Survey finds that 60 firms are responsible for half of world’s plastic pollution

By Sofia Quaglia, The Guardian, 24 April 2024

Study confirms Altria, Philip Morris International, Danone, Nestlé, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola are worst offenders

Fewer than 60 multinationals are responsible for more than half of the world’s plastic pollution, with six responsible for a quarter of that, based on the findings of a piece of research published on Wednesday.

The researchers concluded that for every percentage increase in plastic produced, there was an equivalent increase in plastic pollution in the environment.

“Production really is pollution,” says one of the study’s authors, Lisa Erdle, director of science at the non-profit The 5 Gyres Institute.

An international team of volunteers collected and surveyed more than 1,870,000 items of plastic waste across 84 countries over five years: the bulk of the rubbish collected was single-use packaging for food, beverage, and tobacco products.

Less than half of that plastic litter had discernible branding that could be traced back to the company that produced the packaging; the rest could not be accounted for or taken responsibility for.

“This shows very, very, very well the need for transparency and traceability,” says a study author, Patricia Villarrubia-Gómez, a plastic pollution researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre. “[We need] to know who is producing what, so they can take responsibility, right?”

The branded half of the plastic was the responsibility of just 56 fast-moving consumer goods multinational companies, and a quarter of that was from just six companies.

The two tobacco companies Altria and Philip Morris International combined made up 2% of the branded plastic litter found, both Danone and Nestlé each produced 3% of it, PepsiCo was responsible for 5% of the discarded packaging, and 11% of branded plastic waste could be traced to the Coca-Cola company.

“The industry likes to put the responsibility on the individual,” says the study’s author, Marcus Eriksen, a plastic pollution expert from The 5 Gyres Institute.

“But we’d like to point out that it’s the brands, it’s their choice for the kinds of packaging [they use] and for embracing this throwaway model of delivering their goods. That’s what’s causing the greatest abundance of trash.”

The Guardian approached Altria, Philip Morris International, Danone, Nestlé, PepsiCo and The Coca-Cola Company.

The Coca-Cola Company said: “We care about the impact of every drink we sell and are committed to growing our business in the right way.” It has pledged to make 100% of its packaging recyclable globally by 2025, and to use at least 50% recycled material in packaging by 2030.

Nestlé said it has reduced its virgin plastic usage by 14.9% in the last five years, and supports schemes around the world to develop waste collection and recycling schemes.

“Since launching our voluntary commitments to address plastic waste five years ago, we have significantly outperformed the market at large in reducing virgin plastic and increasing recyclability, according to the most recent report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation,” it said.

The company also supports the creation of a global legally binding regulation on plastic pollution which is being negotiated this week.

Danone said: “We continue to strive to reduce our own plastic footprint – between 2018-2023 we reduced our plastic use by 8% equivalent to 62 000 tons and increased the recyclability of our packaging (84% of our packaging is recyclable, reusable or compostable). We continue to support and push for improved collection and recycling infrastructures to help consumers recycle.” They also support “an ambitious and binding … UN Global Plastic Treaty which would represent a major opportunity to unlock and accelerate progress on plastics circularity.”

Both PMI and Altria contest the accuracy of the data collected.

However, while many of these companies have taken voluntary measures to improve their impact on plastic pollution, the experts behind the study argue they are not working. Plastic production has doubled since the beginning of 2000 and studies show only 9% of plastic is being recycled.

When the team collected data on self-reported yearly plastic packaging production for each of these multinational companies and compared it with the data from their 1,500-plus litter surveys, their statistical analysis showed that every 1% increase in plastic production was directly correlated with approximately a 1% increase in plastic pollution.

“Actually seeing this one-to-one increase, I was like, wow,” says a study author, Kathy Willis, a marine socio-ecologist from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia.

“Time and time again from our science we see that we really need to be capping how much plastic we are producing.”

However, Kartik Chandran, an environmental engineer at Columbia University, who was not involved in the research, said that while this new data was striking, the observation that 1% plastic production was equal to 1% plastic pollution was “a bit unrealistic” and “simplistic”.

He said the data did not consider plastic pollution in China, Korea and Japan, nor take into consideration recycling or clean-up initiatives under way.

A better analysis could be based on the net plastic flows into plastic production – also accounting for credits from the reuse of plastic materials – and the net plastic load ascribed as plastic pollution.

The team behind the study, some of whom are participating in the talks being held in Ottawa this week to discuss a UN Treaty for Plastic Pollution, said their findings emphasised the urgent need for a globally binding treaty focusing on production measures.

The talks will run to Monday, and Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the Ecuadorian ambassador to the UK, told the Guardian earlier this week he was hopeful that countries would come together to secure an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution.

“It is very important we are negotiating this treaty now. The world is in a triple crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. But while there are agreements in place for the first two, we have no legislation, no global agreement on plastic pollution.”

