#TITLEHERE

TITLE HereNam et ellabor eiu

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary
In 2020, thanks to our members and allies, Break Free From Plastic engaged

14,734 volunteers in 55 countries to conduct 575 brand audits. These volunteers collected 346,494 pieces of plastic waste, 63% of which was marked witha clear consumer brand. Despite the challenges of organizing during a global
pandemic, our volunteers safely coordinated more brand audit events in morecountries this year than in the previous two years. As a special activity during the
pandemic, we also worked with over 300 waste pickers to highlight their roles
as essential workers.

Participants catalogued over 5,000 brands in this year’s global audit. Our analysis

reveals the following as the 2020 Top 10 Global Polluters: The Coca-Cola Company; PepsiCo; Nestlé; Unilever; Mondelez International; Mars, Inc.; Procter &Gamble; Philip Morris International; Colgate-Palmolive; and Perfetti Van Melle.
The title of Top Global Polluters describes theparent companies whose brands were record-

ed polluting the most places around the world

with the greatest amount of plastic waste. Our2020 Top Global Polluters remain remarkably

consistent with our previous brand audit reports, demonstrating that the same corporations are continuing to pollute the most places

with the most single-use plastic1. Coca-Cola,

Nestlé, and PepsiCo have remained our Top
Three Global Polluters every year since our firstglobal brand audit in 20182.

For the third consecutive year, Coca-Cola

emerged as the #1 Top Global Polluter. A total

2“Break Free From
Plastic engaged
14,734 volunteersin 55 countries
to conduct 575
brand audits.
These volunteers
collected 346,494
pieces of plastic
waste.”

A waste picker in India holds up top polluter
Coca-Cola bottle during our 2020 brand audit.

of 13,834 branded Coca-Cola plastics
were recorded in 51 countries, reflecting more plastic than the next two top

global polluters combined. These re-sults amount to a significant increase, as
we recorded 2,102 more branded Co-

ca-Cola plastic items in 14 more countries in 2020 than in last year’s global
brand audit.

Seven of the top polluters—The Coca-Cola Company; PepsiCo; Nestlé;
Unilever;MondelezInternational;

Mars, Inc.; and Colgate-Palmolive—havejoined The New Plastics Economy Glob-al Commitment, but this is not enough.

Image Credit: KKPKP/SWaCH

According to a recent Ellen MacArthur

report, the signatories to the New Plastic Economy Global Commitment have
only reduced their use of virgin plastic by only 0.1% from 2018 to 20193.

The Break Free From Plastic movement is calling on companies to urgently reduce the amount of single-use plastic they use. The top polluters must reveal
how much single-use plastic they use, then set clear, measurable targets for

reducing the quantity of single-use plastic items they produce. Finally, theymust reinvent their product delivery systems to move beyond single-use plastic altogether.

3

Contents
2 Executive Summary
5 Dedication
6 Acknowledgements
7 Participant Appreciation: On the Ground
Auditing the World's Plastic Waste
12 Introduction
15 Methodology & Limitations
19 Brand Audits During a Global Pandemic
23 Special Edition: Waste Picker Brand Audits
29 Announcing the 2020 Top Polluters
37 Voices of the Movement
41 Greenwashing
46 Real Solutions
53 Conclusions
55 References4Dedication
We are proud to dedicate this report to waste pickers, especially the ones who joined
us in this year’s global brand audit. These essential workers disproportionately
shoulder the burden of our broken waste system, and we were grateful to collaborate
in demanding accountability from the corporations who continue to profit from theplastic pollution crisis they themselves have created.
Thank you to the following groups for coordinating waste picker brand audits
on the ground:
KKPKP/SWaCH
EcoWaste Coalition

Kpone Landfill Waste
Pickers Association

Greenpeace Philippines

Cooperpac Waste Pickers
Cooperative

South African Waste
Pickers Association

Pacific Environment

groundWork
GAIA Africa
WIEGO Ghana

The Centre forSocial Research andDevelopment
SUNGCO Limited
Liability Company
Environnement etDéveloppement Du
TIERS-MONDE

Vietnam Zero Waste
Alliance
Centre for Marine
life Conservation andCommunity Development

GAIA Latin America

Kpone Landfill Waste Pickers Association in Accra, Ghana

5

Acknowledgments
This report reflects the continuation of many years of hard work by members of the BreakFree From Plastic global movement to expose the world’s top corporate plastic polluters.
First and foremost, thank you to everyone who participated in a brand audit and submitted
their data. Recording this data is meticulous, time-consuming work, and we appreciate yourcommitment to this important citizen action initiative, particularly during such a challenging
year. The “Branded” report relies on the efforts of people like you around the world. Thankyou again to the 14,734 volunteers who took part in this year’s brand audit!
We are also grateful for the pioneering efforts of the original groups who collaborated
in 2017 to design the foundational brand audit methodology: the Global Alliance forIncinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Mother Earth Foundation, Citizen consumer and civic
Action Group (CAG), and Greenpeace Philippines. Thank you for laying the groundwork to
make this initiative possible.
Many thanks to Neil Tangri and Win Cowger for advising on our scientific methodology, as
well as to our data scientist Vince Vertulfo. Your contributions to improving the brand audit
methodology, tools and processes have been critical to the integrity of the data upon which
this report is built.
Our deepest gratitude goes to our translation team, whose work enabled more people
around the world to both participate in and learn from the global brand audit initiative:
Youssef Alshatti, Anastasiia Martynenko, Jaka Kranjc, Evgenia Tasheva, Claudia Sick, Isadora
Ortiz, Felipe Torres, Seema Prabhu, Rima Agustina, Gusti Krishna, Ira Jalik, Pennapa Kradtarn,
Liao Zita, Meg Imperio, Quach Thi Xuan, Carla Wichmann, Marina Tomović, Manfred Santen,
Giuseppe Ungherese, Iveta Cadrova, and Choony Kim. And a big thank you to Julian Carlos
Cirineo and Arvin Alvarez from BFFP for making our report assets available in so many
languages!
A special thank you to this year’s editorial team: Marina Ivlev of 5Gyres, Felipe Torres of
GAIA Latin America, Anastasiia Martynenko of NGO Zero Waste Society Ukraine, Carissa
Marnce of GAIA Africa, Sherma Benosa of GAIA Asia Pacific, Jen Fela of Greenpeace USA,as well as Emma Priestland, Brett Nadrich, Estelle Eonnet, Jed Alegado, Shilpi Chhotray and
Von Hernandez from the BFFP Team. Thank you for bringing your diverse perspectives andthoughtful feedback to the report development process.
Thank you to all our guest writers who contributed to the report text: Alex Gordon, Dr. Ben
Locwin, Kathleen Collins, Lakshmi Narayan, Louise Edge, Miko Aliño, Dr. Owosu Boampong,
Simon Mbata, and Valquiria Candido da Silva.
Finally, none of the brand audit coordination or report publication could have been possible
without the generous financial support of the Flotilla Foundation and the Plastic Solutions
Fund. Thank you for believing in us and making our work a reality.
With gratitude,
Sybil Bullock
Global Brand Audit Coordinator, Break Free From Plastic

