Stakeholders’ Interests and Negotiations in Design for Recycling Guideline Development for Plastic Packaging in Indonesia

Packaging plays essential roles in product management, brand identity, and consumer protection. However, it is often conflicting with environmental sustainability issues. Plastic packaging is considered responsible for plastic waste leakage into the environment because it is not designed for recycling (D4R). This research explores D4R criteria for prioritised plastic packaging; developed by involving plastic producers, product manufacturers, consumers, waste collectors, waste recyclers, and relevant governmental ministries. Through Delphi method and stakeholder consultation, the stakeholders negotiate the D4R criteria to protect their interests. The D4R criteria are prioritised for three plastic packaging: (i) HDPE/ LDPE containers for personal and home care products; (ii) PET bottles for mineral water; and (iii) PP cups for food and beverage products. The criteria of eleven packaging components have been developed for each prioritised plastic packaging. Stakeholders mostly agree to the criteria, except for the size or volume of containers criterion. The product manufacturers tend to keep the container size small for reaching a wider market segment, while the waste collectors and recyclers insist on increasing the size to make it easy for collection. Moreover, additional standards and references are needed to define the D4R criteria for the ink, additive, barrier, and adhesive for non-food products.


1.
Introduction Plastic has been increasingly produced to serve human needs.Plastic production is estimated to quadruple to 318 million tonnes annually in 2050, compared to the production in 2013.However, there is a huge gap between plastic production, its collection, and recycling rates.About 32% of plastics escape the collection system globally, and only 2% are recycled in a closed loop [1].As a result, much plastic waste leaks into the environment, leading to massive ecological threats.According to a study by Jambeck et al. [2], Indonesia is the second largest contributor of plastic marine debris in the world (1,29 million tonnes), after China (3,35 million tonnes).In Indonesia, 61% of plastic waste ends up burned, leaked into water bodies, or dumped on land [3].
Packaging plays important roles in goods production, storage and distribution.When the goods arrive in its consumers, packaging provides product information, including good materials and composition, 1239 (2023) 012031 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1239/1/012031 2 dates of production and expiry, and even the packaging material information [4].The use of plastic for packaging continues to surge because of low production costs, durability and other advantages.The packaging sector contributes the most market shares of plastic production [5,6].Worse, only 20% of the total plastic produced was designed for recycling [7].The decision to redesign the packaging affects the performance of recycling processes at the downstream level [8].It is considered an important way to reduce plastic use and increase recycling of post-consumers [5,9].
The Indonesia National Planning Board (Bappenas) is currently making efforts to mainstream Circular Economy (CE) in the national development plan, including launching an Indonesian CE initiative book as an initial step of a CE Policy Roadmap in Indonesia [10].Redesigning plastic packaging toward circularity has been identified as one of the opportunities in the Wholesale and Retail Trade sector [11].The Design for Recycling (D4R) guideline development can assist the relevant stakeholders in meeting their interest to the conflicting demands between the market requirement, consumer safety and sustainability [12].This research aims to develop potential criteria of D4R guidelines for the prioritised plastic packaging in Indonesia by considering stakeholders' interests along the plastic packaging value chain.The involvement of various stakeholders is to gain multiple perspectives to make the guideline more applicable and adoptable.

2.
Methodology This study used a qualitative approach that combines regulatory, statistical and literature reviews to design survey instruments.The survey instrument was applied in a Delphi Method by involving experts representing plastic packaging value chain stakeholders.The Delphi results were discussed in a stakeholder consultation.

