Examining the Challenges of South Korea's Recycling Policies: An Analysis of Key Issu

es and Their Impact

Yubin Oh

Department of International Studies, Yanyang University

Research Methods

Dec. 16, 2024

 Abstract

South Korea is recognized globally for its high level of public awareness regarding recycling.
With high participation rates in waste separation, citizens naturally assume that the actual rec
ycling rate is also high. However, despite this strong public engagement, the recycling rate fal
ls far short of expectations. This paper investigates the failures of South Korea’s recycling po
licies to improve plastic recycling rates, arguing that these shortcomings are rooted in the stru
ctural flaws of the policies themselves. By analyzing three critical issues—overemphasis on q
uantity, insufficient management of multi-material plastics, and reliance on exports—this rese
arch highlights systemic weaknesses that undermine the country’s recycling efforts.

1. Introduction

In 2021, the South Korean government announced that about 70% of our plastic waste is bein
g recycled. In 2022, OECD came out with a report saying about 9% of plastic waste is being r
ecycled in the world, Europe scoring 34.5 % on average (OECD, 2022). Many media outlets i
n South Korea praised this statistical outcome, calling it a success of South Korea's recycling
policies. However, some critics raised questions about the validity of the South Korean gover
nment’s results, pointing out that plastic waste statistics are cited and released without globall
y established standards. They viewed this outcome as an inflated result.

The reason why South Korea outrun the average rate is not because the amount of plastic actu
ally being recycled has increased. The reason is due to the shortcomings of South Korea's rec
ycling statistics. A significant portion of the 70% recycling rate consists of "energy recover
y," where the heat generated during incineration is converted into energy. This is because mo
st of the energy recovery companies in South Korea are registered as recycling companies, m
aking their activities included in the recycling statistics. However, in Europe or in the plastic
recycling statistics of international organizations, waste plastics used as auxiliary fuel sources
are not recognized as recycling. Since it involves using heat generated from incineration, it is
effectively considered incineration. In Europe, the energy recovery rate for waste plastics rea
ches about 42%, but it is recorded as a separate category apart from recycling (Kim, 2022). If
such European standards are applied, South Korea's material recycling rate becomes 16.4%, a
significantly lower figure compared to the previously reported 70%.

Regarding all the information above, it is difficult to say that South Korea's recycling policies
have been successful. Bluntly speaking, it is easier to view that the policies have failed in thei
r current status. Given this context, this study aims to address the question: "What are the Pro
blems of the Current Recycling Policies of South Korea?" This research tries to investigate th
e problem of South Korea’s recycling policies, and hypothesizes that South Korea's current re
cycling policies fail to improve plastic recycling rates due to inadequate design and implemen
tation.

This paper categorizes the problems of South Korea’s plastic recycling policies into three maj
or issues: (1) overemphasis on quantity rather than quality, (2) insufficient management of m
ulti-material plastics, and (3) reliance on exports as a recycling solution.

2. Literature Review - Chronological Organization

Through the literature review, I aim to explore the history of recycling policies of South Kore
a, finding gaps between policy administration and actual implementation process. The develo
pment of South Korea’s recycling policies can be divided into three phases:

2.1 Early Stage: Installation of the Volume-Based Waste Fee policy (1995-2003)

In 1995, the South Korean government installed a new recycling policy to reduce the amount
of waste being thrown. Prioritizing waste reduction first, the volume-based fee policy advocat
es for charging individuals based on their waste generation.

Seo (1997) explored the history and effectiveness of the VWF( Volume-Based Waste Fee) po
licy, explaining the historical context of installation. According to the study, South Korea foll
ows the principles of Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) (Kim, 1995), prioritizing
waste reduction as the most important goal followed by resource recovery and appropriate dis
posal.

The study highlighted three primary institutional strategies designed to reduce waste: regulati
ons to penalize individuals who fail to reduce waste, persuasion methods to encourage volunt
ary reduction, and economic incentives tied to the volume of waste produced, such as fines or
rewards. The method of using economic incentives were seen as aligning with market econo
my values and the "polluter pays" principle, which advocates for charging individuals based o
n their waste generation. Regarding this context, VMF policy was widely adopted by many d
eveloped countries, including South Korea, as an effective tool for managing waste.

