Road to Busan | Launch and Panel Discussion | Champions of Change – Business Leaders for Plastic Production Reduction

About this Event

Greenpeace, Break Free From Plastic and Plastic Pollution Coalition are launching Champions of Change. This global initiative gives companies a platform to leverage their influence and push for a strong Global Plastics Treaty that will drastically cut plastic production. The goal of Champions of Change is to show that ending the age of plastic doesn’t have to come at the cost of a healthy business landscape. More than 350 businesses have already signed an open letter calling on governments to cut plastic production via the treaty.

Data suggests that a treaty that does not reduce the production and supply of virgin plastic could threaten the circular economy and prevent the necessary measures and solutions from being scaled. Consistently low prices for virgin plastic, driven by subsidies and an oversupply of oil and gas, lead to market imbalances which make it impossible for reuse, refill, and repair systems, which reduce emissions and demand for virgin plastic, to compete.

This event stressed the importance of globally binding obligations to reduce plastic production in preparation for the next round of negotiations on a legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, which will take place in Busan, Republic of Korea, in November.

At this event, Greenpeace, Break Free From Plastic, and Plastic Pollution Coalition presented their new initiative “Champions of Change” – a group of progressive and ambitious businesses around the world calling for a Global Plastics Treaty that will cut plastic production for good. The Champions of Change was be represented by global brand Lush cosmetics and the European reuse alliance new ERA. This was be complemented by speakers presenting the economic case for production reduction.

Geneva Beat Plastic Pollution Dialogues

The world is facing a plastic crisis, the status quo is not an option. Plastic pollution is a serious issue of global concern which requires an urgent and international response involving all relevant actors at different levels. Many initiatives, projects and governance responses and options have been developed to tackle this major environmental problem, but we are still unable to cope with the amount of plastic we generate. In addition, there is a lack of coordination which can better lead to a more effective and efficient response.

Various actors in Geneva are engaged in rethinking the way we manufacture, use, trade and manage plastics. The Geneva Beat Plastic Pollution Dialogues aim at outreaching and creating synergies among these actors, highlighting efforts made by intergovernmental organizations, governments, businesses, the scientific community, civil society and individuals in the hope of informing and creating synergies and coordinated actions. The dialogues highlight what the different stakeholders in Geneva and beyond have achieved at all levels, and present the latest research and governance options.

Following the landmark resolution adopted at UNEA-5 to end plastic pollution and building on the outcomes of the first two series, the third series of dialogues will encourage increased engagement of the Geneva community with future negotiations on the matter.

Speakers

By order of intervention.

Emma PRIESTLAND

Global Corporate Campaigns Coordinator, Break Free from Plastic

Tom SANZILLO

Director of Financial Analysis, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA)

Seth LAXMAN

Advocacy & Activism Campaigner, Lush Cosmetics

Natasha CHAWLA

Hong Kong Director, Muuse

Fernando RODRIGUEZ-MATA

Director General, New ERA - New European Reuse Alliance

Sam CHETAN-WELSH

Senior Policy Advisor, Plastic-Free-Future Campaign, Greenpeace | Moderator

Highlights

Video

Live on Webex.

Summary

Introduction

Sam Chetan-Welsh | Greenpeace 

• The 5th session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC5) will be held in four weeks time. This is a very timely conversation given we are expecting the next draft of the Chair’s non-paper imminently. Across the INC process, Member States have expressed a desire for input from businesses who will be impacted by the measures in the Treaty, especially on the politically challenging issue of controls on the production and supply of primary plastic polymers.
• Today, Greenpeace, Break Free From Plastic and Plastic Pollution Coalition are launching Champions of Change. This global initiative gives companies a platform to leverage their influence and push for a strong Global Plastics Treaty that will drastically cut plastic production.
• Our goal is to show that plastic production reduction doesn’t have to come at the cost of a healthy business landscape and is in fact an enabler of genuinely sustainable solutions. More than 350 businesses have now signed our open letter calling on governments to cut plastic production via the treaty.

