A living knowledge platform built for the four groups shaping this field — it shows what each knows, where they agree, where they disagree, and the evidence behind every position.
For IndustryFor Environmental NGOsFor GovernmentFor Technical & ScientificConvened by Circle
The Core Idea
We are not trying to get everyone to agree
Plenty of efforts have tried to build consensus around these technologies. That is not the goal here. The platform gives people four things they can’t find in one place anywhere else:
🗺
Transparent perspective maps
Who says what. Industry, NGOs, scientists, and government, named and shown side by side.
✓
Areas of agreement
The places where groups with very different values actually line up, written down instead of assumed.
≠
Areas of disagreement
Where views split, and why. The disagreement is laid out plainly, not smoothed over.
📚
Evidence for each position
The studies, standards, and source documents behind each viewpoint, one click away.
The Origin Story
How we got here: four years, three phases
The ACMP 201 Initiative didn’t come out of nowhere. It is the next step in work Circle has been convening since 2022, work that produced formal industry guidelines and led to a certification standard.
0
years of convening
0
phases of work
0
organizations + NGOs at the first table
0
certification standard that followed
Phase 1 · Circle convenes
The Responsible Production Guidelines
Circle brought together a deliberately mixed group:
4 Multinational consumer brands
1 Multinational converter
4 Multinational petrochemical companies
2 Advanced recycling companies
+ Environmental NGOs
Outcome
Responsible Production Guidelines for Advanced Chemical, Molecular & Physical Recycling, the document that became the starting point for the SCS standard.
The job was to figure out whether the Guidelines could become a formal certification standard.
Outcome
The technical groundwork for a formal standard was in place.
Phase 3 · SCS leads independently
A formal certification standard
SCS ran the formal standards process on its own, without Circle. A certification standard has to be independent, so Circle stepped back.
Outcome
The SCS Certification Standard for Responsible Chemical Recycling (SCS‑004), launching June 2026.
Circle was the neutral secretariat that brands, petrochemical companies, recyclers, and environmental NGOs all trusted enough to sit at one table. That trust is why Circle is the right convener for the next phase: ACMP 201.
April 2026 · The Study Expedition
What 72 leaders asked for after seeing it firsthand
In April 2026, Circle chartered an aircraft and took 72 participants to see these facilities in person. The group covered the full ecosystem, including organizations that deeply disagree with each other about these technologies. Between plant tours, participants sat down with people from the surrounding communities. The diagrams below are the infographics from Circle’s ACMP key-terms brief. Tap any one to open the full version.
Depolymerization breaks polymers back down to their monomers. This visit focused on methanolysis, which can recover material of virgin-equivalent quality.
A physical process, often grouped with chemical recycling, that dissolves and purifies polymers without breaking their chemical bonds.
🔒
The expedition ran under Chatham House Rules, so we can’t say who said what. What we can say is that the same request kept coming up, from supporters and skeptics alike: people wanted a 201-level educational resource.
From 101 to 201
The expedition was the 101. People asked for the 201.
Government attendees told us the value was seeing things firsthand instead of reading about them. They came away with a working baseline, and a clear list of what they still needed to learn.
✓The differences between technology types
✓The differences between feedstock types
✓Different methodologies for calculating yield
✓The importance of upstream sortation & the role of waste management and recycling services
✓The tangible impact to communities
→Stakeholder perspectives on the various technologies
→Where research on environmental impact & yield optimization is ongoing
Stakeholders bring different values, different priorities, and different readings of the same information. What’s needed is a resource that documents the agreement and the disagreement honestly, without trying to settle either.
The idea behind the ACMP 201 Initiative
Initiative Purpose
A neutral educational resource, not an advocacy campaign
The ACMP 201 Initiative will build a trusted, neutral educational resource for government officials, industry, NGOs, academics, and anyone else who wants a deeper understanding of advanced chemical, molecular & physical recycling.
It does not argue for or against any technology, company, policy outcome, or regulatory approach. Its job is to bring the right people together and compile the best available information through an open process: where stakeholders agree, where they disagree, the key scientific findings, the standards and definitions already in use, and the policy questions in play, with the evidence behind each position.
Core Objectives
What the initiative sets out to do
1
Build a shared educational foundation
Plain-language resources that explain the technologies, the terminology, what these processes can and can’t do, and what they mean for policy.
2
Improve transparency
Open up information on how these technologies perform, how they operate, their environmental impacts, and the concerns communities have raised.
3
Show where people agree and disagree
Document where stakeholders line up and where they part ways: on performance, environmental outcomes, measurement, regulation, and markets.
