Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244

Plastics materials flow analysis for India

Nitin H. Mutha a,∗∗ , Martin Patel a,∗ , V. Premnath b
aDepartment of Science, Technology and Society (STS), Utrecht University,
Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands
b Polymer Science and Engineering, Chemical Engineering Division, National Chemical
Laboratory (NCL), Pune 411008, Maharashtra, India

Received 22 November 2003; accepted 14 September 2005

Available online 28 December 2005

Abstract

Forecasting material flows is essential for sound policy making on issues relating to waste man-
agement. This paper presents the results of the plastics materials flow analysis (MFA) for India.
In the recent past, India has witnessed a substantial growth in the consumption of plastics and an
increased production of plastic waste. Polyolefins account for the major share of 60% in the total
plastics consumption in India. Packaging is the major plastics consuming sector, with 42% of the
total consumption, followed by consumer products and the construction industry. The relationship
observed between plastic consumption and the gross domestic product for several countries was used
to estimate future plastics consumption (master curve). Elasticities of the individual material growth
with respect to GDP were established for the past and for the next three decades estimated for India
thereby assuming a development comparable with that of Western Europe. On this basis, the total
plastics consumption is projected to grow by a factor of 6 between 2000 and 2030. The consumption
of various end products is combined with their corresponding lifetimes to calculate the total waste
quantities. The weighted average lifetime of plastics products was calculated as 8 years. Forty-seven
percent of the total plastics waste generated is currently recycled in India; this is much higher than the
share of recycling in most of the other countries. The recycling sector alone employs as many people
as the plastics processing sector, which employs about eight times more people than the plastics man-
ufacturing sector. Due to the increasing share of long-life products in the economy, and consequently
in the volume of waste generated, the share of recycling will decrease to 35% over the next three

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 30 253 7634; fax: +31 30 253 7601.
∗∗ Corresponding author. Present address: Reliance Technology Center, Reliance Industries Limited, Patalganga
410220, Maharashtra, India. Tel.: +91 253 2577767.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N.H. Mutha), [email protected] (M. Patel).

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.09.003
 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244 223

decades. The total waste available for disposal (excluding recycling) will increase at least 10-fold up
to the year 2030 from its current level of 1.3 million tonnes.
© 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: India; Plastics; Material flow analysis (MFA); Plastics consumption; Plastics waste; Reuse; Recycling;
Employment

1. Introduction

In India, plastics consumption grew exponentially in the 1990s. During the last decade,
the total consumption of plastics grew twice as fast (12% p.a.) as the gross domestic product
growth rate based on purchasing power parities (6% p.a.) (Fig. 1) (CPMA, 2000; ICRA,
2000; IEA, 1997). The current growth rate in Indian polymer consumption (16% p.a.) is
clearly higher than that in China (10% p.a.) and many other key Asian countries (Desai
et al., 1998; Industry Canada, 2002). The average Indian consumption of virgin plastics
per capita reached 3.2 kg in 2000/20011 (5 kg if recycled material is included) from a
mere 0.8 kg in 1990/1991. However, this is only one-fourth of the consumption in China
(12 kg/capita, 1998) and one sixth of the world average (18 kg/capita). This consumption led
to more than 5400 tonnes of plastics waste being generated per day in 2000/2001 (totalling
2 million tonnes per annum) (NPWMTF, 1997). The percentage of plastics in municipal
solid waste (MSW) has also increased significantly from 0.7% in 1971 to 4% in 1995
(Bose et al., 1998). The increasing quantities of plastics waste and their effective and safe
disposal has become a matter of public concern. The increasingly visible consequences
of indiscriminate littering of plastic wastes (in particular plastic packaging wastes and
discarded bags) has stimulated public outcry and shaped policy. Littering also results in
secondary problems such as drains becoming clogged and animal health problems (both
domesticated and wild). As a consequence, many big cities (e.g. Mumbai, Bangalore) and
some of the states (e.g. Delhi, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh) have already banned the use of
thin plastic bags (Chemical Weekly, 1998).2 In this context it is essential that material flow
models (incorporating factual information of the past few years and the experiences of other
countries) are developed and adopted to India so as to anticipate tomorrow’s problems and
enable sound policy decisions to be taken in order to pre-empt these problems.
This paper presents the framework, the assumptions and the results of a material flow
analysis (MFA) for plastics in India. To our knowledge, this is the first time that such an
analysis has been performed for the case of India. It provides an insight into the consump-
tion of plastics, their residence time in the economy and the patterns of waste generation.
This study originated from the desire to establish the quantities of plastics waste and the
amounts of recycled plastics. For this reason, the scope of the study is restricted to plastics
applications of synthetic polymers, e.g. films, consumer products, pipes, woven sacks, etc.

1 Statistical data in India is reported for a financial year starting on 1 April and ending on 31 March.
2 The rule prohibits the use of the poly-bags below 25 ␮m from recycled plastics and 20 ␮m manufactured using
virgin plastics.
224 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244

Fig. 1. Population, GDP and plastics consumption in India (CPMA, 2000; ICRA, 2000; IEA, 1997).

In contrast, synthetic fibres, elastomers and other so-called non-plastic applications (e.g.
adhesives) are excluded from the study because of their different product characteristics,
their limited recyclability, and also because of the different disposal methods used for waste
treatment.
The study starts with an analysis of historical plastics consumption providing a solid
foundation for projecting the future growth. The time period studied starts in 1960 and runs
through to 2000, on the basis of which future developments are projected up to 2030.
The paper also addresses the socioeconomic aspects of the polymer industry in India.
Conclusions are drawn and implications for future policy making are finally discussed.

2. Plastics consumption

2.1. Current market situation

Polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) enjoy commanding
positions in the Indian market thanks to their low cost, high durability and easy formability
(Fig. 2) (CPMA, 2000). Polyolefins account for about 60% of the total plastics consumption,
followed by PVC and polystyrene (PS). Together, the commodity plastics (PE, PP, PVC,
and PS) accounted for 83% of the total plastics consumption in India in 2000/2001, the
shares of individual polymers being comparable to those of Western Europe. Between 1990
and 2000, LLDPE was the material with the strongest growth rate of (20% p.a.), followed
by PP (16% p.a.), HDPE (14% p.a.), PVC (12% p.a.), PS (10% p.a.) and LDPE (3% p.a.,
Fig. 3) (Chemical Weekly-Annual, 1985, 1991, 1996, 1998; CPMA, 2000; Polymer, 2002;
Polymer India, 1976a,b, 1977, 1978; Polymer India-Annual, 1986).
 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244 225

Fig. 2. Consumption pattern in India in 2000 (CPMA, 2000).