Introducing Champions of Change

Emma Priestland | Break Free from Plastic

• What are Champions of Change? They are a large and diverse group of progressive businesses who have signed an open letter calling for an ambitious and effective treaty. These business leaders recognize the harms of plastic pollution and expanding plastic production. Our champions of change are going further than other business voices, because not only are they calling for a cap on plastic production and a phase out of single use plastics, they are already actively modelling the future we need to see in their business practices. These businesses are reducing plastic, operating reuse systems, offering products and services plastic free, or ensuring their packaging is truly recyclable and toxic free.
• Over 350 companies have signed the letter, demanding four key things from a treaty:
  1. A cap on plastic production against a historic baseline, and the setting of an annual  reduction targets that limit global warming to 1.5 degrees and protect biodiversity.
  2. A phase out of single use plastics, starting with bans for the worst offending items like sachets. In addition, highly problematic polymers and chemicals must be eliminated.
  3. Targets for reuse systems to drive uptake at societal scales, supported by globally harmonised reuse standards and funding
  4. A justice focused approach that centres the rights of communities most impacted by plastic pollution and supports a just transition.
• This is the first time that businesses ranging from global multinational brands to SMEs have called for such high ambition from the treaty. This letter sends a clear message to governments around the world that strong measures will be welcomed by the business community.
• Plastic is also a climate issue. As plastic is made from fossil fuels, it contributes to the climate crisis at every stage of its life. From extraction and production to eventual disposal by burning in incinerators or cement kilns, plastic is adding to the world’s carbon footprint. If we don’t take action now with binding reduction targets, plastic production is set to triple by 2050.
• Current plastic production is emitting as much carbon pollution as 600 coal-fired power plants every year. Plastic production currently accounts for 5.5% of the carbon budget to restrict global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees C. The researchers modeled that under a scenario with a conservative growth in plastic production of 2.5% per year, Greenhouse gas emissions will more than double by 2050, accounting for 21-26% of the remaining budget.
• In a same study by GAIA, they have modeled that to stay below a 1.5 degrees temperature rise, annual cuts in primary plastic production of at least 11.8 to 17.3% are required starting from this year.
• It is clear from recent research that the planned growth in plastic production alone will scupper international climate goals, and that deep cuts will be necessary to stick to 1.5 degrees warming.
• Businesses know that their customers want to spend money with companies committed to reducing their impact on the climate and environment. They know that simply improving plastic recyclability or recycled content in their products is insufficient.
• Existing corporate commitments to tackle plastic pollution have fallen woefully short of the scale that is needed. Figures from the Ellen Macarthur Foundation annual reports of the global commitment reveal that big business is struggling to address the plastic crisis on their own. Plastic use, in particular single use plastic packaging, is deeply ingrained in the business models of all major consumer goods companies.
• A recent paper in Scientific Advances found that just 56 companies are responsible for over 50% of plastic pollution found in global clean up efforts. This is actually really good news, because it means that binding measures to limit plastic use in the consumer goods sector could have a significant reduction in plastic pollution found in the environment.
• While large consumer goods companies fail to adjust their business models to accommodate a low-plastic future, many businesses around the world are already showcasing the innovation and imagination needed to do so. We must uplift and support these businesses, and we call on policy makers to listen to their demands for a treaty that will support them.
• Critically, it is of vital importance that the full mandate from UNEA resolution 5/14 is respected, even if that means negotiations are extended. The treaty must address the whole lifecycle of plastics, with legally binding rules and targets to reduce virgin plastic production. The treaty must eliminate hazardous chemicals in plastic for the sake of human health and the environment, and to enable safe and effective recycling.
• No treaty can be effective if we don’t know what is going on – so harmonised and mandatory reporting will be essential. Equally, commitments for multilateral finance are needed, so that there is a stable, accessible and predictable supply of money to enable the transition to a future free from plastic pollution.
• The treaty must ensure a just transition for workers along the plastics lifecycle, “waste pickers and other informal workers and workers in cooperative settings,” Indigenous Peoples, and frontline or directly affected communities. This includes financial support, official acknowledgment of their rights, transparency on the health impacts of plastic pollution across the full lifecycle, and full participation in policy-making.

Panel Discussion

The Economics of Production Reduction – Tom Sanzillo | IEEFA 

Tom Sanzillo presented IEEFA’s proposed market interventions aimed at addressing the overproduction of plastics, particularly single-use plastics, which is leading to declining profitability and environmental issues. The key points included:

1. Overcapacity and Declining Demand: The petrochemical industry is experiencing an oversupply, particularly in ethylene production. Utilization rates are dropping, indicating a significant imbalance in supply and demand.
2. Economic Slowdown: The growth of the Chinese economy, a major driver of petrochemical demand, is expected to slow significantly, which exacerbates the oversupply situation.
3. Sustainability Trends: The transition towards sustainable alternatives is gaining momentum, posing competitive challenges to traditional petrochemical products. Sustainability is now taking over market share as we move towards a “slow growth economy.” The sustainable market is growing considerably, meanwhile there are no more new coal power plants planned in the US.
4. Demographic Shifts: China’s aging population and declining domestic market for petrochemicals will further limit growth opportunities, while other regions like India and the U.S. show healthier market prospects.
5. Geopolitical Changes: A bipolar world order is emerging, disrupting traditional trade patterns and complicating the export of surplus petrochemicals from China.
6. Market Forces and Citizen Opposition: Regulatory and public opposition to new petrochemical projects is growing, indicating a shift in market dynamics.