4
Support better decisions
Give policymakers, researchers, and investors a source they can rely on when they design policy, write rules, or commit money.
What’s In Scope
The technologies this guide covers
Advanced recycling isn’t one thing. It’s a family of very different processes. The guide focuses on the primary technologies running in the U.S. today, grouped by what each one actually does to the plastic.
Thermal breakdown
Conversion
Heat breaks mixed plastics down into oils and gases that become feedstock for new material.
PyrolysisRefinery-adjacent pyrolysisGasification
Chemical breakdown
Depolymerization
Chemistry unzips polymers back to their monomers, the building blocks of new, virgin-quality plastic.
MethanolysisGlycolysisHydrolysis
No bonds broken
Physical
The plastic is dissolved and purified, then re-formed. Its chemical structure never changes.
Dissolution
These are the primary advanced recycling technologies operating in the U.S. today, and the guide’s starting focus. Coverage grows as the landscape evolves and new technologies emerge.
Key Terms
A shared vocabulary for the debate
Stakeholders often use the same words to mean different things, and that creates confusion and mistrust. These plain-language definitions, adapted from Circle’s ACMP key-terms brief, give everyone a common starting point. They are a baseline for dialogue, not an endorsement of any technology or position.
The point is to move away from vague umbrella terms toward clear definitions for the real end-of-life options for plastic waste.
1
End-of-life options for plastic waste
Landfilling
Engineered facilities where solid waste is buried or stored, with liners, leachate collection, and gas management to protect soil, air, and water. No materials are recovered for further use.
Incineration Waste-to-energy
Controlled high-temperature combustion that shrinks waste volume and generates heat, usually for electricity or steam. For plastics this mostly produces combustion gases and ash; no materials are recovered.
Recycling General
Collecting, sorting, and processing discarded materials into feedstocks for new products or packaging. It can include both mechanical and non-mechanical approaches when they return material to productive use under policy definitions and standards.
Mechanical recycling
Physical steps such as shredding, grinding, washing, melting, and pelletizing that prepare plastic for reuse without changing its chemical structure. It is the backbone of today’s plastics recycling.
Conversion technologies Non-mechanical
Mature in other industries, these use high temperatures (and sometimes limited oxygen) to break plastics into hydrocarbon liquids and gases. Stakeholders disagree on when this should count as “recycling,” especially where the outputs are burned as fuel rather than turned back into plastic.
PyrolysisHigh-temperature processing in the near-absence of oxygen, producing liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons that can be used as feedstocks or refined into fuels, plastics, and other products.
GasificationHigh-temperature processing with a controlled amount of oxygen or steam, converting plastic and other carbon-rich waste into synthesis gas (syngas) for energy or as a chemical building block.
Depolymerization technologies Non-mechanical
These reverse the original polymerization to recover the plastic’s monomers.
Solvent-based depolymerizationUses chemicals such as glycolysis, methanolysis, or hydrolysis to break polymers like PET or nylon into their building blocks (monomers or oligomers), which can be re-polymerized into new plastic. Limited in the range of plastics it can handle.
Enzymatic depolymerizationUses enzymes to break polymers like PET or nylon into their building blocks, which can then be re-polymerized into new plastic.
Dissolution Physical
A physical process, often grouped with these technologies, that dissolves and purifies the polymer without breaking its chemical bonds. The plastic comes back intact.
2
Tracking recycled content: chain of custody
Chain of custody
An agreed method for tracking inputs and outputs as materials move through a value chain, backed by records and audits so third parties can verify the claims.
Controlled blending
Certified and non-certified materials are physically mixed in known proportions, and outputs are certified in proportion to the certified share entering the process.
Mass balance accounting
Certified and non-certified materials may comingle, but the certified attributes are tracked and allocated to outputs by predefined rules. Which rules apply changes what a recycled-content claim means.
Free-allocationThe most flexible approach: recycled-content attributions can be reallocated across any process outputs, minus process losses.
Fuel-exempt (non-proportional)Recycled-content credits can be reattributed among outputs, but fuel and energy outputs are excluded and treated as losses.
ProportionalCredits are assigned to every output at the same proportion as the recycled input, with no reattribution or credit transfers.
Book and claim
Certified attributes such as recycled content are traded as certificates, separate from the physical flow of materials. The buyer “claims” the attribute even if the material they actually receive is not the certified material.
Scope of Work
A comprehensive knowledge repository
The repository is planned around eight areas. Tap any of them to see what it covers.