The substantial 20% growth rate for LLDPE (linear low density polyethylene) con-
sumption can be attributed to the steadily increasing demand for LLDPE in packaging film
applications plus the substitution of LDPE (low density polyethylene) in several applica-
tions. LLDPE is a form of polyethylene with relatively well-defined short chain branches as
opposed to LDPE, which is a form of polyethylene with long chain branches. This difference
in molecular structure permits LLDPE to be arranged into superior crystalline structures
thus giving it better mechanical properties for film packaging applications, e.g. increased
tensile strength, puncture and tear resistance, and elongation.
Table 1 describes the market trends according to application area for the various com-
modity polymers.
In India, extrusion-based methods account for 75% of the total amount of plastics pro-
cessed; this is very similar to the situation in Western Europe. Products from extrusion are
used in agriculture, packaging, electrical appliances and the building sector, e.g. in the form
of pipes, films, wire and cable, sheets, profiles, etc. Over 27% of all extruders in the plastics
processing industry are operated for the manufacture of blown films. Injection moulding
is the second largest processing technique (19%) and is mainly used for the manufacture
of household products, packaging, and in the electrical sector. Blow moulding and rota-
tional moulding constitute a small share; these processes serve to manufacture products
like bottles, drums, tanks, etc. (ICRA, 2000).
226 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244

Fig. 3. Consumption of virgin plastics in India (Chemical Weekly-Annual, 1985, 1991, 1996, 1998; CPMA, 2000;
Polymer, 2002; Polymer India, 1976a,b, 1977, 1978; Polymer India-Annual, 1986).

Table 1
Growth rate per annum (%) for polymer materials by application area during 1991–2000 (Chemical Weekly-
Annual, 1985, 1991, 1996, 1998; CPMA, 2000; ICRA, 2000; Polymer, 2002; Polymer India, 1976a,b, 1977, 1978;
Polymer India-Annual, 1986)
Application/materials LDPE LLDPE HDPE PP PVC PS
Films/flexible packaging 0.4 30.0 21.3 14.2 6.3 9.2
Wire and cable 12.9 21.5 11.8
Extrusion coating 19.6
Rotomoulding 32.4
Injection moulding (including 5.6 21.8 14.7 17.3 17.3
rigid packaging, novelty items,
personal use items, etc.)
Appliances 12.6
Blow moulding 15.4 9.6
Woven sacks 8.3 20.4
Monofilaments 4.0 21.0
Pipes and conduits 10.4 12.7
Footwear 10.2
Sheets (thick) 15.3
Profile 24.1
Hoses and tubes 10.6
Others −1.1 1.0 12.0 5.0 −0.8 −9.6
Note: Bold value indicates major end-use sector.
 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244 227

Fig. 4. Plastics use by type of application in India, 2000 (SGCCI, 2000).

Packaging is the most important application area for plastics in India and accounts for
42% of the total consumption; this is similar to the situation in Western Europe where
packaging accounts for 37–40% of the total plastics consumption (APME, 2002; SGCCI,
2000; VKE, 2002a). Packaging includes non-rigid packaging e.g. films, woven sacks, etc.,
and rigid packaging such as bottles. Other bulk user industries are consumer and household
products 24%, industrial products 14%, building and construction 13% and other miscella-
neous industries 7% (Fig. 4).

2.2. Projection of the future plastics consumption

Having looked at the developments in the past the question arises how plastics con-
sumption will develop in future. To obtain a deeper insight into the relationship between
plastics consumption and a nation’s wealth, the consumption of plastics per capita was plot-
ted against the GDP in purchasing power parities per capita. If the data for various countries
are combined in one graph and plotted on a logarithmic scale,3 then a curve can be drawn
as shown in Fig. 5. Countries covering the wide range of GDPs and plastics consumption
levels like India, China, Turkey, Brazil, France, Germany, Canada, Japan, USA have been
included in the graph. For some countries the consumption data for past 10–40 years were
used, and for the remaining countries where consumption data was not readily available

3 A logarithmic scale is applied because of the very wide breadth of the data obtained; the result of the diverse

nature of the countries chosen for analysis.

228 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244

Fig. 5. Relationship between plastics consumption per capita and GDP per capita (IEA, 2000; International
Energy Agency, 1996; International Status Report, 1995, 2002; PFSA, 2001; Population Division, 1996). Plastics
consumption (y, kg/person, n = 138) with respect to the GDP in purchasing power parities (x, 1000 US$/person,
1990 US$ equivalent). Symbols represent data for Australia (1993, 1994, 2000), Austria (1993, 1994), Belgium
(1993, 1994, 2000), Bolivia (2000), Brazil (2000), Canada (2000), Chile (1993,1994), China (1993), Columbia
(1993, 1994, 2000), Czech Republic (1993, 1994), Finland (1993, 1994, 2000), France (1993, 1994, 2000),
Germany (1993, 1994, 2000), Hungary (1993, 1994, 2000), India (1971–2000), Israel (1993, 1994, 2000), Italy
(1993, 1994, 2000), Japan (1993, 1994, 2000), Malaysia (2000), Mexico (1993, 1994), New Zealand (1993, 1994),
Romania (1993, 1994, 2000), Poland (1993, 1994), Slovakia (2000), Slovenia (1993, 1994, 2000), South Africa
(1990–2000), South Korea (1993, 2000), Spain (1993, 1994, 2000), Switzerland (2000), Taiwan (1994), Turkey
(2000), UK (1993, 1994, 2000), USA (1993, 1994, 2000) and Western Europe (1971–2000). The smooth curve
represents the equation y = 3.7(x − 0.65)1.114 (coefficient of correlation, R2 = 0.85).