Delphi Method
The study used Delphi Method, an assessment process to collect experts' opinions for making a consensus in decision-making [13], due to the complexity of plastic packaging circularity with multiple interests.It has three primary characteristics: (i) selection of diverse experts as respondents; (ii) anonymous among experts, but not anonymous with the researchers; and (iii) iterative process which enables experts to change their opinion without losing dignity [14,15].The limited data on production and recycling rates leaves a significant information gap.On the other hand, the problem is a pressing issue that needs a quick decision.The complex nature of this problem is well-suited to the characteristics of the Delphi method.
The study conducts stakeholder analysis to understand the plastic packaging stakeholders along its value chain and invited 17 experts from different backgrounds and interests.However, only 14 experts agreed to participate in all rounds of the Delphi method.The experts consist of six governments, two communities, one informal, and five private sector representatives.The study explores three questions in the survey: (i) what plastic packaging categories are the most urgent to have a D4R guideline?; (ii) what is the interest of stakeholders toward plastic packaging?; and (iii) what are the D4R criteria for the prioritised plastic packaging?
Each expert gave opinions independently and anonymously in an iterative or sequential process along the three rounds.After the first round, the study summarised and analysed the expert opinion and answers, then drew the initial consensus and presented it prior to the second round.In the second round, all experts were asked the same question.The answers were less diverse, and more consensus could be made.The study formulated the final consensus for all issues in the third round.

Stakeholder Consultation
The stakeholder consultation was applied as a two-way dialogue and engagement in a long process to involve the affected and other relevant stakeholders.The objective of stakeholder consultation varies from 'just' capturing views and perspectives, but also verification and validation, as well as empowering stakeholder rights [16].This study designed the stakeholder consultation for two objectives: (i) to get stakeholder information and knowledge to validate the draft of D4R criteria; and (ii) to empower the stakeholders to put their interests and commitments to the proposed D4R criteria.The stakeholder consultation involved 40 stakeholders from government agencies, community representatives, producers (plastic producers, resin traders, converters, product manufacturers), material collectors, and recyclers.
The direct stakeholder consultation is implemented in four steps: • The study team presented the process, findings, and initial development of D4R criteria; • The stakeholders were invited to clarify the process, findings, and initial development of D4R criteria.The research team provided clarification without further discussion; • Facilitators divided stakeholders into three groups representing their background and interests: government, upstream, and downstream stakeholders.Each group discussed the guiding questions and defined the most acceptable D4R criteria; and • Facilitators set up a plenary discussion to exchange ideas, opinions, and insights for D4R refinement.All participants made consensus toward the D4R criteria by the end of the stakeholder consultation.

Selection of Prioritised Plastic Packaging
The prioritised plastic packaging is selected to refer to three considerations: production scale, leakage level, and readiness of producers to adopt the D4R guideline.To make the selection simple, the study provides 10 plastic packaging types according to literature and statistical reviews.The Delphi experts select plastic packaging types, give the score, and provide justification.The score is on a scale of 1 for low to 5 for high.In the first round, the opinion of experts was still very diverse and prioritised seven plastic packaging types.The selection was streamlined into four plastic packaging types.In the final round, the experts came to a consensus to prioritise three plastic packaging: HDPE containers for personal and home care products, PET bottles for mineral water products, and PP cups for food and beverage products.The selection scoring is shown in Table 1.PP cups for food and beverage products 3,9 3,4 3,1

Justification for HDPE Containers for Personal and Home Care Products
The production scale of HDPE containers according to Delphi experts is very high.This result is in line with the plastic country production indicating that HDPE production was 586.000 tons in 2020 [17].INAPLAS recorded a production scale of 800,000 tons indicating a higher HDPE production.Despite the different production figures, the HDPE production shares 46% of total polymer production and is considered the highest polymer production in Indonesia [18].However, this figure shows overall HDPE production.Data on specific HDPE containers for personal and home care products category is not available.HDPE containers for personal and home care products can be found in the market for shampoo, liquid soap, cleansers, and other similar products.
The leakage level according to the Delphi survey is medium (3,0).This material is quite popular for material collectors and recyclers, slightly below PET bottles.HDPE materials have been collected by 25,9% of recycling actors around the Greater Malang Areas [19].A survey of plastic waste recycling in urban areas of Java recorded an HDPE rigid plastic recycling rate of 14% [20].With its current recovery rate, the leakage level is medium.
The Delphi survey indicates the readiness to adopt among producers is at a medium to high level (3,6).In contrast to PET producers, who have made many initiatives towards recycle-friendly designs, similar initiatives for HDPE containers for non-food products have yet to be found.

