Martina Gallato, Plastic Projects Lead at Earth Action, speaks to Circular Online about the final round of Plastic Treaty negotiations and how to stem corporate plastic pollution.
EA Earth Action, the creators of the Plastic Overshoot Day report, recently published a new analysis of a large global sporting goods retailer that found conventional corporate circularity strategies are failing to curb plastic pollution.
As well as the upcoming Plastic Treaty negotiations, we asked Gallato about the report, “Evaluating Progress on Plastic Pollution Mitigation: Circularity & Plastic Footprint”, which Earth Action developed with the support of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
-
What is your ideal outcome from the Plastic Treaty Negotiations?
The ideal outcome from the negotiations would be a comprehensive, binding, global framework that integrates policy at a national level with global targets.
Specifically, EA Earth Action is advocating for a reduction in primary plastics production.
We hope to see the Treaty contain a well-defined scope and effective means of implementation for the global and national mandating of reduction targets for primary plastics production, with reduction incentives that are ambitious and legally binding for all plastics, including plastic chemicals and plastic alternatives.
Additionally, we need to see specific rules for the reduction of microplastic pollution across the full life cycle of plastics.
Given the many ways microplastics enter the environment and the near impossibility of their removal once dispersed, it’s crucial to address sources. Proposed interventions, however, must be evaluated to ensure their efficacy and safety.
We hope to see mechanisms like Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) play a more prominent and coordinated role, holding businesses accountable for the lifecycle of their products.
This should be coupled with national bans of unnecessary single-use plastic and a strong focus on eco-design and ultimately safety with stricter testing of chemicals included in plastic.
From a financial perspective, we anticipate that the Treaty will introduce new reporting requirements for investors, pushing companies to disclose their impact on plastic pollution, we hope this disclosure will be mandatory.
This will influence how businesses are financed, with metrics related to circularity, recycling, and infrastructure investments becoming key criteria for access to capital.
These shifts are already starting to take shape. For instance, the CDP, which historically focused on carbon and water, is now including plastic-related indicators.
Ultimately, the combined force of legislative and financial pressures will drive a global transition toward reducing plastic pollution and promoting a more sustainable, circular economy.
-
How could the Plastic Treaty impact corporate industries?
It could significantly reshape the corporate world by driving both regulatory and market-driven changes.
Firstly, businesses may need to align with new global policies, which could include restrictions on certain plastics, mandatory reduction targets, and requirements for better waste management.
This means companies will likely face increased pressure to adopt sustainable practices, such as abandoning certain types of polymers used in their plastics or using eco-design principles to make their products easier to recycle or reuse.
EPR schemes could also become more widespread, requiring companies to take greater accountability for the end-of-life management of their products.
This shift could result in higher operational costs but also encourage innovation in packaging and product design.
Financially, the Treaty may impact access to investment. Investors could be required to assess companies on new plastic-related metrics, such as circularity, recycling efforts, and plastic pollution targets.
Firms that fail to meet these criteria could find it harder to secure funding, while those leading on sustainability could benefit from enhanced financial opportunities.
It is these elements that impact the finances and profits of corporations that will likely accelerate action at an increased rate.
Overall, if the Treaty is successful, it will push industry to reshape supply chains, product development, and business models to align with the principles of a circular economy.
-
What was the aim of the “Evaluating Progress on Plastic Pollution Mitigation: Circularity & Plastic Footprint” report?
The aim of this report, developed in collaboration with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, was to provide a roadmap for companies to effectively mitigate plastic pollution and transition to a circular economy.
Through a case study on a large sports equipment retailer, the report used the WBCSD Circular Transition Indicators (CTI) and the Plastic Footprint Network’s plastic pollution methodology to evaluate the impact of various circularity strategies.
The report highlights the need for businesses to implement complementary actions: narrowing the loop by reducing problematic and useless plastics, slowing the loop by extending product lifespans, and closing the loop by enhancing recycling and recovery.
By linking these actions to measurable outcomes, the report guides companies on how to assess and improve their performance in reducing plastic waste.
Ultimately, the report serves as a practical guide for businesses to use circularity indicators and plastic pollution metrics, helping them track progress and contribute meaningfully to solving the plastic pollution crisis.
-
What discoveries in the report did you find most surprising and/or intriguing?