data of the last 5–10 years were plotted instead (Fig. 5) (IEA, 2000; International Energy
Agency, 1996; International Status Report, 1995, 2002; PFSA, 2001; Population Division,
1996).
Inter-linked developments – including future economic evolution (particularly that of the
plastics consuming sectors), technological progress in plastics processing, use and recycling
and the substitution of other materials e.g. steel, paper, jute – will determine the actual path
of future plastics consumption. Since it is outside the scope of this paper to study all these
relationships, a simple approach had to be taken. Using the ‘master curve’ is a modest
approach that takes a ‘macro’ view without details and yet allows a reasonable estimate,
whereas a ‘micro’ view will require much more data and assumptions. It is quite remarkable
that the data of ‘many’ countries for ‘many’ years fits on the same curve. While in some
cases the data spans several decades (e.g. India, Western Europe), the fact that the data all
fall on the one curve (primary plastics consumption per capita = (3.70) × [per capita GDP-
PPP − 0.65]1.114 ) with R2adj = 0.85 still indicates that perturbations due to local politico-
economic factors or local differences in technology are not causing much of a difference to
the macro quantities like total consumption per capita. Countries exporting large quantities
of polymers (like South Korea) are slightly above the master curve whereas net importers
(like China) are below (Fig. 5). However, the bandwidth is generally rather small. We are not
aware of any other study that has shown such a universal trend. Other authors usually have
projected plastics consumption by simple linear extrapolation of historical consumption
 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244 229

Table 2
Historical and projected elasticities for virgin plastics consumption and annual growth rate of GDP
Country Year Elasticitya Growth rate (% per year)

LDPE LLDPE HDPE PP PVC PS Total GDPc

consumptionb
Western 1990–1994 1.3 4.6 −1.9 0.7 −0.2 2.1 0.9
Europe
1995–1999 4.0 3.9 5.6 1.1 2.5 4.4 1.3
India 1990–1994 1.1 2.9 3.8 2.2 2.8 2.0 11.1 5.3
1995–1999 0.1 3.8 2.5 3.5 1.3 2.1 12.2 6.5
2001–2005 0.2 3.1 2.1 2.8 1.2 1.9 7.8 4.2
2006–2010 0.2 2.2 1.9 2.1 0.8 1.5 5.5 3.9
2011–2015 0.2 1.9 1.7 1.5 0.8 1.5 5.0 3.4
2016–2020 0.2 1.7 1.5 1.2 0.8 1.5 4.1 3.7
2021–2025 0.2 1.5 1.4 1.6 0.8 1.5 3.0 2.6
2026–2030 0.2 1.4 1.3 1.8 0.8 1.5 3.0 2.1
a Elasticity is defined here as: elasticity of polymer material i = [growth rate of consumption of polymer

material i (%p.a.)]/[growth rate of GDP (%p.a.)]. The elasticities were estimated based on the observed trends
in the past in India and Western Europe. The elasticities are thus the result of a combined linear trend extrapolation
for the two countries.
b Total consumption was projected using the ‘master curve’.
c GDP projections were taken from IEA: World Energy Outlook, 2000.

or by assuming a fixed (i.e., not time-dependent) relationship between GDP and plastics
consumption.
In this study, future virgin plastics consumption in India was projected by assuming that
it will develop according to the master curve. To estimate the future plastics consumption in
India in absolute terms the relationship from Fig. 5 was combined with projections for GDP
and population. The ‘Beyond 20/20’ database of the International Energy Agency (IEA)
was used for historical GDP (PPP) data (International Energy Agency, 1996). Projected
data for GDP were taken from ‘World Energy Outlook: 2000’ by IEA (IEA, 2000), while
the United Nations’ ‘World Population Prospects: 2050’ (Population Division, 1996) was
used as the source for population data.
So far, the approach chosen was to project the future consumption of plastics as a whole.
As the next step we shall turn our attention to the individual types of plastics. To estimate
the consumption for each polymer elasticities were generated to represent the ratio of the
physical growth rate of the respective material and GDP:

Growth rate of consumption of polymer material i (% p.a.)

Elasticity of polymer material i =
Growth rate of GDP (% p.a.)

To gauge future elasticities, the observed trends in the past in India and Western Europe
were taken into consideration. The elasticities are thus the result of a combined linear trend
extrapolation for the two countries. As an explanation let us consider the example of HDPE
(see Table 2). Its elasticity in Western Europe was 4.6 during the period 1991–1994 and
then declined to 3.9 between 1995 and 1999. For India, the elasticity was 3.8 between 1991
230 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244

Fig. 6. Projection of individual virgin polymer material. Note: The dotted line in this graph indicates the total
consumption of plastics calculated using the relationship between GDP and plastics consumption per capita (Fig. 5).
The solid line, which envelopes the shaded area on top, represents the total of the individual projections by types
of plastics (according to Table 1).

and 1995 before coming down to 2.5 over the next 5 years (2002b). Using this country
comparison as the basis we estimated for India that the elasticity of HDPE would decrease
further to 2.1 for 2001–2005. By analogy the elasticities have been projected for India for
the other main plastics types up to 2030.
The assumed elasticities do not anticipate any step-changes in technology (possible major
changes in process and product technologies), market shifts (e.g. possible commoditization
of polycarbonate), discrepancies due to the politico-economic legislative frameworks (e.g.
possible restrictions on PVC) or major shifts in raw materials supply due to depletion or
scarcity for other reasons e.g. war.
According to the Indian Chemicals and Petrochemicals Manufacturer’s Association
(CPMA) the share of all the other plastics not mentioned in Table 2 (e.g. PET, ABS, phe-
nolics, polyamides, polycarbonate, polyacetal, etc.), was about 17–19% during 1996–2000
(CPMA, 2000). This share is close to 21%, i.e. the share of the other plastics consumed
worldwide in the year 2000 (APME, 2000). This share was also adopted for the projections
for the future.
The total amount of plastics consumption can then be determined by adding up the
projected volumes for all plastics. This should be identical to the quantities estimated by
using the master curve (see above). However, since the elasticities for the individual plastics
were projected for 5-year periods only (Table 2) the fit is not perfect. Nevertheless, the
difference is quite small in the range of 5% (Fig. 6).
According to the framework explained above and the assumptions based on the sit-
uation in Western Europe, LLDPE, HDPE, PP will dominate in India too due to their
 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244 231

versatility and cost benefits. PVC will grow very slowly because it will be replaced by
PP and HDPE in many application areas. LDPE will remain constant since many of the
markets will be lost to LLDPE; this means that the use of LDPE will be mainly limited
to compounding (together with LLDPE for improving processing performance) and in
master batches. PS will grow slowly because of its deficiencies in terms of mechanical
strength (Fig. 6). The split between LLDPE and HDPE is particularly difficult to project
because 70% of the total LLDPE/HDPE capacity in India is from swing plants, which
are expected to play an important role also in the future. The share of LLDPE production
from swing plants has increased considerably from 27% in 1990 to 34% in 1998 (ICRA,
2000). However, it is practically impossible to derive a projection for the future on this basis
since the market situation at a given point of time will determine the share of these two
materials.
The relationship represented by the master curve and those used for the individual
polymers refers to the apparent consumption of virgin plastics in primary form (mostly gran-
ules). Secondary polymers produced by mechanical recycling are not taken into account.
Moreover, the real demand for polymers is determined also by the trade of final prod-
ucts such as TVs, cars, etc. (indirect trade). For countries with a large net export of such
final products the real consumption is smaller than the apparent consumption. The effect
of indirect trade can be roughly estimated by combining monetary data on imports and
exports and average product prices (Patel et al., 1998). Data from a global economic
model and price projections would be needed to apply the methodology for the future.
Since the availability and reliability of this data poses problems and since the effect of
indirect trade is rather small for most countries (e.g., 3–6% of domestic consumption in
Germany; Patel et al., 1998) we do not take indirect trade into account in our projections for
India.