Justification for PET bottles for Mineral Water
The Delphi survey showed that the production scale of PET bottles for mineral water was considered very high.Even though data of production scale specific for PET bottles for mineral water is not available, the overall production of PET materials and water bottles can be traced.Total PET production in Indonesia is 197.000tonnes in 2020 [17].It shares 12% of total polymer production in Indonesia [18].PET bottles are highly used for mineral water.In 2021, bottled water production was 30.87 billion litres of which 30% use PET bottles and PP cups [21].The weight of PET bottles varies according to their volume.The weight of water bottles is 8-25 g per unit, according to its volume.The annual production scale for PET bottles for mineral water is estimated around 96.469 tonnes in 2021.This production amount is very high compared to the overall production of PET material.
The PET bottles leakage is considered very small because it is very popular for recycling material.For both rigid and film plastics, the PET bottle collection and its recovery rate was estimated at around 20% of all recycled plastic materials in Java Island [20], while in the Greater Jakarta Metropolitan the recycling rate was 74% [22].The PET collection rate is in the top three of materials being collected by material recycling actors.Therefore, the leakage is lower than other types of plastic packaging.The Delphi survey was justified.
The readiness of producers to change into easier-to-recycle designs is comparably advanced than other types of plastic packaging.Some producers have been applying easy-to-recycle criteria, at least using PET mono-material for the bottle body, abolishing the seal, reducing the label size, and applying laser marker.One producer has even produced an easy-to-recycle water bottle where many D4R criteria are applied.This status indicates that the readiness of producers to apply D4R has been very high.These facts and findings have justified that PET bottles for mineral water can be a good showcase for D4R guideline development.

3.1.3.
Justification for PP Cups for Food and Beverage Products The production scale according to the Delphi survey is high with a 3,9 out of 5 scale.The total production of PP polymers was 935.000 tons in 2020 [17].A slightly lower production is reported by INAPLAS, where PP production is recorded at 880.000 tons while the demand was 1.800.000tons.To fulfil the demand, the national industries import 920.000 tons in 2022.
The leakage rate according to the Delphi survey is medium to high (3,4 of 5 scale).The survey of plastic waste recycling in urban areas of Java recorded that PP rigid plastic recycling shares 25% of total plastic recycling.It is considered to have the highest recycling rate among other types of plastics [20].A survey of the material collectors and recyclers in the Greater Surabaya, Malang, and a small part of Greater Jakarta areas recorded PP collection and recycling at around 5.000 tons per year [19].Even though the recycling rate seems high, PP materials are widely used for home appliances.Therefore, the leakage level is estimated between medium to high.
The PP cups are applied by diverse product manufacturers, from small-scale to multinational companies.National and multinational manufacturers tend to have a better readiness than small-scale industries.Some food containers of national producers have applied an easy-to-recycle principle such as no ink printing at the container body and laser marker.At the retail and small-scale food producers, the PP containers often have ink printing, paper labels, strong adhesive, and so on.
Given the fact that the production scale of PP containers for food products is high, but the recycling rate is between low to medium, the development of D4R is highly justified.

3.2.
The Proposed D4R Criteria for Prioritised Plastic Packaging There are different forms and features between containers, bottles, and cups of the prioritised plastic packaging.The study defines the physical components of packaging into eight packaging components: body, closure, seal and tamper, label, barrier, additive, adhesive, sleeve, ink, direct printing, and other components.In each component, specific parameters are determined, including material, colour, size, and other parameters whenever they are relevant.
The division of packaging components has similarity to other D4R criteria of other countries.SUEZ Circpack elaborates its criteria in up to 13 components and aspects: main material, colour, barrier, closure system, liners-seals-valves, labels, sleeves, tamper evidence wrap, adhesives, inks, direct printing, and other components [23].RecyClass breaks down the component into the main body, attachments, and decoration; while several aspects are defined in each component, incl.materials, material composition, colour, size, barrier, and additives [24].The simplest classification of components has been developed by The Council for PET Bottle Recycling of Japan.It breaks down the physical components into the bottle's body, label, closure, and others; in each component, some aspects are defined, such as material, structure, and colour [25].
Prior to determining the criteria, the study explored the obstacles to recycling the current prioritised plastic packaging.Figure 2 describes the obstacles to recycling current plastic packaging design for HDPE containers, PET bottles and PP cups.