In addition to IEEFA, major creditors have also weighed in. Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s have assessed Formosa’s planned petrochemical plant in Louisiana, concluding that the project is not needed and could harm its credit rating. They emphasize that market forces, rather than just political factors, are contributing to a challenging environment for petrochemical investments. Fitch has also indicated similar concerns regarding the broader petrochemical sector, highlighting the unsustainable oversupply and the potential impact on credit ratings for companies involved in these markets. Overall, these assessments reflect a cautionary outlook on future petrochemical developments due to market imbalances and declining demand.

The proposed plastic production cap and other reforms aim to align production with actual needs, ensuring a more sustainable and profitable industry in the face of these secular declines.

How Reducing Single-Use Plastic Packaging can be a Business Opportunity – Seth Laxman | LUSH Cosmetics

• LUSH products are focused on sustainability and packaging is a happy accident and a central part of their business strategy. We have a climate and nature to-do list, making materials generative and circular. About 47% of all-year round product range is packaging-free. 57% of products were sold totally naked. It’s the business’ priority.
• We have a reuse and bring-it-back back program. Going naked, no plastics is a money and planet-saving solution. Before there was very little money for packaging. Displays like fruit stands, no packaging, make it fun. Opportunity to train staff and educate them on selling a product, instead of relying on packaging.
• Shampoo bars started in 1987, many people have never heard about this alternative. People are not used to solid form shampoo. Usually packaging costs more than the product. Saves customers money, solid form, no packaging. Since 2005, these shampoo bars have saved the use of nearly 170M plastic bottles from going to landfills or estimated 4,000 tons of plastic avoided through this naked model.
• One of the challenges is the formulation of the products, they have to be microbiologically stable enough to go without the packaging. Have to invest in R&D and be careful. It has to stay looking for a nice and better product than conventional form and high quality. If not hurting the business and the movement to move away from single-use packaging.
• Beauty industry is set to contribute 120B units of packaging this year, most of which is from fossil fuel-derived plastic.
• We are proud to be part of this movement to encourage businesses to call for an ambitious and binding global plastics treaty. Glad to be part of this and businesses should be at the forefront of these innovations

Successes and Challenges of Introducing Reuse Systems in Four Markets Globally – Natasha CHAWLA | Hong Kong Director, Muuse

• Muuse is a smart platform for reusable packaging. We provide reusables in four markets Canada (Toronto), USA (California), Singapore, Hong Kong,
• Currently operates in business-to-business – cups and food boxes.
• Data show a 98% return rate and 450,000 single-use items diverted from landfill.
• We have had successes in all 4 geographies,  working with different reuse models. At the heart of them all is consumer convenience – shifting the culture is not easy given people’s experience of convenience. They address that by making reuse free for the end user – you can borrow any reusable item in the system for 30 days. If you then do not return it after 30 days you’re charged a fee. This is like a “penalty” fee but also a way to “buy” the product.We use high-quality materials – eg steel wall coffee cups – so often people choose to keep them.
• Successes: Created a proof of concept – that reuse economy is a possibility.
• In the Hong Kong market, we work in business districts/malls/hub centers (in high street fashion malls or business district) – where our clients are the developers. In these places you contract with the developers and work with food and beverage stores inside the space – stock reusables in all of the stores – and manage the reverse logistics – it is a simple model. Customers scan as they borrow the reusable and within any building complex there are smart return bins – where they scan and drop them – returns are credited on their system. Muuse manages at the back, makes sure bins are emptied, taken to the washing facility and restock.
• City wide project – Done this in a town in California PPP project running from August to November, all eyes are on it for its success, return rates and so on, That is a no deposit free city-wide model. 30 restaurants are taking part, there are 60 return bins across the city – so the experience is similar to the disposable experience. No scanning is needed to take or return – it is a test, and results coming in December. Coke and Pepsi are in the consortium – they are competitors but have come together to test this model, because reuse is the future of this world.
• Another important success – we work in a closed visitor economy – an example is the Banff national park in Canada where it works really well- all residents and visitors can borrow. The project is also supported by the municipality.
• Another success is work done with Starbucks in Hong Kong – Muuse has given them the reuse technology and they are managing it.
• One big challenge where government intervention is required – If we want to scale the reuse economy – we need to overcome the fact that single-use plastic has been scaled and optimized for so many decades – it is hard to compete with such a market dominance – and governments or building operators have to deal with the waste. So systemic change is required.