3. Plastic waste

Depending on the area of application, the service life of plastic products ranges from
1 to 35 years (Table 3). The life span of the end products shown in Table 3 also includes
the reuse period. For example: the service life of the woven sacks used for packaging
is less than 1 year, but these sacks are used for approximately an additional 2 years to
protect goods and as roofing material in slum areas. The total service period is there-
fore 3 years. The weighted average service life of all plastics products in India is 8 years
(Table 3); this is much less than the weighted average service life for Germany which
is estimated at 14 years (Patel et al., 1998). This difference in service life reflects the
fact that a particularly high share of plastics is used for short life products in India (e.g.
share of plastics packaging: 42% in India versus 27% in Germany) (SGCCI, 2000; VKE,
2002c).
By combining service life and domestic consumption of virgin plastic products we can
generate a first order estimate of the quantities for the post-consumer plastic waste. To arrive
at a more accurate estimate, however, it is necessary to account for the use of additives,
fillers – and more importantly – for plastics recycling. This will be discussed in the next
section (Table 4).
232 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244

Table 3
Estimated mean service lifetime of plastics products in India
End products Service life (years)a
Films/flexible packaging 1
Injection-moulded goods 5–15
Wire and cable 30
Extrusion coating 1
Rotomoulded products 10
Woven sacks 3
Blow-moulding products 8
Pipes and conduits 35
Monofilaments 3
Footwear 2
Sheets (thick) 10
Profiles 30
Hoses and tubes 5
Appliances 20
Others 1–3
Mean weighted average 8
a The service lives reported in the table include the reuse period (wherever applicable).

Table 4
Service life of plastics products in India and Germany
Mean service life (Ts) Share of the products with different service life (%)

India Germanya
0 to ≤3 years 61 32
>3 to ≤10 years 23 39
>10 years 16 28
a See Patel et al. (1998).

4. Plastics additives and recycling

In our model, the use of additives (including fillers) and plastics recycling is taken into
account by means of fractions which were estimated by type of end product (see Table 5).
This chapter explains how these fractions are used, on which sources they are based, and to
which results they lead.
The consumption of additives (including fillers) is not amenable from production and
trade statistics and neither from associations or producers. The reason for this could be the
highly competitive character of this market (which is the main cause of the unavailability
of data in Europe). As an input for our material flow model for India we therefore used our
own estimates for the amount of additives and fillers based on a literature review. Murphy’s
‘Additives for Plastics Handbook’ was used as the main source (Murphy, 1996).
With regard to recycling the situation is very specific in India since the percentage of
plastics recycling is much higher than that in most developed and in many developing
countries (e.g. China 10%, South Africa 16%, compared to about 47% in India, see below)
(IPCL, 1999). In contrast to most high-income countries where environmental legislation
 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244 233

Table 5
Fraction of additives and recycled materials by application area (primary recycling only)
Application Additives and fillers (%) pra (%) btpb (%)
Films 4–5 35–40 40–50
Injection moulding 6–10 20 15–25
Blow moulding 15 10 15–30
Pipes and conduits 20 20 5
Wire and cable 8–20 10 5
Woven sacks 12 25–30 30–35
Extrusion coating 7 30 0
Profiles 25 10 5
Rotomoulding 10 30 20
Monofilaments 10 25 10
Footwear 25 10 30
Sheets 15 10 30
Hoses and tubes 15 10 5
Appliances 10 5 10
Others/rest 5–15 15–25 15–25
a pr = fraction of recycled resin used to manufacture the product.
b btp = fraction of product waste converted to polymer pellets.

(e.g. for packaging waste) has usually been the driving force behind the development of the
recycling industry, the recycling sector in India has developed autonomously because of the
particularly low cost of labour and on account of the fairly large market for second-grade
(lower-quality) products. Recycled products are available at a 20–40% lower price than
the same products manufactured from virgin plastics. While the latter are preferred by the
middle and upper classes, the cheaper recycled products certainly serve the markets of the
low-income classes of Indian society.
In India, households segregate most of the plastic products, e.g. bottles, footwear, etc.,
after use and sell them to intermediate dealers. The fact that the end user is paid for the
waste released (typically an equivalent of 20 Euro cents per kg) is a striking difference when
compared with countries where the income level per capita is higher. Nevertheless, the same
as in wealthy countries, light-weight and dirty plastics products (e.g. packaging films) are
disposed of in India together with the normal household waste (without reimbursement).
The major part of this waste stream is either dumped on landfill sites or remains in the
environment where it is the main contributor to littering. A minor part of this light-weight
and dirty plastics waste is suitable for recycling and is collected in various stages via various
middlemen; it ultimately finds its way to the reprocessors (Fig. 7).
The Indian recycling industry belongs to the so-called ‘informal sector’ which, according
to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition, comprises production units which
typically operate at a low level of organization. Most of these recycling units have very low
fixed capital (for machinery, etc.) and are generally run as small family businesses. Informal
enterprises are usually not registered and thus evade rules and regulations, e.g. tax laws,
minimum wage laws, accounting and workplace safety (Vishwanath, 2001). Consequently,
not only child labour is come across, but dismal working conditions are also encountered
(no ventilation, no protection from pathogenic waste). Moreover, it is practically impossible
234 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244

Fig. 7. Flowchart for the plastics waste.

to control the practices of post-consumer waste handling and processing; this can result in
products that fail to comply with minimum safety and health requirements.
Information about the actual size of the Indian recycling sector varies greatly. According
to an estimate by ICRA for 1995–1996, there were over 1800 recycling units spread across
the country along with 2500 pelletisers (ICRA, 2000). In contrast, according to a study by
Harriman in 1996, 20,000 micro-enterprises were engaged in the reprocessing and recovery
of plastics waste in addition to 180,000 various sorting and washing units, 60% of which
were unregistered (Shah and Rajaram, 1997).
Given the lack of reliable information on plastics recycling in India we generated our
own estimates by using the material flow model. We estimated the quantities of recycled
materials on the basis of the following two indicators:

1. Fraction pr (in %) of recycled resin used to manufacture a given plastic product.

2. Fraction btp (in %) of the waste stream of a given end product, which is converted to
polymer pellets (back to polymer recycling).