PET bottles for mineral water products
• Some closure systems still contain a PVC film that is easy to litter.The ring seal is left on the neck and is difficult to remove; • Some bottle caps still contain material with a density of more than 1 g/ cm 3 , most are made in dark colour; • Some PET bottles are too small, weighing less than 10 grams.
It makes not attractive and easy to collect; • Some labels are sometimes made from incompatible materials paper, PVC or metallised materials, which are difficult to remove and they cover most of the surface; • Some adhesives to-stick-the-label stays on the bottles' body during recycling, and they remain in the flake; • Some PET bottles have no recycling logos and resin identification codes.

PPdcups for food and beverage products
• Most of the cups' lids are difficult to open and remove; • PP cup body has a small size, especially for jelly products; • Some PP cup bodies are often used for the direct printing of product labels; • The adhesive remains on the cup body; • Sometimes the labels are printed in a different layer on the body, but it covers the cup surface; • Recycling logos and resin identification codes are often unavailable.

Figure 2. Recycling Obstacles of the Current Plastic Packaging Design
Based on the review of the current design, the study proposed to establish compatibility between product management, consumer safety, and recycling purposes.In general, the material selection should consider mono-material for all packaging components with natural or white colours are more preferable.The multi-material resin hinders the impurity of the recycling material.The dark-colours-application on the containers/ bottles/ caps limits the recycling flexibility of recycling products.In the label component, the label size should be minimised because it is considered residue.Moreover, the labels and its adhesives, which sometimes cover most of the surface, are left on the body and impair the recycling process.
Increasing the size of the container will make the material collection easier and more effective.Therefore, the D4R criteria need to set up a minimum size.Moreover, the use of additives in the plastic moulding process is often unavoidable.It happens also to the barrier to protect products from external 1239 (2023) 012031 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1239/1/0120317 exposures.The D4R guideline suggests using only the essential ones without changing the density of the material.The use of adhesive and ink might contaminate and downgrade the quality of recycling materials [26].Therefore, its use needs to be minimised or replaced with water-soluble adhesive and washable inks.The detailed criteria for each component for all prioritised plastic packaging are shown in Table 2.The proposed D4R criteria have been discussed in the stakeholder consultation where most of the D4R criteria were approved and reached the consensus, such as the mono-material, the colour and the label criteria.However, some criteria, e.g. the volume criterion, are still under discussion and negotiation to make a win-win solution and find an equilibrium between stakeholders' interests.