Reuse Potential in Europe and How Plastic Production Reduction Could Help Unlock It – Fernando Rodriguez-Mata | New ERA Director General

• Today in Europe, particularly in France and Germany, there’s a surge in reusable businesses driven by supportive policies. New ERA advocates for making reuse the norm at both European and international levels. We represent over 700 companies across 12 countries, projecting that the reuse sector could create up to 600,000 jobs in Europe by introducing diverse skills and activities.
• Despite the dominance of single-use packaging, which accounts for only 1-2% of the market, New ERA is pushing for regulations that include mandatory targets for reusable packaging. Our vision emphasizes a shift from single-use to reusable systems, which can significantly reduce waste, greenhouse gas emissions, and water consumption.
• Our alliance aims to build a strong economic case for reuse, highlighting that single-use systems often externalize costs related to waste management. Successful examples, like a reusable packaging system in Aarhus, Denmark, illustrate the potential for local solutions. New ERA is committed to advocating for policies that will facilitate the growth of this sector and ultimately contribute to a more sustainable economy.

Discussion

• For Emma: Recently the Business Coalition released a joint letter from CEOs to heads of state calling for binding rules in a global plastics treaty. What is the relationship between Champions of Change and the Business Coalition for a Plastic Treaty?
  • We are deeply grateful for the BC for their collaboration, it’s been helpful for them showing up in the treaty space advocating for binding rules.
  • CoC is asking for a cap on plastic production, a phaseout of SUP. This is something the BC has hinted at but shied away from.
  • We’ve seen with voluntary commitments, while they may have sounded ambitious they have not followed through. Conversely, our CoC have already implemented ambitious changes – this is the key difference.

• For Tom: in informal dialogue with Member States from producing countries, I tend to hear an expectation that overcapacity and overproduction are temporary as demand will bounce back as it did for e.g. solar panels or that even if we reduce plastic use in packaging it will massively increase in other sectors e.g. automotive, what is your perspective on this view?
  • Historically, that’s not inaccurate. The measures and utilization rates, when it’s high profits are good. It means they need to add new capacity. Tendency is to overbuild. Growth is taking place, tied directly to petchem absorption. Entire FF sector is based on moving to multiple GDP growth. GDP to remain relatively low based on economic indicators till 2050.
  • We’re seeing in the US, more cancellation and delays, it’s outside their control.
  • One is the sustainability market – hundreds of businesses will shave points off the market of traditional development of plastic. You don’t need to end plastic production in order to impact the market share of the companies. If you’re looking at growth, a single half-point of growth reduction is going to impact profits much more than that. For market sustainability, you can’t just look at plastics, because it’s also oil and gas. All three sectors: petro, transport and power generation – they are all being hit with historically unprecedented forms of competition.
  • Third point – China is the largest producer of petchem, it’s overproduced, population changes happening now, numbers are going now. They are not going to change. Demographic destiny, it’s baked into the next 50-100 years.. I concur that historic processes if left to the wrong devices will produce the same thing. But they are not the same thing. There’s room for us in the marketplace, they are right.
  • There will be other uses for fossil fuels. What IEA is saying. If we’re successful in implementing COP, we will still have a marketplace of 10-20% of fossil fuel use, most of which are petchem. I don’t disagree with that.
  • All plastics we need, as innovation occurs, will reduce that which is not desirable for the market. Electronics, automotive probably.. Overall market is shrinking. Petchem, oil and gas need to be prepared to produce for fewer people.

• I want to ask our reuse practitioners, Tom described the benefits to markets of a production cap, what could be the benefits to your businesses of a cap and/or reduction in virgin plastic production? Do you think a cap and/or targets on plastic production, which we assume will address the market imbalance in favor of virgin plastic, would help make reuse systems cost-competitive with single use packaging?
  • Natasha: More importantly, there must be rules of reuse than curtailing production. Some of the reuse will still be plastic, more durable plastic. Regulatory intervention must be on stopping single use, don’t think we can end plastic entirely.
  • Fernando: A cap on plastic production if well implemented should be very impactful. Regardless of the material, a cap will help plastic stay in the loop more and more. Will be more cost competitive. There will be less demand and this will help reuse systems grow. Key measures on reuse and refill, feedback obligations, incentives for higher return rates. We need targets to really push all these big companies to get into reuse. Conversations are increasing because companies are facing what this means for them in 5 years. We also need to keep raising awareness with consumers. Lastly, we need the polluter pays principle. EPR schemes are paying for the development of reuse systems. For instance in France, companies are obliged to pay 5% to reuse schemes. We cannot make the same mistakes we made in Europe. Companies are fine paying EPR schemes, now the hope is that these nonprofits manage to collect and recycle packaging. We should avoid replicating the EPR mistakes made in Europe.