Based on these indicators-pr and btp (see Table 5)—we determine the respective abso-
lute quantities PR and BTP which are given in kilotonnes. It is assumed that there is no
accumulation of the products recycled to resin/pellets, i.e. the net change of stocks of plas-
tics in primary form is considered to be negligible. Therefore, for a given year, the amount
of recycled resin used in products (PR in kilotonnes) equals the amount of end products
converted to recyclates (BTP in kilotonnes):



PR = BTP (for a given year)
 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244 235

Table 5 shows the recyclate fractions (pr and btp) we assumed. We consider these values
to be somewhat on the high side, i.e. it is possible that we have overestimated the recy-
cling flows. In some cases the recyclate fraction depends on the type of polymer which is
reflected in the ranges shown in Table 5. Due to a lack of insight about the future dynam-
ics, both pr and btp were assumed to remain constant for the total period studied. Our
material flow model accounts for the period of time during which recycled materials are in
use (time lag); depending on the application area this period can be quite substantial (see
Table 3).
So far, we have addressed the first cycle of the recycling process, which we refer to
as primary recycling. However, given the high share of primary recycling, a considerable
share of the recycled products is again recycled after its service life, and this might happen
even more than once. We refer to this as ‘secondary recycling’ (materials in the 3rd cycle)
and ‘tertiary recycling’ (materials in the 4th cycle). Our results indicate that it is probably
unnecessary to account for subsequent cycles (see below).
For films, the secondary recycling rates were assumed to equal 50% of the corre-
sponding primary recycling rates (compare Table 5); the remaining 50% is assumed
to be removed from the material cycle in the form of waste that is considered to be
non-recyclable (due to deteriorated material properties and/or dirtiness). Tertiary recy-
cling rates for films were assumed to amount to 10% of the corresponding secondary
recycling rate; here, the underlying assumption is that 90% of the flow is removed
from the material system. Secondary recycling rates for the end products other than
the films were assumed to be 90% of the respective primary recycling rates, and ter-
tiary recycling rates were estimated at 50% of the corresponding secondary recycling
rates. The distinction is made between the secondary and tertiary recycling rates for
films and for the other products because of the visible difference between film produced
from recycled plastics and film produced from virgin plastics. Given the deteriorated
appearance of recycled films the waste pickers receive hardly any or no reimburse-
ment from the intermediate dealers; this makes recycled films unattractive for collec-
tion.
According to our model the total plastic waste amounted to 2380 kt in the year 2000/2001.
Of this total, over 1120 kt were recycled (including primary, secondary and tertiary recy-
cling). The share of the primary recycling was about 87% (960 kt) of the total recycling.
About 150 kt of the material (13% of the total recycling) originated from secondary
recycling, while tertiary recycling contributed by 10 kt (less than 1% of the total recy-
cled material). Since this share of tertiary recycling is very small compared to the total
recycling, we have not taken materials in their 5th or higher life cycle into account our
model.
The total amount of recycling in the year 2000/2001 was over 26% of the virgin plastics
consumption and about 47% of the total waste generated. The average recycling share of
45% in India is much higher than the share of the mechanical recycling in Western Europe
in 1994 amounting to 9.4% (APME, 1996a,b). In addition, a considerable part of the plastic
waste in Western Europe is incinerated with energy recovery (21% of the total waste)
(APME, 2001). In contrast, mechanical recycling is the only technique used in India to
process post-consumer waste; all the remaining waste is either landfilled or disposed of in
an uncontrolled fashion (as litter, illicit dumping).
236 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244

Fig. 8. The flow of plastic materials in India for 2000/2001.

5. Overview and the results of MFA

Fig. 8 presents a snapshot of the plastics material flow in India for year 2000/2001.
The total plastics consumption, including recycled plastics in the year 2000/2001, was over
5130 kt; about 80% (4050 kt) being virgin plastics. About 400 kt additives and fillers were
used in the plastics processing.
The Indian polymer industry is dominated by local players and shows a clear trend
towards self-dependency. Over the last decade, the net imports of polymers declined from
29% in 1990/1991 to 6% in 2000/2001. The net export of plastics end products increased
from 3% to 5% of the total consumption over the last 10 years.
The total amount of post-consumer plastic waste for disposal in the year 2000/2001 has
been estimated at 45% of the total consumption of plastics. We also estimate that 47% of the
waste was mechanically recycled (see Section 4). The remaining plastics waste is deposited
in landfill sites; the main disposal option used in India.
Fig. 9 shows the results of the model projections for the future. The total virgin plastics
consumption is expected to reach 20,000 kt by the year 2030 and over 18,800 kt of waste will
be generated. This is 69% of the total plastics consumption (including plastics recycling).
If the recycling rate remains constant, 6600 kt waste will be recycled (35% of total waste
generated, including primary, secondary and tertiary recycling) and the rest will be disposed
of. The total plastics consumption (including recycling) is expected to increase at an annual
growth rate of about 5% between 2001 and 2030.
Over the past decade, the share of film in the total plastics consumption in India was
around 20%, the same as in Western Europe. However, in India films constitute a substantial
41% of the total plastics waste, while the share in Western Europe is only 24% (APME,
 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244 237

Fig. 9. Projection of total plastics consumption (including recycling and additives), waste generated, waste avail-
able for disposal, waste recycled and additives consumption.

1996a,b). This difference is due to the phenomenal growth in the consumption of plastics
in India over the past decade. Consequently, more short-life than long-life products entered
the waste stream. The difference in the share of the various films in the waste stream also
reflects the high reuse potential of the end products in India, i.e. unlike the ‘use and throw’
consumption pattern which dominates in Western Europe, in India most of the products are
reused and their share in the waste stream is thus reduced.

