CEOs call on governments to agree to actionable Global Plastics Treaty

Twenty-two representatives of the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, a group of more than 250 businesses, financial institutions and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), have published an open letter calling on governments to agree to an “ambitious and actionable treaty to end plastic pollution.”

The letter comes less than a month before global stakeholders convene in Busan, South Korea, Nov. 25 for the United Nations Environment Program’s (UNEP’s) Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, or INC-5, to develop a Global Plastics Treaty. It is the final meeting in the negotiating process, which aims to reach agreement on the framework for a treaty by its conclusion.

RELATED: Report: US changing stance on UN plastics treaty

In the letter, the authors, which include the CEOs of companies such as Danone, Unilever, Berry Global, Amcor, PepsiCo and more, say they see an ambitious treaty with binding global rules as a chance to harmonize the policy landscape, strengthen national legislation and help businesses scale proven solutions for priority sectors such as packaging.

“Global rules are also good for governments, reducing long-term public spending on waste management and mobilizing investment to create jobs across the value chain,” the letter states. “A treaty based on voluntary measures alone risks delaying action by decades. This would create further fragmentation in the regulatory landscape for business, leading to increased cost and complexity.”

For businesses to implement an effective treaty, the letter calls for INC-5 agreements in a number of areas:

• global criteria and lists that enable the restriction and phase-out of chemicals of concern, as well as problematic and avoidable plastic products;
• sector-specific approaches and global criteria for circular product design of plastic products such as packaging;
• common definitions and key principles for the effective implementation of extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs; and
• a strong mandate for the governing body to strengthen the agreement over time.

“As business leaders, we are working to transform our business models to catalyze a circular economy in which plastic never becomes waste or pollution, and the value of products and materials is retained in the economy,” the coalition writes. “There is already significant alignment on these topics through voluntary industry initiatives, and we remain committed to efforts to advance a circular economy for plastics. However, it is clear that voluntary efforts alone are not enough to address plastic pollution at scale.”

Such sentiment has gained traction in the U.S. In August, the Biden administration indicated a shift in its treaty position, telling Reuters it would support a global target to reduce yearly plastic production as well as the creation of a list of harmful chemicals to phase out, aligning itself closer to allies such as Canada, South Korea and members of the European Union.

Previously, the U.S. supported leaving those decisions up to individual countries, which aligned it with China and Saudi Arabia, among others—countries that have advocated for focusing on recycling and packaging design over production.

In an August statement, the Washington-based Plastics Industry Association (Plastics) said the new support of plastic production caps is not only impractical but directly harmful to all U.S. manufacturers.

“The plastic industry is the seventh-largest manufacturing industry in the United States and employs one million people,” Plastics President and CEO Matt Seaholm said at the time. “With this decision, the White House has turned its back on Americans whose livelihoods depend on our industry, as well as on manufacturers in all sectors that rely on plastic materials.

“Furthermore, this reversal has undermined U.S. negotiators’ influence in UN negotiations as other countries know this extreme position will not receive support in the U.S. Senate. We are dedicated to keeping plastic waste out of the environment and believe we need to work together to achieve this. However, the White House’s drastic position change will not accomplish this goal, only set us back.”

Regarding the potential for production caps under a global treaty, the plastics industry recently received support from Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee, which sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken Oct. 15 raising concerns about the Biden administration’s change in thinking.

According to Congressman Dan Crenshaw of Texas, who led the drafting of the letter, the administration’s new position on production caps was “alarming as production limits on plastic manufacturing would significantly hamper U.S. economic activity and make the country more dependent on foreign countries with lower emissions standards.”

In a news release announcing the letter, Crenshaw notes plastics are critical to industries and products including medical devices, consumer electronics and military equipment, with the U.S. plastics industry contributing $543 billion to the national economy, more than 1 million jobs and about $862 billion in tax revenue, making it “a driver of economic activity and employment opportunities.”

RELATED: Latest Global Plastics Treaty talks yield progress, frustration

Crenshaw adds that the administration’s framework has raised legal concerns, claiming it is unclear what authority exists for imposing “artificial caps” on how much plastics private companies can produce, and that the State Department’s support of a position that may be challenging or illegal for the federal government to enforce could jeopardize the U.S.’ diplomatic reputation.

“One of the perineal problems of the Biden-Harris administration is their inability to strike a balance between policy goals and real-world consequences—especially when it concerns environmental policy,” Crenshaw says. “This decision will harm American workers and consumers while doing nothing to actually address plastic waste. Instead of focusing on increasing recycling and improving plastic waste management, this administration has decided to endorse unworkable plastic production caps. It’s a shortsighted, feel-good policy that won’t make a positive impact.”