Cover Image: © Cecily Anderson/Anagramist.com
BFFP is a fiscally sponsored project of GAIA | 1958 University Avenue | Berkeley, CA 94704 USA
https://www.https://www.no-burn.org/
6

PA R T I C I PA N T A P P R E C I AT I O N

A &

SOU T

HE

A

ASIA

SOUTH

SI

ST

Centre for Marine Life Conservation
and Community Development(Vietnam)A

on the ground auditing
the world’s plastic waste

Korean Federation of Environmental
Movements (KFEM)/Friends of the Earth Korea

Trash Hero Mamuju(Indonesia)

Project Marigold(Philippines)
7

Paryavaran Mitra (India)

AFRI CA

Nipe Fagio(Tanzania)

People to People
International(Nigeria)

Amis de l’Afrique Francophone-Bénin/Let's Do It! Bénin
Let’s Do It! Togo

8

Strandliners(United Kingdom)

Plastifreecame (Spain)

NGO Zero Waste Society
UkrainePlastic Change & artist Maj D(Denmark)
Artwork is a great way to sharewith the public, industry,
politicians and decision-makers
our work and efforts towarda plastic-free environment.
Denmark’s first national brandaudit led by Plastic Change has
resulted in this wall hanging
with branded items collectedby Danish volunteers that
contributed to the dataset for
the global brand audit.
9

OC

AN

Algalita Marine
Research &Education(California, USA)

Marshal University Sustainability Club(West Virginia, USA)“I am fortunate enough to be able tochoose zero waste items and avoid
plastic packaging as much as I can,”Sustainability Club president, BaleighEpperly said. “But I am dedicating my lifeand my career to sustainability so that I
can help ensure that West Virginians andpeople around the world have the same
access to these choices.”

10

A

Sea Shepherd(Australia)E

11 Y Nos Vamos(Mexico)DiskOncept/Vamos a Hacerlo(Colombia)
Taganga is a traditional fishing village
in the Caribbean coast of Colombia. It is
located at the northwestern flank of the
Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, some of
the world’s tallest coastal mountains.
Taganga is home to ancestral fisherfolk
and indigenous communities, andtheir economy depends on artisanal
fishing and tourism. Various types ofcorals, sponges, sea turtles, molluscs,
crustaceans and over 129 species of fish
have been identified in the waters around Taganga.
“When we got here many of the corals were already dead,they were white and the fishes were gone. Since we started
with our cleanup campaigns in 2015, we have seen changes
both in the coral reefs and in the communities,” said Carlos,
Director of DiskOncept. “We have organized more than 50
clean up campaigns, taking tons of plastic waste out of thesea and the coral reefs.”
This is the first year they performed a formal brand audit
and they are excited to continue with the movement for
future cleanups and brand audits. They hope to engage
more with local communities, including indigenous people
and fisherfolk, since they are the most impacted.

11

INTRODUCTION

Introduction
2020 has disrupted every part of our lives, creating circumstances ripe for thesystemic change we desperately need. There has never been a better time todemand greater corporate accountability for the plastic pollution crisis that

plagues our planet. Brand audits are one tangible tool to push corporations andpolicy makers towards building better systems for a plastic-free future.

Break Free From Plastic’s (BFFP) brand audit is a citizen action initiative that in-volves counting and documenting the brands found on plastic waste collected
at a cleanup to identify the companies responsible for plastic pollution.

By collecting data on plastic waste, we challenge the industry narrative about

who is responsible for the plastic crisis and how to solve it. Brand audits enable
us to shift the focus back to the companies that are responsible for creating the

problem in the first place, and empower us to demand that they stop producing

unnecessary throwaway single-use plastics. The annual brand audit report holds
the top polluting companies accountable for
fueling the plastic pollution crisis. Our efforts

rely on people power to stand up to these multinational corporations.

People power launched the Break Free From
Plastic movement in the Philippines in 2016
to unite the voices of people worldwide advo-

cating to stop plastic pollution at every stageof the plastic lifecycle. We are committed tobuilding a global movement towards a future
free from plastic pollution, while supportingand empowering communities on the front-lines of this crisis. Our movement unites over
11,000 organizations and individual supporters

12

Why do we dobrand audits?
Shift the narrative.
Hold plastic
pollutingcompanies
accountable.
Build a global
movement.

from around the world to bring systemic change through a holistic approachthat tackles plastic pollution across thewhole plastics value chain — from ex-

traction to disposal — focusing on pre-vention rather than cure, and providing effective solutions. BFFP member
organizations and individuals sharethe common values of environmental
protection and social justice.

Brand audits enable communities tocollectively influence the discourse© Wason Wanichakorn / Greenpeaceon plastic pollution and provide themwith the means to challenge polluters.

Everyone facing the consequences of plastic pollution is welcomed and encour-

aged to take part, from coastal communities impacted by microplastics, to peo-

ple living in neighborhoods choked by the toxic fumes from plastic incinerators,
to those whose water has been poisoned by petrochemical processing. Plastic causes pollution and other environmental assaults at the expense of various

communities and stakeholders from the moment its raw materials — oil and gas— are extracted.

Changemakers from all over the world have joined forces for this annual effort,

including small and large NGOs, community groups, schools and youth clubs,
and of course, individual volunteers. As with other environmental crises, plastic

pollution hits vulnerable communities and marginalized groups the hardest4. In

this year’s global brand audit, our goal was to support and further empower oneof the most vulnerable communities at the end of the plastic pollution life-cycle— waste pickers.