6. Discussion of material flows

In this chapter we compare our model results with other sources. To start with, TERI
(Tata Energy Research Institute) projects the virgin plastics consumption per capita in 2021
at 10–11 kg which is comparable to the 10.3 kg calculated using our model (15.6 kg if the
recycled materials are also included) (Gupta et al., 1998). The Technology Information,
Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC), India, has forecast more than 15 million
tonnes of plastic by the year 2020/2021; this is also supported by our model result of 15.3
million tonnes (TIFAC, 2001). As discussed in Section 2.2 we assumed diminishing growth
rates in the consumption of plastics; for example, according to our model the total amount
of plastics consumed decreases from 12% in 2000/2001 to 7% in 2007/2008; this is in line
with the ICRA report (ICRA, 2000) which estimates a 20–40% reduction in the growth rate
in 2007 as opposed to that in the year 2000/2001.
Several studies have also been prepared on plastics waste in India. The most renowned
of these is the study drawn up by the National Plastics Waste Management Task Force
238 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244

formed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (NPWMTF) in 1997 (NPWMTF, 1997).
According to this task force, the plastics waste available for recycling will increase from 0.8
million tonnes in 1995/1996 to 2 million tonnes by the year 2000/2001 (see Table 6). Using
our model, the recycling quantities increased from 540 kt in 1995/1996 to about 1120 kt
in 2000/2001 (including primary, secondary and tertiary recycling). In other words, our
model results for recycling are up to 40% lower than NPWMTF estimates. This is quite
remarkable considering we believe that our assumed recycling fractions (pr, btp) is on the
high side already (see Section 4). Other quantitative studies conducted on post-consumer
plastics waste present contradictory results (see Table 6).
As stated earlier, we assume that secondary and tertiary recycling rates differ for films
and other end products (see Section 4). Due to the lack of reliable data there is a large
element of uncertainty in our assumptions. We therefore conducted a sensitivity analysis
using different assumptions. In the base case, secondary and tertiary recycling rates were
assumed at 50%, 10% for films and 90% and 50% for all other products, respectively. For
the sensitivity analysis for secondary recycling, rates were assumed to equal 100% of the
primary recycling rates, and tertiary recycling rates were taken as 50% of the secondary
recycling rates. Fig. 10 shows the results for both the base case and the sensitivity analysis.
By assuming higher secondary and tertiary recycling the total recycling quantities increased
from 47% to 52% only for the year 2000/2001.
A sensitivity analysis was also carried out for the service life of the products. With an
increase of 30% in the total service life of the product, the mean service life increases from
8 to 10 years (see Table 3). An increase in service life also results in a reduction in the total
plastics waste generated by 13%, i.e. 2080 kt from 2380 kt in the base case for year 2000
(see Fig. 10).

Fig. 10. Recycling scenarios. Note: The hollow legends in the graph represent higher secondary, tertiary and total
recycling quantities.
Table 6
Post-consumer waste and recycling: comparison of our model results with other sources

N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244

Total post-consumer Post-consumer recycling (kt) Fraction recycled (includes Source
waste (kt) primary, secondary and tertiary
Primary Secondary/tertiary recycling) (%)
recycling recycling
1995/1996
1140 460 80 47 (W), 25 (V) This study
870 522 278 92 (W)a NPWMTF (1997)
867 35 (V) ICRA (2000)
848 Shah and Rajaram (1997)
364 Modern Plastics (1995)
750 Business World (1997)
1998/1999
1725 690 50 43 (W), 24 (V) This study
1200 Banerji (2000)
2000/2001
2380 960 120 47 (W), 26 (V) This study
2000a NPWMTF (1997)
Mid/end 1990s according to various studies
40 (NA) Shah and Rajaram (1997)
50 (V) Chemical Weekly (1998)
60 (V) NetPEM (2001), PlastIndia (2000), CSE (2000),
Haque et al. (2000)
80–93 (NA) Shah and Rajaram (1997)
W = % recycled with respect to post-consumer waste; V = % recycled with respect to virgin plastics consumption; NA = definition not stated.
a 60% of the virgin plastics waste recycled along with 30% of the plastics recycled in previous year is recycled again (3rd cycle).

239
240 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244

Imports of plastics waste are also an issue of discussion in India. Net imports of plastic
waste products increased from 1% in 1990 to 3% in 2000. According to the notification
laid down in 1998 by the Directorate-General of Foreign Trade (DGFT, Government of
India) only companies in the export processing zone (EPZ) were exempt from the ban
on importing scrap and plastics waste (DGFT, 1998). Another important guideline in that
notification forbids the sale of products manufactured in the EPZ from imported scrap
in India, and distinctly states that all recycled products from imported waste may only
be exported (Business Line, 1998; Financial Express, 1998). The obvious drive behind this
process is the enormous cost-saving potential that can be achieved from the cheap manpower
available in India. The cost per hour in India – according to report issued by the PlastIndia
foundation – is 35 times less than in Germany, 19 times less that in the United States and 6
times less than in Taiwan (NetPEM, 2001).
In our model we assumed an identical growth rate of materials and the respective
products, i.e. that the consumption pattern remained constant over the total time period.
Moreover, the recycling fractions (pr and btp) and the basic data for estimating secondary
and tertiary recycling were assumed to be constant for the time period studied. However, all
these relationships are likely to change as the country becomes wealthier. Detailed analyses
of the future demography, income levels, income distribution, consumption patterns, and the
resulting materials and product demand would be necessary to improve the model assump-
tions and ultimately also the results (possibly by making a distinction between various
scenarios).

7. Socioeconomic aspects of the plastics industry in India

In the year 1997/1998, 60.3% of the 344.3 million workers were employed in the agri-
cultural sector, followed by manufacturing (11.5%), trade—hotels and catering (8.6%),
services (9.1%) and in the construction sector (4.8%) (Planning Commission, 2002). Poly-
mer manufacturing, along with the processing and recycling sector, accounted for 1% of
the total employment in the Indian manufacturing sector.
As shown in Table 7, the number of employees in the plastics industry differs widely
depending on the various sources. The official source, the data provided by the Indian Cen-
tral Statistical Organisation (CSO), may be considered the most reliable; these figures are
confirmed by the data published by the Organisation of Plastics Processors in India (OPPI,
India) (see Table 7). Keeping in mind the Indian productivity stipulations, the statistics from
CSO are compared with the situation in the Netherlands. According to the Central Bureau
of Statistics (CBS, Netherlands), there is a total of three employees per kilotonne of plastics
manufactured in the Netherlands; this is about five times less than in the Indian situation:
14 employees per kilotonne of plastics manufactured according to CSO (CBS, 2002; CSO,
2002). In the processing sector, where 10 persons are employed to process 1 kt of plastics in
Netherlands, 46 workers are required to perform the same operation in India (CBS, 2002;
CSO, 2002). The factor of 5 difference in productivity between the Netherlands and India
can be considered as a plausible estimate. On this basis it can be concluded that the Rakesh
Mohan study (Government of India, see Table 7) overestimates the employment potential
by far, according to which there are more than 3500 employees per kilotonne of plastics
 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244 241

