The open letter from the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty represents a concerted effort by leading global corporations, financial institutions, and NGOs to advocate for a binding, global framework to curb plastic pollution.

Source: Recycling Today

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. 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.

With UNEP’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) meeting approaching in Busan, the coalition’s call for an ambitious treaty highlights key priorities, such as:

1. Global Standards for Restricting Hazardous Plastics: They urge for unified criteria to phase out problematic chemicals and plastic products.
2. Sector-Specific Standards for Circular Design: Especially for packaging, these would promote sustainable product designs globally.
3. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Programs: Harmonised principles and definitions would improve the implementation of EPR, holding producers accountable for plastic waste.
4. Mandate for Treaty Adaptability: A robust governing body could adjust treaty guidelines as needed over time.

This letter aligns with recent U.S. shifts, where the Biden administration has begun to support production caps and the creation of a list of harmful chemicals to phase out—a significant shift towards the positions held by Canada, South Korea, and the EU. This contrasts sharply with the U.S.' prior alignment with countries like China and Saudi Arabia, which have favoured a focus on recycling and packaging design rather than limiting production.

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. 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.

However, this stance has met domestic opposition. The Plastics Industry Association and certain U.S. Republican lawmakers, including Congressman Dan Crenshaw, argue that production limits could harm the U.S. economy. They highlight the extensive economic contributions of the plastics industry—over $500 billion in economic value and more than a million jobs—and point to the critical role of plastics in sectors such as healthcare, electronics, and defence. Crenshaw’s recent letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken expresses legal concerns regarding the authority to impose production limits and potential risks to U.S. diplomatic credibility.

The plastic industry is the seventh-largest manufacturing industry in the United States and employs one million people. 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.

As INC-5 approaches, the tension between environmental goals and economic priorities will likely be central, shaping both the treaty’s potential impact on plastic pollution and the challenges it may face in implementation.