Also, Kim (1997) points out the specific regulations among the waste management districts S
outh Korea used for implementation of VWF policy. The focus is specifically on the "Resour
ce Conservation and Recycling Act" and the "Waste Management Act". The research highlig
hts two main flaws in these regulations: first, while higher fee increases may improve environ
mental quality, there is concern that excessive financial burdens on residents could prevent th
e original policy goals from being achieved. Secondly, there is worry that the VMF fees are b
eing used as a tool for regional development or financial independence, rather than directly i
mproving the quality of the environment itself.

Furthermore, Kang & Kim (1999) highlights both the positive and negative aspects of VMF
(volume-based waste fee system). By focusing on the case of Jeju Island, this study explores t
he perception of consumers and their reactions. It indicates that economic incentives such as
cost savings on VWF plastic bag purchases and reduced burden from paying VWF expenses r
esult in higher recycling rates. However, it also criticizes that VMF system simply commits v
alue based on quantity, ignoring the importance of the types of waste such as multi-material
wastes, which leads to severe environmental pollution.

2.2 Middle Stage : increased emphasize on the Extended Producer Responsibility (2003-
2018)

In 2003, the EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) policy was implemented to hold produc
ers accountable for recycling their products. EPR is a waste management policy that holds pr
oducers accountable for the collection, recycling, and disposal of their products after they are
discarded. It encourages manufacturers to design products with recycling in mind, aiming to r
educe waste and environmental impact. EPR is commonly applied to packaging, electronics,
and other consumer goods.
The importance of introducing the EPR system is emphasized in Environment a Policy of Pla
stic (2000) written by the Korea Plastic Recycling Association. This paper summarizes the en
vironmental policies on plastics from leading recycling nations such as Germany, Japan, and
Austria. In Germany, the responsibility of collecting waste is transferred to producers, increas
ing their financial burden but reducing unnecessary waste during production. Japan's 1995 Co
ntainer and Packaging Recycling Law initially applied to PET bottles and expanded to all pla
stic packaging by 2000. Other examples include Austria's ARA system and Belgium's Fost Pl
us policy, both holding producers accountable for recycling.

Also, Kim (2002) points out that South Korea’s plastic recycling rate was only 14.9%, which
is significantly lower than developed countries in Europe (around 32%). He criticized the do
mestic material recycling system, especially the low recycling rates of plastic compared to ot
her materials. Through it’s paper, he also highlighted the importance of implementing EPR sy
stem, with clear criteria for producer’s recycling obligations and exemptions.

The consensus of these studies was that a strong EPR system can lead to improvements in rec
ycling rates by building producer accountability. Also, both the studies admitted the need to r
eform the recycling system, especially on the plastic recycling field. However, while the form
er study underlines the need for urgent, immediate reform, the second study mentions the gap
in the practical application of EPR systems in the context of energy recovery methods and ch
emical recycling processes.

Moreover, Im (2014) studies the impact after the EPR policy’s installation within South Kore
a. It first mentions the positive impact this policy has brought to the recycling industry strengt
hened by the Environmental Protection System in 2008. The positive impacts are: successful
expansion of the types and scope of recyclable waste, replaced previous disposal methods lik
e landfilling and incineration, and led to a steady increase in recycling rates.

However, it also mentions the improvements this policy needs. The complexity of the recycli
ng system and administrative procedures have created challenges, leading to unintended pena
lties and difficulties for businesses trying to comply. This issue highlights a significant flaw i
n the system, where the focus on regulatory compliance and pollution control can overshado
w the actual efficiency and quality of the recycling process.

Jeong (2018) analyzes the current status and limitations of the EPR system implemented in S
outh Korea. He called for the introduction of the Producer Fee Scheme (PFS) theory, a major
type of EPR system used in the European Union member countries. Citing key examples such
as France's CITEO, Italy's CONAI, and Belgium's Fost Plus, he argues to apply chemical pro
cessing of multi-materials and the connected technological costs to the producer responsibilit
y system.

Additionally, this new approach suggests that recycling policies need to be reformed in a new
way since plastic waste has shifted from physical recovery of single materials to chemical rec
overy of multi-materials.

2.3 Resource Circulation Policies and Global Challenges (2018-Present)

With the rise in global plastic waste issues, the importance of proper resource circulation has
emerged. Professionals criticized the export of plastics, saying developed countries who gene
rate the most plastic waste are also the ones who offload their waste to developing countries,
causing environmental destruction. Following this trend, South Korea also emerged with reso
urce circulation policies along with global conventions.