13

We coordinated brand audits with
waste picker groups in seven countries
to shed light on how plastic pollution

directly impacts waste picker’s liveli-

hoods. This initiative was framed within

BFFP’s Principles for a Just Recovery,
which we developed to guide our work
towards a post-pandemic world.

By focusing the 2020 report special

edition on waste pickers, we hope toshine the spotlight on the essential role
they play in moving our societies closer

towards real sustainability, as opposedto the industry’s belligerent role in per-petuating the plastic pollution crisis.
Waste pickers deserve justice now.

Principles for a
Just Recovery:
Prioritize health forpeople and planet
Invest in solutions, notbailouts
Replace single-use withsustainable systems
Demand corporate andgovernment accountability
Engage impacted
communities

14
Vietnam Zero Waste AllianceM E T H O D O LO GY & L I M I TAT I O N S

Methodology
FOUNDATIONS
The foundational brand audit methodology was designed by the Global Alliancefor Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Mother Earth Foundation, Citizen consumer
and civic Action Group (CAG), and Greenpeace Philippines. These pioneeringgroups collaborated in 2017 to organize the first large-scale brand audit on
Freedom Island in the Philippines. Our current methodology remains mostly
unchanged apart from a few simplifications.

RECRUITMENT
In August and September 2020, Break Free From Plastic mobilized people

around the world to organize brand audits in their communities. During this timeframe, participants were recruited throughour BFFP social media channels, email
listservs, newsletters, and our movement

members who spread the word acrosstheir networks and communities. All

participants took part in the brand audit
on a voluntary basis.

TRAINING
The BFFP Brand Audit Coordinatorprovided online training webinars forleaders, to support them with everythingfrom event planning logistics to datacollection details. The training sessions

were held in multiple languages including

English, Arabic, French, Spanish, andPortuguese. BFFP movement member

Trash Hero led training webinars inFundación El Árbol

15

BFFP created an animated training video with
subtitles in 15 languages.

Bahasa Indonesia, Thai, and Malay.

HOW TO DO A
BRAND AUDITWe also provided a short animatedtraining video with subtitles available
in 15 languages.

COVID-19
Due to the coronavirus pandemic,
extra steps were taken to prioritize thehealth and safety of participants. Brand

audit event organizers were requested

to follow a Cleanup and Brand Audit
Coronavirus Risk Assessment Guide

and adhere to the safety procedures.
When outdoor cleanup and brandaudit gatherings were not deemed safe due to the coronavirus, we encouraged

individual outdoor brand audits. We also presented the option for indoor brandaudits at home as a last resort.

SITE SELECTION
Participants choose their preferred site for the cleanup and brand audit. Brand
audit sites have ranged from urban city streets, parks, forests, beaches, coastal

areas, and any other place where plastic waste accumulates. Due to pandemic
restrictions against large public gatherings in some places, participants also had

the option of conducting indoor brand audits at home. This involved designatinga collection container for all the plastic packaging they disposed of during one
week and auditing the total at the end of the 7th day.

DATA RECORDING
Participants used the updated brand audit toolkit, data card, and visual guide,available in 12 languages, to guide their data collection process in a standardized16manner. The data card required participants to
document the following categories about theplastic waste collected:•

brand names•

types of products•••

item descriptions

types of materials
layers“From Break Free
From Plastic’s
perspective,
all plastic ispollution—notjust the plastic
litter collected
outdoors. ”

DATA ANALYSIS
Participants submitted their data using one of three standardized digitalplatforms: the BFFP online form, the TrashBlitz web app, or an Excel spreadsheet.

Outdoor data, indoor data, and waste picker data were analyzed together tocalculate the top 10 global corporate polluters. From Break Free From Plastic’s

perspective, all plastic is pollution — not just the plastic litter collected outdoors.
While outdoor brand audit data tells us about plastic that has escaped the waste
stream, indoor brand audit data as well as waste picker data reveal that plastic

within the waste stream is also problematic. As a fossil fuel product, single-use
plastic packaging causes pollution from the moment it is produced. Even if it

does end up being properly collected, plastic packaging is often incinerated orexported to other countries unequipped to manage it.

ACCESSIBILITY
36 participants qualified for funds of up to $400 USD to help cover the expenses
associated with hosting a brand audit event. All waste picker groups also
received stipends.

17

MODIFICATIONS
2020 marks BFFP’s third year coordinating a global brand audit. Each year,
feedback from participants have been incorporated to further improve our tools

and methodology in order to best serve their needs. Following our 2019 global
brand audit, a few changes were made to simplify the process including:•

We removed “volume” and “recyclability” as these categories provided little•

We specified that items recorded in the “other” materials type category must•

usable data in practice.
be at least 50% plastic.

We added surgical face masks to the “personal care” category.

LIMITATIONSThis report relies on self-reported data submitted by diverse participants fromall over the world. While our database has been significantly improved to matchbrands with their parent companies, this is a participatory project composed ofthousands of brands and parent companies from many countries in different
languages. It is possible for us to have missed the brand-parent company

correlation in a few cases. To review the full list of brands recorded in eachcountry, see here. The data submitted is a sample of global plastic waste andcannot claim to be fully representative of all plastic pollution. It is possiblethat some brands not captured in this report may produce even more plastic
pollution than those listed in this report. The data reflects the plastic brands

most commonly found in Asia, Europe, and North America where BFFP has astrong presence. Taking into account the 55 countries represented, the brandaudit data results give us a good indication of the most common brands foundpolluting communities around the world.

18

B R A N D A U D I T S I N T I M E S O F PA N D E M I C

Brand Audits During
a Global Pandemic
Our 2020 global brand audit recorded 770 single-use surgical masks — which
are made primarily of polypropylene, a type of plastic —­and 419 surgical gloves.*

Our first priority is the health and safety of our participants and their commu-

nities. To help ensure that brand audit events were as safe as possible, we developed a Cleanup and Brand Audit Coronavirus Risk Assessment Guide thatbrand audit organizers were required to follow.

If local authorities imposed limitations on outdoor gatherings, participants wereencouraged to conduct an individual

brand audit on a solo walk outdoors.
As a last resort, to make brand audits
accessible for those unable to go out-side, participants could do brand audits at home by recording data on plastic waste disposed over the course of

one week. Thanks to these precautions,
our volunteers safely coordinated morebrand audit events in more countries

this year than in the previous two years,
in large part due to a greater number ofsmaller events with fewer people.