• For Natasha: In this business model, did you see any difference of consumer behaviour between the countries Muuse is based in?
  • Not sure which model this is referring to, I can broadly respond. Consumer behavior across different geographies is similar. If you make it convenient, if you make it visible, if you force it, if there is no disposable option avaialbe – they will use it.
  • In Hong Kong, this city is quite risk averse. People would wear masks beyond covid. During covid, Muuse continued operations and did well. In Canada we do festivals and farmers markets. This is the difference in regions. In some places, rewards don’t impact the uptake. Practices don’t need rewards to adopt reusables. In Asia for example, % discount works, adoptions is better. In the West, this is not the case.
• Sam: The Treaty would dive deeply on global standards on reuse. The question on targets, supplementing targets and mechanisms like DRS, and clear take back schemes.
• Question for the panel: How do you foresee individuals in developing countries who rely on plastic packaging to enable clean water and safe food access being affected by production caps? Would you consider these plastic packaging applications as essential?
  • Emma: We look at this through a systemic point of view. You have to look at the reason for that product existing. If it’s SUP water bottles, ask how to provide clean drinking water without SUP? Necessities of life is a safe and clean environment, without plastic. Chemicals in plastic packaging leaching into food and beverages, we know now that plastic products are not safe. Better to ensure safe access without plastic. Very relevant in healthcare as well. Big groups of healthcare professionals have come together to advocate for the reduction of plastic in health as well. A justice approach and financing mechanisms are needed in this transition.
  • Tom: you’re right about the systemic preoccupation with the systems – we’ve been involved in different places – currently Puerto Rico – where the impossible obstacles are the provision of electricity but we were able to start rooftop based solar installations, at first we thought it was too small, but we started making it available and it’s now 8-9% of the grid system – because neighborhood people are putting it together.

• What are our other panelists hoping to see coming out of INC5, both to address the production and supply of plastic but also on any other obligations that you see as critical?
  • Fernando – we are at a crossroads after four sessions of negotiations. We want to see an ambitious text, reuse needs to be recognized. We want to see a definition of reuse, what reuse systems are. It needs to be well-established to pave the way for the future. Cap and production, phaseout are all needed to scale reuse. Yet at the same time we understand  the difficulty to agree on these measures. Maybe the 6th session? Very few people in the current context, can get 100% agreement, get more Member States to be more ambitious. If 99% of the world is moving that direction, the dynamics will change. Reuse is recognised, harmonize terminologies, ensure reuse is robust. Add more partners, mandatory targets. Have minimum requirement sin there
  • Tom: I fully expect that my arguments will be rejected, not because they are wrong but because they are difficult. If a rule can be established, the markets and the governments, we can move incrementally, but any agreement is valuable because it will move us towards the vision. The countries. Our government will lose revenue if we do this. But there are answers to this question. They are honest questions. Not industry baked and faked. Hard to separate out when in the middle of negotiations. I hope.
  • Emma: my main hope is that governments step up, that they are strong and resist the vested interest of the fossil fuel industry. We have a human right to a clean and sustainable environment and plastic is polluting at every step of its life cycle. Communities are suffering harms from the production of this plastic – from fertility impacts to people living next to cement kilns and incinerators processing plastic waste – before we even start looking at the devastating impacts of climate change – I want governments to commit to stopping plastic production – we don’t want to leave with a treaty which is a shell and we spend decades fixing – we’ve seen how this works in the climate space – so I hope governments listen – as we can see business is already leading the way – we already have the solutions at our fingertips
  • Natasha: I echo Emma. The time is really now. Governments need to stand up and take action, come up with a proper treaty and not just greenwashing. I hope reuse is a significant part of the treaty. Because that is the future. How else do you get rid of packaging? Reuse is a simple yet powerful solution.
    

Closing

The picture being painted today is that current levels of plastic production are a threat to the opportunities in new, genuinely sustainable business models, and that the global plastics treaty is a major opportunity to bring a volatile market under control while also meeting our climate and environmental objectives.

Documents

• Presentations made during the event

Links

• What do bath bombs, ice cream, and reusable coffee cups have in common? | Greenpeace | 30 October 2024
• Champions of Change – Business Leaders for Plastic Production Reduction
• INC-5 Official Website 
• Road to Busan | Plastics INC-5 | GEN
• Why a production cap makes financial sense | IEEFA | 19 September 2024