was carried out using Scopus. Although there exist different search engines like Web of Science and Google Scholar, Scopus was selected because it has developed a framework based on extensive keyword queries and machine learning that maps publications to different SDGs [ 44 ]. At the time of conducting this review, this SDG‐mapping framework was not available in other search engines. After assigning the publications to different SDGs based on keyword searches, a qualitative assessment was carried out by the author team to evaluate the impact of plastics on sustainable development and to examine the relationship between the selected studies and different ecodesign strategies. 2.1.1. Review Strategy The authors of this study collectively defined the screening criteria for publications to be included in the literature review and allocated to different SDGs. Keywords were derived from the indicators and targets of all 17 SDGs [ 41 ]. For each SDG, the selected keywords were combined with the terms ‘Plastic’ and ‘Polymer’ using Boolean operators (AND, OR, AND NOT). Initially, keyword searches were conducted within article titles only and were subsequently extended to include title, keywords, and abstracts in Scopus. The search timeframe was set from 2015 (as the 17 SDGs were introduced by the UN in 2015 [ 45 ]) to 30 th May 2024. The keywords used for each SDG, along with the studies considered in this review, are presented in Table 1 . TABLE 1. Studies considered for the literature review along with the keywords used in each SDG. Nr. SDG Keywords used for the review in each SDG (in addition to Plastic/Polymers) Studies considered for this review 1 No poverty Poverty, people, population [ 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ] 2 Zero hunger Agriculture, food, food‐security, hunger [ 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 ] 3 Good health and well‐being Health, death, illness, disease, mortality [ 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 ] 4 Quality education Education, skill, awareness, qualification [ 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 ] 5 Gender equality Gender, women, equality, policy [ 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 ] 6 Clean water and sanitation Water, sanitation, drinking, scarcity [ 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 ] 7 Affordable and clean energy Energy, renewable, sustainable, clean [ 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 ] 8 Decent work and economic growth Economy, job, growth, employment [ 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 , 196 , 197 ] 9 Industry, innovation, and infrastructure Innovation, research, infrastructure, industry [ 198 , 199 , 200 , 201 , 202 , 203 , 204 , 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 210 , 211 , 212 , 213 , 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 , 218 , 219 , 220 , 221 , 222 , 223 , 224 , 225 , 226 , 227 ] 10 Reduced inequalities Income, injustice, inequality, social [ 228 , 229 , 230 , 231 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 , 237 , 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 , 242 , 243 , 244 , 245 , 246 , 247 ] 11 Sustainable cities and communities Cities, settlements, communities, municipal, waste [ 248 , 249 , 250 , 251 , 252 , 253 , 254 , 255 , 256 , 257 , 258 , 259 , 260 , 261 , 262 , 263 , 264 , 265 , 266 , 267 ] 12 Responsible consumption and production Sustainable, production, consumption, efficiency, footprint, waste [ 268 , 269 , 270 , 271 , 272 , 273 , 274 , 275 , 276 , 277 , 278 , 279 , 280 , 281 , 282 , 283 , 284 , 285 , 286 , 287 , 288 , 289 , 290 , 291 , 292 , 293 , 294 , 295 , 296 , 297 ] 13 Climate action Climate change, mitigation, global warming [ 298 , 299 , 300 , 301 , 302 , 303 , 304 , 305 , 306 , 307 , 308 , 309 , 310 , 311 , 312 , 313 , 314 , 315 , 316 , 317 , 318 , 319 , 320 , 321 , 322 , 323 , 324 , 325 , 326 , 327 ] 14 Life below water Marine, pollution, coast, fishing [ 328 , 329 , 330 , 331 , 332 , 333 , 334 , 335 , 336 , 337 , 338 , 339 , 340 , 341 , 342 , 343 , 344 , 345 , 346 , 347 , 348 , 349 , 350 , 351 , 352 , 353 , 354 , 355 , 356 , 357 ] 15 Life on land Ecosystem, soil, land, terrestrial, wildlife, wetlands [ 358 , 359 , 360 , 361 , 362 , 363 , 364 , 365 , 366 , 367 , 368 , 369 , 370 , 371 , 372 , 373 , 374 , 375 , 376 , 377 , 378 , 379 , 380 , 381 , 382 , 383 , 384 , 385 , 386 , 387 ] 16 Peace, justice, and strong institutions Justice, peace, regulation, legislation, governance, policy [ 388 , 389 , 390 , 391 , 392 , 393 , 394 , 395 , 396 , 397 , 398 , 399 , 400 , 401 , 402 , 403 , 404 , 405 , 406 , 407 ] 17 Partnerships for the goals Partnership, cooperation, global, trade, market [ 408 , 409 , 410 , 411 , 412 , 413 , 414 , 415 , 416 , 417 , 418 , 419 , 420 , 421 , 422 , 423 , 424 , 425 , 426 , 427 ] Open in a new tab The co‐occurrence of keywords within each SDG was analyzed and visualized using VOSViewer [ 46 ]. VOSViewer is a tool used to visualize bibliometric networks of keywords between different studies. It can also assess the strength and frequency of keywords used across studies. Analyzing keyword co‐occurrence helps us understand the significance and frequency of keywords when searching for the literature based on the defined screening criteria. The keyword co‐occurrence diagrams for all 17 SDGs are provided in Figures S1–S18 (SI1). A list of frequently used keywords and their occurrences for individual SDGs is also included in the Supporting Information (SI2 Page 27). 2.1.2. Screening of Literature Related to Plastics and Sustainable Development In total, 1994 studies were identified across the 17 SDGs based on the keyword search. These studies were subjected to an extensive screening process that involved evaluating titles, abstracts, accessibility of the publications (availability to view and download the publications), relevance to the objectives of the study, and potential duplicates. The screening criteria for inclusion in the review were as follows: (1) Only studies focusing explicitly on plastics were considered; studies addressing composites (primarily focused on natural, carbon or glass fibers and less on plastic use and recovery) or other materials such as glass were excluded; (2) Combining the keyword ‘plastic’ with keywords like ‘women’, ‘health’ and ‘skills’ resulted in studies related to plastic surgery, plasticity, implants (despite adding the ‘AND NOT’ operator during the search), which after inspection were not considered; (3) Although the literature search was primarily conducted in English, studies published in other languages were excluded; (4) Studies that were inaccessible (due to subscription restrictions or lack of an electronic version) were excluded, even if they addressed SDG‐related keywords; (5) Only original research articles and review studies were included; reviews of reviews were excluded to avoid redundancy with the observations; (6) Studies addressing municipal wastes or waste management without a specific focus on plastics were excluded, as such wastes follow different end‐of‐life pathways. After applying these criteria, 380 studies were selected for the comprehensive literature review. The screening analysis of the studies considered for the literature review is shown in Figure 2 . The number of studies identified and selected for each SDG is provided in the Supporting Information (SI2 Page 2). FIGURE 2. Open in a new tab Screening analysis of studies considered for the literature review (Reproduced under terms of the CC‐BY license [ 47 ]). These 380 studies allocated to 17 SDGs were then thoroughly assessed with respect to two main aspects: The beneficial and adverse impacts of plastics across different lifecycle stages on sustainable development The ecodesign strategies addressed in the selected studies The assessment methodology for these aspects is described in the following sections. Based on this analysis, plastic‐specific ecodesign strategies were identified, and a framework to quantify these strategies was proposed. The studies allocated to each SDG, along with the keywords used in the review, are presented in Table 1 . 2.2. Qualitative Assessment of the Studies This section describes the qualitative assessment of the impacts of plastics on different aspects of sustainable development and the relationship between the selected studies and ecodesign strategies. The list of studies included in the review, along with the results of the qualitative assessment, is provided in the Supporting Information (SI2 Pages 3–9). 2.2.1. Impact of Plastics Across the Lifecycle on Sustainable Development To assess the impact of plastics across the entire value chain in relation to sustainable development, both beneficial and critical impacts were identified using a qualitative scoring system. The lifecycle stages considered in this assessment are: (a) Raw material stage—Cracking of crude oil, production of polymers; (b) Production stage—Conversion of polymers into plastic products, and the addition of additives and chemicals during processing; (c) Use stage—Product use, maintenance, and repair, as well as associated resource consumption; (d) End‐of‐life—Recovery and disposal pathways documented in the literature; (e) Transportation/Logistics—Transportation and distribution of polymers and plastic products, exports of plastic products and waste, and the environmental transport of macro‐, meso‐, micro‐, and nanoplastics. Environmental, economic and social impacts were considered across all lifecycle stages. Each of the 380 studies was qualitatively assessed and scored by the author team based on the criteria presented in Table 2 . The scoring system was developed by the author team for this study based on domain expertise. TABLE 2. Scoring system used to assess the impacts of plastics on sustainable development in the reviewed literature. Aspects assessed Impact Points Beneficial impacts of polymer/plastic in each life cycle stage on environment, economy and society being the primary focus of the study Highly Beneficial +3 Focus on the beneficial impacts of polymer/plastic in each life cycle stage on environment, economy and society, but is not the primary focus of the study Beneficial +2 Focus on both the beneficial impacts and the critical impacts of polymers/plastics in each life cycle stage on environment, economy and society Neutral +1 No mention of the benefits/critical impacts of polymers/plastics in each life cycle stage on environment, economy and society Not Applicable 0 Focus on the critical impacts of polymers/plastics in each life cycle stage on environment, economy and society, but is not the primary focus of the study Critical −2 Critical impacts of polymers/plastics in each life cycle stage on environment, economy and society being the primary focus of the study Highly critical −3 Open in a new tab An illustrative example of the qualitative assessment is provided using the study by Zhang et al. [ 76 ] which was allocated to SDG 2 in this review. This study examined the use of plastic mulch to increase crop yields and the adverse effects of residual plastic film accumulated in soil [ 76 ]. Increased crop yields of 25–42% due to improved soil temperature and moisture [ 76 ] were classified as ‘Beneficial’ impacts (+2 Points) during the use stage. However, the use of additives like phthalates in mulch films was assessed as having ‘Critical’ impacts (−2 Points) in the raw‐material and production stages due to associated health risks [ 76 ]. Furthermore, the accumulation of plastic film residues in agricultural soils, combined with limited recovery infrastructure, was assessed as having highly critical impacts (−3 Points) at the end‐of‐life stage [ 76 ]. As transportation‐related impacts were not discussed in the study, the impacts for this stage were assessed to be ‘Not Applicable’ (0 Point). Following this approach and based on the scoring criteria shown in Table 3 , all 380 studies were qualitatively assessed and scored across all lifecycle stages. For each SDG, the sum of the total points secured by every study for each lifecycle phase was then compared with the maximum beneficial and critical points that could be scored by a set of literature for that SDG. For example, if 30 publications are assigned to an SDG for review, then the total points that could be scored by those 30 publications in that SDG could range from +90 to −90 (30 studies with highly beneficial or highly critical impacts) and based on this range, the total points to be beneficial, neutral and critical were assigned. The aggregated results were visualized in the form of a heat map, which are discussed in Section 3.1 . Detailed scoring results are provided in the Supporting Information (SI2 Pages 10–19). TABLE 3. Ecodesign strategies and the associated parameters for the product development, based on LiDS Wheel [ 42 ]. Strategy Parameters Low‐impact materials Cleaner materials Renewable materials Lower energy content materials Recycled materials Recyclable materials Reduction of materials usage Reduction in weight Reduction in (transport) volume Optimization of production techniques Alternative production techniques Fewer production steps Lower/cleaner energy consumption Fewer/cleaner production and consumables Optimization of distribution system Less/cleaner/reusable packaging Energy‐efficient logistics Reduction of impact during use Lower energy consumption Cleaner energy source Fewer consumables needed Cleaner consumables No waste of energy/consumables Optimization of initial life Reliability and durability Easy maintenance and repair Modular product structure Classic design Human centered design Optimization of end‐of‐life system Re‐use of product Remanufacturing/Refurbishing Recycling of materials New concept development Dematerialization Shared use product Integration of functions Functional optimization of product (components) Efficient function fulfillment Frameworks and regulatory approaches Open in a new tab 2.2.2. Ecodesign Strategies Addressed in the Selected Studies In addition to assessing plastic impacts, this study qualitatively examined the relationship between the selected literature and ecodesign strategies. The ecodesign strategies considered were based on the Life Cycle Design Strategy (LiDS) Wheel [ 42 ], which is a widely used qualitative framework for identifying ecodesign strategies [ 27 ]. The selected strategies and its associated parameters are shown in Table 3 . In addition to the strategies defined in the LiDS Wheel, the parameter ‘Frameworks and regulatory approaches’ (Table 3 ) was included under the ecodesign strategy ‘New concept development’. The inclusion of this parameter reflects the strong emphasis in the reviewed literature on national and international regulatory frameworks supporting material substitution and plastic alternatives. All 380 studies were qualitatively analyzed to understand whether and how they addressed the selected ecodesign strategies and its parameters (Table 3 ). Relationships between these studies and strategies were evaluated and scored by the author team using criteria similar to those applied in the impact assessment (Section 2.2.1 ), as shown in Table 4 . TABLE 4. Assessment of the relationship between the studies and ecodesign strategies. Description of relationship Relationship Points Primary focus of the study on design related aspects or problems related to those aspects Strong 3 Primary focus of the study not on design related aspects or problems related to those aspects, but were nevertheless addressed within the study Moderate 2 Design aspects/problems mentioned in the study unclear when taken in the larger context Unclear 1 No relationship between the design aspects/problems and the focus of the study No 0 Open in a new tab For example, if a study focuses on the impacts and recovery of additives and chemicals in plastic products, it was qualitatively assessed by the author team as having a ‘Strong’ relationship with the ecodesign strategies ‘Low‐impact materials’ and ‘Optimization of end‐of‐life system’ respectively. The qualitative assessment of the relationship between the selected studies and the ecodesign strategies is illustrated below using a specific example. Egun et al. [ 143 ] was identified as one of the studies allocated to SDG 6 in the literature review. This study analyzed the Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) bottle system in Nigeria and proposed an integrated PET bottle system for sustainable waste management [ 143 ]. The study emphasizes the use of recyclates in bottle manufacturing and the application of extended producer responsibility to reduce natural resource consumption and improve oversight of the plastic bottle supply chain [ 143 ]. In addition, it advocates the establishment of improved recovery and recycling infrastructure, as well as national policies for the sustainable management of used PET bottles in Nigeria [ 143 ]. Based on the observations and recommendations presented in this study, its relationship to different ecodesign strategies (Table 3 ) was qualitatively assessed (Table 4 ). The study was found to have a ‘Strong’ relationship with the ecodesign strategies ‘Low impact materials’, ‘Reduction of materials usage’, ‘Optimization of end‐of‐life system’ and ‘New concept development’. This assessment reflects the study's primary focus on the feasibility of establishing collection and recycling infrastructure for sustainable production and consumption of PET bottles in Nigeria, as well as challenges related to regulatory frameworks and consumer behavior. However, the study also addressed additional aspects such as the production of recyclates, collection systems for PET bottles, extended producer responsibility, and extending the lifetime of PET bottles during the use stage. As these aspects were discussed as recommendations rather than the main focus of the study, the relationships with the ecodesign strategies ‘Optimization of production techniques’, ‘Optimization of distribution system’, ‘Reduction of impact during use’, and ‘Optimization of initial life’ were assessed as ‘Moderate’. The contribution of studies from each SDG to the eight ecodesign strategies was subsequently aggregated and visualized using a Sankey diagram, which is discussed in Section 3.2 . 3. Results and Discussion The significant aspects and impacts of plastics on sustainable development were identified through the qualitative assessment of the literature. Based on this assessment, the most frequently discussed aspects within the studies allocated to each SDG are summarized in Table 5 . TABLE 5. Beneficial and critical aspects of plastics addressed across 380 studies toward sustainable development. Goals Aspects (Beneficial and Critical) SDG 1 – No poverty Difficulties in collection of plastic wastes (Critical) Ocean plastics and poverty of the people around (Critical) Implication of plastic bans on poor people (Neutral—Beneficial impacts for people during use stage (sales, durability) and critical impacts due to the use of single use plastic and disposal of wastes in the environment) Policy interventions to support informal recycling (Beneficial) Reuse of plastic wastes into useful products (Beneficial) SDG 2 – Zero hunger Use and impacts of plastic mulch films (Neutral—Beneficial for the increased crop yield but critical due to the improper disposal of films after use) Controlling plastic wastes in agriculture (Critical) Transfer of micro and microplastic from soils to food chains (Critical) Impacts of plasticizers in soils (Critical) SDG 3 – Good health and well‐being Impacts of plastic pollution on health (Critical) Occurrence of microplastic in food and humans (Critical) Use of face masks (Beneficial) Environmental risks of face masks disposal in the environment (Critical) Polymer contamination in water bottles (Critical) Plastic pollution in air and road dust (Critical) SDG 4 – Quality education Awareness in handling plastic wastes (Beneficial) Plastic use and pollution in education (Beneficial) Irresponsible handling and disposal of plastic wastes (Critical) Consumer behavior in handling plastic wastes (Critical) SDG 5 – Gender equality Gender based determinants for handling and disposing household plastic wastes (Critical) Phthalate exposure on pregnant women and female hygiene products (Critical) Women's activism against plastic pollution (Critical) Women empowerment through plastic recycling (Beneficial) SDG 6 – Clean water and sanitation Use of sachet water—Clean water (Beneficial) and plastic pollution (Critical) Microplastic contamination in water, wastewater plants (Critical) Blockage of sewage and rivers due to plastic wastes (Critical) Use of plastic in women's sanitation practices in informal settlements (Neutral—Beneficial due to the prevention of sanitation related diseases and critical due to the increase in the generation of plastic wastes that are not recovered and disposed properly) SDG 7 – Affordable and clean energy Conversion of plastic into fuels (Beneficial) Use of plastics in renewable energy technologies (wind turbines, supercapacitors) (Beneficial) Chemical recycling—Pyrolysis of plastics (Beneficial) SDG 8 – Decent work and economic growth Policy interventions for Circular Economy in plastic industries (Critical due to the adverse effects of plastic pollution) Job creation in the plastic sector (Beneficial) Cost structure for recycling plastic wastes (Neutral—Beneficial in some countries and critical in countries in the Global South) Economic growth (Beneficial) and (ocean) plastic pollution (Critical) SDG 9 – Industry, innovation, and infrastructure Recycling infrastructure for plastic wastes (Critical) Innovation in biodegradable plastics (Neutral) Businesses tackling ocean plastic pollution (Neutral) Digitalization and technological innovation in formal and informal plastic recycling (Beneficial) SDG 10 – Reduced inequalities Inequalities among the Global North‐South plastic waste trade (Critical) Plastic pollution as a threat for indigenous population (Critical) Economic, social and environmental implications in the informal recycling of plastic wastes (Critical) Inequal benefits and burdens of plastic products on human health (Neutral—Beneficial for the use of plastic products in medical applications but critical in the case of additives and single use bio wastes on human health) SDG 11 – Sustainable cities and communities Barriers to reduce single use plastics (Critical) Packaged water consumption in cities (Beneficial) and the