Table 7
Employment in the Indian plastics sector according to the various sources
Year Plastics End product Plastics Source
manufacturing manufacturing recycling
(NIC 2413) (NIC 252)
1998/1999 31865 168661 Central Statistical Organization (Dr. Vaskar
Saha, 2002) (CSO, 2002)
1993 11000000 Mr. Rakesh Mohan (GOI) (NetPEM, 2001)
1997 172320 PlastIndia (report by Tata Economic
Consultancy Services, 1997) (NetPEM,
2001)
2001/2002 285000 Organisation of Plastics Processors of India
(Mr. Deepak Lawale, 2002) (OPPI, 2002)
1999/2000 1300000 600000 All India Plastics Manufacturers’
Association (Mehta, 2000)
1998/1999 250000 Rajagopal et al. (2002)
1998/1999 320000 ICPE (Banerji, 2000)

manufactured. (NetPEM, 2001). Also, according to a study by Rajagopal et al., some 300
workers are involved in the recycling sector per kilotonne of plastics (Rajagopal et al., 2002).
This is in line with the estimate made by Banerji (2000). This is assumed to be a reliable
estimate given the fact that most of the steps involved in recycling are labour intensive i.e.
collecting, sorting, cleaning, etc.

8. Conclusions

In this study a clear relationship has been identified between the GDP per capita and
the plastics consumption per capita for different countries. This relationship (the master
curve, Fig. 5) was used to make projections in terms of plastics consumption in India
over the next three decades. According to our projections, the consumption of plastics
will increase about six-fold between 2000 and 2030. The share of polyolefins in India
will remain at about 60%, a percentage comparable to that of Western Europe. In 2030,
plastics waste for disposal (excluding recycled plastics) will increase 10 times compared
to the situation in the year 2000/2001; this model result assumes that the plastics recycling
rates will remain at the current level for the next three decades. Nevertheless, it is more
likely that the recycling rates will decrease with the increasing level of wealth; in this case,
plastics waste for disposal will grow by more than a factor of 10 between 2000 and 2030.
Waste for disposal is increasing relatively faster than the plastics consumption because
of the higher share of long-life products in waste and the lower recycling rates of these
products.
In the year 2000/2001, the share of recycling accounted for 47% of the total volume
of waste generated (including primary, secondary and tertiary recycling). With the current
recycling rates, the percentage of recycling will decline to 35% in the year 2030. The declin-
ing share of recycling reflects the higher percentage of long-life products that accumulate
in the waste; these long-life products are less suitable for recycling (see Table 5). The share
242 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244

of secondary and tertiary recycling is about 13% of the total volume of recycled products.
According to a sensitivity analysis, secondary and tertiary recycling rates showed only a
marginal increase from 47% to 52% of the total waste recycled (for the year 2000/01). The
primary recycling rates shown in Table 5 are already on high side. Even with these higher
recycling rates the total recycling volumes estimated by using our model remain as low as
1120 kt for year 2000/2001, compared to the projected 2000 kt of the NPWMTF. Hence we
conclude that other studies tend to overestimate the recycling volumes and consequently
underestimate the actual volume of waste disposed of.
Data discrepancies across the data sources were also observed for employment fig-
ures in the plastics sector (see Table 7). According to CSO, 0.2 million workers were
engaged in the plastics manufacturing and processing sector (formal sectors). A factor of 5
is observed between India and the Netherlands for employees per kilotonne of plastics pro-
duced/processed in the manufacturing and processing sector. The recycling sector, which
is much more labour intensive, accounts for another 0.25 million workers. More than 90%
of the workers are employed in the processing and recycling sector out of the total 0.45
million employees. The recycling sector employs eight times as many people working in
the plastics manufacturing sector.
Packaging will continue to be a major application area for plastics, significantly con-
tributing to all three sections of material flow analysis viz. consumption, waste and recycling.
A larger part of the packaging waste with a low mass-to-volume ratio (e.g. small packaging
units for single use quantities of shampoo and toothpaste) is unsuitable for recycling and
will therefore make a substantial contribution to the problem of litter. A more detailed
analysis is required to calculate the exact amount of this sort of thin-film packaging
waste.
Improved waste management systems and regulatory discipline are required in India
because volumes of plastic waste will clearly rise in the future as the per capita consumption
of plastic products increases. Plastics waste management, therefore, needs continued policy
attention from both stakeholders: Government and Industry. Examples are initiatives, like
the Plastics Waste Management Task Force established the Ministry of Environment and
Forests in 1997, and the Indian Center for Plastics and Environment (ICPE) which was
established by the Indian plastics industry in 1999.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge NUFFIC, Netherlands, for ‘Huygens
scholarship’ made available to Nitin Mutha for his study visit. The authors also extend
their gratitude to those who aided in the completion of this paper. These include Annabé
Pretorius (PFSA), Vaskar Saha (CSO), Deepak Lawale (OPPI) who provided statistical data
and Sainath Vaidya who helped in searching and collecting the import–export data.

References

APME (Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe). Information System on Plastics Waste Management in
Europe—European Overview 1994 Data. Brussels, Belgium: APME; 1996a.
 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244 243