Kim (2018) emphasizes the decline of recyclable materials' selling prices and the poor domes
tic plastic waste strategy of relying solely on exports. The study is focused on China's 2016 b
an on plastic imports and its impact on South Korea’s plastic management cycle. He says Chi
na’s ban disrupted the flow of plastic exports, leaving South Korea with excess waste and exp
osing the limitations of its domestic recycling infrastructure.

This study criticized South Korea’s overdependence on external waste management solution
s, particularly its reliance on exporting waste rather than investing in sustainable, internal rec
ycling systems. Additionally, the study emphasized the urgency of transitioning from an expo
rt-dependent model to a self-reliant and circular system of plastic waste management, undersc
oring the need for comprehensive reforms in policy and practice.

Along with this trend, Ha (2022) introduces the Framework Act on Resource Circulation and
the 1st Basic Plan for Resource Circulation (2018–2027) through the paper. These policies w
ere implemented to address the full lifecycle of resources, from production and consumption t
o waste management and regeneration. The paper introduces key measures including waste di
sposal fees, recognition of recyclable resources, and product recyclability evaluations. This p
olicy takes a hostalic approach, aiming to build a circular economy and to develop domestic d
isposal of plastic waste. While the paper complimented the changed trend of waste disposal, i
t also expressed concerns about its success, which depends on consistent enforcement and ad
dressing challenges such as public awareness and industry compliance.

Furthermore, recent studies have begun to shift the focus to the production of plastics itself. L
ee (2023) criticized the vague standards for recycling and highlighted that many single-use pl
astics produced domestically are hard to recycle due to their material composition. It specific
ally noted that South Korea imports clean waste plastics from other countries to produce prod
ucts like fiber and yarn. This is because domestic plastics are difficult to recycle, often compo
sed of various colors and materials with non-removable labels. Moreover, the study revealed t
hat exporting waste plastics is often more cost-effective for companies than processing them
domestically. This underscores systemic issues in the country’s waste management policies,
where the focus remains on recycling output rather than improving the recyclability of materi
als at the production stage.

3. Hypothesis

Following the literature reviewed, this study formulates the following research hypothesis:

H: South Korea's current recycling policies fail to significantly improve plastic recycling rate
s due to inadequacies in policy design and implementation, particularly regarding quantity-fo
cused recycling, multi-material waste management, and reliance on exports.

Studies from the early implementation of the Volume-Based Waste Fee (VWF) policy in 199
5 to the introduction of resource circulation policies in 2018 highlight persistent issues in Sou
th Korea’s approach to plastic waste management.

The VWF policy, introduced as a pivotal moment in 1995, incentivized households to reduce
waste by charging fees based on the volume of waste generated. While it successfully encour
aged high levels of public participation in waste separation and reduced overall waste generat
ion, it was criticized for its overemphasis on quantity rather than quality. Kang & Kim (1999)
argued that the policy focused solely on reducing the volume of waste without ensuring the re
cyclability of materials, resulting in poorly sorted waste streams. This oversight has particular
ly impacted the management of multi-material plastics, which are complex and costly to recy
cle, leaving them as a significant portion of non-recyclable waste.

The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy, introduced in 2003, aimed to enhance pr
oducer accountability but failed to adequately address the challenges posed by multi-material
plastics. Studies by Kim (2002) and Jeong (2018) identified a critical gap in the EPR policy,
particularly regarding its focus on physical recycling rather than chemical recycling methods
that are more effective for plastics. Plastic composed of multiple layers of different materials,
such as plastic, aluminum, and adhesives, are difficult and costly to recycle than single-materi
al plastics. Jeong (2018) emphasized the need for reforms, such as adopting the Producer Fee
Scheme (PFS), to incorporate the technological costs of recycling complex materials into pro
ducer responsibilities. Without such measures, multi-material plastics are often incinerated or
sent to landfills, undermining the effectiveness of the policy.

Despite some successes in other areas, the EPR system lacked robust incentives or enforceme
nt mechanisms for producers using these challenging materials, contributing to its failure to i
mprove recycling outcomes for multi-material plastics.

The review of Kim (2018) exposed South Korea's overdependence on exporting waste plastic
s. This reliance on exports revealed critical flaws in the country’s domestic recycling infrastru
cture, as South Korea struggled to manage its plastic waste without sufficient investment in a
dvanced recycling technologies or facilities. The literature emphasized that domestic plastics,
often contaminated or made of mixed materials with non-removable labels, were less desirabl
e for recycling. As a result, South Korea relied on importing clean plastics for its recycling in
dustries, while its own plastics were either exported or incinerated. This overreliance on exter
nal solutions, coupled with the lack of investment in domestic recycling infrastructure, was w
idely criticized as unsustainable and inefficient.