* Surgical gloves are commonly made from either latex,
vinyl, or nitrile. Vinyl is a type of plastic, while latex isa natural rubber and nitrile is a synthetic petroleumbased rubber 5.
German Marine Litter Association

19

Trash Hero World | Coronavirus Advice | 12.03.20

SAFETY PROCEDURE
FOR CLEANUP& &BRAND
AUDITS
Safety procedure
for cleanup
other events
Developed by Trash Hero WorldPEOPLEINFORMATION• Request that high risk people*
do not attend.

• Check public health guidelines
right up to the last minute andbe prepared to cancel.

• Remind people who don’t feel
well and / or have visited ahigh risk area‡ recently to stayat home.

• Make sure everyone knows andunderstands the safety rules atyour briefing and debriefing.

HYGIENE

SOCIAL DISTANCE• Do not shake hands or hug.
Wave or bow instead :)• Have hand sanitiser available
and remind people to wash
their hands after the event.

• Ask participants to wear masks
and stay at least 2 metres apartduring the cleanup. This helps
to stop the spread of the virus.

• Operate a “bring your own”
policy for gloves and water: nofood or drink to be provided
on site.

*Who is a “high risk person”?
Anyone in the following categories:• over 60 years old• has a chronic health condition• has a compromised immune system‡
What is a high risk area?
This is changing all the time. For the latest
information on infected areas, please follow
local public health advice and / or monitor theWorld Health Organisation website.

115 scientists and health experts from 18 countries agree that reusables can beused safely during the pandemic6, and we cannot allow one global crisis to exacerbate another. Here are the facts:•

Coronavirus spreads primarily from inhaling aerosolized droplets, rather•

Disposable products present similar issues as reusable ones8.

•

Reusable products are easily sterilized9.

than through contact with surfaces7.

20

A volunteer from Center for Peace AcrossBorders wears a reusable cloth face mask for a
Covid-safe brand audit in Nigeria.

How can we prioritize public health while

also addressing the plastic pollution cri-sis? Here’s what one epidemiologist and
COVID-19 government policy advisor
has to say:

“As is always the case, it’s not EITHER pub-lic health OR the future of the environ-ment, but must be a combination of both.
Public health is inextricable from issuesof global consequence, and where one

goes so does the other... In approach-ing public health in the context of what
it means to share this planet, we need toCenter for Peace Across Borders‘do both’: Ask what can be done to rea-

sonably keep people healthy, while at the same time not — literally — throwing

away our future. Every single decision can be framed in this way to serve both theindividual and the collective. Companies that do good tend to do well, and weshould — as a society of consumers — incentivize them for doing the right things.
At the current rate… there will be no viable planet to reap profits from. It’s literally
in corporations’ best interests to be engaged.”- Dr Ben Locwin
Healthcare Futurist, Science and Public Health Task Force member, and COVID-19 public policy advisor
The experts have spoken. Reusables can be safe, even in a pandemic. Plastic,by contrast, is neither healthy nor safe. A new UN-backed report from the In-

ternational Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) revealed extensive evidence

that the chemical additives in plastics are poisoning people and the planet, in
addition to blocking a safe circular economy10. Harmful chemicals including per-fluorinated chemicals, phthalates, and others are added to the plastics used inconsumer products like food packaging (Ibid). Exposure to even small amounts

21

of these chemical additives in plastic

can cause cancers, damage to immune
and reproductive systems, impaired intellectual functions, and developmental
delays (Ibid). Moreover, it is our mostvulnerable communities — low-income
front-line workers such as waste pickers

and people of color — who are dispro-

portionately impacted by plastics as well
as COVID-1911.

“The experts havespoken. Reusables
can be safe, evenin a pandemic.
Plastic, by contrast,is neither healthy
nor safe.”

We cannot allow the plastic industry to take advantage of the coronavirus pandemic to justify the expansion of plastic production. It is possible for us to build

back better, by reimagining a future free from coronavirus and single-use plastic.
Better yet, we can do so in a way that leaves no one behind.

22

SPECIAL EDITIONWASTE PICKER
BRAND AUDITSSouth Africa Waste Pickers Association/
groundWork/GAIA Africa

According to Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing andOrganizing (WIEGO), a waste picker is someone who earns a livingby “collecting, sorting, recycling, and selling materials that someone
else has thrown away”12. Some are considered informal workers, whileothers are organized in cooperatives and associations to improve theirworking conditions.
Waste pickers are essential workers as they provide the vital service ofcollecting and sorting valuable discards, and therefore play a pivotal rolein combating the plastic pollution crisis. Because they are often informal
workers and marginalized, the pandemic has made their precarious
situation even more dangerous while their work remains more essential
than ever. Now, 15 million informal waste pickers and their families risk
losing their livelihood due to COVID-1913. This comes as a combined resultof such factors as lockdowns and restrictions on waste pickers’ mobility andprice fluctuations for recovered recyclable plastics (Ibid).
The “Special Edition” brand audits, in collaboration with waste picker
groups, shine a spotlight on the essential work and service that they
provide to our societies, despite the challenges posed by the pandemic.
In emphasizing the vital work of waste pickers, we also wanted to
expose how the plastic industry’s dirty decisions on packaging are
impacting their livelihoods. This underscores the need for corporations

23

Waste pickers display Coca-Colabottles in South Africa.

to be held accountable for the effect that their packaging has on
vulnerable communities. Waste pickers collect recyclable items frommany places, from within the waste stream in homes, businesses,
and landfills, to waste that has escaped the waste stream into theenvironment. We worked specifically with waste picker groups whocollect from within the waste stream: landfills and doorstep waste
pickers (see Basic Categories of Waste Pickers to learn more). A totalof 332 waste pickers joined to conduct brand audits in seven countries:
Brazil, Chile, Ghana, India, Philippines, South Africa, and Vietnam. All
participating waste pickers were compensated fairly for their work.
For years, corporations have been propagating the self-serving myththat plastic waste picking creates jobs for marginalized communities14.
But firsthand accounts from waste pickers expose a different reality: themajority of the throwaway single-use plastics collected during the brandaudit have little to zero monetary value (Figure 2). Low value plastic
comes most often in the form of multi layered packaging
like sachets, which are used to sell small quantities of
products like shampoo, detergent, condiments andcoffee. Data from this year’s global brand audit reveals
sachets were the most commonly found type of item,with 63,972 recorded in total. These tiny multilayer plastic
packages are so low value that it makes no economic
sense for waste pickers to collect them, making them very
hard to recycle15.
Adding insult to injury, many corporations claim thatthese single-serve sachets are “pro-poor” because
they allow low-income people to purchase very small
quantities of packaged food or personal care products
at prices they can afford16. Ironically and unfairly, lowincome communities bear the hidden costs of thisunmanageable plastic waste. They are burdened withcleaning up the sachets that often end up clogging
rivers and waterways or are endlessly piling up indumpsites with no solution for dealing with them in anenvironmentally sound manner.