The most surprising discovery in the report is that common circularity measures, such as increased recycled inputs or improved recyclability and repairability, would still result in a rise in plastic waste by 2040.
This highlights a critical gap between circularity initiatives and real-world outcomes in terms of plastic pollution reduction.
Even when upstream and downstream circularity actions are combined, plastic pollution is still expected to increase by 25% by 2040.
It is only when circularity is coupled with proactive reduction strategies – prioritising actions higher up the waste hierarchy – that plastic waste could decrease, achieving a 10% reduction.
The fact that not all actions that improve circularity directly reduce plastic pollution underscores the complexity of the challenge.
It suggests that companies need to adopt more comprehensive, integrated approaches, focusing not just on recycling and repair, but also on prevention and reduction strategies to meaningfully curb pollution. Simply put, business as usual is not going to work.
-
The report specifies the importance of reducing plastic alongside circular interventions, what do you see as the key plastic reduction actions and how do they link to circularity?
The key plastic reduction actions focus on combining circular interventions with proactive reduction strategies.
Examples of key plastic reduction actions include minimising unnecessary plastic, such as avoiding single-use packaging or reducing the overall sales of new plastic products.
Companies can adopt innovative business models such as second-life, rentals, and reuse systems, which help slow consumption and extend product lifecycles.
These models not only reduce the need for new plastic but also complement circular approaches like recycling and repair by keeping materials in circulation longer.
Although they are not sufficient to curb plastic pollution on their own, measures like recycling and eco-design for optimisation of material use, are important.
However, businesses offering recyclable products must ensure they are actually being recycled. This requires outcomes-based investment in scalable and efficient waste management systems.
By integrating these reduction efforts with circular strategies, we will begin to see genuine results in reducing plastic pollution.
-
What are some examples of the ESG solutions needed to stop increased corporate plastic pollution?
There are several key ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) strategies that offer viable solutions for reducing corporate plastic pollution, but to be most effective, they should ideally be implemented in combination.
First, companies should adopt clear reduction targets, aiming for at least a 30% decrease in plastic production by 2040.
This ensures that reduction, rather than just recycling, is a primary focus of their plastic strategies.
Implementing circular business models is another essential solution. Strategies like second-life programs, rental systems, repair services, and deposit return schemes at a state level can reduce the demand for new products, directly lowering plastic production.
Abandoning unnecessary plastic, such as single-use items, is crucial.
Businesses must also invest in robust waste management systems that are scaled to the level of plastic waste emitted by their supply chain.
This would necessitate collaboration with local waste management systems to ensure that recyclable products are truly recycled at their end of life.
Knowing where to address plastic pollution amid vast geographies and complex value chains, can prove challenging, but it is the key to understanding a business’s plastic footprint.
Businesses can use tools like Earth Action’s Plasteax database, which provides reliable metrics and actionable information about plastics for 72 countries across the world.
This enables businesses to identify plastic pollution hotspots within their geography and supply chain, making it easier for them to prioritise actions in areas where pollution is most severe.
-
What are tangible actions producers can do to narrow, slow and close the loop?
Though some producers are deploying measures to shift from traditional “take-make-dispose” business models, current actions to increase circularity, such as increased recycling, are far from effective in curbing plastic pollution.
To achieve substantiative change, scientific evidence suggests that producers need to adopt a holistic mitigation approach that combines production reduction, waste management, and circularity measures.
Producers can start by prioritising the upper tiers of the waste hierarchy model: prevention and reduction.
This includes “material optimisation”, where production processes are refined to use less plastic without compromising product quality. Phasing out unnecessary plastics, especially single-use items, is another key action.
Additionally, focusing on “offer premiumisation” – producing higher-quality, durable products – allows producers to maintain revenue while reducing overall plastic consumption.
-
Is legislation necessary to enforce plastic reduction interventions?
Yes, without binding regulations and globally aligned targets that are paired with standardised measurement and methods of mitigation, businesses have little incentive to move away from plastics.
The voluntary measures that we see a select number of businesses employ today, are unlikely to achieve the necessary scale of change without the necessary external pressure to make such efforts essential for the protection of profit.
Legislation ensures accountability, sets clear targets, and helps level the playing field. Without it, we will continue to see a growth in pollution entering our environment.
The Global Plastics Treaty is the best opportunity to date to foster such changes.
