And yet despite fierce resistance from petrochemical-producing industries and nations (more on that later), a curious champion has emerged for a legally binding plastic treaty. Alongside the expected environmental heavyweights in Busan last week were several business coalitions pushing in tandem for more ambitious mandatory regulations.
There are plans to hold an “INC-5.2” next year to resolve the outstanding differences, and mounting pressure from business interests on the other side of the fight could potentially neutralize at least some of the influence of the countries that normally dominate such talks. “Businesses cannot solve the crisis alone,” Julia Cohen, the co-founder and managing director of Plastic Pollution Coalition, told me in an emailed statement. But they can “play a key role in shaping national positions, driving scalable solutions, and fostering emerging markets” alongside continued efforts to secure a global treaty.
Two main business coalitions are attempting to do just that. The first is Champions of Change, which works with the Plastic Pollution Coalition, Greenpeace, and Break Free From Plastic, and counts among its 350 signatories household brands like Ben & Jerry’s, Blueland, and Lush Cosmetics. The alliance is demanding a cap on plastic pollution, the phase-out of single-use plastics, greater reuse targets, and a justice-focused approach that centers the concerns of frontline communities. “Voluntary corporate pledges are no match for an international legally binding treaty that would require companies to move away from plastic,” Sybil Bullock, the senior oceans campaigner at Greenpeace, told me in an email. “We have seen past voluntary business commitments from top polluters fail time and time again to deliver meaningful reductions in plastic pollution.”
The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, by contrast, stops short of calling for a plastic cap, focusing instead on phasing out “avoidable plastic products” and calling for a “global criteria for circular product design.” Specifically, the group — convened by the World Wildlife Fund and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which advocates for a circular economy — is pushing for a “treaty based on strong global rules across the full lifecycle of plastics and with a comprehensive financing mechanism.” Its signatories includebusinesses that have historically been criticized for their reliance on plastic, including Unilever, Nestle, and PepsiCo, and its softer approach has its skeptics.
“You can only downcycle plastic and currently, how plastic is recycled, it gets contaminated by other plastics that are so toxic we cannot use them for anything that is touching or even close to touching our food,” KT Morelli, a campaign organizer for Breathe Free Detroit, which successfully campaigned to shut down a local plastic incinerator, told me. “There’s no circular answer to plastics.”
Kristen McDonald, the senior director of the plastics program at Pacific Environment, an environmental group focused on the Pacific Rim, agreed that “business actions alone — voluntary steps — have not worked so far, and so I’m very skeptical that they will work in the future.” Still, she said it’s only logical that businesses are as impatient as environmentalists when deciding on plastic regulations. If an international agreement isn’t reached, it creates a “really chaotic business environment where certain plastics are restricted in some places and not in others,” leading to trade problems and an uneven playing field at a global level as different companies face different local rules. As she added, a plastic treaty “actually stabilizes things for companies” — unless, of course, the company in question happens to be in the petrochemical industry.
Even the environmentalists working with the business groups agree that there isn’t an entirely private-sector solution to the plastic crisis. “We’re not ready to give up on the treaty process,” Erin Simon, the vice president and head of plastic waste and business at WWF, told me over email. But, she pointed out, after the U.S. pulled out of the Paris Agreement in 2017, there had been a “groundswell of support from cities, states, and other non-federal actors,” including corporations that filled in the leadership void with “commitments that would help move the needle toward reaching our global climate goals.”
And yet despite the limitations of the business coalitions, Morelli told me she thinks there is still promise in the private sector. “They have more power than the government,” she stressed, noting that “small companies and large companies can choose to refuse plastic” and push their suppliers to do the same.
This is significant because, as is the case at COP, oil-rich nations (and oil-rich lobbyists) hold outsized negotiating power at the meetings. Despite more than 100 nations favoring an agreement that would have curbed plastic production — turning off the tap at the source, as plastic-reduction advocates like to say — Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the American Chemistry Council, a trade group, pushed for a treaty last week that would have focused on plastic recycling and “mismanaged waste,” instead, an insistence that led negotiations straight into an impasse. (After flip-flopping, the United States took a noncommittal middle ground of opposing mandatory production caps but otherwise agreeing that too much plastic is probably bad.)
In the absence of a treaty and with pessimism growing around INC-5.2, business-led action might be the best shot remaining for plastic-free organizers. “Having these companies step up on their own is huge and would help us all,” Morelli said.
Jaguar
Transport and Environment