accompanying pollution (Critical) Plastic recycling practices in different cities across the world (Critical) Ban of plastic waste imports and its effects (Beneficial) SDG 12 – Responsible consumption and production Upcycling of plastic wastes (Beneficial) Circular economy routes for plastic wastes (Beneficial) Challenges and tradeoffs of using bioplastics (Neutral) Efforts and challenges to increase the recyclability of post‐consumer plastic wastes (Neutral—Beneficial or producing new business models but critical due to the lack of infrastructure in different countries) SDG 13 – Climate action Climate change and marine plastic pollution (Critical) Fossil fuels and climate change (Critical) Plastic mulching and greenhouse gas emissions (Neutral—Beneficial for the crops but critical when it comes to the production of materials and generation of wastes from sustainability point of view) Plastic recycling and climate change mitigation strategies (Neutral—Beneficial from the environmental point of view but critical due to the poor recycling rate of plastics) SDG 14 – Life below water International policies, norms and responses to curb marine plastic pollution (Critical) Impacts of plastic pollution on marine wildlife (Critical) Biodegradable plastics to combat ocean pollution (Neutral—Beneficial if they really degrade else can cause critical impacts on the environment) SDG 15 – Life on land Plastic pollution in wetlands, freshwater ecosystems, lakes (Critical) Microplastics in flora and fauna (Critical) Soil under stress due to microplastic pollution (Critical) SDG 16 – Peace, justice and strong institutions Plastic pollution as a form of injustice (Critical) Marine plastic pollution in Asia (Critical) Role of corporations in global governance of plastic pollution (Critical) Singe use plastic policies in vulnerable communities (Critical) SDG 17 – Partnership for the goals (Global) governance of ocean plastic pollution (Critical) Entrepreneurial partnerships for handling plastic wastes Regional co‐operation in plastic waste cleanup (Critical) Citizen science and corporate social responsibility for combating the plastic pollution (Critical) Partnerships between academia and industry on handling plastic wastes and circular economy (Beneficial) Open in a new tab Table 5 shows that most studies allocated to the 17 SDGs focused on the impacts associated with the use of plastic products, as well as the impacts of recovering and disposing of plastic waste on the environment. However, with the exception of studies allocated to SDGs 8 and 9, which focused on the economic impacts of plastics, most studies in the review emphasized the environmental and social impacts of plastics. Studies allocated to SDGs 3, 5, 6, and 10 primarily examined the impacts of plastics on human health. These included issues such as the presence of phthalates in plastic products and their effects on women's reproductive health, microplastic contamination in drinking water and wastewater treatment plants, plastic pollution affecting indigenous populations and challenges associated with the disposal of plastic products in medical applications. Studies assigned to SDGs 4 and 12 focused on increasing awareness among stakeholders across the plastic value chain regarding the recovery and recycling of plastic products after use. Although many studies under SDG 12 emphasized the beneficial aspects of plastics being recyclable and use of recyclates in production, they also highlighted challenges related to waste recovery in certain regions and low recycling rates, even in some developed countries. Studies allocated to SDGs 6, 11, and 13 addressed the challenges and impacts of plastic pollution, including discussions on banning single‐use plastic products. Studies associated with SDGs 14–17 primarily focused on policy and legal frameworks aimed at curbing plastic pollution and preventing the illegal export of plastic waste to countries in the Global South (low‐ and middle‐income regions with comparatively limited waste management infrastructure). Only a limited number of studies (allocated to SDGs 1, 2, 7, and 12) highlighted the versatility (beneficial aspect) of plastics in sectors such as agriculture (e.g., mulch films), medical applications (e.g., face masks and surgical instruments), food systems (e.g., packaged drinking water, take‐away food, and vegetables) and energy (e.g., wind turbines and incineration of plastic wastes with energy recovery). However, even those studies also discussed the critical challenges (critical aspect) related to the disposal and recovery of plastics after use. In addition to identifying beneficial and critical aspects across the SDGs, the co‐occurrence of significant keywords was visualized in the form of bibliometric analysis using VOSViewer [ 46 ]. These visualizations, provided for all SDGs in Figures S1–S18 (SI1), illustrate the themes emphasized in the scientific literature when examining plastics and sustainable development. Furthermore, chord diagrams showing interactions between studies with other SDGs were generated using Flourish and are presented in Figures S20–S37 (SI1). Together, these analyses support the identification of plastic‐specific ecodesign strategies. 3.1. Impact of Plastics Across the Life Cycle on Sustainable Development The impact of plastics across the lifecycle in relation to different SDGs was assessed using the aspects of the plastic value chain outlined in Table 5 and the scoring methodology described in Section 2.2.1 . The resulting impacts across different lifecycle stages for the studies allocated to the 17 SDGs are visualized in the form of a heatmap in Figure 3 . FIGURE 3. Open in a new tab Impacts of plastics discussed in the literature on sustainable development across all the lifecycle stages for 17 SDGs in the form of a heatmap. Different lifecycle stages of plastics in X‐axis and the studies allocated to 17 different SDGs in Y‐axis (Created with Flourish [ 428 ]). The heatmap shows that studies allocated to nearly all SDGs exhibit critical to highly critical impacts across different lifecycle stages. In particular, studies associated with SDGs 3–6, 9–12 and 14–17 were assessed as having critical to highly critical impacts across all lifecycle stages of the plastic value chain. This outcome is partly influenced by the choice of keyword combinations related to plastics and polymers, together with indicators of sustainable development from the SDGs such as ‘poverty’, ‘health’, ‘inequality’, ‘awareness’, ‘education’, ‘injustice’, ‘infrastructure’, ‘sanitation’ and ‘pollution’. The results (publications) for these keywords highlighted recurring critical issues associated with plastic use in society and its consequences for sustainable development. Using the scoring system (Section 2.2.1 ), aggregated scores across lifecycle stages resulted predominantly in critical impacts for most SDGs. The heatmap also reveals beneficial, neutral and highly critical impacts for certain lifecycle stages, which are discussed below. Detailed scoring results and aggregated SDG scores are provided in the Supporting Information (SI2 Pages 10–19). Studies allocated to SDG 7 (Affordable and clean energy) and SDG 13 (Climate action) showed beneficial impacts during the use stage of the plastic value chain. For SDG 7, beneficial impacts were also observed at the end‐of‐life stage due to the potential of plastic waste as a fuel source. Incineration and chemical recycling were discussed as a contribution to global decarbonization strategies. For example, the World Economic Forum reported that scaling up of chemical recycling of hard‐to‐recycle plastics could produce nearly 7.5 Mt of secondary feedstock by 2050, when combined with measures like reuse, reduce, design for recycling and mechanical recycling [ 429 ]. Studies allocated to SDG 7 were assessed to have neutral impacts during the transportation stage, reflecting mixed findings regarding the benefits of importing and exporting plastic wastes for incineration versus the critical environmental impacts of long‐distance transport of plastic wastes. Similarly, studies allocated to SDG 8 exhibited neutral impacts during the use stage due to discussion on job creation and economic growth associated with plastic industries and recycling activities. Supporting this observation, the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) estimates that the circular economy (recovery of products after use, unlike the linear economy) sector could create around 2.5 million new jobs in the European Union by 2030, particularly in recycling, repair and reuse activities [ 430 ]. Studies allocated to SDGs 1, 2, 4, and 8 were assessed to have neutral impacts during the use stage. Some studies addressed the improvements in sanitation and business opportunities among marginalized communities through the use of single‐use plastic bags. However, other studies under these SDGs highlighted critical impacts, including health risks from plastics entering the food chain (use and end‐of‐life stage), blockage of drainage systems and drinking water sources due to plastic litter (end‐of‐life stage), and loss of tourism in coastal regions affected by plastic pollution (end‐of‐life stage). It has been estimated that more than 200 million people are at high risk of plastic‐aggravated flooding globally [ 431 ] and projections suggest that plastic in the oceans could outweigh fish by mass within the next 15 years [ 432 ]. Studies allocated to SDG 3, 4, 5, 16, and 17 were assessed to have highly critical impacts at the raw material stage. These studies emphasized the adverse health effects associated with oil cracking and petrochemical processes during polymer production, particularly for women and marginalized communities. The production and use of additives that contained phthalates were linked to hormonal imbalance and pregnancy complications, which are reflected in the highly critical impacts observed for the production stages in SDG 3 (Good health and well‐being). Globally, more than 350 000 cardiovascular deaths have been attributed to exposure to phthalates [ 433 ]. Studies allocated to SDGs 2, 3, 10, 14, 15, 16, and 17 showed highly critical impacts at the end‐of‐life stages. These impacts were largely attributed to inadequate waste management infrastructure and the effects of microplastics and plastic pollution on human health and biodiversity. Uncollected plastic waste has been identified as the largest contributor to plastic pollution in the Global South, accounting for approximately 68% of plastic waste emissions and 85% of debris emissions in the Global South [ 434 ]. From Figure 3 and Table 5 , it can be seen that even though polymers and plastic products have found applications and provided multiple benefits across different sectors, the chemicals needed to produce them already contribute to critical impacts on the environment. In addition, the presence of plastic particles in the environment, resulting from pellet losses during production and transportation as well as wastes generated during production and use, together with micro‐ and nanoplastics across the entire value chain, cause critical social, economic and environmental impacts globally. 3.2. Ecodesign Strategies Addressed in the Selected Studies Besides evaluating the impacts of plastics on different aspects of sustainable development, this study examined the extent to which the selected studies addressed different ecodesign strategies. Based on the scoring criteria described in Section 2.2.2 , the total contribution of studies allocated to each SDG toward each ecodesign strategy was evaluated. Individual and aggregated scores are presented in the Supporting Information (SI2 Pages 20–25). The strength of relationships between the 17 SDGs and the ecodesign strategies listed in Table 3 is visualized using a Sankey diagram, as shown in Figure 4 . The Sankey diagram helps to better understand the strength of the relationships between studies allocated to a given SDG and the different ecodesign strategies. The thickness of the flow lines in the Sankey diagram is proportional to the total score obtained by each SDG in relation to a specific ecodesign strategy. Where studies allocated to a particular SDG did not address a given ecodesign strategy, no flow is shown between them. FIGURE 4. Open in a new tab Sankey diagram showing the relationship between the assessed studies allocated to each SDG with different ecodesign strategies (Created with Flourish [ 428 ]). Additional Sankey diagrams illustrating the contributions of individual SDGs to different ecodesign strategies are provided in Figures S38–S54 (SI1). Key observations derived from these relationships are summarized in Table 6 . TABLE 6. Observations based on the relationship between the studies and ecodesign strategies and their contributions toward sustainable development. Ecodesign strategy Observations and contributions toward sustainable development Low‐impact materials Additives and microplastics that impact human health (SDG 3, 14) Plastic wastes that affect biodiversity (SDG 15) Biodegradable plastic mulches for agricultural yield (SDG 2) Reduction of material usage Reduction in weight and transport volume thereby preventing leakage and wastes (SDG 13, 14, 15, 16) Optimisation of production techniques Energy efficiency in processing of plastics and plastic wastes (SDG 7) Production processes and infrastructure involved in the recovery of plastic wastes (SDG 9, 12) Optimisation of distribution system Transport of products in single use plastic packaging and unchecked distribution of plastic wastes (SDG 12, 16) Reduction of impacts during use Less consumption and recovery of plastic mulch films from the soils (SDG 2) Infrastructure for reuse and repair (SDG 9, 12) Optimisation of initial lifetime Increase recovery facilities for plastic wastes in cities so that the materials stay within the system for further applications (SDG 8, 9, 10) Optimisation of end‐of‐life system Reuse and recycling of plastic wastes (SDG 4, 7, 9, 12, 13) Mitigate the impacts from the effects of microplastics (SDG 2, 3, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16) New concept development Regulatory frameworks, biodegradable plastics (SDG 2, 14, 15), business models for circular economy (SDG 7, 8) and investment in recycling infrastructure (SDG 9) along with sustainability assessment (SDG 11, 12, 13) Open in a new tab From Table 6 and Figure 4 , some of the findings regarding the relationship between the studies and different ecodesign strategies are discussed below. Low‐impact materials: Studies allocated to SDG 7 showed a weak relationship with this strategy, as the studies focused primarily on the potential of plastic and plastic wastes as fuel sources when processed through pyrolysis or incineration. Furthermore, studies allocated to SDGs 8 and 10 also showed a weak relationship with this strategy, as most of the studies discussed job creation through plastic recycling and the challenges of plastic waste management in countries with inadequate recycling infrastructure. Studies that addressed the use of additives and their critical impacts on health, as well as studies focusing on alternative materials for plastics, demonstrated a stronger relationship with this strategy. Reduction of material usage: This strategy focusses on reducing material weight and volume during transportation thereby increasing resource and fuel efficiency. Studies allocated to SDGs 1 and 2 showed a weak relationship with this strategy, as most of these studies discussed the use and ban of plastics, along with the effects of plastics on agricultural yield and food systems. Studies allocated to SDGs 7 and 10 focused on different aspects of plastic waste management and therefore also showed a weak relationship with this strategy. In contrast, studies that addressed the transportation of plastic and plastic wastes across countries, measures to prevent leakage of plastic waste and the effects of plastic waste on terrestrial and marine environments demonstrated a stronger relationship with this strategy. Optimization of production techniques: This strategy addresses the need for fewer production steps and reduced consumption of resources during production. Studies allocated to SDGs 1, 2, 5, and 6 showed weak to no relationship with this strategy, as they primarily addressed the use of different plastic products and their effects on society, the economy and the environment. Studies allocated to SDGs 10, 14, and 16 focused more on plastic waste and its impacts and therefore also showed a weak relationship with this strategy. In contrast, studies that addressed aspects such as innovation in plastic production, the use of plastic wastes for energy and the recyclability of plastic waste were assessed as having a stronger relationship with this strategy. Optimization of distribution system: This strategy addresses the packaging of products after production and the logistics involved in transporting and recovering products. Accordingly, studies that examined regulatory frameworks for transporting plastic waste and the efficiency of recycling infrastructure showed a stronger relationship with this strategy. Studies allocated to SDGs 1–8, 10, 11, 13–15, and 17 showed a weak relationship with this strategy, as they focused less on the distribution and logistics of the plastic products before and after use. Among all ecodesign strategies, the studies considered in this review exhibited the weakest relationship with this particular strategy, despite the crucial role logistical aspects of transporting plastics and plastic waste play in product recovery. Reduction of impacts during use: As this strategy focuses on reducing resource consumption during the use stage, most of the studies assessed in this review showed a weak to no relationship with this strategy. Studies allocated to SDGs 7, 8, and 17 were assessed as having no relationship with this strategy, as they focused on aspects such as employment and energy generation from plastic waste rather than on resource efficiency during the use stage. Optimization of initial lifetime: This ecodesign strategy focuses on the design and lifetime of products, thereby increasing their repairability during use and recoverability after use. Studies allocated to SDGs 1–3, 6, 7, and 16 showed a weak relationship with this strategy, as these studies focused primarily on the use of plastic products or on the effects of plastic waste on society, the economy and the environment. They did not address how the design of plastic products could be optimized to extend product lifetime and enable recovery after use. Optimization of end‐of‐life system: Almost all of the 380 studies considered in this review showed a moderate to strong relationship with this strategy. Although studies allocated to SDGs 1, 2, 7, and 8 focused on the benefits of using plastic products and the potential of plastic wastes as fuel sources, they also acknowledged the need for improved end‐of‐life systems for plastic products currently in use worldwide. Studies allocated to SDGs 11–17 emphasized the need for adequate recovery and recycling infrastructure for plastics globally, which not only increases the resource efficiency and circularity of plastics in use but also helps prevent the leakage of plastic waste in the form of micro‐ and nanoplastics into the environment. New concept development: Studies focusing on innovations, policies, regulatory frameworks and investments related to the recovery, reuse and recycling of plastics showed a stronger relationship with this strategy. Studies allocated to SDG 9 demonstrated a strong relationship with this strategy, as most of these studies emphasized the need for improved recovery and recycling infrastructure for plastic waste. In addition, studies allocated to SDGs 14, 16, and 17 also showed a strong relationship with this strategy, as they primarily focused on the effects of plastic pollution in the environment alongside the legislative measures required to curb the uncontrolled disposal of plastic waste. From Figure 4 , it can be seen that studies allocated to SDG 9 exhibited a moderate to strong relationship with almost all ecodesign strategies. This can be attributed to the fact that these studies extensively discussed the need for improved design, innovation and infrastructure to recover and recycle plastics during and after use. Moreover, most studies in this review, when addressing plastics, focused more on recyclability and less on strategies related to reuse, repair, refurbishment and reduction. The results further indicate that the majority of studies allocated to different SDGs predominantly focused on the ecodesign strategies ‘Optimization of end‐of‐life system’ and ‘New‐concept development’. In contrast, most studies were found to have weak to no relationship with ecodesign strategies such as ‘Optimization of production techniques’, ‘Optimization of distribution system’, ‘Reduction of material usage’, ‘Reduction of impacts during use’ and ‘Optimization of initial lifetime’. These strategies address aspects such as logistics, reuse, repairability and recoverability that must be considered during product design. This represents one of the major findings of this study, and implies that both industry and academia should place greater emphasis on identifying and developing sector‐specific ecodesign strategies at early stages of product development. Doing so is essential to retain resources within the system and to increase the lifetime and recoverability of plastics. Identifying these strategies only after products have been produced can create a vicious cycle in addressing plastic pollution, as the products are already in use and the failure to recover them results in the loss of valuable resources to the environment. Therefore, based on the LiDS Wheel (Table 3 ) and the results of the qualitative assessment (Sections 3.1 and 3.2 ), a preliminary set of plastic‐specific ecodesign strategies, together with their associated parameters, is proposed in Table 7 . TABLE 7. Preliminary set of ecodesign strategies and its parameters for the plastics sector. Nr. Strategy Parameter 1 Low‐impact materials Less use of additives 2 Use of renewable materials 3 Use of recyclates in production 4 Recyclable materials after production 5 Reduction of materials use Reduction in weight of products 6 Reduction in transport volume 7 Optimization of production Renewable energy in production 8 Recovery of wastes during production 9 Reduced energy consumption 10 Recovery of auxiliary materials (waters, chemicals) 11 Optimization of distribution Electric vehicle fleet 12 Reduced air transport 13 Recyclable packaging material 14 Reuse of packaging material 15 Reduction of impact during use Labelling of products for recyclability 16 Increase in lifetime of products with multiple use (unlike single‐use) 17 Reduction in resource consumption during use 18 Optimization of lifetime Availability of instructions to repair 19 Availability of spare parts 20 Ease of disassembly for repair 21 Optimization of end‐of‐life system Products recovered for reuse, refurbish and recycle 22 Monomaterials used in the product 23 Price of recyclates from the product 24 Products that are incinerated after use 25 Products that are landfilled and safely disposed after use 26 New concept development Product as service (leased, shared) 27 Data management for Sustainability Assessment 28 Take‐back facilities for products 29 Regional recycling infrastructure 30 Reduction of product use in regions with uncontrolled disposal Open in a new tab This preliminary set of strategies can be extended in the future to include additional parameters such as the quality and availability of recyclates, biodegradability and market mechanisms, depending on sector‐specific requirements. After the identification of plastic‐specific ecodesign strategies and associated parameters, it is essential to measure and quantify these strategies for their effective implementation during the product development phase. 