“The majority ofthe throwaway
single-use plastics
collected during
the brand audit
have little to zeromonetary value.”

Waste pickers and the BFFP movement are demanding that companies
shift toward refill and reuse systems, to replace packaging that is notrecyclable and provides no economic benefit. As Simon Mbata, waste
picker and National Coordinator of the South African Waste Picker

24

Simon Mbata, waste picker andNational Coordinator of the South African
Waste Picker Association.

Association (SAWPA) puts it: “Whatevercannot be recycled, must not be
produced.”
In an effort to justify the continued
production of high quantities ofsingle-use plastic packaging, somefast-moving consumer goods (FMCG)
companies have resorted to PR
campaigns ostensibly to show how
they are partnering with waste pickers
to collect their packaging17. Yet working
conditions for waste pickers have been
worsened due to the shift to lower value
plastic packaging that they cannot
resell for recycling. Worse, in countries
like the Philippines, throwaway plastic
collected by waste pickers and paid
for by FMCG companies as part oftheir sustainability commitments, often
ends up being burned in cement kilns,
causing air pollution and health risks
to nearby communities18. Industry
predictions forecast a growing trend for FMCG companies to shift moreof their packaging to single-use flexible packaging, such as sachets andpouches, especially in emerging markets around the world19.
Many of the companies that we have identified as top plastic pollutersin our previous brand audit reports have multiple small scale projects
around the world with waste pickers — such as Unilever in India, Danone
in Ghana, or Coca Cola in the Philippines — but they shy away frommaking the changes that would be most impactful on a large scale20, 21,
22. These trends create a serious environmental and social injustice, as
the waste pickers who are relied upon to help realize the promises andcommitments made by corporations to reduce their plastic footprint, areincreasingly burdened with the challenge of sifting through more lowquality single-use plastic.
Break Free From Plastic members around the world call on governments
to offer ambitious policy solutions, and on business leaders to publicly
announce corporate commitments, in order to ensure that waste collection
and refill systems provide safe, good quality jobs for waste pickers.

25

Niven
Reddy/GAIA Africa“Whatevercannot berecycled,
must not be
produced.”FIGURE 1

HOW MUCH WASTE SURVEYED WAS RECYCLABLE?
Based on self-reported data submitted from waste picker brand audits, here is the percentageof types of plastic waste that waste pickers are currently able to resell for recycling.

BRAZIL: 57%

CHILE: 42%

GHANA: 57%

INDIA: 57%

RECYCLABLENONRECYCLABLE
PHILIPPINES: 42%

VIETNAM: 57%

SOUTH AFRICA: 57%

FIGURE 2

WHAT ARE RECYCLABLES WORTH?
USD/KG earned bywaste pickers fortypes of plastic waste
collected.*

PET

HDPE

PP

LDPE

BRAZIL

$0.50

$0.36

$0.29

$0.036

CHILE

$0.50

$0.36

GHANA

$0.07

$0.18

$0.29

PHILIPPINES

$0.21

$0.25

$0.25

VIETNAM

$0.26

$0.17

$0.22

$0.07

SOUTH AFRICA

$0.16

$0.19

INDIA

$0.24

$0.24

$0.24

(transparent)—$0.19(milk packets)—$0.054$0.036*A key explaining the different types of plastics can be found on page 34.

26

$0.14

Valquiria Candido da Silva,
Waste picker from Brazil

WORDS FROM WASTE PICKERS

Companies say they have created small sachets for theurban poor. If you could meet one of these corporate
CEOs, what would you say to them?

“This statement is of total disrespect, underestimating
the intelligence of waste pickers. In our daily lives, we
see thousands of packages go through the conveyor beltwith no commercial value and that leave us distressed andafflicted, to know that the thought of large corporations
is to treat waste pickers with indifference and notrecognizing the works done by the category.”– Valquiria Candido da Silva
Waste picker from Brazil
How do company decisions about plastic packaging
directly impact the livelihoods of waste pickers?

“

In my own experience, I work at a material recovery
facility with waste pickers in VaalPark South Africa, andthe majority of the plastic that we come across is notrecyclable. This no value plastic impacts the livelihoodsof waste pickers, because it eats into the profits and surpluses of our
projects. The reality is that companies who produce this type of plastic are
not creating jobs for waste pickers, but are quickly destroying the planet.
The only way that these companies can create jobs for waste pickers, is
if they create recyclable materials that can go back into the economy.
Whatever cannot be recycled, must not be produced. My hope is to see
waste pickers in South Africa working in better environments and being
an integral part of the waste management system.”– Simon Mbata, waste picker and National Coordinator of the South African Waste Picker
Association (SAWPA)

A WORD FROM WASTE PICKER EXPERTS“

I have been working as a consultant for WIEGO [Women in Informal
Employment: Globalizing and Organizing] to build the capacity of
waste pickers in Accra and to advocate for their inclusion into the formal
waste management system until the COVID-19 pandemic wreaked
havoc on their livelihoods. They have witnessed a drastic drop in theirincomes due to a decline in prices of recyclables and the closure of27

Felipe Torres/GAIA Latin America“We seethousandsof packages
go throughthe conveyor
belt with nocommercial
value.”

recycling companies, making it difficult for them to meettheir basic needs and that of their families. Recyclable
plastics have long been their gold but they have recently
observed the gradual increase in the quantities of nonrecyclable plastics in the waste stream at the dump
site, which have no economic value to them. This is ofmajor concern to them, but they are determined not tofall through the cracks. They have begun scoping fordoorstep collection as an alternative source of livelihoodin the Kpone coastal community. In order to achieve
their dream of doorstep collection, they have asked
for a waste collection contract from the government,
tricycles, a material recovery facility and support totransition their association into a cooperative.”“In fact, waste
pickers neither
want single-use
plastics for recycling,
nor the expensive
commodities they
package.”– Dr. Owusu Boampong, waste picker specialist
Research Fellow, Department of Integrated Development Studies
University of Cape Coast, Ghana“