Conversion (focus on pyrolysis)
Depolymerization (focus on solvolysis)
Dissolution (physical process grouped with chemical recycling)
Other emerging chemical recycling technologies
Focus reflects today’s market and expands as the landscape evolves.
Process flow diagrams
Feedstock pathways
Product pathways
System boundary illustrations
Commonly used industry terminology
Regulatory definitions
International definitions
Key technical concepts
ISO standards and definitions
Relevant ASTM standards
Lifecycle assessment methodologies
Mass balance approaches
Chain-of-custody systems
Other recognized technical standards
Emissions considerations
Energy use
Material efficiency
Carbon accounting approaches
Lifecycle assessment findings
Community engagement approaches
Facility siting considerations
Environmental justice concerns
Transparency & reporting practices
State policy approaches
Federal policy developments
International frameworks
Regulatory implementation considerations
Scientific papers & technical studies
Fact sheets & industry submissions
NGO position papers
Regulatory guidance & legislative materials
Standards documentation
Educational videos & diagrams
How the Platform Works
How information moves from source to answer
Every answer on the platform comes through the same pipeline. Nothing enters the repository without attribution and review, and nothing reaches a user without its sources attached.
📜
Research & Source MaterialsScientific literature, standards, industry submissions, NGO position papers, regulatory guidance, and legislative materials.
🗺
Stakeholder Perspective MappingFor each topic we map who says what, why, and on what evidence. Agreement and disagreement sit side by side.
⚖
Editorial ReviewCircle’s team reviews everything for balance and accuracy, with input from the Advisory Council. Attribution is checked. No contributor can veto content.
📚
Structured Knowledge RepositoryOrganized, attributed, and searchable. This library sits underneath everything else on the platform.
✨
ACMP Circle Guide interfaceAsk a question in plain English and get an answer drawn from the full repository, with perspectives, evidence, and sources built in.
🌎
Who it servesAn open educational resource. Access is not limited to the organizations that fund it.
GovernmentNGOsIndustryResearchersPublic
Ecosystem-Based Knowledge System
Introducing the ACMP Circle Guide
Your definitive guide to Advanced Chemical, Molecular & Physical Recycling: a semantic-network-powered knowledge system delivering best-in-class intelligence on ACMP technologies, expert insights, and stakeholder-level sentiment and interpretation. Built to evolve with the industry and government landscape, and to meet the needs of professionals across industry, NGO, technology, government, and research.
Ask questions in plain languageExplore stakeholder perspectivesReview the evidenceSee agreement & disagreementPrepare for government & stakeholder discussions
ACMP Circle Guide · 201Interactive preview
Try a question
What environmental justice concerns come up around these facilities?
Overview
Like other industrial operations, advanced recycling facilities are often sited in or near communities that already carry a heavy pollution burden. Environmental justice asks two questions: who bears the local effects (air emissions, truck traffic, noise), and who has a real voice in siting and permitting decisions. The facts of a specific site — its actual emissions, its location, its community engagement — matter far more here than any generalization about the technology.
Modern facilities are engineered to meet or exceed permitted emissions limits, with continuous monitoring.
Host communities gain jobs, tax base, and local investment.
Early and ongoing community engagement is described as standard practice.
Concern that facilities cluster in low-income communities and communities of color that are already overburdened.
Question whether permitted limits capture real-world, cumulative exposure over time.
Push for meaningful community consent in siting, not just notification after the fact.
Local impact depends heavily on the specific site, technology, emission controls, and baseline conditions. It resists blanket claims.
Neighborhood-scale cumulative-impact and exposure data are often thin.
Call for independent, transparent monitoring and health-relevant metrics.
Federal and state environmental-justice policies increasingly shape permitting and siting review.
Approaches to cumulative-impact assessment vary widely from one jurisdiction to the next.
Community-input requirements differ from state to state.
Areas of agreement
Communities deserve transparency about what a facility emits.
Meaningful community engagement matters.
Site-specific facts matter more than technology-wide claims.
What counts as “meaningful” community input versus notification.
How to weigh local jobs and investment against local risk.
Evidence & source documentsGOVFederal & state EJ policyNGOCommunity & EJ position papersSCICumulative-impact & exposure studiesINDEmissions & monitoring disclosuresGOVPermitting & siting recordsCOMMCommunity engagement records
Overview
“Yield” gets reported against different numerators and denominators: plastic in versus product out, with or without char, gas, and process losses, measured at different boundaries. Two facilities with identical performance can publish different numbers, and both can be right by their own math. You have to read the methodology, not just the figure.
Yields improve a lot when feedstock quality improves, which is why industry keeps pointing to upstream sortation.