Also, South Korea's current resource circulation policies fail to address plastic waste export d
ependence. As Ha (2022) notes, recently implemented policies about resource circulation (20
18–2027) focus on waste management and the recycling process. However, these policies do
not tackle the underlying problem of plastic production. As highlighted by Lee (2023), many
private recycling companies find it more cost-effective to export domestic plastic waste rather
than recycle it due to challenges like contamination, mixed materials, and non-removable lab
els. As a result, resource circulation policies inadvertently increase the burden on private com
panies without addressing the need for more stringent regulations at the production stage. Co
nsequently, the failure to regulate the recyclability of plastics from the outset leaves South Ko
rea dependent on external solutions for managing its plastic waste, a situation that the current
policies do not resolve.

By categorizing the failures of South Korea’s recycling policies into three major issues, this h
ypothesis underscores key areas for improvement:

1. Overemphasis on quantity rather than quality: Current policies focus on waste volume
reduction without ensuring proper sorting or the recyclability of materials.
2. Insufficient management of multi-material plastics: The lack of accountability mecha
nisms for producers and inadequate investment in advanced recycling processes hinde
r progress.
 3. Reliance on exports as a recycling solution: Dependence on external waste manageme
nt solutions has exposed systemic vulnerabilities in South Korea’s recycling system.

These issues suggest the need for a shift in policy focus. The hypothesis assumes that address
ing these systemic flaws will enhance South Korea’s plastic recycling rates and move the cou
ntry toward a more sustainable and circular waste management system.

4. Methodology

For this research, this study will employ a mixed-method approach that integrates both qualit
ative and quantitative data analysis to address the three identified problems in South Korea's r
ecycling policies. The primary objective is to analyze the limitations of South Korea's current
policies through data comparisons and case studies from other countries. This approach enabl
es a deeper understanding of the issues by combining descriptive statistics with qualitative ins
ights.

5. Data (Descriptive Statistics)

5.1 Quantity Over Quality Problem (Comparison of Plastic Waste Regulations by Coun
try)

This study will utilize a comparative chart of plastic waste regulations across different countri
es to examine the regulatory strength concerning the quantity over quality issue. The data will
highlight the differences in regulatory approaches between South Korea and other countries s
uch as the EU, Canada, and the United States. Key metrics include bans on single-use plastics
(SUPs), recycling rates, and the presence of economic incentives or penalties.

5.2 Multi-Material Problem (EPR Systems Case Study)

A case study on the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system will be employed, comp
aring South Korea's system to those in France (CITEO), Italy (CONAI), and Belgium (Fost P
lus). This case study will provide insights into how other countries address the challenges ass
ociated with multi-material waste in their EPR frameworks.

5.3 Dependence on Export Problem (Analysis of Plastic Waste Exports from South Kore
a)

This study will use an informative chart to analyze South Korea's reliance on plastic waste ex
ports, primarily to Southeast Asian countries in 2023. The data will highlight the impact of C
hina’s 2018 ban on plastic waste imports and examine how this dependency exposes weaknes
ses in South Korea’s domestic recycling infrastructure, emphasizing the weakness of South K
orean policy.

Chart 1
Comparison of Single-Use Plastic Regulation Strength by Country

Greenpeace Korea. (2023)

A significant portion of South Korea's plastic waste comes from single-use plastics. Howeve
r, South Korea lacks regulations to systematically manage single-use plastic waste, compared
to other countries. As seen in Chart 1, the country's regulation is limited to a ban on free distri
bution and labeling requirements. This indicates that South Korea's regulatory policies are mo
re focused on quantitative reduction of plastic waste rather than qualitative management of th
e waste. This highlights a critical gap in South Korea's policy framework (VWF), where the q
uality of waste management and material recyclability is secondary to waste volume reductio
n.

Chart 2
Leading destinations of plastic waste exported from South Korea in 2023, based on export vo
lume

G
reenpeace Korea. (2023)

After China’s 2018 ban on plastic waste imports, South Korea’s domestic recycling systems
were found to be insufficient, leading the country to struggle with managing waste locally. C
hart 2 highlights the primary destinations of plastic waste exported from South Korea in 202
3, showing the majority of waste is sent to Southeast Asian countries such as Vietnam and M
alaysia. This reliance on exports underscores a key issue in South Korea's recycling policies: t
he failure to develop a self-reliant domestic recycling infrastructure. Despite recent resource c
irculation policies, the continued dependence on plastic waste export demonstrates the vulner
ability of South Korea’s system.