Around 15 million waste pickers retrieve paper, metal, glass andplastics from municipal solid waste, and move it up the value chain
through scrap traders to reprocessors. They form the base of a pyramid
responsible for over 50% of global recycling that employs millions.
Despite internalizing costs and subsidizing corporations whose wastematerials they recycle, they are fragmented, marginalized and often
displaced by corporate investment in pilots that incentivizes superficial
behavior change, encourages expensive, capital intensive, centralized
technologies, or research small-scale efforts in obscure, expensive,
inefficient recycling.”“FMCG manufacturers unhesitatingly claim sachets ensure the poor
have access to their wonder products in bite-size, that littering and pollution are due in equal measure to weak municipal solid waste management systems and the ‘indisciplined’, illiterate poor, and that continued
production of plastics ensures waste pickers access to a steady income.
In fact, waste pickers neither want single-use plastics for recycling, nor
the expensive commodities they package.”—Lakshmi Narayan, waste picker specialist
Lakshmi is an activist based in Pune, India. She is a co-founder and former secretary general of KKPKP,
a trade union of self-employed waste pickers. KKPKP was instrumental in the formation of SWaCH, anautonomous waste picker cooperative offering decentralized, front end, waste management services tothe city of Pune.

28

TOP GLOBAL POLLUTERS

Announcing the 2020
Top Global Polluters
Despite clever marketing tactics and lofty “sustainability” goals, the same companies
continue to make our list of Top Global Polluters year after year. The Coca-Cola
Company, PepsiCo, and Nestlé have consistently remained the top threeglobal corporate plastic polluters since our first global brand audit
report in 2018. Unilever and Mondelez International have been in
the top five for two years in a row.

The Top Global Polluters Ranking reveals the corporations that pollute the most places around the world withthe greatest amount of plastic waste. These results areranked primarily according to widespread global distribution — in other words, by the number of countries
where brand audits reported finding these companies. Our priority metric was to examine thesecompanies’ presence across the highest numberof countries, to be consistent with our methodology since 2018. We also factored in the total
number of branded items recorded that were
produced by these companies as a secondary
metric. Together, these “Top Global Polluters”
emerged, reflecting both depth and breadth.

Our worldwide network of volunteers record thebrand names found on the plastic waste they collectin their clean ups. The data is analyzed to identify theparent companies, which can own up to hundredsof different brands. This year, participants recorded

29

1st

1

FIGURE 3

THE 10 WORST POLLUTERS
Numbers of countries in which waste wasfound and pieces of waste recorded

51
4
13,83

#1 Cocoaucolaies
co ntr51countriessplastic
13,834 plastics#2 Pepsico
43 countries
5,155 plastics#3 Nestle
37countries
8,633 plastics#4 Unileverrd
37countries
5,558plastics#5 Mondelez
34countries
1,171plasticss#6 Mars
ie
tr
n
cou
stics
32countriespla
678plastics#7 Proctor and Gambleth
29countries
3,535plastics#8 Philip Morris
28 countries
2,593plastics countries#9
plastics
Colgate Palmolive
24countries
5,991plastics#10 Parfetti
24 countries
465plastics

3

37
8,633

2

3

4

2

nd

43countries
5,155 plastics

4

37
5,558

th

6

6

5

5 th

34countries
1,171plastics

32countries
678plastics

7

8

29countrplastics
3,535
ies

28count
2,593 prliaesstics

9
24countries
5,991plastics

10
30

tries
coun
tics
plas

24
465

over 5,000 brands owned by about 3,000 parent companies worldwide. All ten of our Top
Global Polluters are headquartered in Europe and the United States.

Our analysis of this year’s data reveals the following corporations as the 2020 Top 10 Global

Polluters: The Coca-Cola Company; PepsiCo; Nestlé; Unilever; Mondelez International; Mars,Inc.; Procter & Gamble; Philip Morris International; Colgate-Palmolive; and Perfetti Van Melle.

Seven of these top polluters have joined The New Plastics Economy Global Commitment — a

project of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation bringing together hundreds of businesses to work
towards better plastic use through voluntary commitments — but have made very little progressin meeting their own 2025 goals for addressing the plastic pollution crisis23. Corporations are

instead doubling down on false solutions that may appear encouraging on the surface but lacksubstance24. Commitments to make all packaging “100% reusable, recyclable, or compostableby 2025” are already insufficient because they fail to include reduction targets and enable corporations to continue justifying their excessive production of single-use plastics.
Meanwhile, proven solutions exist, but are yet tobe adopted at scale by corporations25. These solu-

tions cut down on single-use plastic and focus instead on reusable and refillable packaging. Even
Coca-Cola acknowledges in its 2019 World With-

out Waste report: “Refillable bottles are a criticalpart of our World Without Waste strategy... In morethan 25 countries refillables make up half or moreof our sales, and in more than 50 countries refill-

ables make up 25% or more of sales, including

Chile, Colombia, Germany, Kenya, Pakistan, Peru,
the Philippines, and Tanzania”26. Despite the important role that refillables play in tackling plastic

pollution, some big brands are cutting down on refillable bottles and working to undermine deposit
and return systems in many places, in favor of single-use and disposables27.

NGO Zero Waste Society Ukraine.

31

LO C AT I O N S

WHERE WE AUDITED WASTE
The brand audits were conducted between August 1 and September 30, 2020 to coincidewith World Cleanup Day on September 19. Thanks to our members, Break Free From Plastic
engaged 14,734 volunteers in 55 countries to conduct 575 brand audits. Our volunteers col-lected 346,494 pieces of plastic waste, 63% of which was marked with a clear consumer brand.

FIGURE 4 | M A P O F B R A N D A U D I T S

I N TOTA L

575
14,73455

BRAND AUDITSVOLUNTEERSCOUNTRIES

Click for interactive map with country level detail }32

N AT I O N A L TO P P O L LU T E R S

WORST POLLUTERS BY COUNTRY
The 10 countries that submitted the most data were Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria,
the Philippines, Switzerland, Togo, the United States of America, and Vietnam. Here are the top
three polluters in each of these countries.

