The field needs a foundation built on transparency, not consensus.
A multi-stakeholder educational initiative for government, industry, and NGOs — documenting where stakeholders agree and disagree on chemical recycling, without seeking to resolve the differences.
For three years, Circle by OPLN has convened diverse stakeholders — twelve multinational petrochemical companies, six multinational consumer brands, technical experts, and environmental NGOs — around the opportunities, challenges, and governance of chemical recycling. Acting as neutral secretariat, Circle has facilitated a body of work that culminated in the SCS Certification Standard for Responsible Chemical Recycling (SCS-004), launching June 2026. The Chemical Recycling 201 Initiative is the next chapter: a neutral, multi-stakeholder educational resource built for the decisions that lie ahead.
The expedition that revealed the gap.
72
leaders on the expedition, crossing industry, government, and civil society
4
technology types visited: pyrolysis, solvolysis, dissolution, and refinery-adjacent
20
government participants from state and federal agencies
In April 2026, Circle organized an Advanced Chemical, Molecular and Physical Recycling Study Expedition. Seventy-two leaders boarded a chartered aircraft and visited four distinct technology types across multiple facilities: refinery-adjacent pyrolysis, standalone pyrolysis, solvolysis (methanolysis), and dissolution (physical). The itinerary included community tours and conversations in public areas adjacent to the plants.
Government feedback was unambiguous: the expedition strengthened understanding of different technology types, feedstock characteristics, yield calculation methodologies, upstream sortation requirements, and community impact. Participants described it as invaluable “101-level” learning — and consistently identified the need for what they called “201-level” engagement.
That next level would cover: stakeholder perspectives on technologies, feedstock availability and product markets, measurement methodologies and transparency mechanisms, how technologies appear in policy, and ongoing research on environmental impact and yield optimization. But the deepest insight was structural, not topical: stakeholders bring fundamentally different values, priorities, and interpretations of the same information — underscoring the need for a transparent resource documenting areas of agreement and disagreement without seeking to resolve those differences.
The purpose is education, not advocacy.
The Chemical Recycling 201 Initiative will create a trusted, neutral educational resource for government officials, industry, NGOs, academics, and other stakeholders navigating chemical recycling.
What it is not is equally important. The initiative is not intended to advocate for or against any technology, company, policy outcome, or regulatory approach. It will document, not argue. It will identify areas of stakeholder consensus, areas of disagreement, key scientific findings, existing standards and definitions, and policy and implementation considerations.
Areas of Broad Agreement
Where evidence and experience point stakeholders toward shared conclusions.
Areas of Ongoing Debate
Where values, priorities, and assumptions lead to different interpretations of the same data.
Areas Requiring Additional Research
Where the evidence base is incomplete, contested, or still developing.
This framework — perspective mapping — provides transparency not just on facts, but on the perspectives and assumptions that shape how different stakeholders interpret those facts. Every position is attributed to the stakeholder group that holds it.
Four objectives anchor the initiative.
I
Develop a shared educational foundation
Accessible resources on technologies, terminology, opportunities, limitations, and policy implications — built for stakeholders entering the conversation at any level.
II
Improve transparency
Access to information on technology performance, operational considerations, environmental impacts, and community concerns — documented openly and attributed clearly.
III
Clarify areas of consensus and disagreement
Document where stakeholders align and where they differ — on performance, outcomes, methodologies, regulatory approaches, and market applications.
IV
Support better decision-making
A trusted source for government, NGOs, and industry to support policy design, rulemaking, research priorities, and investment decisions.
The scope covers seven knowledge domains.
The initiative will build a structured, multi-stakeholder knowledge base spanning the full landscape of chemical recycling — from technology fundamentals to policy frameworks, from environmental performance to community impact.
Domain 01
Technology Profiles
Conversion (pyrolysis), depolymerization (solvolysis), dissolution (physical), and other emerging technologies.
Domain 02
Technology Diagrams
Process flows, feedstock pathways, product pathways, and system boundaries for each technology type.
Domain 03
Definitions and Terminology
Industry, regulatory, and international definitions, plus key technical concepts that shape how the field communicates.
Domain 04
Standards and Methodologies
ISO, ASTM, life cycle assessment, mass balance, and chain-of-custody frameworks and their applications.
Domain 05
Environmental Performance
Emissions, energy use, material efficiency, carbon accounting, and published LCA findings across technology types.
Domain 06
Environmental Justice and Community
Community engagement approaches, facility siting considerations, EJ concerns, and transparency and reporting mechanisms.
Domain 07
Policy and Regulatory Landscape
State, federal, and international frameworks, implementation considerations, and how chemical recycling technologies intersect with existing and emerging policy.
A platform built for every stakeholder, not just funders.
The initiative will deliver an interactive digital platform with two core elements — designed to be broadly accessible to government, NGOs, researchers, industry, and the public.
Transparent Repository
A structured, searchable collection of scientific papers, technical studies, fact sheets, industry submissions, NGO position papers, regulatory guidance, legislative materials, standards documentation, educational videos, and diagrams.
Modeled on Circle’s Circular Policy Guide at legislatorsguide.circlenetwork.co — organized for navigation, not persuasion.
Interactive Experience
A layer for navigating complex topics: ask questions, synthesize information across sources, and prepare for stakeholder meetings — with the perspective mapping framework built into every response.
Designed for the government official preparing for a hearing, the NGO analyst building a position paper, or the industry team evaluating a new investment.
Access is not limited to funding participants. The platform is broadly available to government, NGOs, researchers, industry, and the public. The initiative serves the field, not a membership.
Independence is designed into the governance.
Circle serves as secretariat and project manager — convening stakeholders, facilitating dialogue, coordinating content development, managing the platform, and ensuring diverse perspectives are represented. The initiative is funded by industry, but editorial independence is maintained by design.
The Multi-Stakeholder Contributor Council brings together 21–30 organizations across three equal constituencies:
7–10
Industry
Petrochemical companies, consumer brands, converters, and technology providers.
7–10
Environmental NGOs
Advocacy organizations, community groups, and environmental justice representatives.
7–10
Technical & Scientific
Academics, researchers, engineers, LCA experts, standards bodies, and certification bodies.
The council is advisory only. Contributors inform, review, and provide perspective — but hold no approval, rejection, blocking, or veto power over content. Editorial decisions rest with Circle as secretariat.
Government engagement will be structured through a third-party nonprofit (to be determined), focused on education rather than advocacy. This separation ensures that government participants can engage with the resource without the perception of industry influence on public decision-making.
Foundation
Nine principles guide every decision.
The initiative’s value depends on trust. These principles are the architecture of that trust — they govern what gets published, how disagreement is handled, and who has access.
Transparency
All sources, methods, and perspectives are visible and documented.
Scientific and Technical Rigor
Content is grounded in peer-reviewed research and established methodologies.
Multi-Stakeholder Participation
Industry, NGOs, and technical experts contribute on equal footing.
No Consensus Requirement
Disagreement is documented, not smoothed over or forced to resolution.
Independence
Editorial decisions are not subject to funder approval or blocking.
Attribution and Perspective Mapping
Every position is attributed to the stakeholder group that holds it.
Accessibility
Resources are available to all stakeholders, not limited to participants.
Continuous Improvement
Content evolves as new research, data, and stakeholder input emerge.
Educational Purpose
The initiative informs decision-making. It does not advocate.