Chart 3
Comparative Case Studies: EPR Systems in France, Italy, and Belgium

Country Key features Link with South Korea

France (CITEO) Producer responsibility, Consumer Clearer definitions, Eco-friendly

engagement, Incentives & penaltie design, Public education needed
s

Italy (CONAI) Decentralized operations, Environ Decentralized system for managi

mental fees, Private sector involve ng multi-material plastics, Regio
ment nal flexibility

Belgium (Fost Plu Mandatory recycling targets, Cent Mandatory targets, Improved pub
s) ralized reporting, Public awarenes lic awareness and sorting
s campaigns

Jeong, H. (2018).

This section presents an analysis of key global case studies, comparing the Extended Produce
r Responsibility (EPR) policies in France, Italy, and Belgium with South Korea. These case st
udies highlight the key problems identified in South Korea’s EPR policy, including ambiguou
s definitions of plastic waste and insufficient management of multi-material plastics.

1. France: CITEO's EPR System

Key Features:

Producer Responsibility: Manufacturers pay fees based on material type and recyclability, inc
entivizing eco-friendly designs.

Consumer Engagement: CITEO promotes consumer participation through educational campai

gns, including tools like mobile apps for better sorting and recycling practices.

Incentives and Penalties: Recyclable packaging receives rewards, while non-recyclable packa
ging incurs penalties, driving sustainable design choices.

2. Italy: CONAI’s Decentralized EPR System and Policy Gaps in South Korea

Key Features:

Decentralized Operations: Local governments manage waste collection, allowing for tailored
systems to handle diverse waste streams.

Environmental Fees: Producers pay fees based on the type and recyclability of packaging mat
erials, incentivizing recycling-friendly design.

Private Sector Involvement: The private sector is encouraged to participate in waste recovery
and recycling.
3. Belgium: Fost Plus and the Need for Robust Reporting and Public Awareness in South Kor
ea

Key Features:

Mandatory Recycling Targets: High recovery and recycling targets are enforced, with specifi
c material quotas.

Centralized Reporting: Producers are required to submit detailed data on packaging materials
and waste prevention plans every three years.

Public Awareness: Campaigns and educational resources ensure high public compliance and i
mprove sorting accuracy.

The case studies of CITEO, CONAI, and Fost Plus highlight significant weaknesses in South
Korea’s current recycling policies, particularly regarding multi-material plastics and the over
all inefficiency of its waste management system. First, South Korea’s focus on waste volume
rather than material recyclability has led to weak enforcement and challenges in managing m
ulti-material plastics. Unlike CITEO’s model, which uses material-specific fees to incentivize
eco-friendly designs, South Korea’s policies fail to address the core issue of recyclability at t
he production stage, perpetuating inefficiencies in the system. This gap makes it difficult to ef
fectively process complex waste streams, especially multi-material plastics, which are increas
ingly problematic under South Korea’s centralized system.

Moreover, South Korea’s centralized waste management structure is insufficient for handling
diverse waste streams. CONAI’s decentralized approach, which provides local authorities wit
h greater flexibility to manage waste based on regional characteristics, demonstrates a more e
fficient way to handle multi-material plastics. In contrast, South Korea’s one-size-fits-all appr
oach to waste management fails to account for the unique challenges of multi-material packa
ging. Finally, South Korea’s recycling targets and public education campaigns are weak com
pared to Fost Plus’ mandatory targets and robust reporting mechanisms. These gaps in regulat
ion and public engagement further hinder South Korea’s recycling efficiency, contributing to
the country’s continued dependence on plastic waste exports and undermining the sustainabili
ty of its recycling policies.

6. Results

This section presents the key findings from the data analysis, focusing on the three main issue
s in South Korea's recycling policies: the quantity over quality problem, multi-material waste
management, and dependence on plastic waste exports.

6.1. Quantity Over Quality Problem

Chart 1 highlights the gap between South Korea's plastic waste regulations and those of other
countries. While countries like the EU have comprehensive bans and recycling incentives, So
uth Korea’s focus is on reducing waste volume through measures like the VWF policy, which
does not prioritize material recyclability. This oversight leads to inefficient waste sorting and
recycling, particularly for complex materials.

6.2. Dependence on Export Problem

Chart 2 shows South Korea’s reliance on Southeast Asian countries for plastic waste exports i
n 2023, following China's 2018 ban. Despite recent policies, South Korea’s domestic recyclin
g infrastructure remains insufficient, making it heavily dependent on external solutions, highl
ighting a critical weakness in its recycling system.