FIGURE 5 | N U M B E R O F W A S T E I T E M S F O U N D

Blow-Chem Industries 1890
Voltic Ghana Limited 980
Kasapreko Company Ltd 446

Tamil Nadu Co-operative
Milk Producers' Federation Ltd 4250
Unilever 1208
Britannia 928

The Coca-Cola Co. 3268
Jasmine 675
Zeitu 415

The Coca-Cola Co. 255
Migros 150
Danone 145

Danone 1052
Wings Food 552
Mayora Indah 492

Universal Robina Corp. 6350
Nestle 6168
Colgate-Palmolive 5580

The Coca-Cola Co. 4068
Pepsico 2174
Rite Foods Limited 1703

Pepsico 474
Nestle 101
Vinamilk 92

Philip Morris International 1150
Voltic Ghana Limited 47
The Coca-Cola Co. 12

The Kroger Co. 500
Pepsico 440
The Coca-Cola Co. 247

To see the top three polluters from all countries that submitted brand audit data between 2018—2020,
check out the interactive dashboard at https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/globalbrandauditreport2020!
33

W H AT W E F O U N D

FIGURE 6

WHAT WE FOUND
MOST COMMON

MOST COMMONPRODUCT TYPES

PLASTIC TYPES1

O | 132,445 PIECES

1

Food Packaging | 203,427 PIECES

PET | 81,904 PIECES

2

Smoking Materials | 72,342 PIECES

Other/unknown includes sachets(e.g. Ketchup packets) and cigarette butts

2

3

Polyethylene terephthalate includes
beverage bottles for water, soda

(e.g. Cigarette butts, lighters, cigar tips)

3

PP | 61,720 PIECES

Polypropylene includes bottle caps, surgicalface masks

MOST COMMONITEMS FOUND

Sachets | 63,972(e.g. Food wrappers, coffee cup lids,
beverage bottles)

Household Products | 21,030 PIECES(e.g. Laundry detergent bottle, shampoo
bottle, cleaning product containers)

Cigarette butts | 60,344

Plastic Bottles | 50,968

PLASTICS KEY
While there are close to 50 different types of plastic worldwide, we typically group them in 7 major categories.
These different types of plastic range widely in terms of quality, health risks, and recyclability.
PET: Polyethylene terephthalate
Clear or tinted plastic; often
used for drink bottles, cups,
pouches, etc.
HDPE: High-density polyethylene
White or colored plastic; often
used for product bottles, jars, milkjugs, etc.
PVC: Polyvinyl chloride
Durable plastic, hard or rubbery;

often used for building materials,
toys, shower curtains, etc.
LDPE: Low-density polyethylene
Clear, white, or colored plastic;
often used for bags, plastic trays,
holders, dispensers, etc.
PP: Polypropylene
Hard but flexible plastic; often
used for food containers or tubs,
bottle caps, etc.

34

PS: Polystyrene
Rigid, brittle plastic OR foam;
often used for cups, take-out foodcontainers, lids, etc.
O: Other / Unknown
Bioplastics, products containing
other plastics or types ofmaterials, including textiles, etc.

WHERE WE FOUND IT

FIGURE 7

WHERE WE FOUND IT
Indoors
45,663 PIECES
Outdoors
300,472 PIECESINDOORSOUTDOORS

6% Office
8% School

11%
Other

5% River74% Home

10% Park

1% Lake>1%
Ocean

38% City

12%
Other

13% Land21% Coast/
Shoreline

NGO Zero Waste Society Ukraine

35

TRENDS OVER TIME

FIGURE 8

2018—2020

THREE YEAR DATA COMPARISON
2 0 1 8 					2 0 1 9 			

40

		

37

2020

51

out of 42
countries

out of 51
countries

out of 55
countries

plastics

plastics

plastics

9,216

11,73236

28

13,83443

out of 42
countries

out of 51
countries

out of 55
countries

plastics

plastics

plastics

3,362

5,750

31

31

5,155

37

out of 42
countries

out of 51
countries

out of 55
countries

plastics

plastics

plastics

2,950

4,846

36

8,633

VOICES OF THE MOVEMENTAlex Gordon with Eckerd College’s president
signing the Plastic-Free Campus pledge

Voices of theMovement
Spotlight on: YouthAs a student organizer committed to ending plastic
pollution, what do you want corporate plastic
polluters to know about the impacts their decisions
have on the life of young people?
“Last year students working with PIRG [Public Interest
Research Group] collected over 300 pounds of waste
which was all audited and included in the BFFP Global
Brand Audit Report. I, and students like me, work
incredibly hard to preserve a future for ourselves,
while PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and other corporations consistently trash that
future. Corporate polluters should know that young people are invested
in ending plastic pollution, and we are effective agents of change on theissue. We’ve banned single-use plastics on our campuses, have educatedthousands of peers about the alternatives to plastics, and brought otheryoung folks into the movement. While these polluters and their waste
negatively impact the lives of so many young people, we are taking chargeof our future, and not going anywhere on the issue of plastic pollution.”

Alex Gordon
Florida Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) at Eckerd Chapter Chair
ECOS Director of Environmental Responsibility“While these polluters and theirwaste negatively impact the lives ofso many young people, we are taking
charge of our future.”
37

Photo provided by Alex Gordon

Spotlight on:
ClimateHow are the root causes—and solutions—
to climate change connected to plastic
pollution?

Exxon-Mobil oil refinery, Baton Rouge,Louisiana (USA).

“Over 99 percent of all plastic is madefrom fossil fuels, most commonly oil
and natural gas. Drilling for these fuels,
extracting them from the ground,and transporting them to processing
facilities are all very emissions-intensive
processes. In fact, in the United Statesalone, extracting and transporting natural
gas for plastic production generates anestimated 12.5 to 13.5 million metrictons of carbon dioxide equivalent per
cc WClarkeyear — that’s the same as driving nearly 3
million cars for a year! Moreover, research
estimates that across its lifecycle, plastics
account for 3.8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. To put thatin perspective, if plastic use were a country, it would be the fifth largest
emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. Plastics have a staggering impact
through each emissions-intensive step of its lifecycle — they are a threat tohealthy natural habitats, wildlife, and communities everywhere.”

Kathleen Collins
Campaign Strategist at The Climate Reality Project“If plastic use were a country, it
would be the fifth largest emitterof greenhouse gases in the world.”

38

Spotlight on:
Brand audits at home

“As a fossil fuelproduct, plastic ispollution the moment
its raw material is
extracted, and it
continues to cause
pollution at every stageof its life cycle.”