Prefer reporting based on usable product streams at the facility boundary.
Pre-processing losses often occur upstream, outside the facility’s battery limits.
Want whole-system yields that count sortation losses and non-product outputs.
Concern that narrow system boundaries can overstate circularity in public claims.
Call for like-for-like comparisons with mechanical recycling.
Published yields span wide ranges, and boundary definitions are rarely comparable across studies.
Standardized reporting protocols have been proposed but are not yet widely adopted.
Feedstock composition is the biggest driver of the variation.
Recycling-rate and procurement rules only work if everyone measures at the same point.
Several states are weighing how conversion outputs count toward recycling targets.
Agencies have flagged the need for auditable, consistent yield reporting.
Areas of agreement
System boundaries must be disclosed alongside any yield figure.
Feedstock quality drives yield, so sortation matters to everyone.
Today’s published figures are not directly comparable.
Areas of disagreement
Which system boundary is the “honest” one to report.
Whether fuel and energy outputs count toward recycling yield.
Who should bear responsibility for upstream losses.
US states have gone in different directions on how to classify advanced recycling facilities. Many have passed laws treating them as manufacturing rather than solid-waste management; others regulate them under waste frameworks. The classification matters: it determines permitting, incentive eligibility, and whether outputs count toward recycled-content and recycling targets.
Manufacturing classification provides permitting clarity and the investment certainty large facilities require.
Argue these operations are chemically closer to manufacturing than to waste disposal.
Concern that reclassification weakens environmental oversight and community input in siting decisions.
Some argue conversion-to-fuel pathways should not count as recycling in policy at all.
Classification is a policy choice, not a technical property of the process.
Researchers push for outcome-based criteria, like emissions, yield to materials, and community impact, instead of category labels.
State approaches differ and keep changing. Agencies are still working through implementation.
Federal definitions remain unsettled, and international frameworks add further variation.
Areas of agreement
Classification has real consequences for permitting, incentives, and targets.
Definitions should treat the different technology types differently, not lump them together.
Areas of disagreement
Whether manufacturing or waste classification is appropriate.
Whether fuel-producing pathways belong in recycling policy.
How much community input siting decisions should require.
This is a mockup. The answers show the format, not final content. On the live platform, every perspective comes from an attributed stakeholder submission and every source is a working link.
Stakeholder Perspective Mapping
Where stakeholders agree, and where they don’t
This is the feature that sets the platform apart: it makes disagreement visible. Every topic is mapped to one of three states. Use the filters to explore.
Badges show which stakeholders weigh in · IND · NGO · GOV · TECH
Broad agreement
Value of upstream sortation
The role of waste management & recycling services in feedstock availability is widely recognized.
INDNGOGOVTECH
Broad agreement
Need for transparency
Stakeholders broadly support clear sourcing, attribution, and disclosure of methods and data.
INDNGOGOVTECH
Broad agreement
Distinct technology types matter
Conversion, depolymerization, and dissolution are meaningfully different and shouldn’t be conflated.
INDGOVTECH
Ongoing debate
Yield calculation methodologies
How yield is defined and measured varies, and the differences matter.
INDNGOTECH
Ongoing debate
Mass balance & LCA approaches
Accounting conventions and lifecycle assumptions lead to different conclusions.
INDNGOTECH
Ongoing debate
Regulatory classification
How these technologies should appear in policy remains actively contested.
INDNGOGOV
Ongoing debate
Community & siting impacts
Interpretations of environmental-justice and community outcomes differ sharply.
NGOGOV
Needs research
Environmental impact data gaps
Ongoing research is needed on emissions, energy, and end-to-end environmental outcomes.
NGOTECH
Needs research
End-product & yield optimization
Where the science is still developing on output quality and process efficiency.
INDTECH
This map is illustrative. On the live platform, topics come from actual stakeholder submissions and are clearly attributed. The initiative documents disagreement; it does not try to settle it.
The Ask
Become a Founding Contributor
We are putting together a founding group to build and launch the platform. Here is exactly what we are asking for and what it includes.
Founding Contributor Commitment
$50,000
one-time founding commitment
Funds development of the knowledge repository, the ACMP Circle Guide, stakeholder perspective mapping, and the first year of platform operation.
Monthly contributor meetingsA standing seat in the monthly working sessions that shape scope, priorities, and progress from kickoff through launch.
🤝
Advisory participationA seat on the Advisory Council: recommend topics, flag gaps, contribute perspectives, and review draft materials.