APME (Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe). Plastics Packaging Consumption, Waste and Recycling
1994 Data (revised version). Brussels, Belgium: APME; 1996b.
APME (Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe). Plastics—An Analysis of Plastics Consumption and
Recovery in Western Europe, 1998. Brussels, Belgium: APME; 2000.
APME (Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe). Information System on Plastics Waste Management in
Europe—European Overview 1999 Data. Brussels, Belgium: APME; 2001.
APME (Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe). Plastics Consumption Data by Sector. Brussels, Bel-
gium: APME (sited at http://www.apme.org/dashboard/template.asp?url=http://www.apme.org/media/public
documents/20010727 150248/euro consumption sector.htm&title=Consumption+data+by+sector); 2002.
Banerji S. Plastics and the environment—the Indian perspective. In: Presented at PlastIndia-2000. Indian Center
for Plastics and Environment; 2000.
Bose, Vasudeva, Gupta, Sinha. India’s Environment Pollution and Protection. TERI-Report No. 97ED57. Submit-
ted to the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, CRIEPI, Japan, Chapter 5, Delhi, India; 1998.
p. 78–81.
Business Line. EPZs exempt from ban on plastic wastes, scrap import, India; 1998. p. 3.
Business World. Recycling goldmine (Plastics constitutes almost 4% of MSW), India; 1997. p. 88.
CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek). Statline, The Netherlands (sited at http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/
start.asp?LA=nl&lp=Search/Search); 2002.
Chemical Weekly. Plastic Industry plans to promote thicker plastics bags, vol. 44, no. 15, Mumbai, India; 1998.
p. 80.
Chemical Weekly-Annual, Mumbai, India; 1985. 92–101.
Chemical Weekly-Annual, Mumbai, India; 1991. p. 71–80.
Chemical Weekly-Annual, vol. I, Mumbai, India; 1996. p. 70–84.
Chemical Weekly-Annual, vol. I, Mumbai, India; 1998. p. 93–121.
CPMA (Chemical & Petrochemicals Manufacturers’ Association). Chemicals and Petrochemicals, vol. II, no. 1,
Delhi, India; 2000. p. 17–23.
CSE (Center for Science and Environment). Plastics Unlimited—special report. Down to Earth, vol. 9, no. 14,
India; 2000. p. 20.
CSO (Central Statistical Organisation). Dr. Saha V. DG-CSO, Delhi, India, Personal communication; 2002.
Desai A, Desai J, Shrividya I, Naik K. Integrated plastic waste management: an Indian perspective. Chem Eng
World 1998;33(12):129–38.
DGFT (Directorate General of Foreign Trade). Exim policy and procedures in India, Delhi, India; 1998 (as sited
at http://dgftcom.nic.in/exim/2000/not/not98/not3798.htm).
Financial Express. EPZs allowed to import waste, plastic scrap, India; 1998. p. 9.
Gupta S, Mohan K, Prasad R, Gupta S, Kansal A. Solid waste management in India: options and opportunities.
Resour Conserv Recycl 1998;24(2):137–54.
Haque A, Mujtaba IM, Bell JNB. A simple model for complex waste recycling scenarios in developing economies.
Waste Manage 2000;20(8):625–31.
ICRA industry watch series. Indian commodity polymers industry, Delhi, India; 2000.
IEA (International Energy Agency). Energy Statistics and Balances of Non-OECD Countries (1994–1995), Paris,
France; 1997.
IEA (International Energy Agency). World Energy Outlook—2000, Paris, France; 2000.
Industry Canada. Canada’s Business and Consumer portal; 2002 (sited at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/
pl01306e.html).
International Energy Agency. Beyond 20/20 browser, Paris, France. Release 4.1; 1996.
International Status Report 1993–1994 (British Plastics Federation, UK), UK; 1995.
International Status Report 2000–2001 (British Plastics Federation, UK), UK; 2002.
IPCL (Indian Petrochemical Corporation Limited). Dr. Bhardwaj, I.S. Vadodara, India, Personal communication;
1999.
Mehta A (All India Plastics Manufacturer’s Association). Plastics processing industry: What industry needs for
growth; Popular plastics & packaging, Mumbai, India; 2000. p. 43–4.
Ministry of Environment and Forest (Government of India). National Plastics Waste Management Task Force
(NPWMTF) report, Delhi, India; 1997.
Modern Plastics; 1995. p. 49.
244 N.H. Mutha et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47 (2006) 222–244

Murphy J. Additives for plastics handbook. The Netherlands: Elsevier Science; 1996.
NetPEM (Network for Preventive Environmental Management). International Workshop on Devel-
opment of Sustainable Plastic (Waste) Management Strategies for India-workshop background
document-1, Nagpur, India; 2001 (sited at http://www.netpem.org/web/announcement/workshops/plastic/
IndianPlasticManagementScenario.pdf).
OPPI (Organisation of Plastics Processors of India). Dr. D. Lawale, Mumbai, India, Personal communication;
2002.
Patel MK, Jochem E, Radgen P, Worrell E. Plastics streams in Germany—an analysis of production, consumption
and waste generation. Resour Conserv Recycl 1998;24(3–4):191–215.
PFSA (Plastics Federation of South Africa). Personal communication with Pretorius, A., Tech Support Manager,
PFSA. Cape Town, South Africa; 2001.
Planning Commission (Government of India), Quality of Life Pointers, Delhi, India (sited at
http://planningcommission.nic.in/page64.htm); 2002.
PlastIndia-2000. Indian Polymer Industry, Delhi, India. p. 759–65.
Polymer Update portal (sited at http://www.polymerupdate.com/industryinfo/Cier/pl0100-polymers.htm); May
2002.
Polymer India, India; 1976a. p. 18–21.
Polymer India, India; 1976b. p. 12–5.
Polymer India, India; 1977. p. 14–5.
Polymer India, India; 1978. p. 7–13, India.
Polymer India-Annual, India; 1986. p. 24–35.
Population Division. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (United Nations). World Population
Prospects—2050. New York, USA; 1996.
Rajagopal R, Tharian J, Harmati Z. Recycling in India—Environmental and Technological Imperatives, Nagpur,
India (sited at http://www.netpem.org/web/announcement/workshop.htm); 2002.
SGCCI (Southern Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry). The Indian Plastic Industry, compiled by the
PlastIndia Foundation, India; 2000.
Shah E, Rajaram. Plastics recycling in Bangalore—India (case-study report Plastic recycling). UWEP (Urban
Waste Expertise Programme), Gouda, The Netherlands; 1997.
TIFAC (Technology Information, Forecasting & Assessment Council). Vision 2020 Report. Delhi, India (sited at
http://www.tifac.org.in/offer/vis/chem1.htm); 2001.
Vishwanath T. Needs and Demand in the Informal Sector and Small Enterprises for Skills and
Knowledge—A Developing Country Perspective (Asian), presented at Linking Work, Skills and Knowl-
edge: Learning for Survival and Growth, International Conference, Interlaken, Switzerland; 2001 (sited at
http://www.workandskills.ch/downloads/Vishwanath PP.pdf).
VKE (Association of the German Plastics Industry). Plastics consumption in the packaging sector of Western
Europe. Frankfurt, Germany; 2002a (sited at http://www.vke.de/pdf-files/e sonderpack.pdf).
VKE (Association of the German Plastics Industry). Plastics: business data and charts; 2002b (sited at
http://www.vke.de/pdf-files/widat engl.pdf).
VKE (Association of the German Plastics Industry). Plastics consumption Germany, Frankfurt, Germany; 2002c
(sited at http://www.vke.de/pdf-files/consultic lang.pdf).