3.3.
Negotiation in the Plastic Packaging Design Criteria Even though the D4R criteria have been successfully developed, some criteria still need further discussions and dialogues.The minimum size of the packaging remains a dissolved criterion between the participating stakeholders.The downstream stakeholders argue to limit the minimum size to make the material collection easier, more effective, and more profitable.Without any size limitation, the small packaging will not be collected and tend leakage into the environment.The material collectors will prefer to collect bigger packaging and containers because of more effective, easier, and profitable.
The upstream stakeholders especially the product manufacturers/ brand owners tend to keep the product and packaging small to make them more affordable for wider markets.Increasing the size will reduce the market demand especially for low-income consumers and product for special purposes.Smaller products and packaging provide flexibility for consumers during travels, compact, and easy to handle.When the minimum size is applied as D4R criteria, the adopting manufacturers will lose some market segments while the manufacturers that do not adopt the D4R criteria will get additional markets since their products are more affordable.
This different interest between downstream and upstream stakeholders have created negotiation to accommodate and secure both interests.If the product manufacturers keep the product in small size, the downstream stakeholders require financial compensation because of additional effort they spent to collect post-consumption packaging.The financial compensation is expected to flow from the reluctant adopters to the downstream stakeholders.This financial mechanism will disincentivise the D4R reluctant adopters by creating additional cost while it provides incentive for the waste collectors.This finding is in line with several practices in other countries such as Japan and Taiwan.The financial compensation called Advanced Recycling Fees (ARF) can be an alternative to maintain the interest of downstream stakeholders to collect small plastic packaging [27].It also gives a fair competition between producers for the same products The second negotiation issue is related to the application of ink, adhesive, and direct printing.D4R criteria require easy-to-recycle ink, adhesive, and direct printing that need additional investment and incremental production cost.It will give different consequences between the adopting and non-adopting manufacturers.The adoption will increase the production cost and finally the product prices.Besides the production cost, the adoption of D4R will increase investment that will affect the small and medium enterprises (SMEs).The upstream stakeholders propose the government give investment grants to SMEs to adopt the D4R criteria.The grant scheme is also recommended by Dirgantara research [28].
Additionally, the upstream stakeholders need clarification on the ink toxicity criteria.Currently, the reference for toxic ink (also relevant for barriers, additives, and adhesives) is the BPOM Regulation 20/ 2019 about food packaging.However, it is specific to food packaging and does not apply to personal and home care products.Upstream stakeholders suggest issuing special references for non-food products.The effect of the additive and barrier is still a wide subject for further research in other countries [26].
The findings give new policy agenda for some relevant government institutions.Unsolved criteria require further discussions and dialogues prior to the establishment of D4R regulation and guidelines.The governments also need to issue some complementary policies, standard, and references to clarify the safe ink, barriers, additive, and adhesive that compatible for recycling especially for non-food products.The governments also need to mitigate potential negative impacts from the implementation of D4R criteria such the increase of incremental cost of production.Small and medium enterprises require supports to comply to the D4R guideline.
Beside policy agenda, the implementation of D4R guideline need a fair mechanism between the adopter and non-adopter manufacturers.The financial compensation as proposed by the downstream stakeholders can be discussed within the association of manufacturers to establish a competitive business among the members.On the other hand, it also provides supports to the downstream stakeholders to collect and recycle small packaging.

Conclusion
The D4R criteria for three plastic packaging categories have been developed to increase the circularity and reduce plastic waste leakage to the environment.The criteria cover eleven components including container body, closure, seal and tamper, label, barrier, additive, adhesive, sleeve, ink, direct printing and other components.Most stakeholders agree to limit material and colour variation.Mono-material is preferred to reduce material contamination during the recycling process, while single and bright colours prevent multiple recycling.However, they cannot agree to increase the minimum size.The waste collectors and recyclers insist on setting up a minimum size of packaging to make them easier and more economical for waste collection.The product manufacturers urge to keep the small packaging for product affordability.The study recommends providing standards and references for other packaging components and continuing stakeholder consultation prior to the guideline issuance.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Research Approach and Steps 1239 (2023) 012031 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1239/1/0120316 HDPE containers for personal & home care products • The cap of containers consists of multilayer materials and is difficult to remove.This makes it difficult to empty the product; • Some containers or tube bodies are made from a multilayer of HDPE/LDPE with PLA or PVC materials; • Both the cap and the containers are often made in dark colour and the size of them is sometimes too small.• The label is sometimes made from paper, PET, PVC or metallised materials, which is difficult to remove and covers most of the surface; • The adhesive used to-attach-the-label is often left on the body of containers; • The barrier, to protect from migration, sometimes consists of aluminium and other incompatible materials; • Direct printing is still used in the body of containers; • Recycling logos and resin identification codes are often missing, too small, or unreadable.

Table 1 .
Prioritised Plastic Packaging and Their Scoring

Table 2 .
Proposed D4R Criteria for Prioritised Plastic Packaging.