📦
DeliverablesThe knowledge repository, the ACMP Circle Guide, and the published perspective maps. All of it launches publicly and stays maintained.
⏱
Expected timelineSix months from kickoff on September 1 to public launch on February 28. If we finish early, we launch early.
To keep the guide balanced: every contributor — industry, environmental NGO, and technical or scientific — takes part on the same terms, and Circle keeps editorial independence. Those boundaries are what let every stakeholder trust what they find here.
Implementation Roadmap
Six months from kickoff to public launch
September 1
Project kickoffThe founding group meets and confirms the scope and workplan.
September
Contributor onboardingThe Advisory Council is seated and monthly meetings begin.
October
Knowledge repository developmentSource materials are gathered, organized, and attributed. Perspective mapping begins.
November
Beta platform availableContributors get hands-on access to the repository and the ACMP Circle Guide.
December
Testing & refinementContributor feedback is worked in and the perspective maps grow.
January
Final content reviewEditorial review wraps up. Attribution is checked across the whole repository.
February 28
Public launchThe platform opens to government, NGOs, industry, researchers, and the public.
⚡
If the platform is ready early, we launch early. Six months is the outside edge, not the goal.
Governance & Independence
Built for credibility and editorial independence
The governance structure is built to protect transparency, credibility, and technical rigor, and to keep the platform current as the science moves.
⚖
Circle’s role: secretariat
Circle convenes the stakeholders, facilitates the discussions, coordinates the content, and builds and runs the platform. Circle does not decide positions or push outcomes. Its job is the process.
♢
Funding & independence
Contributors from across the ecosystem — industry, environmental NGOs, and technical or scientific organizations — support the platform on the same terms. No contributor, in any group, can approve, reject, block, or veto content, or direct regulatory engagement. Circle keeps editorial independence.
🏛
Government engagement
A third-party non-profit (to be selected) convenes state regulators to identify their priority educational needs. This work is education and information exchange only, never advocacy or policy co-design.
🛡 Guardrails that protect neutrality
Funders gain no preferential access to regulatory decision-making
No confidential government or enforcement information is solicited
Government insights incorporated only at an aggregate level
Convenings avoid specific companies’ compliance or permitting matters
Potential conflicts managed via transparent attribution
Participation implies no endorsement of any technology or company
After Launch
A living platform, not a one-time report
Launch day is the start, not the finish. The platform keeps evolving as research, standards, policies, and perspectives change.
🔄
Annual content updates
The full repository is reviewed and refreshed on an annual cycle.
📥
Ongoing submissions
Contributors continue submitting new information, research, and perspectives after launch.
🤝
Council stays active
The Advisory Council stays on after publication to guide priorities and flag gaps.
🌱
An evolving repository
New research, standards, and policy developments get added as they emerge.
Multi-Stakeholder Contributor Council
Balanced on purpose, so no single voice dominates
The Council provides ongoing guidance, in three deliberately balanced groups.
Industry representatives0
Environmental NGO representatives0
Technical & scientific contributors0
Each group: 4–7 organizations. The technical network may include academics, researchers, engineers, LCA experts, standards bodies, certification bodies, and independent SMEs.
The Council makes the content stronger and more complete, and it keeps any one group or viewpoint from dominating.
Members may recommend topics, identify information gaps, suggest resources and research, contribute perspectives, recommend experts, review draft materials, and propose updates as new findings emerge.
Broader Stakeholder Participation
Open beyond the Council
The resource is open to everyone, and there are plenty of ways to take part beyond a Council seat.
Open access to information, resources, and submissions wherever possible, with sources clearly identified and attributed.
Materials draw on the scientific literature, recognized standards, technical expertise, and established methodologies. The Technical Contributors Network strengthens this work.
Understanding holds up better when every perspective is in the room. Industry, NGOs, technical experts, academics, and government all contribute.
Participants don’t have to agree on everything. The initiative records where people agree, where they disagree, and the reasoning on each side. It never forces consensus.
No individual participant or group can approve, reject, block, or veto content. Circle retains responsibility for platform management and balanced representation.
Viewpoints, submissions, and positions are clearly attributed, so users can see not just the facts but who stands where, and why.
Complex technical, scientific, and policy information, written so a broad audience can actually use it, from regulators to the general public.
A living resource that updates and expands as new research, standards, policies, and perspectives emerge.
The Bottom Line
The goal is clarity, not consensus
The ACMP 201 Initiative won’t make stakeholders agree, and it isn’t trying to. It gives everyone the same transparent map: the perspectives, the agreement, the disagreement, and the evidence behind each position. Founding Contributors will make it real by February 28.