4. Plastic Ecodesign Index Score (PEIS) In order to measure and compare the progress of implementing plastic‐specific ecodesign strategies at an organizational or regional level, this study proposes a methodological framework based on the SDG Index score [ 43 ] to calculate the Plastic Ecodesign Index Score (PEIS). Previous studies [ 435 , 436 ] have adapted the SDG Index score methodology to quantify the progress of localized targets related to the SDGs. In this study, however, the SDG Index score methodology is not applied to quantify SDG targets directly, but is instead used as a basis to develop a methodological framework to quantify selected ecodesign strategies in the plastic sector over a defined time period. This framework can be extended to quantify and compare additional ecodesign strategies and their associated parameters for a product at specific organizational, sectoral, regional, national or international levels, either for a defined time period or across multiple years. The steps involved in calculating the PEIS of a product are presented below. To illustrate this methodological framework, a representative packaging product made of High‐Density Polyethylene (HDPE) was assumed to be manufactured in Region 1. The individual ecodesign score for the strategy ‘Low‐impact materials’ was calculated for this packaging product in Region 1 and compared with corresponding scores for other regions (Region 2, 3, and 4) for the year 2024. As this is a fictitious example, both the ecodesign scores and the threshold limits for the selected indicators across different regions are illustrative and do not reflect actual performance. Step 1. Definition of the time period, application, and application level Before analyzing and quantifying ecodesign strategies, it is essential to define the time period and the level (company, region, country or globally) at which the strategies are to be quantified. This approach is comparable to the SDG Index Score methodology, which measures the progress of different countries at the national level toward the SDGs by comparing performance over time. Another important aspect is to determine whether the selected ecodesign strategies and their associated parameters apply to a specific product, for example, a food packaging product made of HDPE, or to a group of products within a sector, such as packaging products used in transportation. Step 2. Identification of ecodesign strategies and their parameters In this study, 30 different parameters across eight ecodesign strategies were identified, as shown in Table 8 . However, the number of strategies and the parameters is not fixed and may vary depending on the sector and product type. A critical step in defining these strategies and parameters is the assessment of data availability for each parameter. TABLE 8. Parameters and corresponding indicators for the ecodesign strategy ‘Low‐impact materials’. Parameter Parameter (Full form) Indicator Unit ed1_cleanmat Less use of additives Amount of harmful additives in the material/product composition that are not recoverable after use % ed1_renewmat Bio‐based and renewable materials Amount of bio‐based and other renewable alternatives in the material composition % ed1_recymat Use of recyclates Amount of recyclates in the material composition to fulfill same function % ed1_recyblmat Use of recyclable materials Total substitution potential of the recyclates of the material/product after use (Dimensionless) No unit Open in a new tab Step 3. Definition of indicators for each parameter After defining the parameters across the ecodesign strategies, these parameters are quantified using indicators. All indicators associated with the parameters considered in this study are presented in Table S3 (SI1). For the fictitious example used to illustrate the methodological framework, only the first ecodesign strategy ‘Low‐impact materials’, together with its corresponding parameters and indicators is considered and is shown in Table 8 . Step 4. Quantification of indicator scores for each indicator Once indicators are defined for each parameter, the corresponding indicator scores are determined for each indicator. Similar to the SDG Index score methodology, for a given product type, threshold values for each indicator score are defined based on available data and the associated targets for each parameter within an ecodesign strategy (e.g., increasing the use of recyclates in a product by 25%). These threshold values range from an upper limit, representing best performance, to a lower limit, representing worst performance. Between these two limits, green and red threshold band scores are defined to indicate whether a region, country or an organization is progressing toward achieving a given parameter within an ecodesign strategy. For example, if the ecodesign strategy ‘Low‐impact materials’ is to be assessed and quantified for HDPE plastic packaging across different regions, the associated indicator scores are quantified accordingly (Table 9 ). For the parameter ‘ed1_Cleanmat’, the percentage of additives in the packaging is defined to range from 0% to 20%, where 0% represents the upper limit (no addition of additives in the packaging) and 20% represents the lower limit (20% of additives in the product composition). In this example, the green threshold is set at 5%, which regions, countries or sectors aim to achieve, while the red threshold is set at 10%, which regions, countries or sectors seek to avoid exceeding. TABLE 9. Range, threshold and normalized scores for different parameters associated with the ecodesign strategy ‘Low‐impact materials’. Parameter Upper limit max (X) Green Red Lower limit min (X) Reference product (HDPE Packaging) X Normalized score X i ’ ed1_cleanmat 0 5 10 20 2 90 ed1_renewmat 100 70 20 0 15 15 ed1_recymat 25 10 5 0 10 40 ed1_recyblmat 1 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.6 56 Open in a new tab This process of defining limits and corresponding scores should be applied to each indicator and can be informed by industry reports, expert estimation, scientific literature, and relevant databases. Step 5. Normalization of indicator scores After establishing the limits and thresholds for each indicator score, the values are normalized to make them comparable across different levels using the following formula: X i ′ = X − min X max X − min X × 100 where is the normalized (dimensionless) value for indicator i; X represents the original value of the indicator for the reference product in a given time period for a country, region or organization; max ( X ) and min ( X ) refer to the upper and lower threshold values defined for that indicator. In the case of ‘ed1_cleanmat’, these thresholds correspond to 0% (upper limit) and 20% (lower limit) as shown in Table 9 . In this illustrative example, the reference product ( X ) is assumed to have an indicator score of 2%, meaning that the reference product (HDPE Packaging in Region 1) contains 2% additives in its material composition. The normalized score for the parameter ‘ed1_cleanmat’, based on the reference and threshold indicator scores from Table 10 , is therefore calculated as: X i ′ e d 1 c l e a n m a t = 2 − 20 0 − 20 × 100 = 90 TABLE 10. Ecodesign Index Score of the ecodesign strategy ‘Low‐impact materials’ for a reference product (packaging made of HDPE) produced across different regions and their progress for the year 2024. Nation ed1_cleanmat (normalized) ed1_renewmat (normalized) ed1_recymat (normalized) ed1_recyblmat (normalized) Individual Ecodesign score, ED i (normalized) Region 1 90 15 40 56 50.2 Region 2 80 20 65 30 48.7 Region 3 92 50 78 70 72.5 Region 4 60 10 35 45 37.5 Open in a new tab As the reference product is assumed to contain a relatively low proportion of additives, the resulting normalized score for this strategy is 90. This indicates that Region 1 is progressing toward achieving the ecodesign strategy of minimizing additive content in material composition, which can positively influence the recovery and recycling of products after use. A representative example showing the threshold limits and corresponding normalized scores for different parameters of the ecodesign strategy ‘Low‐impact materials’ for the reference product (HDPE packaging in Region 1) is provided in Table 9 . Descriptions of all parameters are available in Table S3 (SI1). The upper and lower limits, as well as the threshold values for indicators associated with different parameters, should be derived from industrial associations, governmental agencies, scientific literature, or expert estimation. The normalized indicator scores can then be calculated for comparable products produced across different regions over a defined time period. Step 6. Calculation of the individual ecodesign score Once the normalized scores of all indicators within a given ecodesign strategy have been calculated, the individual ecodesign score (Table 10 ) is determined as the weighted average of the normalized indicator scores for that strategy using the following formula, where, ED i represents the individual ecodesign score for an ecodesign strategy and n i denotes the total number of indicators associated with that ecodesign strategy. For example, the individual ecodesign score for the strategy ‘Low‐impact materials’ for HDPE packaging manufactured in Region 1 in the year 2024, based on the normalized scores presented in Table 9 , is calculated as: E D i Low − impact materials = 90 + 15 + 40 + 56 4 = 50.2 Step 7. Plastic Ecodesign Index Score The overall Plastic Ecodesign Index Score (PEIS) for a specific product in a given region over a defined time period is calculated as the weighted average of the individual ecodesign scores. In this study, the PEIS represents the weighted average of the ecodesign scores across the eight identified ecodesign strategies and is calculated as: where PEIS r , t denotes the Plastic Ecodesign Index Score for a particular product in region ‘r’ over time period ‘t’, and n is the total number of ecodesign strategies identified and assessed for that product. The methodological steps involved in calculating the PEIS for plastic products are illustrated in Figure 5 . FIGURE 5. Open in a new tab Steps to calculate Product Ecodesign Index Score (PEIS) of a product, based on the SDG Index Score Methodology. Finally, the normalized individual ecodesign scores for a given product in a particular region can be compared with scores from previous years, to evaluate whether performance is decreasing , stagnating , moderately improving , or on track toward achieving the upper limit of the respective ecodesign strategy, as shown in Table 10 . Based on the individual ecodesign scores presented in Table 10 , it is possible to assess how a region or sector needs to progress or has progressed in achieving a given ecodesign strategy for a product or sector. In the illustrative example, the representative ecodesign scores for the strategy ‘Low‐impact materials’ indicate that Region 3 has progressed and is on track to achieve the maximum score (100 points) for this strategy in the production of HDPE packaging. This outcome is attributed to the assumption that products manufactured in Region 3 contain lower amounts of harmful additives, a higher share of recyclates in production and a better substitution potential, reflecting the use of higher quality of recyclates capable of replacing virgin HDPE. In contrast, for Region 4, the scores and observed trends suggest the need to increase the share of renewable content and recyclates in the production of HDPE packaging in the coming years. For Regions 1 and 2, although reductions in additive content have been achieved (as indicated by the normalized scores for ‘ed1_cleanmat’ in Table 10 ), further improvements are required in increasing the share of renewable materials (‘ed1_renewemat’ in Table 10 ) and enhancing product recyclability (‘ed1_recycblmat’ in Table 10 ). Based on these normalized and individual ecodesign scores, goals and targets can be established within the sector to support the design of products that are recoverable after use and to improve the resource efficiency of the plastic value chain over time. This methodological framework can also be applied at the organizational level and to specific sets of plastic products. 5. Limitations To assess the impact of plastics across the value chain on different aspects of sustainable development and to examine how the scientific literature addresses plastic‐related ecodesign strategies, a comprehensive literature review was conducted. Based on a defined set of screening criteria, approximately 380 studies were considered in this review. These studies were subsequently subjected to a qualitative assessment, through which plastic‐specific ecodesign strategies were identified, along with the development of the PEIS framework to quantify them. However, the literature review, qualitative assessment and implementation of the PEIS framework to quantify ecodesign strategies are subject to certain limitations, which are discussed in this section. 5.1. Literature Review Publications that were inaccessible to the author team were excluded from the review. Examples of inaccessible publications include unavailable book chapters, conference proceedings available only as abstracts, and journal articles not accessible due to subscription limitations of the authors’ institutions. The exclusion of such publications may influence the results of the qualitative assessment, as these studies could address relevant aspects of the role of plastics in sustainable development or discuss specific design strategies aimed at improving the resource efficiency of plastic across the value chain. Consequently, this limitation may affect both the scoring of impact of plastics on sustainable development and the total contribution of studies allocated to different SDGs toward specific ecodesign strategies. Moreover, Scopus was selected as the sole search engine for the literature review due to its built‐in framework for mapping publications to the SDGs. As a result, publications not indexed in the Scopus database were not considered in this study. This may have led to the exclusion of relevant studies on plastics and sustainable development that are indexed in other databases or published in regional or non‐indexed journals. 5.2. Qualitative Assessment Both the screening and scoring criteria developed by the authors of this study were applied to a limited set of search results that combined the terms ‘plastics’ and ‘polymers’ with keywords derived from the targets and indicators of the 17 SDGs. As a result, the selected literature may not provide a comprehensive representation of all benefits and adverse impacts of plastic products across their entire lifecycle. The selection of studies was guided by different aspects of sustainable development and therefore primarily addressed pressing global societal challenges such as inequality, sanitation, pollution and health. Consequently, the literature considered in this review tends to emphasize the adverse impacts associated with the use and disposal of plastics. Moreover, with the exception of some studies allocated to SDGs 7, 8, 9 and 10 that examined economic impacts, most studies focused predominantly on the environmental and social dimensions of plastic use. Nevertheless, there is no ‘one‐size‐fits‐all’ approach to evaluating the benefits and adverse impacts of plastics from a sustainability perspective. In the context of ecodesign strategies, however, assessing critical impacts rather than beneficial impacts of products currently in use is particularly important, as these aspects can be taken into consideration when designing plastic products in the future. The scoring criteria developed to evaluate the impacts of plastics and their relationship with different ecodesign strategies were inherently subjective, as they were defined and applied by the author team based on their expertise and experience. Incorporating quantitative approaches alongside the qualitative assessment could enable a more robust understanding of the interactions between plastics and different dimensions of sustainable development. For example, if a study focused exclusively on the impacts of additives and harmful chemicals used in the production of plastic products, it was assessed as having a ‘Strong’ relationship with the ecodesign strategy ‘Low‐impact materials’ during the qualitative assessment. In contrast, the same study was assumed to have a weaker relationship with other ecodesign strategies like ‘Optimization of distribution’ or ‘Optimization of lifetime’, if these aspects were not addressed. This limitation also reflects a broader trend in the literature and, to some extent, in industry practice, where less attention is given to the distribution and use stages of products due to limited data availability on product applications and consumer behavior. 5.3. Implementation of PEIS The definition and comparability of upper and lower threshold limits for different indicators of ecodesign strategies within the proposed PEIS framework require co‐operation and harmonization across the plastic sector at regional and international level. As the identification of ecodesign strategies is not yet standardized, achieving acceptance of the defined parameters and the use of indicator scores across different ecodesign strategies among stakeholders may be time‐consuming. Regular verification and the development of new ecodesign strategies, together with their associated parameters and indicator scores, require scientific and societal consensus. The ecodesign strategies identified for the plastic sector in this study are based on a qualitative assessment of the scientific literature addressing plastics and different aspects of sustainable development. However, future identification of ecodesign strategies should be informed by both qualitative and quantitative assessment, which would support a more holistic understanding of the plastic value chain among the stakeholders involved. The implementation of ecodesign strategies, once identified, should be consistent across the value chain. This includes planning logistics for the collection and recovery of plastic waste, developing new business models to recover products and extend the lifetime of plastic products within the system, and, most importantly, aligning stakeholders with objectives related to resource recovery. Based on the identified ecodesign strategies, changes in product design may require adjustments to production settings, including processing methods and resource consumption, as well as the identification of new material alternatives. This may involve establishing new supplier relationships, developing new value chains, and addressing considerations related to materials availability and cost while ensuring that product functionality is maintained. In addition to implementing these strategies, appropriate regulatory frameworks must be established globally to ensure adequate regional recycling infrastructure for the recovery of plastic waste after use. It is also essential to consider the region‐specific economic viability and social equity when identifying and implementing ecodesign strategies. This is because a given set of ecodesign strategies may not be equally suitable across regions due to differences in cultural practices, access to controlled waste disposal, and levels of awareness among organizations and consumers regarding waste handling. Ultimately, even when appropriate ecodesign strategies are in place, the successful recovery of plastic products depends on the availability of waste streams and supporting infrastructure, as well as the price and quality of recyclates. 