This article was amended on 25 April 2024 to include the tobacco company Altria. In 2003 the Philip Morris Company renamed itself Altria. In 2008 Philip Morris International became a separate entity. However, Philip Morris US is still owned by Altria. It was further amended on 26 April 2024 to add that both PMI and Altria contest the accuracy of the data collected.

On the other hand, many Libyan actors believe the only realistic chance of breaking the status quo is through an internationally mandated process. After all, the last two ‘unity’ governments have been created through UN mediation – in 2015-16 and 2020-21 respectively – while an attempt to produce a government through Libyan institutions alone has served only to produce a parallel government and reintroduce administrative division.

The reality is that both Libyan and international buy-in is required to broker change. Despite the mounting challenges faced, the next UN special representative will still be best placed to secure this.

Where next for Libya’s interminable transition?

There is a degree of weariness over the recurrent debates of the political process. Nearly 18 months ago, it was suggested that Bathily would need to learn four lessons from Libya’s recent history fast: he should avoid being drawn into a discussion of interim agreements; he should acknowledge that the existing group of institutional leaders would not deliver a solution; he would need to carefully manage external states; and, finally, that an agreement between a small group of individuals would not translate into a sustainable process.

Unfortunately, Bathily seemed to conclude he had no option but to rely on existing institutional leaders. He ultimately produced a political process centred on convening five key leaders: Government of National Unity (GNU) Prime Minister Abdulhamid al-Dabaiba, High State Council Chair Mohamed Takala, House of Representatives Speaker Agila Saleh, Presidency Council Chair Mohamed al-Menfi and Libyan Arab Armed Forces Commander Khalifa Haftar.

After initially hoping to move directly to elections, Bathily was swayed by the argument that there needed to be an interim government as elections could not be secured under the GNU. But his proposal was dead on arrival. Saleh rejected the inclusion of the GNU, while Haftar reportedly insisted on the inclusion of Osama Hamad’s Government of National Stability (GNS). Dabaiba said he would be happy to participate but on the basis that a new government would only be appointed via elections.

These leaders ultimately calculated that the status quo was preferable to the uncertainty of a new configuration that they might not be able to control. They were thus only open to a pathway forward in which their interests could be guaranteed.

In his final remarks to the UN Security Council, Bathily criticized Libya’s leaders for ‘continuing to articulate preconditions for their participation in the dialogue as a way to maintain the status quo’ but, by focusing solely on agreement among these five elites, he had allowed them to monopolize the process. Notably, political progress in 2015-16 and 2020-21 was secured when the group of Libyans consulted extended beyond the existing incumbents of office.

Bathily also neglected to directly address economic issues, a critical facet of the conflict. Meanwhile, discussions over the security sector continued in the absence of a meaningful framework and efforts at developing a process of national reconciliation also struggled. These discussions remained siloed, despite their interconnected nature.

A steep challenge for the next UN envoy

All of this creates a very difficult in tray for the next special representative, whoever that may be. Previous experience indicates that their personality will be important. Success in this role will require a more energetic approach and a willingness to proactively mediate rather than solely meet with Libyan parties.

Familiar questions of process will remain on the table. First, issues of sequencing will resurface. Should the focus be on elections first to replace the existing cast of leaders and provide legitimacy? Or should a longer process be crafted that seeks to re-unify institutions under an interim government and move to elections over a longer period? How can constitutional arrangements be established and agreed? Second, who needs to agree these changes? How can a process be structured to empower a constituency for change without the incumbents of power spoiling the process?

While these questions remain relevant, they cannot continue to monopolize the UN’s time. The balance of power within Libya has continued to shift while the political process has been frozen. In other words, the new envoy must seek to address the situation quickly and will not have the luxury of time to slowly build a new process. Although there has not been a major outbreak of fighting since 2020, the price of Libya’s tenuous stability has been widespread and growing corruption helping to entrench the governing elite.

In recent months, the price of this corruption has begun to hit the pockets of Libyan citizens hard as prices rise rapidly. Armed groups continue to battle for power and influence and are becoming ever more powerful in Libyan society. Meanwhile, the inability of the state to respond effectively to the Derna floods reveal a level of state capacity that is dangerously low. The longer this situation prevails, the harder it gets to achieve a deal.

Against this backdrop, key international players such as Turkey and the UAE are engaging with Libyan stakeholders without committing diplomatic capital to secure a political deal. Others, such as Russia, are using the fractured landscape to their advantage.

Unless the UN pays attention and takes action to address these dynamics, success is hard to envisage for any political process. Addressing the mounting corruption in the state’s finances is surely a precondition to meaningful progress in the political sphere.

While some may contend that these challenges are beyond the capacity of the UN Support Mission in Libya, it would be better for the UN to pursue a bold process that risks failure than simply replicate the same elite-centred approach. The latter will inevitably continue Libya’s decline into the hands of its increasingly powerful kleptocrats.