6.3. Multi-Material Problem

Chart 3 compares South Korea’s EPR system with those in France, Italy, and Belgium. Unlik
e South Korea, these countries have robust systems that incentivize eco-friendly design, supp
ort decentralized waste management, and enforce mandatory recycling targets. South Korea’s
centralized system and lack of material-specific incentives hinder effective recycling of multi
-material plastics.

The analysis confirms that South Korea’s recycling policies are ineffective in addressing key
issues, such as material recyclability and export dependence. Reforming the EPR system and
focusing on improving domestic recycling infrastructure are essential to tackling these challe
nges.

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, this research paper explored the challenges within South Korea's recycling poli
cies, focusing on three key issues: the prioritization of waste volume over recyclability, ineffi
ciencies in managing multi-material plastics, and the dependence on plastic waste exports. Th
rough a comprehensive analysis, it was found that South Korea's current policies fail to addre
ss the underlying problems at the production stage and lack clear legal definitions for single-u
se plastics. Additionally, the reliance on external waste management solutions highlights the
country's vulnerability and the need for stronger domestic infrastructure. These issues point to
the urgency of policy reform in order to build a more sustainable and self-reliant recycling sy
stem.

7.1 Limitations

This study is limited by its reliance on secondary data and case studies, which may not fully c
apture the nuances of South Korea’s recycling policies. Moreover, the findings are primarily
based on regulatory and policy comparisons, and further empirical research is needed to asses
s the on-ground implementation of these policies.

7.2 Recommendations

Future studies should focus on evaluating the effectiveness of proposed policy reforms throug
h pilot programs or field studies. Specifically, more research is needed on the economic and e
nvironmental impacts of transitioning to decentralized recycling systems in South Korea. Fin
ally, exploring consumer behavior and public participation in recycling efforts would provide
deeper insights into improving recycling outcomes.

References

Seo, J.-H. (1997). The effect of environmental preservation attitudes on consumer knowledge
and functions regarding the volume-based waste fee system. Journal of Consumer Policy Stu
dies, 19, 96–119. https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE01736693
Kim, T.-Y. (1997). Waste management policy implementation of local government: The case
of rate decisions by the districts of Seoul in implementing the volume-based charge
system for waste management. Journal of the Korean Urban Management Associati
on, 10, 119–146. https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE00929966

Kang, Y.-H., & Kim, Y.-B. (1999). A Rebellion Toward a Zero-Waste Society. Proceedings
of the Korean Local Government Association Conference, 177–196. https://www.dbpia.co.
kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE01763289

Korea Plastic Recycling Association. (2000). Thesis - Environmental policies related to pl

astics in advanced countries. The monthly packaging world, (90), 176-181. Korea Packagi
ng Association. https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE09572180

Kim, S.-B. (2002). Seminar - Directions for plastic recycling policies in Korea. The month
ly packaging world, (110), 119-123. Korea Packaging Association. https://www.dbpia.co.k
r/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE09723704

Jeong, H. (2018). A study on activation measures for the EPR system in the EU plastic pac
kaging waste sector. European Studies, 36(3), 225–252. Korean European Association. htt
ps://www-dbpia-co-kr.ap2.proxy.openathens.net/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE0752
8699

Im, B. (2014). An empirical analysis of the factors influencing the implementation of recyc
ling policies: Focusing on the extended producer responsibility system and environmental
protection systems [Master's thesis, Seoul National University]. http://www.riss.kr/link?id
=T13573931

Ha, S. W. (2022). A study on domestic resource circulation policies and transition [Maste
r's thesis, Korea University]. http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T16092441

Lee, S. (2023). Characteristics and changes in South Korea’s resource circulation policy in
struments typology: A comparison focused on the 1st Resource Circulation Master Plan (2
011-2015) and the 1st Resource Circulation Master Plan (2018-2027). National Policy Res
earch, 37(2), 25-47. https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE1160602
9

Greenpeace Korea. (2023). Disposable Korea version 2: Report. https://www.greenpeace.o

rg/korea/update/25774/report-disposable-korea-ver2/

Jeong, H. (2018). A study on activation measures for the EPR system in the EU plastic pac
kaging waste sector. European Studies, 36(3), 225–252. Korean European Association. htt
ps://www-dbpia-co-kr.ap2.proxy.openathens.net/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE0752
8699