6. Conclusion and Outlook A qualitative assessment of 380 studies mapped to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was conducted to evaluate the lifecycle impacts of plastics across environmental, economic and social dimensions. Furthermore, the relationship between the selected studies and ecodesign strategies was examined, using the Life Cycle Design Strategy (LiDS) Wheel as the conceptual basis. The scoring criteria used to assess impacts of plastics and relationships to ecodesign strategies were developed by the authors of this study. The qualitative assessment revealed that studies associated with SDGs 1–6 predominantly highlighted adverse impacts on human health and the environment, particularly those related to additives and chemicals used in polymer production and use. Literature mapped to SDGs 8–15 emphasized the consequences of inadequate recovery and disposal of plastic waste, including the leakage of macro‐, micro‐ and nanoplastics across terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Studies allocated to SDGs 16 and 17 focused on governance‐related challenges, notably the intra‐ and inter‐continental transportation of plastic waste to regions with insufficient recycling infrastructure and the lack of harmonized regulatory frameworks. In contrast, studies allocated to SDG 7 reported beneficial impacts of using plastic waste as an energy source; however, incineration or pyrolysis of plastic waste results only in energy recovery rather than material recovery and therefore remains misaligned with circular economy principles [ 437 ]. The assessment of relationships between the studies and ecodesign strategies revealed a strong focus on end‐of‐life solutions, low‐impact materials and new concept development, reflecting the dominant emphasis on waste management and regulatory responses in the literature. Conversely, weak to no relationships were observed for strategies related to material reduction, optimization of production and distribution, reduction of impacts during use, and extension of product lifetime. This indicates that the literature considered in this study has largely underrepresented design‐oriented strategies such as product lifetime, utility, impacts during production, repair, and (re‐)use, despite their potential to significantly influence the recoverability of plastic products after use. Building on these findings, the study identified a preliminary set of plastic‐specific ecodesign strategies and associated parameters. While this study relied on qualitative assessment, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches would enable a more comprehensive understanding of interactions across the plastic value chain. The scoring criteria for assessing the impacts of plastics and identifying plastic‐specific ecodesign strategies could be further refined by incorporating parameters such as economic viability [ 438 ], social equity [ 439 ], availability of regional recycling infrastructure [ 440 ], policy frameworks [ 213 , 441 ] and policy recommendations [ 442 ]. To enable structured comparison and quantification of ecodesign strategies across products, sector, regions and time periods, the Plastic Ecodesign Index Score (PEIS) was proposed as a methodological framework based on the SDG Index score methodology. The PEIS framework translates ecodesign strategies into measurable indicators and supports the assessment of product performance at organizational, sectoral, regional, national, and international levels. For successful implementation of PEIS across these levels, harmonization of product‐specific parameters, indicators, and threshold values across stakeholders is essential. Overall, the findings underscore the importance of complementing waste management solutions with design‐oriented strategies that influence resource efficiency and recoverability throughout the plastic value chain. Identifying ecodesign strategies early in the product development phase, and quantifying their implementation using a framework such as PEIS can support stakeholders in designing plastic products that remain within the system after use, thereby enhancing resource efficiency and contributing to sustainable development. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. Supporting information Supporting File 1 : gch270099‐sup‐0001‐SuppMat.docx. GCH2-10-e00033-s001.docx (77.3MB, docx) Supporting File 2 : gch270099‐sup‐0002‐SuppMat.pdf. GCH2-10-e00033-s002.pdf (1.9MB, pdf) Acknowledgements The publication of this article was funded by the Open Access Fund of Leibniz Universität Hannover. The authors would like to thank the “Future Plastics” initiative from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management in collaboration with the Transitieagenda Kunststoffen Netherlands. Open access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Data Availability Statement The authors have nothing to report. References 1. OECD, Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, OECD 2022. 2. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Plastics and the circular economy, https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/plastics‐and‐the‐circular‐economy‐deep‐dive . 3. Barnes D. K. A., Galgani F., Thompson R. C., and Barlaz M., “Accumulation and Fragmentation of Plastic Debris in Global Environments,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364 (2009): 1985–1998. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Jambeck J. R., Geyer R., Wilcox C., et al., “Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Ocean,” Science 347 (2015): 768–771. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Frias J. P. G. L. and Nash R., “Microplastics: Finding a Consensus on the Definition,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 138 (2019): 145–147. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Thushari G. G. N. and Senevirathna J. D. M., “Plastic Pollution in the Marine Environment,” Heliyon 6 (2020): e04709, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04709. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Pastorino P., Anselmi S., Esposito G., et al., “Microplastics in Biotic and Abiotic Compartments of High‐Mountain Lakes from Alps,” Ecological Indicators 150 (2023): 110215. [ Google Scholar ] 8. van Emmerik T. and Schwarz A., “Plastic Debris in Rivers,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 7, no. 1 (2020): 1398. [ Google Scholar ] 9. Li N., Wu M., Zhang Y., Yuan W., Wu J., and Shao X., “A Review on Microplastics Pollution in Coastal Wetlands,” Watershed Ecology and the Environment 5 (2023): 24–37. [ Google Scholar ] 10. Ren S., Wang K., Zhang J., et al., “Potential Sources and Occurrence of Macro‐Plastics and Microplastics Pollution in Farmland Soils: A Typical Case of China,” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 54 (2024): 533–556. [ Google Scholar ] 11. O'Brien S., Rauert C., Ribeiro F., et al., “There's Something in the Air: A Review of Sources, Prevalence and Behaviour of Microplastics in the Atmosphere,” Science of The Total Environment 874 (2023): 162193. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Wu P., Lin S., Cao G., et al., “Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion and Toxicity of Microplastics in the human Body and Health Implications,” Journal of Hazardous Materials 437 (2022): 129361. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Gao H., Liu Q., Yan C., et al., “Macro‐and/or Microplastics as an Emerging Threat Effect Crop Growth and Soil Health,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 186 (2022): 106549. [ Google Scholar ] 14. Zhang S., Li Y., Chen X., et al., “Occurrence and Distribution of Microplastics in Organic Fertilizers in China,” Science of The Total Environment 844 (2022): 157061. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. WWF, Who pays for plastic pollution?, 2023, https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf‐report‐who‐pays‐for‐plastic‐pollution.pdf . 16. Venkatachalam V., Pohler M., Spierling S., Nickel L., Barner L., and Endres H.‐J., “Design for Recycling Strategies Based on the Life Cycle Assessment and End of Life Options of Plastics in a Circular Economy,” Macromolecular Chemistry and Physics 223, no. 13 (2022): 2200046, 10.1002/macp.202200046. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. European Commission, Directive –2008/98 – EN—Waste framework directive—EUR‐Lex, https://eur‐lex.europa.eu/legal‐content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098 . 18. Dehio J., Janßen‐Timmen R., and Rothgang M., “Regulating Markets for Post‐Consumer Recycling Plastics: Experiences from Germany's Dual System,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 196 (2023): 107048. [ Google Scholar ] 19. Gonçalves M., Freire F., and Garcia R., “Material Flow Analysis and Circularity Assessment of Plastic Packaging: An Application to Portugal,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 209 (2024): 107795. [ Google Scholar ] 20. Bringezu S. and Moriguchi Y., “Material Flow Analysis,” in “A Handbook of Industrial Ecology”, eds. Ayres R., Ayres L. (2002). [ Google Scholar ] 21. Jiao H., Ali S. S., Alsharbaty M. H. M., et al., “A Critical Review on Plastic Waste Life Cycle Assessment and Management: Challenges, Research Gaps, and Future Perspectives,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 271 (2024): 115942. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Finnveden G. and Potting J., “Life Cycle Assessment,” Encyclopedia of Toxicology (Elsevier, 2014): 74. [ Google Scholar ] 23. Sinivuori P. and Saari A., “MIPS Analysis of Natural Resource Consumption in Two University Buildings,” Building and Environment 41 (2006): 657–668. [ Google Scholar ] 24. Schmidt‐Bleek F., “Der Mensch Ist Teil der Ökosphäre,” Wieviel Umwelt braucht der Mensch? MIPS—Das Maß für ökologisches Wirtschaften (Birkhäuser Basel, 1994): 31–53. [ Google Scholar ] 25. Besné A. G., Luna D., Cobos A., Lameiras D., Ortiz‐Moreno H., and Güereca L. P., “A Methodological Framework of Eco‐Efficiency Based on Fuzzy Logic and Life Cycle Assessment Applied to a Mexican SME,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 68 (2018): 38–48, 10.1016/j.eiar.2017.10.008. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Zhang B., Bi J., Fan Z., Yuan Z., and Ge J., “Eco‐Efficiency Analysis of Industrial System in China: A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach,” Ecological Economics 68 (2008): 306–316. [ Google Scholar ] 27. van Doorsselaer K. and Koopmans R. J., Ecodesign: A life cycle approach for a sustainable future. Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH Co KG, 2020. 28. Jones M. P., Archodoulaki V.‐M., and Köck B.‐M., “The Power of Good Decisions: Promoting Eco‐Informed Design Attitudes in Plastic Selection and Use,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 182 (2022): 106324. [ Google Scholar ] 29. Biron M., “Eco‐Design Rules for Plastics Sustainability,” A Practical Guide to Plastics Sustainability (Elsevier, 2020): 159. [ Google Scholar ] 30. Nève N., Charbuillet C., Pompidou S., and Perry N., “Circularity of Plastics through Ecodesign: The Case of French WEEE,” Proceedings of the Design Society 3 (2023): 917–926, 10.1017/pds.2023.92. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 31. Kamalakkannan S. and Kulatunga A. K., “Optimization of Eco‐Design Decisions Using a Parametric Life Cycle Assessment,” Sustainable Production and Consumption 27 (2021): 1297–1316. [ Google Scholar ] 32. Chebaeva N., Lettner M., Wenger J., et al., “Dealing with the Eco‐Design Paradox in Research and Development Projects: the Concept of Sustainability Assessment Levels,” Journal of Cleaner Production 281 (2021): 125232. [ Google Scholar ] 33. Ipsen K. L., Pizzol M., Birkved M., and Amor B., “Environmental Performance of Eco‐Design Strategies Applied to the Building Sector,” Journal of Industrial Ecology 28 (2024): 556–572. [ Google Scholar ] 34. Cerdan C., Gazulla C., Raugei M., Martinez E., and Fullana‐i‐Palmer P., “Proposal for New Quantitative Eco‐Design Indicators: A First Case Study,” Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (2009): 1638–1643. [ Google Scholar ] 35. Rossi M., Cappelletti F., Manuguerra L., Mundo M., and Germani M., “Ecodesign Strategies for Packaging: A Simplified Approach to Evaluate Environmental Benefits,” Procedia CIRP 122 (2024): 330–335. [ Google Scholar ] 36. Li L., Zuo J., Duan X., Wang S., Hu K., and Chang R., “Impacts and Mitigation Measures of Plastic Waste: A Critical Review,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 90 (2021): 106642. [ Google Scholar ] 37. Cook C. R. and Halden R. U., “Ecological and Health Issues of Plastic Waste,” Plastic Waste and Recycling (Elsevier, 2020): 513. [ Google Scholar ] 38. Walker T. R., “(Micro)plastics and the UN Sustainable Development Goals,” Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 30 (2021): 100497. [ Google Scholar ] 39. de Sousa F. D. B., “The Role of Plastic Concerning the Sustainable Development Goals: The Literature Point of View,” Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 3 (2021): 100020. [ Google Scholar ] 40. Veith T., Obersteiner G., Hrad M., and Allesch A., “Kunststoffabfälle im Kontext der SDGs,” Österreichische Wasser‐ und Abfallwirtschaft 76 (2024): 272–281. [ Google Scholar ] 41. United Nations Statistics, SDG Indicators, 2024, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators‐list/ . 42. Brezet H. and van Hemel C., Ecodesign: A Promising Approach to Sustainable Production and Consumption (United Nations Environment Programme, 1997). [ Google Scholar ] 43. Lafortune G., Fuller G., Moreno J., Schmidt‐Traub G., and Kroll C., “SDG Index and Dashboards Detailed Methodological Paper,” Sustainable Development Solutions Network 9 (2018): 1–56. [ Google Scholar ] 44. James C., Elsevier 2023 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Mapping (Elsevier BV, 2023). [ Google Scholar ] 45. United Nations, THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development , 2024, https://sdgs.un.org/goals . 46. van Eck N. J. and Waltman L., “Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping,” Scientometrics 84 (2010): 523–538. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 47. Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., and Altman D. G., “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses: The PRISMA Statement,” PLoS Medicine 6 (2009): 1000097. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 48. El Mekaoui A., Benmouro Y., Mansour H. A., and Ramírez O. B., “Plastic Bags Ban and Social Marginalization: Evidence from Morocco,” Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 30 (2021): 4587–4595. [ Google Scholar ] 49. Gall M., Wiener M., Chagas de Oliveira C., Lang R. W., and Hansen E. G., “Building a Circular Plastics Economy with Informal Waste Pickers: Recyclate Quality, Business Model, and Societal Impacts,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 156 (2020): 104685. [ Google Scholar ] 50. Jenks A. B. and Obringer K. M., “The Poverty of Plastics Bans: Environmentalism's Win Is a Loss for Disabled People,” Critical Social Policy 40 (2020): 151–161. [ Google Scholar ] 51. Katz D., “Plastic Bank: Launching Social Plastic® Revolution,” Field Actions Science Reports The Journal of Field Actions 19 (2019): 96–99. [ Google Scholar ] 52. Klocker N., Mbenna P., and Gibson C., “From Troublesome Materials to Fluid Technologies: Making and Playing with Plastic‐Bag Footballs,” Cultural Geographies 25, no. 2 (2018): 301–318, 10.1177/1474474017732979. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 53. Mpanang'ombe W., Mallory A., and Tilley E., “Poverty, Politics and Plastic: Organic Waste Sorting in Blantyre's Public Markets,” Journal of Urban Management 10 (2021): 192–204. [ Google Scholar ] 54. Mukama T., Ndejjo R., Musoke D., et al., “Practices, Concerns, and Willingness to Participate in Solid Waste Management in Two Urban Slums in Central Uganda,” Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2016 (2016): 6830163. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 55. Obiadi B. N. and Onochie A. O. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research (2019), https://www.ijstr.org/final‐print/mar2019/The‐Negative‐Impacts‐Of‐Poverty‐In‐Urban‐And‐Rural‐Architecture‐In‐Nigeria.pdfhttps://www.ijstr.org/final‐print/mar2019/The‐Negative‐Impacts‐Of‐Poverty‐In‐Urban‐And‐Rural‐Architecture‐In‐Nigeria.pdf . [ Google Scholar ] 56. Stoler J., Tutu R. A., and Winslow K., “Piped Water Flows but Sachet Consumption Grows: The Paradoxical Drinking Water Landscape of an Urban Slum in Ashaiman, Ghana,” Habitat International 47 (2015): 52–60. [ Google Scholar ] 57. Velis C. A., Hardesty B. D., Cottom J. W., and Wilcox C., “Enabling the Informal Recycling Sector to Prevent Plastic Pollution and Deliver an Inclusive Circular Economy,” Environmental Science & Policy 138 (2022): 20–25. [ Google Scholar ] 58. Batista T., Da Cansado I. P. P., Tita B., et al., “Dealing with Plastic Waste from Agriculture Activity,” Agronomy 12 (2022): 134. [ Google Scholar ] 59. Brodhagen M., Goldberger J. R., Hayes D. G., Inglis D. A., Marsh T. L., and Miles C., “Policy Considerations for Limiting Unintended Residual Plastic in Agricultural Soils,” Environmental Science & Policy 69 (2017): 81–84. [ Google Scholar ] 60. Castillo‐Díaz F. J., Belmonte‐Ureña L. J., Camacho‐Ferre F., and Tello‐Marquina J. C., “The Management of Agriculture Plastic Waste in the Framework of Circular Economy. Case of the Almeria Greenhouse (Spain),” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 22 (2021): 12042, 10.3390/ijerph182212042. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 61. Chen Y., Liu T., Tian X., et al., “Effects of Plastic Film Combined with Straw Mulch on Grain Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Winter Wheat in Loess Plateau,” Field Crops Research 172 (2015): 53–58. [ Google Scholar ] 62. CHEN B., BARAM S., DONG W., HE W., LIU E., and YAN C., “Response of Carbon Footprint to Plastic Film Mulch Application in Spring Maize Production and Mitigation Strategy,” Journal of Integrative Agriculture 20 (2021): 1933–1943. [ Google Scholar ] 63. Cozzolino E., Giordano M., Fiorentino N., et al., “Appraisal of Biodegradable Mulching Films and Vegetal‐Derived Biostimulant Application as Eco‐Sustainable Practices for Enhancing Lettuce Crop Performance and Nutritive Value,” Agronomy 10, no. 3 (2020): 427, 10.3390/agronomy10030427. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 64. Edet U. O., Joseph A. P., Nwaokorie F. O., et al., “Impact of “Sachet Water” Microplastic on Agricultural Soil Physicochemistry, Antibiotics Resistance, Bacteria Diversity and Function,” SN Applied Sciences 4, no. 12 (2022): 323, 10.1007/s42452-022-05206-6. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 65. Gao H., Yan C., Liu Q., Ding W., Chen B., and Li Z., “Effects of Plastic Mulching and Plastic Residue on Agricultural Production: A Meta‐Analysis,” Science of The Total Environment 651 (2019): 484–492. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 66. He G., Wang Z., Li S., and Malhi S. S., “Plastic Mulch: Tradeoffs between Productivity and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018): 1311–1318. [ Google Scholar ] 67. Hu Y., Sun J., and Zheng J., “Comparative Analysis of Carbon Footprint between Conventional Smallholder Operation and Innovative Largescale Farming of Urban Agriculture in Beijing, China,” PeerJ 9 (2021): 11632. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 68. Huerta Lwanga E., Vega J. M., Ku Quej V., et al., “Field Evidence for Transfer of Plastic Debris along a Terrestrial Food Chain,” Scientific Reports 7 (2017): 14071. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 69. Pazienza P. and de Lucia C., “For a New Plastics Economy in Agriculture: Policy Reflections on the EU Strategy from a Local Perspective,” Journal of Cleaner Production 253 (2020): 119844. [ Google Scholar ] 70. Qi R., Jones D. L., Li Z., Liu Q., and Yan C., “Behavior of Microplastics and Plastic Film Residues in the Soil Environment: A Critical Review,” Science of The Total Environment 703 (2020): 134722. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 71. Saeed M., Maqbool A., Ashraf M. A., et al., “Competency of Groundwater Recharge of Irrigated Cotton Field Subjacent to Sowing Methods, Plastic Mulch, Water Productivity, and Yield under Climate Change,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29 (2022): 17757–17771. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 72. Stubenrauch J. and Ekardt F., “Plastic Pollution in Soils: Governance Approaches to Foster Soil Health and Closed Nutrient Cycles,” Environments 7 (2020): 38. [ Google Scholar ] 73. Sun J., Pan L., Zhan Y., et al., “Contamination of Phthalate Esters, Organochlorine Pesticides and Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in Agricultural Soils from the Yangtze River Delta of China,” Science of The Total Environment 544 (2016): 670–676. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 74. Wang L., Coulter J. A., Li L., et al., “Plastic Mulching Reduces Nitrogen Footprint of Food Crops in China: A Meta‐Analysis,” Science of The Total Environment 748 (2020): 141479. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 75. Xie J., Wang L., Li L., et al., “Yield, Economic Benefit, Soil Water Balance, and Water Use Efficiency of Intercropped Maize/Potato in Responses to Mulching Practices on the Semiarid Loess Plateau,” Agriculture 11 (2021): 1100. [ Google Scholar ] 76. Zhang D., Ng E. L., Hu W., et al., “Plastic Pollution in Croplands Threatens Long‐Term Food Security,” Global Change Biology 26 (2020): 3356–3367. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 77. Zhang X., Wang H., Hou H., et al., “Did Plastic Mulching Constantly Increase Crop Yield but Decrease Soil Water in a Semiarid Rain‐Fed Area?,” Agricultural Water Management 241 (2020): 106380. [ Google Scholar ] 78. Adebiyi‐Abiola B., Assefa S., Sheikh K., and García J. M., “Cleaning up Plastic Pollution in Africa,” Science 365 (2019): 1249–1251. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 79. Barboza L. G. A., Dick Vethaak A., Lavorante B. R. B. O., Lundebye A.‐K., and Guilhermino L., “Marine Microplastic Debris: an Emerging Issue for Food Security, Food Safety and Human Health,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 133 (2018): 336–348. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 80. Bouwmeester H., Hollman P. C. H., and Peters R. J. B., “Potential Health Impact of Environmentally Released Micro‐ and Nanoplastics in the Human Food Production Chain: Experiences from Nanotoxicology,” Environmental Science & Technology 49 (2015): 8932–8947. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 81. Fred‐Ahmadu O. H., Bhagwat G., Oluyoye I., Benson N. U., Ayejuyo O. O., and Palanisami T., “Interaction of Chemical Contaminants with Microplastics: Principles and Perspectives,” Science of the Total Environment 706 (2020): 135978. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 82. Gasperi J., Wright S. L., Dris R., et al., “Microplastics in Air: Are We Breathing It in?,” Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 1 (2018): 1–5. [ Google Scholar ] 83. Groh K. J., Backhaus T., Carney‐Almroth B., et al., “Overview of Known Plastic Packaging‐Associated Chemicals and Their Hazards,” Science of The Total Environment 651 (2019): 3253–3268. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 84. Hahladakis J. N., Velis C. A., Weber R., Iacovidou E., and Purnell P., “An Overview of Chemical Additives Present in Plastics: Migration, Release, Fate and Environmental Impact during Their Use, Disposal and Recycling,” Journal of Hazardous Materials 344 (2018): 179–199. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 85. Jiang B., Kauffman A. E., Li L., et al., “Health Impacts of Environmental Contamination of Micro‐ and Nanoplastics: A Review,” Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 25 (2020): 29. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 86. Kumar P., “Role of Plastics on Human Health,” Indian Journal of Pediatrics 85 (2018): 384–389. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 87. Landrigan P. J., Stegeman J. J., Fleming L. E., et al., “Human Health and Ocean Pollution,” Annals of Global Health 86 (2020): 151. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 88. Leslie H. A., van Velzen M. J. M., Brandsma S. H., Vethaak A. D., Garcia‐Vallejo J. J., and Lamoree M. H., “Discovery and Quantification of Plastic Particle Pollution in human Blood,” Environment International 163 (2022): 107199. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 89. Li B., Huang Y., Guo D., et al., “Environmental Risks of Disposable Face Masks during the Pandemic of COVID‐19: Challenges and Management,” Science of The Total Environment 825 (2022): 153880. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 90. Mason S. A. and Welch V. G., “Synthetic Polymer Contamination in Bottled Water,” Frontiers in Chemistry 6 (2018): 407. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 91. Metcalf R., Oliver D. M., Moresco V., and Quilliam R. S., “Quantifying the Importance of Plastic Pollution for the Dissemination of Human Pathogens: The Challenges of Choosing an Appropriate ‘Control’ material,” Science of the Total Environment 810 (2022): 152292. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 92. Tang Z., Huang Q., Yang Y., et al., “Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) and Heavy Metals in Road Dusts from a Plastic Waste Recycling Area in North China: Implications for Human Health,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23 (2016): 625–637. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 93. Velis C. A. and Cook E., “Mismanagement of Plastic Waste through Open Burning with Emphasis on the Global South: A Systematic Review of Risks to Occupational and Public Health,” Environmental Science & Technology 55 (2021): 7186–7207. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 94. Wright S. L. and Kelly F. J., “Plastic and Human Health: a Micro Issue?,” Environmental Science & Technology 51 (2017): 6634–6647. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 95. Yang H., Ma M., Thompson J. R., and Flower R. J., “Waste Management, Informal Recycling, Environmental Pollution and Public Health,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 72 (2018): 237–243. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 96. Yee M. S.‐L., Hii L.‐W., Looi C. K., et al., “Impact of Microplastics and Nanoplastics on Human Health,” Nanomaterials 11, no. 2 (2021): 496, 10.3390/nano11020496. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 97. Yuan Z., Nag R., and Cummins E., “Human Health Concerns Regarding Microplastics in the Aquatic Environment—From Marine to Food Systems,” Science of The Total Environment 823 (2022): 153730. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 98. Barra R. and González P., “Sustainable Chemistry Challenges from a Developing Country Perspective: Education, Plastic Pollution, and beyond,” Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 9 (2018): 40–44. [ Google Scholar ] 99. Bennett E. M. and Alexandridis P., “Informing the Public and Educating Students on Plastic Recycling,” Recycling 6, no. 4 (2021): 69, 10.3390/recycling6040069. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 100. Cheung Y. T.‐Y., Chow C.‐F., and So W. W.‐M., “A Train‐the‐Trainer Design for Green Ambassadors in an Environmental Education Programme on Plastic Waste Recycling,” International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 27 (2018): 24–42. [ Google Scholar ] 101. Chmielewski J., Żeber‐Dzikowska I., Dziechciaż M., et al., “Microplastic in the Environment. The Role of Education in Raising Social Awareness of the Handling of Plastic Waste,” Journal of Elementology 27, no. 1 (2022): 31–45. [ Google Scholar ] 102. Chow C.‐F., So W.‐M. W., Cheung T.‐Y., and Yeung S.‐K. D., “Plastic Waste Problem and Education for Plastic Waste Management,” Emerging Practices in Scholarship of Learning and Teaching in a Digital Era (Springer Singapore, 2017): 125. [ Google Scholar ] 103. Dalu M. T. B., Cuthbert R. N., Muhali H., et al., “Is Awareness on Plastic Pollution Being Raised in Schools? Understanding Perceptions of Primary and Secondary School Educators,” Sustainability 12, no. 17 (2020): 6775, 10.3390/su12176775. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 104. Del López‐Fernández M. M., González‐García F., and Franco‐Mariscal A. J., “How Can Socio‐Scientific Issues Help Develop Critical Thinking in Chemistry Education? A Reflection on the Problem of Plastics,” Journal of Chemical Education 99 (2022): 3435–3442. [ Google Scholar ] 105. Bois E. D., van Gogh D., Veelaert L., and van Doorsselaer K., “Design against the Plastic Soup‐The Effect of Small Product Designs in Sustainable Design Education,” in Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , (Cambridge University Press, 2019). 3201–3210. [ Google Scholar ] 106. Hammami M. B. A., Mohammed E. Q., Hashem A. M., et al., “Survey on Awareness and Attitudes of Secondary School Students Regarding Plastic Pollution: Implications for Environmental Education and Public Health in Sharjah City, UAE,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24 (2017): 20626–20633. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 107. Jimenez J., Moorhead L., and Wilensky T., “‘It's My Responsibility’: Perspectives on Environmental Justice and Education for Sustainability among International School Students in Singapore,” International Studies in Sociology of Education 30 (2021): 130–152. [ Google Scholar ] 108. Khanam N., Wagh V., Gaidhane A., and Quazi S., “Knowledge, Attitude and Practice on Uses of Plastic Products, Their Disposal and Environmental Pollution: A Study among School‐Going Adolescents,” Journal of Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences University 14 (2019): 57. [ Google Scholar ] 109. Kowasch M., “Circular Economy, Cradle to Cradle and Zero Waste Frameworks in Teacher Education for Sustainability,” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 23, no. 6 (2022): 1404–1425, 10.1108/IJSHE-10-2021-0428. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 110. Mandrikas A., Michailidi E., and Stavrou D., “In‐Service Teachers' Needs and Mentor's Practices in Applying a Teaching–Learning Sequence on Nanotechnology and Plastics in Primary Education,” Journal of Science Education and Technology 30 (2021): 630–641. [ Google Scholar ] 111. Mironenko O. and Mironenko E., “Education against Plastic Pollution: Current Approaches and Best Practices,” Plastics in the Aquatic Environment—Part II (Springer International Publishing, 2022): 67. [ Google Scholar ] 112. Phan Hoang T. T. and Kato T., “Measuring the Effect of Environmental Education for Sustainable Development at Elementary Schools: A Case Study in Da Nang City, Vietnam,” Sustainable Environment Research 26 (2016): 274–286. [ Google Scholar ] 113. Parejo J.‐L., Corton‐Heras M.‐O., Nieto‐Blanco A., and Segovia‐Barberan C., “Plastics as an Educational Resource for Sustainable Development: A Case Study in Ghana,” Sustainability 13, no. 12 (2021): 6727, 10.3390/su13126727. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 114. Schiffer J. M., Lyman J., Byrd D., Silverstein H., and Halls M. D., “Microplastics Outreach Program: A Systems‐Thinking Approach to Teach High School Students about the Chemistry and Impacts of Plastics,” Journal of Chemical Education 97 (2020): 137–142. [ Google Scholar ] 115. Situmorang R. O. P., Liang T.‐C., and Chang S.‐C., “The Difference of Knowledge and Behavior of College Students on Plastic Waste Problems,” Sustainability 12, no. 19 (2020): 7851, 10.3390/su12197851. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 116. So W. W. M. and Chow S. C. F., “Environmental Education in Primary Schools: A Case Study with Plastic Resources and Recycling,” Education 3‐13 47, no. 6 (2019): 652–663, 10.1080/03004279.2018.1518336. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 117. Soares J., Miguel I., Venâncio C., Lopes I., and Oliveira M., “On the Path to Minimize Plastic Pollution: The Perceived Importance of Education and Knowledge Dissemination Strategies,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 171 (2021): 112890. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 118. Anusha A. C. S., Tunung R., Kavita C., Ribka A., and Chandrika M., “Ready‐to‐Eat Food Consumption Practices, Food Safety Knowledge and Relation to Gender and Education Level of Consumers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,” Food Research 4, no. 5 (2020): 1537–1544. [ Google Scholar ] 119. Alharbi M. H., Mumena W. A., and Hammouda S. A., “Use of Plastics with Hot Food among Saudi Pregnant Women Is Associated with Increased Concentrations of A1C, Thyroid‐Stimulating Hormone, and Homocysteine and Decreased Concentrations of Vitamins and Minerals,” Nutrients 12, no. 9 (2020): 2609, 10.3390/nu12092609. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 120. Braun Y. A. and Traore A. S., “Plastic Bags, Pollution, and Identity,” Gender & Society 29 (2015): 863–887. [ Google Scholar ] 121. Chatterjee S. and Mishra V., “Green Chemistry—Remedy to Societal Hygiene: A Graphical Review,” Current Research in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 3 (2020): 100025. [ Google Scholar ] 122. Chowdhury M. A., Nowreen S., Tarin N. J., Hasan M. R., Zzaman R. U., and Amatullah N. I., “WASH and MHM Experiences of Disabled Females Living in Dhaka Slums of Bangladesh,” Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 12 (2022): 683–697. [ Google Scholar ] 123. Chukwuone N. A., Amaechina E. C., and Ifelunini I. A., “Determinants of Household's Waste Disposal Practices and Willingness to Participate in Reducing the Flow of Plastics into the Ocean: Evidence from Coastal City of Lagos Nigeria,” PLOS ONE 17 (2022): 0267739. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 124. Gao C.‐J., Wang F., Shen H.‐M., Kannan K., and Guo Y., “Feminine Hygiene Products—A Neglected Source of Phthalate Exposure in Women,” Environmental Science & Technology 54 (2020): 930–937. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 125. GRACE R., “Overcoming Gender Bias in Design,” Plastics Engineering 77 (2021): 10–15. [ Google Scholar ] 126. Hanson A.‐M., “Women's Environmental Health Activism around Waste and Plastic Pollution in the Coastal Wetlands of Yucatán,” Gender & Development 25 (2017): 221–234. [ Google Scholar ] 127. Hanson A.‐M. S., “Women's Ecological Oral Histories of Recycling and Development in Coastal Yucatán,” Gender, Place & Culture 23 (2016): 467–483. [ Google Scholar ] 128. de La Pena F. B. and Manapat J. Z., “Empowering Women thru Plastics Recycling: A Livelihood Project for Women in Marginalized Communities,” in 2018 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC) (IEEE, 2018): 12. [ Google Scholar ] 129. Lange S. L., Senekane M. F., and Naicker N., “Understanding the Socio‐Demographic Profile of Waste Re‐Users in a Suburban Setting in South Africa,” Resources 11, no. 5 (2022): 45, 10.3390/resources11050045. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 130. Li Y., Wang B., and Saechang O., “Is Female a More Pro‐Environmental Gender? Evidence from China,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 13 (2022): 8002, 10.3390/ijerph19138002. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 131. Mikołajewska K., Stragierowicz J., and Gromadzińska J., “Bisphenol A–Application, Sources of Exposure and Potential Risks in Infants, Children and Pregnant Women,” International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 28, no. 2 (2015): 209–241. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 132. Muposhi A., Mpinganjira M., Wait M., and Issock P. B., “Is the Use of Green Shopping Bags Gendered Evidence from a Gender Equality Conscious Emerging Market,” International Journal of Sustainable Society 14 (2022): 17–42. [ Google Scholar ] 133. Muralidharan S. and Sheehan K., “The Role of Guilt in Influencing Sustainable Pro‐Environmental Behaviors among Shoppers,” Journal of Advertising Research 58 (2018): 349–362. [ Google Scholar ] 134. Norfaryanti K., Sheriza M. R., and Zaiton S., “Environmental‐Friendly Food Products' Packaging: Women's Purchasing Preferences,” International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering 8, no. 2S4 (2019): 2277–3878. [ Google Scholar ] 135. Trowbridge J., Goin D. E., Abrahamsson D., Sklar R., and Woodruff T. J., “Fossil Fuel Is the Common Denominator between Climate Change and Petrochemical Exposures, and Effects on Women and ChildrenʼS Health,” International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 160 (2023): 368–371. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 136. Valvi D., Monfort N., Ventura R., et al., “Variability and Predictors of Urinary Phthalate Metabolites in Spanish Pregnant Women,” International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 218 (2015): 220–231. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 137. Wayessa B. S., “Prepared in Pots, Served in Plastics: Rural Ethiopian Women's Responses to the Global Economy,” Ethnography 24 (2023): 44–62. [ Google Scholar ] 138. Alda‐Vidal C., Browne A. L., and Hoolohan C., “Unflushables″: Establishing a Global Agenda for Action on Everyday Practices Associated with Sewer Blockages, Water Quality, and Plastic Pollution,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 7, no. 4 (2020): 1452, 10.1002/wat2.1452. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 139. Barletta M., Lima A. R. A., and Costa M. F., “Distribution, Sources and Consequences of Nutrients, Persistent Organic Pollutants, Metals and Microplastics in South American Estuaries,” Science of The Total Environment 651 (2019): 1199–1218. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 140. Borde P., Elmusharaf K., McGuigan K. G., and Keogh M. B., “Community Challenges When Using Large Plastic Bottles for Solar Energy Disinfection of Water (SODIS),” BMC Public Health 16 (2016): 931. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 141. Diehl J.‐C., Stroober M., Majumdar P., and Mink A., “Do‐it‐Yourself (DIY) Workspaces Run by Local Entrepreneurs That Transform Plastic Waste into Valuable Water and Sanitation Products,” in 2018 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC) (IEEE, 2018): 1. [ Google Scholar ] 142. Dorji U., Dorji P., Shon H., et al., “On‐Site Domestic Wastewater Treatment System Using Shredded Waste Plastic Bottles as Biofilter Media: Pilot‐Scale Study on Effluent Standards in Bhutan,” Chemosphere 286 (2022): 131729. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 143. Egun N. K. and Evbayiro O. J., “Beat the Plastic: an Approach to Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle Waste Management in Nigeria,” Waste Disposal & Sustainable Energy 2 (2020): 313–320. [ Google Scholar ] 144. Geetha T., “Endocrine Disruptors in Boiled Drinking Water Carried in Plastic Containers: A Pilot Study in Thrissur, Kerala, India,” Applied Water Science 11, no. 12 (2021): 188, 10.1007/s13201-021-01524-z. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 145. Haris P. I. and Illingworth P., “Installing Public Handwashing Facilities and Integrating Them with Water Fountains to Reduce Plastic Pollution and Prevent Spread of Infections,” Perspectives in Public Health 141 (2021): 263–265. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 146. Liu Z.‐H., Yin H., and Dang Z., “Do Estrogenic Compounds in Drinking Water Migrating from Plastic Pipe Distribution System Pose Adverse Effects to human? An Analysis of Scientific Literature,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24 (2017): 2126–2134. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 147. Szczotko M., Stankiewicz A., and Jamsheer‐Bratkowska M., “Evaluation of Susceptibility of Polymer and Rubber Materials Intended into Contact with Drinking Water on Biofilm Formation,” Roczniki Państwowego Zakładu Higieny 67, no. 4 (2016): 409–417. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 148. Manjaya D., Tilley E., and Marks S. J., “Informally Vended Sachet Water: Handling Practices and Microbial Water Quality,” Water 11, no. 4 (2019): 800, 10.3390/w11040800. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 149. Mihai F.‐C., Gündoğdu S., Markley L. A., et al., “Plastic Pollution, Waste Management Issues, and Circular Economy Opportunities in Rural Communities,” Sustainability 14 (2022): 20. [ Google Scholar ] 150. Muanda C., Goldin J., and Haldenwang R., “Factors and Impacts of Informal Settlements Residents' sanitation Practices on Access and Sustainability of Sanitation Services in the Policy Context of Free Basic Sanitation,” Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 10 (2020): 238–248. [ Google Scholar ] 151. Necibi M. C., Dhiba D., and El Hajjaji S., “Contaminants of Emerging Concern in African Wastewater Effluents: Occurrence, Impact and Removal Technologies,” Sustainability 13 (2021): 1125. [ Google Scholar ] 152. Ó Briain O., Marques Mendes A. R., McCarron S., Healy M. G., and Morrison L., “The Role of Wet Wipes and Sanitary Towels as a Source of White Microplastic Fibres in the Marine Environment,” Water Research 182 (2020): 116021. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 153. Semey M. D. K., Dotse‐Gborgbortsi W., Dzodzomenyo M., and Wright J., “Characteristics of Packaged Water Production Facilities in Greater Accra, Ghana: Implications for Water Safety and Associated Environmental Impacts,” Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 10 (2020): 146–156. [ Google Scholar ] 154. Tadsuwan K. and Babel S., “Microplastic Contamination in a Conventional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Thailand,” Waste Management & Research 39, no. 5 (2021): 754–761, 10.1177/0734242X20982055. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 155. Tang J., Tang L., Zhang C., et al., “Different Senescent HDPE Pipe‐Risk: Brief Field Investigation from Source Water to Tap Water in China (Changsha City),” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22 (2015): 16210–16214. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 156. Winter S., Dreibelbis R., and Barchi F., “Women's Sanitation Practices in Informal Settlements: A Multi‐Level Analysis of Factors Influencing Utilisation in Nairobi, Kenya,” Global Public Health 14 (2019): 663–674. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 157. Yeasmin F., Luby S. P., Saxton R. E., et al., “Piloting a Low‐Cost Hardware Intervention to Reduce Improper Disposal of Solid Waste in Communal Toilets in Low‐Income Settlements in Dhaka, Bangladesh,” BMC Public Health 17 (2017): 682. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 158. Anuar Sharuddin S. D., Abnisa F., Wan Daud W. M. A., and Aroua M. K., “A Review on Pyrolysis of Plastic Wastes,” Energy Conversion and Management 115 (2016): 308–326. [ Google Scholar ] 159. Bukkarapu K. R., Gangadhar D. S., Jyothi Y., and Kanasani P., “Management, Conversion, and Utilization of Waste Plastic as a Source of Sustainable Energy to Run Automotive: A Review,” Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 40 (2018): 1681–1692. [ Google Scholar ] 160. Chandrasekaran S. R., Avasarala S., Murali D., Rajagopalan N., and Sharma B. K., “Materials and Energy Recovery from E‐Waste Plastics,” ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 6 (2018): 4594–4602. [ Google Scholar ] 161. Devasahayam S., “Review: Opportunities for Simultaneous Energy/Materials Conversion of Carbon Dioxide and Plastics in Metallurgical Processes,” Sustainable Materials and Technologies 22 (2019): 00119. [ Google Scholar ] 162. Dong Y., Zhu W., Zhang X., and Guo J., “Design of Special Plastic Bearings and Their Application in Renewable Energy Conversion System,” The Open Materials Science Journal 9 (2015): 203–209. [ Google Scholar ] 163. Gebre S. H., Sendeku M. G., and Bahri M., “Recent Trends in the Pyrolysis of Non‐Degradable Waste Plastics,” ChemistryOpen 10 (2021): 1202–1226. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 164. Gug J., Cacciola D., and Sobkowicz M. J., “Processing and Properties of a Solid Energy Fuel from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Recycled Plastics,” Waste Management 35 (2015): 283–292. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 165. Lam S. S., Wan Mahari W. A., Ok Y. S., et al., “Microwave Vacuum Pyrolysis of Waste Plastic and Used Cooking Oil for Simultaneous Waste Reduction and Sustainable Energy Conversion: Recovery of Cleaner Liquid Fuel and Techno‐Economic Analysis,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 115 (2019): 109359. [ Google Scholar ] 166. Lim J., Ahn Y., and Kim J., “Optimal Sorting and Recycling of Plastic Waste as a Renewable Energy Resource Considering Economic Feasibility and Environmental Pollution,” Process Safety and Environmental Protection 169 (2023): 685–696. [ Google Scholar ] 167. Lombardi L., Carnevale E., and Corti A., “A Review of Technologies and Performances of Thermal Treatment Systems for Energy Recovery from Waste,” Waste Management 37 (2015): 26–44. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 168. Nugroho A. S., Rahmad M. C., and Hidayah F. N., “Plastic Waste as an Alternative Energy,” AIP Conference Proceedings 1977, no. 1 (2018): 060010, 10.1063/1.5043022. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 169. Olazabal I., Goujon N., Mantione D., et al., “From Plastic Waste to New Materials for Energy Storage,” Polymer Chemistry 13 (2022): 4222–4229. [ Google Scholar ] 170. Posen I. D., Jaramillo P., Landis A. E., and Griffin W. M., “Greenhouse Gas Mitigation for U.S. plastics Production: Energy First, Feedstocks Later,” Environmental Research Letters 12 (2017): 034024. [ Google Scholar ] 171. Sagariga M. R., Balaram S., Menon P., Aiswarya B., Pramod D., and Bharath K. R., “Plastic to Fuel Conversion System Using Renewable Energy Assisted Pyrolysis,” in 2020 6th International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS) (IEEE, 2020): 523. [ Google Scholar ] 172. Sharuddin S. D. A., Abnisa F., Daud W. M. A. W., and Aroua M. K., “Pyrolysis of Plastic Waste for Liquid Fuel Production as Prospective Energy Resource,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 334 (2018): 012001. [ Google Scholar ] 173. Shen Y., Zhao R., Wang J., Chen X., Ge X., and Chen M., “Waste‐to‐Energy: Dehalogenation of Plastic‐Containing Wastes,” Waste Management 49 (2016): 287–303. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 174. Stephen O., Okonkwo E., and Ogbonna J., “Completing the Value Chain for Plastic Recyclers in Nigeria: An Integration of Renewable Solar and Conventional Gas Energy Sources for Fuel Production”, in SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition , (SPE, 2018): 193436. [ Google Scholar ] 175. Surenderan L., Saad J. M., Zhou H., Neshaeimoghaddam H., and Rahman A. A., “Characterization Studies on Waste Plastics as a Feedstock for Energy Recovery in Malaysia,” International Journal of Engineering and Technology 7 (2018): 534–537. [ Google Scholar ] 176. Willenbacher M., Scholten J., and Wohlgemuth V., “Machine Learning for Optimization of Energy and Plastic Consumption in the Production of Thermoplastic Parts in SME,” Sustainability 13, no. 12 (2021): 6800, 10.3390/su13126800. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 177. Wong S. L., Ngadi N., Abdullah T., and Inuwa I. M., “Current state and Future Prospects of Plastic Waste as Source of Fuel: A Review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50 (2015): 1167–1180. [ Google Scholar ] 178. Adelodun A. A., “Plastic Recovery and Utilization: From Ocean Pollution to Green Economy,” Frontiers in Environmental Science 9 (2021): 683403, 10.3389/fenvs.2021.683403. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 179. Alvarado‐Diaz W., Chicoma‐Moreno J., Meneses‐Claudio B., and Nuñez‐Tapia L., “Design of a Plastic Shredding Machine to Obtain Small Plastic Waste,” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 12, no. 6 (2021), https://thesai.org/Publications/ViewPaper?Volume=12&Issue=6&Code=IJACSA&SerialNo=54 . [ Google Scholar ] 180. Andreoni V., Saveyn H. G. M., and Eder P., “Polyethylene Recycling: Waste Policy Scenario Analysis for the EU‐27,” Journal of Environmental Management 158 (2015): 103–110. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 181. Arabi S. and Nahman A., “Impacts of Marine Plastic on Ecosystem Services and Economy: State of South African Research,” South African Journal of Science 116, no. 5‐6 (2020): 1–7, 10.17159/sajs.2020/7695. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 182. Babarinsa O. A., Okoruwa A. E., and Babarinsa F. A., “Potential Socio‐Economic Impact of Replacing Traditional Woven Baskets with Reusable Plastic Crates on Livelihoods of Basket Makers in Southeast Nigeria,” African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 22 (2022): 20581–20595. [ Google Scholar ] 183. Bai Y. and Givens J., “Ecologically Unequal Exchange of Plastic Waste?,” Journal of World‐Systems Research 27 (2021): 265–287. [ Google Scholar ] 184. Bala S., Blaauw D., Christian C., and Yu D., “Identifying the Prospects of Decent Job Creation along the Value Chain of Plastic Recycling,” Development Southern Africa 40 (2023): 507–524. [ Google Scholar ] 185. Barnes S. J., “Understanding Plastics Pollution: The Role of Economic Development and Technological Research,” Environmental Pollution 249 (2019): 812–821. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 186. Bening C. R., Kahlert S., and Asiedu E., “The True Cost of Solving the Plastic Waste Challenge in Developing Countries: The Case of Ghana,” Journal of Cleaner Production 330 (2022): 129649. [ Google Scholar ] 187. Cordier M., Uehara T., Baztan J., Jorgensen B., and Yan H., “Plastic Pollution and Economic Growth: The Influence of Corruption and Lack of Education,” Ecological Economics 182 (2021): 106930. [ Google Scholar ] 188. Phung C. G., “Implications of the Circular Economy and Digital Transition on Skills and Green Jobs in the Plastics Industry,” Field Actions Science Reports The Journal of Field Actions 19 (2019): 100–107. [ Google Scholar ] 189. Hoffman M. and Schenck C., “The Value Chain and Activities of Polyethylene Terephthalate Plastics in the South African Waste Economy,” Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit 35 (2020): 523–535. [ Google Scholar ] 190. Nara E. O. B., Da Costa M. B., Baierle I. C., et al., “Expected Impact of Industry 4.0 Technologies on Sustainable Development: A Study in the Context of Brazil's Plastic Industry,” Sustainable Production and Consumption 25 (2021): 102–122. [ Google Scholar ] 191. Pérez Silva M. A., Olvera Rodríguez V., La Flores de Mota I., and Soler Anguiano F. I., “Simulation of Elements of Industry 4.0 Applied to the Production Processes of a Company Dedicated to the Manufacture of Plastic Products,” in Proceedings of the 32nd European Modeling & Simulation Symposium (EMSS 2020) (2020): 84–92. 192. Rossi E., Bertassini A. C., Ferreira C. D. S., Neves do Amaral W. A., and Ometto A. R., “Circular Economy Indicators for Organizations Considering Sustainability and Business Models: Plastic, Textile and Electro‐Electronic Cases,” Journal of Cleaner Production 247 (2020): 119137. [ Google Scholar ] 193. Torres F. G. and Cornejo H., “The Need for Technical Improvement in the Plastics Recycling Industry in Middle‐Income Countries: The Peruvian Case,” Progress in Rubber, Plastics and Recycling Technology 32 (2016): 201–212. [ Google Scholar ] 194. Umeda Y., Kitagawa K., Hirose Y., Akaho K., Sakai Y., and Ohta M., “Potential Impacts of the European Union's Circular Economy Policy on Japanese Manufacturers,” International Journal of Automation Technology 14 (2020): 857–866. [ Google Scholar ] 195. Vimal K., Mathiyazhagan K., Agarwal V., Luthra S., and Sivakumar K., “Analysis of Barriers That Impede the Elimination of Single‐Use Plastic in Developing Economy Context,” Journal of Cleaner Production 272 (2020): 122629. [ Google Scholar ] 196. Wu C.‐Y., Hu M.‐C., and Ni F.‐C., “Supporting a Circular Economy: Insights from Taiwan's Plastic Waste Sector and Lessons for Developing Countries,” Sustainable Production and Consumption 26 (2021): 228–238. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 197. Wu H., Mehrabi H., Naveed N., and Karagiannidis P., “Impact of Strategic Control and Supply Chain Management on Recycled Plastic Additive Manufacturing,” Journal of Cleaner Production 364 (2022): 132511. [ Google Scholar ] 198. Beuter Júnior N., Faccin K., Volkmer Martins B., and Balestrin A., “Knowledge‐Based Dynamic Capabilities for Sustainable Innovation: the Case of the Green Plastic Project,” Sustainability 11, no. 8 (2019): 2392, 10.3390/su11082392. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 199. Bing X., Bloemhof‐Ruwaard J., Chaabane A., and van der Vorst J., “Global Reverse Supply Chain Redesign for Household Plastic Waste under the Emission Trading Scheme,” Journal of Cleaner Production 103 (2015): 28–39. [ Google Scholar ] 200. Cheng S., Marsiglio L., Mulvaney K., et al., “Investigating the Economic Feasibility of Community‐Scale Plastic Recycling Facilities,” in 2021 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC) (IEEE, 2021): 349. [ Google Scholar ] 201. Chow C.‐F., So W.‐M. W., and Cheung T.‐Y., “Research and Development of a New Waste Collection Bin to Facilitate Education in Plastic Recycling,” Applied Environmental Education & Communication 15 (2016): 45–57. [ Google Scholar ] 202. Conchubhair D. Ó., Fitzhenry D., Lusher A., et al., “Joint Effort among Research Infrastructures to Quantify the Impact of Plastic Debris in the Ocean,” Environmental Research Letters 14 (2019): 065001. [ Google Scholar ] 203. Cordier M. and Uehara T., “How Much Innovation Is Needed to Protect the Ocean from Plastic Contamination?,” Science of The Total Environment 670 (2019): 789–799. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 204. Da Silva L. F., de Hoyos Guevara A. J., Santibanez Gonzalez E. D. R., and de Oliveira P. S. G., “Evolution toward Environment Sustainable Behavior: Search for Survival in the Plastic Industry in Brazil,” Environment, Development and Sustainability 21 (2019): 1291–1320. [ Google Scholar ] 205. Espada A., “Design as a Source of Innovation to Establish Circular Models,” Handbook of Research on Driving Industrial Competitiveness with Innovative Design Principles (IGI Global, 2020): 205. [ Google Scholar ] 206. Dijkstra H., van Beukering P., and Brouwer R., “In the Business of Dirty Oceans: Overview of Startups and Entrepreneurs Managing Marine Plastic,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 162 (2021): 111880. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 207. Friedrich D. and Luible A., “Supporting the Development Process for Building Products by the Use of Research Portfolio Analysis: A Case Study for Wood Plastics Composite Materials,” Case Studies in Construction Materials 4 (2016): 49–54. [ Google Scholar ] 208. Getor R. Y., Mishra N., and Ramudhin A., “The Role of Technological Innovation in Plastic Production within a Circular Economy Framework,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 163 (2020): 105094. [ Google Scholar ] 209. Gong Y., Putnam E., You W., and Zhao C., “Investigation into Circular Economy of Plastics: The Case of the UK Fast Moving Consumer Goods Industry,” Journal of Cleaner Production 244 (2020): 118941. [ Google Scholar ] 210. Hinton Z. R., Talley M. R., Kots P. A., et al., “Innovations toward the Valorization of Plastics Waste,” Annual Review of Materials Research 52 (2022): 249–280. [ Google Scholar ] 211. Huang C. and Wang Y., “Evolution of Network Relations, Enterprise Learning, and Cluster Innovation Networks: The Case of the Yuyao Plastics Industry Cluster,” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 30 (2018): 158–171. [ Google Scholar ] 212. Ishartomo F., Sulistiono I. N., Sholichah A. I., and Suhardi B., “Learning from Plastic Waste Village in Boyolali Indonesia: SME‐Based Plastic Recycling Industries”, in The 5th International Conference on Industrial, Mechanical, Electrical, and Chemical Engineering 2019 (ICIMECE 2019) (AIP Publishing, 2020): 30083. [ Google Scholar ] 213. Knoblauch D. and Mederake L., “Government Policies Combatting Plastic Pollution,” Current Opinion in Toxicology 28 (2021): 87–96. [ Google Scholar ] 214. Ma J., Tominac P. A., Aguirre‐Villegas H. A., et al., “Economic Evaluation of Infrastructures for Thermochemical Upcycling of Post‐Consumer Plastic Waste,” Green Chemistry 25 (2023): 1032–1044. [ Google Scholar ] 215. Moshood T. D., Nawanir G., Mahmud F., Mohamad F., Ahmad M. H., and AbdulGhani A., “Biodegradable Plastic Applications towards Sustainability: A Recent Innovations in the Green Product,” Cleaner Engineering and Technology 6 (2022): 100404. [ Google Scholar ] 216. Muposhi A., Mpinganjira M., and Wait M., “Considerations, Benefits and Unintended Consequences of Banning Plastic Shopping Bags for Environmental Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review,” Waste Management & Research 40, no. 3 (2022): 248–261, 10.1177/0734242X211003965. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 217. Muposhi A., Mugwati M., and Mawere R., “Embedding Ecopreneurial Behaviour: Proposed Social Marketing Interventions from Value‐In‐Behaviour Perceptions of Plastic Waste Ecopreneurs,” Social Marketing Quarterly 29 (2023): 28–44. [ Google Scholar ] 218. Lamontagne N. D., “Recycling the Unrecyclable: Industry Innovations Aim to Keep Traditionally Difficult‐to‐Recycle Plastics out of the Landfill,” Plastics Engineering 72, no. 4 (2016): S14. [ Google Scholar ] 219. Nel H. A., Naidoo T., Akindele E. O., Nhiwatiwa T., Fadare O. O., and Krause S., “Collaboration and Infrastructure Is Needed to Develop an African Perspective on Micro(nano)Plastic Pollution,” Environmental Research Letters 16 (2021): 021002. [ Google Scholar ] 220. Oyake‐Ombis L., van Vliet B. J., and Mol A. P., “Managing Plastic Waste in East Africa: Niche Innovations in Plastic Production and Solid Waste,” Habitat International 48 (2015): 188–197. [ Google Scholar ] 221. Oyinlola M., Schröder P., Whitehead T., et al., “Digital Innovations for Transitioning to Circular Plastic Value Chains in Africa,” Africa Journal of Management 8 (2022): 83–108. [ Google Scholar ] 222. Raddadi N. and Fava F., “Biodegradation of Oil‐Based Plastics in the Environment: Existing Knowledge and Needs of Research and Innovation,” Science of The Total Environment 679 (2019): 148–158. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 223. Reddy N. G., Vidya A., and Sri Mullapudi R., “Review of the Utilization of Plastic Wastes as a Resource Material in Civil Engineering Infrastructure Applications,” Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste 26, no. 4 (2022): 03122004, 10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000717. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 224. Rivera‐Huerta R. and López‐Lira N., “Innovation in the Informal Sector: The Case of Plastic Recycling Firms in Mexico,” African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 14, no. 2 (2022): 291–301. [ Google Scholar ] 225. Siltaloppi J. and Jähi M., “Toward a Sustainable Plastics Value Chain: Core Conundrums and Emerging Solution Mechanisms for a Systemic Transition,” Journal of Cleaner Production 315 (2021): 128113. [ Google Scholar ] 226. Sommer V. and Walther G., “Recycling and Recovery Infrastructures for Glass and Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic Waste from Wind Energy Industry: A European Case Study,” Waste Management 121 (2021): 265–275. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 227. Vollmer I., Jenks M. J. F., Roelands M. C. P., et al., “Beyond Mechanical Recycling: Giving New Life to Plastic Waste,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 59 (2020): 15402–15423. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 228. Abalansa S., El Mahrad B., Vondolia G. K., Icely J., and Newton A., “The Marine Plastic Litter Issue: A Social‐Economic Analysis,” Sustainability 12, no. 20 (2020): 8677, 10.3390/su12208677. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 229. Abrahms‐Kavunenko S., “Toward an Anthropology of Plastics,” Journal of Material Culture 28 (2023): 3–23. [ Google Scholar ] 230. Barnes S. J., “Out of Sight, out of Mind: Plastic Waste Exports, Psychological Distance and Consumer Plastic Purchasing,” Global Environmental Change 58 (2019): 101943. [ Google Scholar ] 231. Borman M. R., Gabriel D. S., and Nurcahyo R., “Impact of Plastic Packaging Design on the Sustainability of Plastic Recyclers,” International Journal of Applied Science and Engineering 16 (2019): 25–33. [ Google Scholar ] 232. Hatfield S. C., “Plastic Suffocation: Climate Change Threatens Indigenous Populations and Traditional Ecological Knowledge,” Journal of Marine and Island Cultures 8, no. 2 (2019): 1, 10.21463/jmic.2019.08.2.01. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 233. Chowdhury G. W., Koldewey H. J., Niloy M. N. H., and Sarker S., “The Ecological Impact of Plastic Pollution in a Changing Climate,” Emerging Topics in Life Sciences 6, no. 4 (2022): 389–402, 10.1042/ETLS20220016. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 234. Cook E., Velis C. A., and Cottom J. W., “Scaling up Resource Recovery of Plastics in the Emergent Circular Economy to Prevent Plastic Pollution: Assessment of Risks to Health and Safety in the Global South,” Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy 40 (2022): 1680–1707. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 235. Cotta B., “What Goes Around, Comes Around? Access and Allocation Problems in Global North–South Waste Trade,” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 20 (2020): 255–269. [ Google Scholar ] 236. Furniss J., “Alternative Framings of Transnational Waste Flows: Reflections Based on the Egypt– China PET Plastic Trade,” Area 47 (2015): 24–30. [ Google Scholar ] 237. Gareiou Z., Chroni C., Kontoleon K., et al., “Awareness of Citizens for the Single‐Use Plastics: Comparison between a High‐Income and an Upper‐Middle‐Income Economy of the Easter Mediterranean Region, Greece and Lebanon,” Sustainability 14, no. 3 (2022): 1912, 10.3390/su14031912. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 238. Horne R., Dorignon L., and Middha B., “High‐Rise Plastic: Socio‐Material Entanglements in Apartments,” Geographical Journal 188 (2022): 571–584. [ Google Scholar ] 239. Horvath B., Mallinguh E., and Fogarassy C., “Designing Business Solutions for Plastic Waste Management to Enhance Circular Transitions in Kenya,” Sustainability 10 (2018): 1664. [ Google Scholar ] 240. Hossain K. B., Chen K., Chen P., Wang C., and Cai M., “Socioeconomic Relation with Plastic Consumption on 61 Countries Classified by Continent, Income Status and Coastal Regions,” Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 107 (2021): 786–792. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 241. Karasik R., Lauer N. E., Baker A.‐E., et al., “Inequitable Distribution of Plastic Benefits and Burdens on Economies and Public Health,” Frontiers in Marine Science 9 (2023): 1017247, 10.3389/fmars.2022.1017247. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 242. Knoblauch D., Mederake L., and Stein U., “Developing Countries in the Lead—What Drives the Diffusion of Plastic Bag Policies?,” Sustainability 10 (2018): 1994. [ Google Scholar ] 243. Kumar A., Samadder S. R., Kumar N., and Singh C., “Estimation of the Generation Rate of Different Types of Plastic Wastes and Possible Revenue Recovery from Informal Recycling,” Waste Management 79 (2018): 781–790. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 244. Zikali N. M., Chingoto R. M., Utete B., and Kunedzimwe F., “Household Solid Waste Handling Practices and Recycling Value for Integrated Solid Waste Management in a Developing City in Zimbabwe,” Scientific African 16 (2022): 01150. [ Google Scholar ] 245. Navarre N., Mogollón J. M., Tukker A., and Barbarossa V., “Recycled Plastic Packaging from the Dutch Food Sector Pollutes Asian Oceans,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 185 (2022): 106508. [ Google Scholar ] 246. Schlitz N., “Environmental Change and the Informal Plastic Recycling Networks of Kolkata,” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 41 (2020): 450–467. [ Google Scholar ] 247. Velis C. A., “Plastic Pollution Global Treaty to Cover Waste Pickers and Open Burning?,” Waste Management & Research 40, no. 1 (2022): 1–2, 10.1177/0734242X211069583. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 248. Abrokwah S., Ekumah B., Adade R., and Akuoko I. S. G., “Drivers of Single‐Use Plastic Waste Generation: Lessons from Packaged Water Consumers in Ghana,” GeoJournal 87 (2022): 2611–2623. [ Google Scholar ] 249. Adam I., Walker T. R., Clayton C. A., and Bezerra J. C., “Attitudinal and Behavioural Segments on Single‐Use Plastics in Ghana: Implications for Reducing Marine Plastic Pollution,” Environmental Challenges 4 (2021): 100185. [ Google Scholar ] 250. Agusningtyas A. I., Citrasari N., Hariyanto S., and Maidi A. F., “Processing of Plastic Waste from Klotok Landfill Kediri City with Thermal Cracking Method,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 245 (2019): 012041. [ Google Scholar ] 251. Al‐Tayyar T. A., “Characteristics of Plastic Solid Wastes in Mosul city and Their Reuse,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 779, no. 1 (2021): 012071, 10.1088/1755-1315/779/1/012071. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 252. Asari M., Tsuchimura M., Sakai S.‐I., Tsukiji M., and Sagapolutele F., “Analysis of Mismanaged Plastic Waste in Samoa to Suggest Proper Waste Management in Pacific island Countries,” Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy 37 (2019): 1207–1216. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 253. Brooks A. L., Wang S., and Jambeck J. R., “The Chinese Import Ban and Its Impact on Global Plastic Waste Trade,” Science Advances 4, no. 6 (2018): aat0131, 10.1126/sciadv.aat0131. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 254. Cohen Q. M., Glaese M., Meng K., Geissen V., and Huerta‐Lwanga E., “Parks and Recreational Areas as Sinks of Plastic Debris in Urban Sites: The Case of Light‐Density Microplastics in the City of Amsterdam, The Netherlands,” Environments 9 (2022): 5. [ Google Scholar ] 255. Correa C. A., de Oliveira M. A., Jacinto C., and Mondelli G., “Challenges to Reducing Post‐Consumer Plastic Rejects from the MSW Selective Collection at Two MRFs in São Paulo City, Brazil,” Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 24 (2022): 1140–1155. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 256. Dong L., Gu F., Fujita T., Hayashi Y., and Gao J., “Uncovering Opportunity of Low‐Carbon City Promotion with Industrial System Innovation: Case Study on Industrial Symbiosis Projects in China,” Energy Policy 65 (2014): 388–397. [ Google Scholar ] 257. Fernández‐Braña Á., Feijoo‐Costa G., and Dias‐Ferreira C., “Looking beyond the Banning of Lightweight Bags: Analysing the Role of Plastic (and fuel) Impacts in Waste Collection at a Portuguese City,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26 (2019): 35629–35647. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 258. Hossain M. U., Ng S. T., Dong Y., and Amor B., “Strategies for Mitigating Plastic Wastes Management Problem: A Lifecycle Assessment Study in Hong Kong,” Waste Management 131 (2021): 412–422. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 259. Kabir M. F., Alam M. A., and Hridoy R. M., “Plastic Recycling from Municipal Solid Waste in Jashore City of Bangladesh,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM Society International, 2021). [ Google Scholar ] 260. Muslihun M. and Dwi Anggroro D., “An Environmental Study on the Paid Plastic Bag Use Policy in the City of Semarang,” E3S Web of Conferences 202 (2020): 06001, 10.1051/e3sconf/202020206001. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 261. Pertiwi A., Kiky S. P., Wiwik B., Ratna P., Budi P. S., and Arya R., “Preliminary Study on Plastic Waste Handling in Semarang City—Indonesia: Estimated Generation and Existing Management,” E3S Web of Conferences 73 (2018): 07008. [ Google Scholar ] 262. Cerasi I. R., Sánchez F. V., Gallardo I., et al., “Household Plastic Waste Habits and Attitudes: A Pilot Study in the City of Valencia,” Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy 39 (2021): 679–689. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 263. Salhofer S., Jandric A., Soudachanh S., Le Xuan T., and Tran T. D., “Plastic Recycling Practices in Vietnam and Related Hazards for Health and the Environment,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 8 (2021): 4203, 10.3390/ijerph18084203. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 264. Schuyler Q., Hardesty B. D., Lawson T. J., and Wilcox C., “Environmental Context and Socio‐Economic Status Drive Plastic Pollution in Australian Cities,” Environmental Research Letters 17 (2022): 045013. [ Google Scholar ] 265. Varkey P. S., Walker T. R., and Saunders S. J., “Identifying Barriers to Reducing Single‐Use Plastic Use in a Coastal Metropolitan City in Canada,” Ocean & Coastal Management 210 (2021): 105663. [ Google Scholar ] 266. Venkatesh S., Mahboob S., Govindarajan M., et al., “Microbial Degradation of Plastics: Sustainable Approach to Tackling Environmental Threats Facing Big Cities of the Future,” Journal of King Saud University—Science 33 (2021): 101362. [ Google Scholar ] 267. Wardrop N. A., Dzodzomenyo M., Aryeetey G., Hill A. G., Bain R. E. S., and Wright J., “Estimation of Packaged Water Consumption and Associated Plastic Waste Production from Household Budget Surveys,” Environmental Research Letters 12 (2017): 074029. [ Google Scholar ] 268. Ardolino F., Cardamone G. F., and Arena U., “How to Enhance the Environmental Sustainability of WEEE Plastics Management: An LCA Study,” Waste Management 135 (2021): 347–359. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 269. Babayemi J. O., Nnorom I. C., Osibanjo O., and Weber R., “Ensuring Sustainability in Plastics Use in Africa: Consumption, Waste Generation, and Projections,” Environmental Sciences Europe 31, no. 1 (2019): 1–20, 10.1186/s12302-019-0254-5. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 270. Blanc S., Massaglia S., Brun F., Peano C., Mosso A., and Giuggioli N. R., “Use of Bio‐Based Plastics in the Fruit Supply Chain: An Integrated Approach to Assess Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability,” Sustainability 11, no. 9 (2019): 2475, 10.3390/su11092475. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 271. Borland H., Bhatti Y., and Lindgreen A., “Sustainability and Sustainable Development Strategies in the U.K. Plastic Electronics Industry,” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 26 (2019): 805–818. [ Google Scholar ] 272. Burnley S. and Coleman T., “The Environmental and Financial Benefits of Recovering Plastics from Residual Municipal Waste before Energy Recovery,” Waste Management 79 (2018): 79–86. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 273. Briassoulis D., Pikasi A., and Hiskakis M., “Recirculation Potential of Post‐Consumer /Industrial Bio‐Based Plastics through Mechanical Recycling—Techno‐Economic Sustainability Criteria and Indicators,” Polymer Degradation and Stability 183 (2021): 109217. [ Google Scholar ] 274. Cardamone G. F., Ardolino F., and Arena U., “About the Environmental Sustainability of the European Management of WEEE Plastics,” Waste Management 126 (2021): 119–132. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 275. Chi N. T. K., “Ethical Consumption Behavior towards Eco‐Friendly Plastic Products: Implication for Cleaner Production,” Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 5 (2022): 100055. [ Google Scholar ] 276. Chidambarampadmavathy K., Karthikeyan O. P., and Heimann K., “Sustainable Bio‐Plastic Production through Landfill Methane Recycling,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 71 (2017): 555–562. [ Google Scholar ] 277. Conlon K., “Plastic Roads: Not All They're Paved up to be,” International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 29 (2022): 80–83. [ Google Scholar ] 278. Deshpande P. C., Skaar C., Brattebø H., and Fet A. M., “Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Method for Assessing the Sustainability of End‐of‐Life Alternatives for Waste Plastics: A Case Study of Norway,” Science of The Total Environment 719 (2020): 137353. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 279. Evode N., Qamar S. A., Bilal M., Barceló D., and Iqbal H. M., “Plastic Waste and Its Management Strategies for Environmental Sustainability,” Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 4 (2021): 100142. [ Google Scholar ] 280. Faisal Kabir S., Sukumaran S., Moghtadernejad S., Barjasteh E., and Fini E. H., “End of Life Plastics to Enhance Sustainability of Pavement Construction Utilizing a Hybrid Treatment of Bio‐Oil and Carbon Coating,” Construction and Building Materials 278 (2021): 122444. [ Google Scholar ] 281. Gerassimidou S., Martin O. V., Chapman S. P., Hahladakis J. N., and Iacovidou E., “Development of an Integrated Sustainability Matrix to Depict Challenges and Trade‐Offs of Introducing Bio‐Based Plastics in the Food Packaging Value Chain,” Journal of Cleaner Production 286 (2021): 125378. [ Google Scholar ] 282. Gong X., van der Wee M., de Pessemier T., et al., “Energy‐ and Labor‐Aware Production Scheduling for Sustainable Manufacturing: A Case Study on Plastic Bottle Manufacturing,” Procedia CIRP 61 (2017): 387–392. [ Google Scholar ] 283. Govil T., Wang J., Samanta D., et al., “Lignocellulosic Feedstock: A Review of a Sustainable Platform for Cleaner Production of Nature's Plastics,” Journal of Cleaner Production 270 (2020): 122521. [ Google Scholar ] 284. Herberz T., Barlow C. Y., and Finkbeiner M., “Sustainability Assessment of a Single‐Use Plastics Ban,” Sustainability 12, no. 9 (2020): 3746, 10.3390/su12093746. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 285. Jefferson M., “Whither Plastics?—Petrochemicals, Plastics and Sustainability in a Garbage‐Riddled World,” Energy Research & Social Science 56 (2019): 101229. [ Google Scholar ] 286. Lee C. J., Chang L., and Tan J., “Environmental Sustainability Framework for Plastic Waste Management—A Case Study of Bubble Tea Industry in Malaysia,” Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability 6 (2022): 513–526. [ Google Scholar ] 287. Lombardi M., Rana R., and Fellner J., “Material Flow Analysis and Sustainability of the Italian Plastic Packaging Management,” Journal of Cleaner Production 287 (2021): 125573. [ Google Scholar ] 288. Milios L., Esmailzadeh Davani A., and Yu Y., “Sustainability Impact Assessment of Increased Plastic Recycling and Future Pathways of Plastic Waste Management in Sweden,” Recycling 3, no. 3 (2018): 33, 10.3390/recycling3030033. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 289. Moshood T. D., Nawanir G., Mahmud F., Mohamad F., Ahmad M. H., and AbdulGhani A., “Sustainability of Biodegradable Plastics: New Problem or Solution to Solve the Global Plastic Pollution?,” Current Research in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 5 (2022): 100273. [ Google Scholar ] 290. Mwanza B. G. and Mbohwa C., “Major Obstacles to Sustainability in the Plastic Industry,” Procedia Manufacturing 8 (2017): 121–128. [ Google Scholar ] 291. Shangwa N. L., Chinguwa S., Nyemba W. R., and Jen T.‐C., “Conceptualization and Design of a Small Pyrolysis Plant for the Sustainable Production of Paraffin from Plastic Waste,” Procedia CIRP 91 (2020): 362–366. [ Google Scholar ] 292. Ślusarczyk B. and Kot S., “Solution for Sustainable Development: Provisions Limiting the Consumption of Disposable Plastic Carrier Bags in Poland,” Journal of Security & Sustainability 7, no. 3 (2018), 10.9770/jssi.2018.7.3(7). [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 293. Sundqvist‐Andberg H. and Åkerman M., “Sustainability Governance and Contested Plastic Food Packaging—An Integrative Review,” Journal of Cleaner Production 306 (2021): 127111. [ Google Scholar ] 294. Tang X. and Chen E. Y.‐X., “Toward Infinitely Recyclable Plastics Derived from Renewable Cyclic Esters,” Chem 5 (2019): 284–312. [ Google Scholar ] 295. de Vargas Mores G., Finocchio C. P. S., Barichello R., and Pedrozo E. A., “Sustainability and Innovation in the Brazilian Supply Chain of Green Plastic,” Journal of Cleaner Production 177 (2018): 12–18. [ Google Scholar ] 296. Yuan X., Kumar N. M., Brigljević B., et al., “Sustainability‐Inspired Upcycling of Waste Polyethylene Terephthalate Plastic into Porous Carbon for CO 2 Capture,” Green Chemistry 24 (2022): 1494–1504. [ Google Scholar ] 297. Zhao X., Boruah B., Chin K. F., Đokić M., Modak J. M., and Soo H. S., “Upcycling to Sustainably Reuse Plastics,” Advanced Materials 34, no. 25 (2022): 2100843. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 298. Adyel T. M. and Macreadie P. I., “Plastics in Blue Carbon Ecosystems: A Call for Global Cooperation on Climate Change Goals,” Lancet Planetary Health 6 (2022): e2–e3. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 299. An J., Wu F., Wang D., and You J., “Estimated Material Metabolism and Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emission of Major Plastics in China: A Commercial Sector‐Scale Perspective,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 180 (2022): 106161. [ Google Scholar ] 300. Bauer F., Nielsen T. D., Nilsson L. J., et al., “Plastics and Climate Change—Breaking Carbon Lock‐Ins through Three Mitigation Pathways,” One Earth 5 (2022): 361–376. [ Google Scholar ] 301. Bora R. R., Wang R., and You F., “Waste Polypropylene Plastic Recycling toward Climate Change Mitigation and Circular Economy: Energy, Environmental, and Technoeconomic Perspectives,” ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 8 (2020): 16350–16363. [ Google Scholar ] 302. Chu J., Zhou Y., Cai Y., Wang X., Li C., and Liu Q., “Life‐Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Associated Carbon‐Peak Strategies for PS, PVC, and ABS Plastics in China,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 182 (2022): 106295. [ Google Scholar ] 303. Cuello J. P., Hwang H. Y., Gutierrez J., Kim S. Y., and Kim P. J., “Impact of Plastic Film Mulching on Increasing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Temperate Upland Soil during Maize Cultivation,” Applied Soil Ecology 91 (2015): 48–57. [ Google Scholar ] 304. Demeneix B. A., “How Fossil Fuel‐Derived Pesticides and Plastics Harm Health, Biodiversity, and the Climate,” Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 8, no. 6 (2020): 462–464, 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30116-9. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 305. Eddy T. D., “Climate Change Drowned out by Plastic,” Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 29 (2019): 848. [ Google Scholar ] 306. Ford H. V., Jones N. H., Davies A. J., et al., “The Fundamental Links between Climate Change and Marine Plastic Pollution,” Science of The Total Environment 806 (2022): 150392. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 307. Gu B., “Research on the Impact of Plastic Recycling Industry on Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 781, no. 3, (2021): 032030, 10.1088/1755-1315/781/3/032030. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 308. Jankowska E., Gorman M. R., and Frischmann C. J., “Transforming the Plastic Production System Presents Opportunities to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” Sustainability 14 (2022): 6539. [ Google Scholar ] 309. Kane S., van Roijen E., Ryan C., and Miller S., “Reducing the Environmental Impacts of Plastics While Increasing Strength: Biochar Fillers in Biodegradable, Recycled, and Fossil‐Fuel Derived Plastics,” Composites Part C: Open Access 8 (2022): 100253, 10.1016/j.jcomc.2022.100253. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 310. Kouloumpis V., Pell R. S., Correa‐Cano M. E., and Yan X., “Potential Trade‐Offs between Eliminating Plastics and Mitigating Climate Change: An LCA Perspective on Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottles in Cornwall,” Science of The Total Environment 727 (2020): 138681. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 311. Kvale K., “Implications of Plastic Pollution on Global Marine Carbon Cycling and Climate,” Emerging Topics in Life Sciences 6, no. 4 (2022): 359–369, 10.1042/ETLS20220013. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 312. Lee J. G., Chae H. G., Cho S. R., Song H.‐J., Kim P. J., and Jeong S. T., “Impact of Plastic Film Mulching on Global Warming in Entire Chemical and Organic Cropping Systems: Life Cycle Assessment,” Journal of Cleaner Production 308 (2021): 127256. [ Google Scholar ] 313. Liu Z., Adams M., Cote R. P., et al., “How Does Circular Economy Respond to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction: An Analysis of Chinese Plastic Recycling Industries,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018): 1162–1169. [ Google Scholar ] 314. Liu Z., Liu W., Walker T. R., Adams M., and Zhao J., “How Does the Global Plastic Waste Trade Contribute to Environmental Benefits: Implication for Reductions of Greenhouse Gas Emissions?,” Journal of Environmental Management 287 (2021): 112283. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 315. Meys R., Kätelhön A., Bachmann M., et al., “Achieving Net‐Zero Greenhouse Gas Emission Plastics by a Circular Carbon Economy,” Science 374 (2021): 71–76. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 316. Nicholson S. R., Rorrer N. A., Carpenter A. C., and Beckham G. T., “Manufacturing Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Plastics Consumption,” Joule 5 (2021): 673–686. [ Google Scholar ] 317. Oktavilia S., Hapsari M., Setyadharma A., and Wahyuningsum I. F. S., “Plastic Industry and World Environmental Problems,” E3S Web of Conferences 202 (2020): 05020. [ Google Scholar ] 318. Sandberg E. and Krook‐Riekkola A., “Accounting for Carbon Flows into and From (bio)Plastic in a National Climate Inventory,” GCB Bioenergy 15 (2023): 208–223. [ Google Scholar ] 319. Sevigné‐Itoiz E., Gasol C. M., Rieradevall J., and Gabarrell X., “Contribution of Plastic Waste Recovery to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Savings in Spain,” Waste Management 46 (2015): 557–567. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 320. Sharma S., Sharma V., and Chatterjee S., “Contribution of Plastic and Microplastic to Global Climate Change and Their Conjoining Impacts on the Environment—A Review,” Science of The Total Environment 875 (2023): 162627. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 321. Shen M., Huang W., Chen M., Song B., Zeng G., and Zhang Y., “(Micro)plastic Crisis: Un‐Ignorable Contribution to Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” Journal of Cleaner Production 254 (2020): 120138. [ Google Scholar ] 322. Stegmann P., Daioglou V., Londo M., and Junginger M., “The Plastics Integrated Assessment Model (PLAIA): Assessing Emission Mitigation Pathways and Circular Economy Strategies for the Plastics Sector,” MethodsX 9 (2022): 101666, 10.1016/j.mex.2022.101666. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 323. Tickner J., Geiser K., and Baima S., “Transitioning the Chemical Industry: The Case for Addressing the Climate, Toxics, and Plastics Crises,” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 63 (2021): 4–15. [ Google Scholar ] 324. Tiso T., Winter B., Wei R., et al., “The Metabolic Potential of Plastics as Biotechnological Carbon Sources—Review and Targets for the Future,” Metabolic Engineering 71 (2022): 77–98. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 325. Vea E. B., Fabbri S., Spierling S., and Owsianiak M., “Inclusion of Multiple Climate Tipping as a New Impact Category in Life Cycle Assessment of Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA)‐Based Plastics,” Science of The Total Environment 788 (2021): 147544. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 326. VishnuRadhan R., Eldho T. I., and David T. D., “Can Plastics Affect near Surface Layer Ocean Processes and Climate?,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 140 (2019): 274–280. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 327. Zapata O., “The Relationship between Climate Conditions and Consumption of Bottled Water: A Potential Link between Climate Change and Plastic Pollution,” Ecological Economics 187 (2021): 107090. [ Google Scholar ] 328. Abbott J. K. and Sumaila U. R., “Reducing Marine Plastic Pollution: Policy Insights from Economics,” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 13 (2019): 327–336. [ Google Scholar ] 329. Adam I., Walker T. R., Bezerra J. C., and Clayton A., “Policies to Reduce Single‐Use Plastic Marine Pollution in West Africa,” Marine Policy 116 (2020): 103928. [ Google Scholar ] 330. Akinwumi I. I., Domo‐Spiff A. H., and Salami A., “Marine Plastic Pollution and Affordable Housing Challenge: Shredded Waste Plastic Stabilized Soil for Producing Compressed Earth Bricks,” Case Studies in Construction Materials 11 (2019): 00241. [ Google Scholar ] 331. Borrelle S. B., Rochman C. M., Liboiron M., et al., “Why We Need an International Agreement on Marine Plastic Pollution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (2017): 9994–9997. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 332. Chowdhury H., Chowdhury T., and Sait S. M., “Estimating Marine Plastic Pollution from COVID‐19 Face Masks in Coastal Regions,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 168 (2021): 112419. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 333. Clayton C. A., Walker T. R., Bezerra J. C., and Adam I., “Policy Responses to Reduce Single‐Use Plastic Marine Pollution in the Caribbean,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 162 (2021): 111833. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 334. Compa M., Alomar C., Wilcox C., et al., “Risk Assessment of Plastic Pollution on Marine Diversity in the Mediterranean Sea,” Science of The Total Environment 678 (2019): 188–196. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 335. Dauvergne P., “The Power of Environmental Norms: Marine Plastic Pollution and the Politics of Microbeads,” Environmental Politics 27 (2018): 579–597. [ Google Scholar ] 336. Dauvergne P., “Why Is the Global Governance of Plastic Failing the Oceans?,” Global Environmental Change 51 (2018): 22–31. [ Google Scholar ] 337. Ghayebzadeh M., Aslani H., Taghipour H., and Mousavi S., “Estimation of Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Caspian Sea: A Significant Unseen Marine Pollution,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 151 (2020): 110871. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 338. Green D. S., Boots B., Blockley D. J., Rocha C., and Thompson R., “Impacts of Discarded Plastic Bags on Marine Assemblages and Ecosystem Functioning,” Environmental Science & Technology 49 (2015): 5380–5389. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 339. Harris L., Liboiron M., Charron L., and Mather C., “Using Citizen Science to Evaluate Extended Producer Responsibility Policy to Reduce Marine Plastic Debris Shows no Reduction in Pollution Levels,” Marine Policy 123 (2021): 104319. [ Google Scholar ] 340. Issifu I. and Sumaila U. R., “A Review of the Production, Recycling and Management of Marine Plastic Pollution,” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 8 (2020): 945. [ Google Scholar ] 341. Kwon B. G., Koizumi K., Chung S.‐Y., Kodera Y., Kim J.‐O., and Saido K., “Global Styrene Oligomers Monitoring as New Chemical Contamination from Polystyrene Plastic Marine Pollution,” Journal of Hazardous Materials 300 (2015): 359–367. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 342. Kyriakopoulos G. L., Zamparas M. G., and Kapsalis V. C., “Investigating the Human Impacts and the Environmental Consequences of Microplastics Disposal into Water Resources,” Sustainability 14 (2022): 828. [ Google Scholar ] 343. Lestari P. and Trihadiningrum Y., “The Impact of Improper Solid Waste Management to Plastic Pollution in Indonesian Coast and Marine Environment,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 149 (2019): 110505. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 344. Manfra L., Marengo V., Libralato G., Costantini M., de Falco F., and Cocca M., “Biodegradable Polymers: A Real Opportunity to Solve Marine Plastic Pollution?,” Journal of Hazardous Materials 416 (2021): 125763. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 345. Marks D., Miller M. A., and Vassanadumrongdee S., “The Geopolitical Economy of Thailand's Marine Plastic Pollution Crisis,” Asia Pacific Viewpoint 61 (2020): 266–282. [ Google Scholar ] 346. Oliveira J., Belchior A., Da Silva V. D., et al., “Marine Environmental Plastic Pollution: Mitigation by Microorganism Degradation and Recycling Valorization,” Frontiers in Marine Science 7 (2020): 567126, 10.3389/fmars.2020.567126. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 347. Schmaltz E., Melvin E. C., Diana Z., et al., “Plastic Pollution Solutions: Emerging Technologies to Prevent and Collect Marine Plastic Pollution,” Environment International 144 (2020): 106067. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 348. Schnurr R. E. J., Alboiu V., Chaudhary M., et al., “Reducing Marine Pollution from Single‐Use Plastics (SUPs): A Review,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 137 (2018): 157–171. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 349. Thiel M., Luna‐Jorquera G., Álvarez‐Varas R., et al., “Impacts of Marine Plastic Pollution from Continental Coasts to Subtropical Gyres—Fish, Seabirds, and Other Vertebrates in the SE Pacific,” Frontiers in Marine Science 5 (2018): 238, 10.3389/fmars.2018.00238. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 350. Turner A., “Black Plastics: Linear and Circular Economies, Hazardous Additives and Marine Pollution,” Environment International 117 (2018): 308–318. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 351. Villarrubia‐Gómez P. and Cornell S. E., “Marine Plastic Pollution as a Planetary Boundary Threat—The Drifting Piece in the Sustainability Puzzle,” Marine Policy 96 (2018): 213–220. [ Google Scholar ] 352. Vince J. and Hardesty B. D., “Plastic Pollution Challenges in Marine and Coastal Environments: From Local to Global Governance,” Restoration Ecology 25 (2017): 123–128. [ Google Scholar ] 353. Walther B. A. and Bergmann M., “Plastic Pollution of Four Understudied Marine Ecosystems: A Review of Mangroves, Seagrass Meadows, the Arctic Ocean and the Deep Seafloor,” Emerging Topics in Life Sciences 6, no. 4 (2022): 371–387, 10.1042/ETLS20220017. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 354. Wang G.‐X., Huang D., Ji J.‐H., Völker C., and Wurm F. R., “Seawater‐Degradable Polymers—Fighting the Marine Plastic Pollution,” Advanced Science 8 (2020): 2001121. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 355. Wilcox C., Mallos N. J., Leonard G. H., Rodriguez A., and Hardesty B. D., “Using Expert Elicitation to Estimate the Impacts of Plastic Pollution on Marine Wildlife,” Marine Policy 65 (2016): 107–114. [ Google Scholar ] 356. Willis K. A., Serra‐Gonçalves C., Richardson K., et al., “Cleaner Seas: Reducing Marine Pollution,” Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 32 (2022): 145–160. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 357. Xanthos D. and Walker T. R., “International Policies to Reduce Plastic Marine Pollution from Single‐Use Plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): a Review,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 118 (2017): 17–26. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 358. Amaneesh C., Anna Balan S., Silpa P. S., et al., “Gross Negligence: Impacts of Microplastics and Plastic Leachates on Phytoplankton Community and Ecosystem Dynamics,” Environmental Science & Technology 57 (2023): 5–24. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 359. Andrea V., Mpeza P., Barelos D., and Stylios C., “Unraveling the Role of Plastic Waste Pollution in the Amvrakikos wetlands National Park, Greece: The Stakeholders' Views,” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 8, no. 8 (2020): 549, 10.3390/jmse8080549. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 360. Astner A. F., Hayes D. G., O'Neill H., et al., “Mechanical Formation of Micro‐ and Nano‐Plastic Materials for Environmental Studies in Agricultural Ecosystems,” Science of The Total Environment 685 (2019): 1097–1106. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 361. Azevedo‐Santos V. M., Brito M. F. G., Manoel P. S., et al., “Plastic Pollution: A Focus on Freshwater Biodiversity,” Ambio 50, no. 7 (2021): 1313–1324, 10.1007/s13280-020-01496-5. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 362. Bandopadhyay S., Martin‐Closas L., Pelacho A. M., and DeBruyn J. M., “Biodegradable Plastic Mulch Films: Impacts on Soil Microbial Communities and Ecosystem Functions,” Frontiers in Microbiology 9 (2018): 819. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 363. Blettler M. C. M., Ulla M. A., Rabuffetti A. P., and Garello N., “Plastic Pollution in Freshwater Ecosystems: Macro‐, Meso‐, and Microplastic Debris in a Floodplain Lake,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 189 (2017): 581. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 364. Chae Y. and An Y.‐J., “Current Research Trends on Plastic Pollution and Ecological Impacts on the Soil Ecosystem: a Review,” Environmental Pollution 240 (2018): 387–395. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 365. Chen X., Huang X., Zhang K., and Wu C., “Feasibility of Using Plastic Wastes as Constructed Wetland Substrates and Potential for Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products Removal,” Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A 55, no. 10 (2020): 1241–1246, 10.1080/10934529.2020.1784657. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 366. Dris R., Imhof H., Sanchez W., et al., “Beyond the Ocean: Contamination of Freshwater Ecosystems with (micro‐)Plastic Particles,” Environmental Chemistry 12 (2015): 539–550. [ Google Scholar ] 367. Fan P., Yu H., Xi B., and Tan W., “A Review on the Occurrence and Influence of Biodegradable Microplastics in Soil Ecosystems: Are Biodegradable Plastics Substitute or Threat?,” Environment International 163 (2022): 107244. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 368. Guimarães A. T. B., Charlie‐Silva I., and Malafaia G., “Toxic Effects of Naturally‐Aged Microplastics on Zebrafish Juveniles: a More Realistic Approach to Plastic Pollution in Freshwater Ecosystems,” Journal of Hazardous Materials 407 (2021): 124833. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 369. Hurley R., Horton A., Lusher A., and Nizzetto L., “Plastic Waste in the Terrestrial Environment,” Plastic Waste and Recycling (Elsevier, 2020): 163. [ Google Scholar ] 370. Joos L. and de Tender C., “Soil under Stress: the Importance of Soil Life and How It Is Influenced by (micro)Plastic Pollution,” Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 20 (2022): 1554–1566. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 371. Kasavan S., Yusoff S., Rahmat Fakri M. F., and Siron R., “Plastic Pollution in Water Ecosystems: A Bibliometric Analysis from 2000 to 2020,” Journal of Cleaner Production 313 (2021): 127946. [ Google Scholar ] 372. Koskei K., Munyasya A. N., Wang Y.‐B., et al., “Effects of Increased Plastic Film Residues on Soil Properties and Crop Productivity in Agro‐Ecosystem,” Journal of Hazardous Materials 414 (2021): 125521. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 373. Kumar R., Verma A., Shome A., et al., “Impacts of Plastic Pollution on Ecosystem Services, Sustainable Development Goals, and Need to Focus on Circular Economy and Policy Interventions,” Sustainability 13, no. 17 (2021): 9963, 10.3390/su13179963. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 374. MacLean J., Mayanna S., Benning L. G., et al., “The Terrestrial Plastisphere: Diversity and Polymer‐Colonizing Potential of Plastic‐Associated Microbial Communities in Soil,” Microorganisms 9, no. 9 (2021): 1876, 10.3390/microorganisms9091876. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 375. Malizia A. and Monmany‐Garzia A. C., “Terrestrial Ecologists Should Stop Ignoring Plastic Pollution in the Anthropocene Time,” Science of The Total Environment 668 (2019): 1025–1029. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 376. Mo A., Zhang Y., Gao W., Jiang J., and He D., “Environmental Fate and Impacts of Biodegradable Plastics in Agricultural Soil Ecosystems,” Applied Soil Ecology 181 (2023): 104667. [ Google Scholar ] 377. Qadeer A., Ajmal Z., Usman M., Zhao X., and Chang S., “Agricultural Plastic Mulching as a Potential Key Source of Microplastic Pollution in the Terrestrial Ecosystem and Consequences,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 175 (2021): 105855. [ Google Scholar ] 378. Schell T., Rico A., and Vighi M., “Occurrence, Fate and Fluxes of Plastics and Microplastics in Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecosystems,” Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 250 (2020): 1–43, 10.1007/398_2019_40. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 379. Strungaru S.‐A., Jijie R., Nicoara M., Plavan G., and Faggio C., “Micro‐ (nano) Plastics in Freshwater Ecosystems: Abundance, Toxicological Impact and Quantification Methodology,” TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 110 (2019): 116–128. [ Google Scholar ] 380. Susanti N. K. Y., Mardiastuti A., and Wardiatno Y., “Microplastics and the Impact of Plastic on Wildlife: A Literature Review,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 528, no. 1 (2020): 012013, 10.1088/1755-1315/528/1/012013. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 381. Tudor V. C., Mocuta D. N., Teodorescu R. F., and Smedescu D. I., “The Issue of Plastic and Microplastic Pollution in Soil,” Materiale Plastice 56, no. 3 (2019): 484–487. [ Google Scholar ] 382. Ullah R., Tsui M. T.‐K., Chow A., Chen H., Williams C., and Ligaba‐Osena A., “Micro(nano)Plastic Pollution in Terrestrial Ecosystem: Emphasis on Impacts of Polystyrene on Soil Biota, Plants, Animals, and Humans,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 195 (2022): 252. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 383. Wang W., Yuan W., Xu E. G., Li L., Zhang H., and Yang Y., “Uptake, Translocation, and Biological Impacts of Micro(nano)Plastics in Terrestrial Plants: Progress and Prospects,” Environmental Research 203 (2022): 111867. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 384. Yu J., Adingo S., Liu X., Li X., Sun J., and Zhang X., “Micro Plastics in Soil Ecosystem—A Review of Sources, Fate, and Ecological Impact,” Plant, Soil and Environment 68 (2022): 1–17. [ Google Scholar ] 385. Zhang Z., Peng W., Duan C., et al., “Microplastics Pollution from Different Plastic Mulching Years Accentuate Soil Microbial Nutrient Limitations,” Gondwana Research 108 (2022): 91–101. [ Google Scholar ] 386. Zhao S., Zhu L., and Li D., “Microscopic Anthropogenic Litter in Terrestrial Birds from Shanghai, China: Not Only Plastics but Also Natural Fibers,” Science of The Total Environment 550 (2016): 1110–1115. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 387. Zhao Z.‐Y., Wang P.‐Y., Wang Y.‐B., et al., “Fate of Plastic Film Residues in Agro‐Ecosystem and Its Effects on Aggregate‐Associated Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Stocks,” Journal of Hazardous Materials 416 (2021): 125954. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 388. Abril Ortiz A., Sucozhañay D., Vanegas P., and Martínez‐Moscoso A., “A Regional Response to a Global Problem: Single Use Plastics Regulation in the Countries of the Pacific Alliance,” Sustainability 12 (2020): 8093. [ Google Scholar ] 389. Bahl M., Dua S., Patro A., and Mahajan N., “Don't Transfer Waste, Transform Waste: A Sustainable Approach towards Zero Waste Events Initiative during the Hockey World Cup in Bhubaneshwar, India,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 795, no. 1 (2021): 012018. [ Google Scholar ] 390. Carlini G. and Kleine K., “Advancing the International Regulation of Plastic Pollution beyond the United Nations Environment Assembly Resolution on Marine Litter and Microplastics,” Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 27 (2018): 234–244. [ Google Scholar ] 391. Conlon K., “Adaptive Injustice: Responsibility to Act in the Plastics Economy,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 153 (2020): 104563. [ Google Scholar ] 392. Garcia B., Fang M. M., and Lin J., “Marine Plastic Pollution in Asia: All Hands on Deck!,” Chinese Journal of Environmental Law 3 (2019): 11–46. [ Google Scholar ] 393. Handley M. A., “Confronting the Plasticine: Promise in a World Wrapped in Plastic,” Lancet Planetary Health 6 (2022): e709–e711. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 394. Hoang T. C., “Plastic Pollution: Where Are We Regarding Research and Risk Assessment in Support of Management and Regulation?,” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 18 (2022): 851–852. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 395. Hsu W.‐T., Domenech T., and McDowall W., “Closing the Loop on Plastics in Europe: The Role of Data, Information and Knowledge,” Sustainable Production and Consumption 33 (2022): 942–951. [ Google Scholar ] 396. Jobin P., “Our ‘Good Neighbor’ Formosa Plastics: Petrochemical Damage(s) and the Meanings of Money,” Environmental Sociology 7 (2021): 40–53. [ Google Scholar ] 397. Kim T. and Lee S.‐D., “Designing for Green and Grey: Insights from Single‐Use Plastic Water Bottles,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 3 (2022): 1423, 10.3390/ijerph19031423. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 398. Liboiron M., Zahara A., Hawkins K., et al., “Abundance and Types of Plastic Pollution in Surface Waters in the Eastern Arctic (Inuit Nunangat) and the Case for Reconciliation Science,” Science of The Total Environment 782 (2021): 146809. [ Google Scholar ] 399. Mah A., “Future‐Proofing Capitalism: The Paradox of the Circular Economy for Plastics,” Global Environmental Politics 21 (2021): 121–142. [ Google Scholar ] 400. Owens K. A. and Conlon K., “Mopping up or Turning off the Tap? Environmental Injustice and the Ethics of Plastic Pollution,” Frontiers in Marine Science 8 (2021): 713385. [ Google Scholar ] 401. Poto M. P., Elvevoll E. O., Sundset M. A., Eilertsen K.‐E., Morel M., and Jensen I.‐J., “Suggestions for a Systematic Regulatory Approach to Ocean Plastics,” Foods 10, no. 9 (2021): 2197, 10.3390/foods10092197. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 402. Saputra K. A. K., Manurung D. T. H., Rachmawati L., Siskawati E., and Genta F. K., “Combining the Concept of Green Accounting with the Regulation of Prohibition of Disposable Plastic Use,” International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy 11 (2021): 84–90. [ Google Scholar ] 403. Shirley L. M., Aprile M., Byrne H., Jessup B., and Liu S., “Unwrapping Victoria's General Environmental Duty to Plastics Communities: Synthetic Statutes,” Alternative Law Journal 47 (2022): 204–210. [ Google Scholar ] 404. Steensgaard I. M., Syberg K., Rist S., Hartmann N. B., Boldrin A., and Hansen S. F., “From Macro‐ to Microplastics—Analysis of EU Regulation along the Life Cycle of Plastic Bags,” Environmental Pollution 224 (2017): 289–299. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 405. Tan W., Cui D., and Xi B., “Moving Policy and Regulation Forward for Single‐Use Plastic Alternatives,” Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering 15, no. 3 (2021): 50, 10.1007/s11783-021-1423-5. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 406. Tessnow‐von Wysocki I. and Billon P. L., “Plastics at Sea: Treaty Design for a Global Solution to Marine Plastic Pollution,” Environmental Science & Policy 100 (2019): 94–104. [ Google Scholar ] 407. Wang E., Miao C., and Chen X., “Circular Economy and the Changing Geography of International Trade in Plastic Waste,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 22 (2022): 15020, 10.3390/ijerph192215020. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 408. Bagai A. and Henam S. D., “Beating Plastic Pollution: UNEP's Priorities and Partnership in India,” Environmental Policy and Law 51 (2021): 265–269. [ Google Scholar ] 409. Bank M. S., Swarzenski P. W., Duarte C. M., et al., “Global Plastic Pollution Observation System to Aid Policy,” Environmental Science & Technology 55 (2021): 7770–7775. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 410. Barrowclough D. and Birkbeck C., “Transforming the Global Plastics Economy: the Role of Economic Policies in the Global Governance of Plastic Pollution,” Social Sciences 11 (2022): 26. [ Google Scholar ] 411. Duong V., Ahmed A., and Farook O., “A Model Template Green Environment Initiative for Recycling Plastic Bottles with Progressive Entrepreneurship Partnership,” in 2018 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology , (IEEE, 2018): 1 ff. [ Google Scholar ] 412. Fadeeva Z. and van Berkel R., “‘Unlocking Circular Economy for Prevention of Marine Plastic Pollution: An Exploration of G20 Policy and Initiatives’,” Journal of Environmental Management 277 (2021): 111457. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 413. Finska L. and Howden J. G., “Troubled Waters—Where Is the Bridge? Confronting Marine Plastic Pollution from International Watercourses,” Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 27 (2018): 245–253. [ Google Scholar ] 414. Freeman S., Booth A. M., Sabbah I., et al., “Between Source and Sea: The Role of Wastewater Treatment in Reducing Marine Microplastics,” Journal of Environmental Management 266 (2020): 110642. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 415. Galaiduk R., Lebreton L., Techera E., and Reisser J., “Transnational Plastics: an Australian Case for Global Action,” Frontiers in Environmental Science 8 (2020): 115, 10.3389/fenvs.2020.00115. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 416. Haward M., “Plastic Pollution of the World's Seas and Oceans as a Contemporary Challenge in Ocean Governance,” Nature Communications 9 (2018): 667. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 417. Kandziora J. H., van Toulon N., Sobral P., et al., “The Important Role of Marine Debris Networks to Prevent and Reduce Ocean Plastic Pollution,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 141 (2019): 657–662. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 418. Kuan S. H., Low F. S., and Chieng S., “Towards Regional Cooperation on Sustainable Plastic Recycling: Comparative Analysis of Plastic Waste Recycling Policies and Legislations in Japan and Malaysia,” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 24 (2022): 761–777. [ Google Scholar ] 419. Landon‐Lane M., “Corporate Social Responsibility in Marine Plastic Debris Governance,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 127 (2018): 310–319. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 420. Lamontagne N. D., “Plastics Testing: Tackling New Challenges: Equipment Options and Regulations Are Influencing How to Test Materials, and What to Test for,” Plastics Engineering 71, no. 5 (2015): 22–26. [ Google Scholar ] 421. Li C., Wang L., Zhao J., et al., “The Collapse of Global Plastic Waste Trade: Structural Change, Cascading Failure Process and Potential Solutions,” Journal of Cleaner Production 314 (2021): 127935. [ Google Scholar ] 422. Nielsen T. D., Hasselbalch J., Holmberg K., and Stripple J., “Politics and the Plastic Crisis: A Review throughout the Plastic Life Cycle,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment 9, no. 1 (2020): 360, 10.1002/wene.360. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 423. Raubenheimer K. and Urho N., “Rethinking Global Governance of Plastics—The Role of Industry,” Marine Policy 113 (2020): 103802. [ Google Scholar ] 424. Shah K. U., Niles K., Ali S. H., Surroop D., and Jaggeshar D., “Plastics Waste Metabolism in a Petro‐Island State: Towards Solving a “Wicked Problem” in Trinidad and Tobago,” Sustainability 11, no. 23 (2019): 6580, 10.3390/su11236580. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 425. Shruti V. C., Pérez‐Guevara F., Roy P. D., and Kutralam‐Muniasamy G., “Strengthening Citizen Science Partnerships with Frontline Sanitation Personnel to Study and Tackle Plastic Pollution,” Environmental Science & Policy 137 (2022): 70–74. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 426. Stuchtey M. R., Dixon B., Danielson J., Hale J., Wiplinger D., and Bai P., “Project STOP: City Partnerships to Prevent Ocean Plastics in Indonesia,” Field Actions Science Reports 19 (2019): 86–91. [ Google Scholar ] 427. Sun J., Fang C., Chen Z., and Chen G., “Regional Cooperation in Marine Plastic Waste Cleanup in the South China Sea Region,” Sustainability 13, no. 16 (2021): 9221, 10.3390/su13169221. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 428. Flourish , 2024, https://flourish.studio/ . 429. World Economic Forum , To Decarbonise Plastics by 2050, We Need to Act Today, 2023, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/02/decarbonising‐plastics‐europe‐2050‐green‐deal/ . 430. OECD , The Circular Economy in Cities and Regions of the European Union, 2025, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/the‐circular‐economy‐in‐cities‐and‐regions‐of‐the‐european‐union_e09c21e2‐en.html . 431. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Plastic pollution and disasters , 2024, https://www.undrr.org/implementing‐sendai‐framework/sendai‐framework‐action/plastic‐pollution‐and‐disasters . 432. European Parliament , Plastic in the Ocean: The Facts, Effects and New EU Rules | Topics | European Parliament, 2025, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20181005STO15110/plastic‐in‐the‐ocean‐the‐facts‐effects‐and‐new‐eu‐rules . 433. Hyman S., Acevedo J., Giannarelli C., and Trasande L., “Phthalate Exposure from Plastics and Cardiovascular Disease: Global Estimates of Attributable Mortality and Years Life Lost,” eBioMedicine 117 (2025): 105730. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 434. Cottom J. W., Cook E., and Velis C. A., “A Local‐to‐Global Emissions Inventory of Macroplastic Pollution,” Nature 633 (2024): 101–108. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 435. Liu Y., Huang B., Guo H., and Liu J., “A Big Data Approach to Assess Progress towards Sustainable Development Goals for Cities of Varying Sizes,” Communications Earth & Environment 4, no. 1 (2023): 66, 10.1038/s43247-023-00730-8. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 436. Huan Y., Liang T., Li H., and Zhang C., “A Systematic Method for Assessing Progress of Achieving Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study of 15 Countries,” Science of The Total Environment 752 (2021): 141875. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 437. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Design and the circular economy , 2025, https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular‐design/overview . 438. Li K., Ward H., Lin H. X., and Tukker A., “Economic Viability Requires Higher Recycling Rates for Imported Plastic Waste Than Expected,” Nature Communications 15 (2024): 7578. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 439. Barford A. and Ahmad S. R., “A Call for a Socially Restorative Circular Economy: Waste Pickers in the Recycled Plastics Supply Chain,” Circular Economy and Sustainability 1 (2021): 761–782. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 440. Venkatachalam V., Spierling S., and Endres H.‐J., “Recyclable, but Not Recycled—An Indicator to Quantify the Environmental Impacts of Plastic Waste Disposal,” Frontiers in Environmental Science 12 (2024): 1316530, 10.3389/fenvs.2024.1316530. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 441. Medupin R. O., Yoro K. O., Ukoba K., Eterigho‐Ikelegbe O., and Jen T.‐C., “Role of Regulatory Frameworks in Plastic Waste Value Chain and Management,” Environmental Challenges 19 (2025): 101119. [ Google Scholar ] 442. Darko C., Yung P. W. S., Chen A., and Acquaye A., “Review and Recommendations for Sustainable Pathways of Recycling Commodity Plastic Waste across Different Economic Regions,” Resources, Environment and Sustainability 14 (2023): 100134. [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Supporting File 1 : gch270099‐sup‐0001‐SuppMat.docx. GCH2-10-e00033-s001.docx (77.3MB, docx) Supporting File 2 : gch270099‐sup‐0002‐SuppMat.pdf. GCH2-10-e00033-s002.pdf (1.9MB, pdf) Data Availability Statement The authors have nothing to report. Articles from Global Challenges are provided here courtesy of Wiley ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (3.9 MB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Genomic safety, bacteriocinogenic potential, and probiotic-associated traits of Enterococcus lactis LBM-M3D isolated from the swine gastrointestinal tract.#1001257
• Impact of leadership styles on safety performance in risky workplaces: a meta-analysis.#1001258
• Use behavior and spatial characteristics of National Fitness Routes in China: an in situ observational study.#1001259
• Temporal GWAS and QTL mapping of UAV-derived digital canopy height reveals stage-specific genetic effects in bread wheat.#1001260
• Traditional Chinese medicine reimbursement reform in China: implementation progress, policy constraints, and optimization strategies.#1001261