While indoor brand audits were already an optionin Break Free From Plastic’s global brand audit initiative in 2019, they were a very small part of our
total dataset. Due to the COVID-19 public healthcrisis in 2020, we expanded this option in orderto make brand audits more accessible and safer
for participants who are still largely confined totheir homes. This year, volunteers in 23 countries
conducted 214 home brand audits and collected
33,882 pieces of plastic. For these home brandaudits, participants designated a collection container for all the plastic packaging they disposedof during one week and audited the total at theend of the 7th day.

A group of students in Professor Robin Pelc’sMarine Science Service Learning class at California State University, Monterey Bay conducted home brand audits as part of their course. Here are some of their reflections.
What was one new thing you learned?
Plastics are unavoidable! I feel like everything I purchased or used had some little
piece of plastic on the packaging.
What surprised you?
What surprised me is that the products that I buy that I thought are considered
recyclable are actually not because of the type of [plastic] material they are.
What, if anything, were you able to purchase in refill/reuse containers?
Nothing—with COVID a lot of places in my home town are not allowing reusable
containers to be used, so we have accumulated more trash.
How have COVID-related changes, like lockdowns or store closures, impacted
your purchasing options?
COVID-19 has definitely increased the amount of plastic waste in my family as thevirus has forced us to order everything online in order to ensure our safety.
As individuals, we may try very hard to avoid plastic whenever possible. But often
it just isn’t possible, and many of us simply don’t have the privilege of choice. After
participating in this indoor brand audit, what kinds of “systems change” would
you like to see?
I would like to see brands pay to ensure they are accountable in the long term forany plastic they produce.
39

Spotlight on:
Zero Waste
What does the path from individual
action to community action look likefor you?

A waste picker holds up personal careproduct packaging during our 2020
brand audit.

"We sort our waste, refuse plastic cups
for coffee, nourish soils with compost,and send recoverable discards to local
recyclers. However, we’ve been circlingaround the industry playbook all this time,
demanding behavior change among individuals. Even if this behavior change
happens to everyone, our communities—
including those with the best Zero Waste
practices—are likely to continue struggling
KKPKP/SWaCH
with unwanted plastic waste. It’s time toelevate our citizenship! Let’s push governments to embrace Zero Waste and demand corporations to drop the hypocrisy and take responsibility for theirproducts. The change has to happen at the very starting point of the problem, and that’s with plastic-producing polluters."

Miko Aliño
Zero Waste Program Manager at GAIA
(Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives) in Asia-Pacific Region

40

GREENWASHING

Greenwashing
Greenwashing — (noun) the intersection of two company behaviors: poor environmental
performance and positive communication about environmental performance.(28)The plastic industry refers to all of the different companies involved in the pro-duction and sale of plastic products, and 99% of plastic is made out of fossil

fuels29. This includes the companies that extract fossil fuels, turn fossil fuels into
the building blocks of plastic, shape plastic into packaging and the fast-moving
consumer goods companies (FMCGs) turning packaging into branded items.

Fossil fuel companies—such as Dow, DuPont, ExxonMobil, INEOS, and others—
are involved in multiple parts of the plastic supply chain, including fossil fuelexploration and extraction, chemical processing, and consumer goods manu-

facturing. These petrochemical giants benefit from vertical integration, which iswhere a company also owns its suppliers, distributors and/or retailers. This cre-ates a financial incentive for them to continuously increase the dual productionof fossil fuels and single-use plastic products(e.g. sachets, water bottles, and countless oth-er forms of packaging) to be sold around theworld. While the world is already drowning insingle-use plastic, the petrochemical industry

plans to increase plastic production by 40%
over the next decade30.

Only 9% of all the plastic ever made has been

recycled31, yet the companies that produce

this plastic continue to hail recycling as the ul-

timate solution to combating the plastic pollution crisis. This places the blame for plastic
waste and pollution on individuals who fail torecycle plastic after it is used. This approach

41“Only 9% of all theplastic ever madehas been recycled,
yet...[producers]
continue to hailrecycling as theultimate solution
to combating theplastic pollution
crisis.”also blames local municipalities and governments for not providing sufficient

recycling infrastructure for all the plastic waste that is generated. However,most single-use plastic simply can’t be recycled or it’s just not economical to
do so, especially when the cost of virgin plastic is very low. Even in countries

where the plastic recycling system is advanced, recycling rates are still low andthe majority of plastic ends up being incinerated, landfilled or dumped in theenvironment. The only way to truly solve the plastic pollution crisis is to stopmaking so much plastic.

Researchers from Changing Markets have identified three primary tactics theplastic industry uses to promote false solutions, while they continue to produce
ever more plastic: (1) delay regulation by pushing for “voluntary commitments”
instead, (2) distract from their role at the heart of the crisis, and (3) derail legislation by lobbying against real solutions32.

Voluntary commitments are used to delay legislation because the companies
can claim they are already dealing with the problem. They are also used as gre-enwashing marketing tools, and are often featured in public advertising campaigns. Voluntary commitments rarely make much headway in tackling environmental damage even though they receive media attention and shareholder
praise. Furthermore, if all current corporate and government commitments were

to be fully implemented, in 20 years the plastic flowing to the oceans will have
only been reduced by 7%33.

The most powerful industry strategies often manifest in international coalitions.
Groups such as the Alliance to End Plastic Waste include some of the world’s
biggest petrochemical producers and top plastic polluting companies as mem-bers. Under this banner, the Alliance spends hundreds of millions of dollars

highlighting false solutions and running small scale recycling and clean up proj-

42

ects34. While they do this, their member companies continue to make billions ofdollars selling the same plastic waste they claim to want to put a stop to. Whilesome companies encourage end of life tactics like recycling and beach clean-ups, they are also aggressively increasing the amount of plastic they produce.
Worse, they lobby heavily against any governmental action to restrict the proliferation of single-use plastics35.

BIO AND COMPOSTABLE PLASTICS
Greenpeace36 has found that companies distract by promoting false solutions
such as “bio” or “compostable” types of plastic. Bioplastics are made using somepercentage of plant matter as the virgin material, instead of being entirely madeout of fossil fuels. In extreme greenwashing examples, products made out of thismaterial are labeled as “plant plastic” or “not plastic”. The reality is, plant materials undergo similar chemical reactions as conventional plastic. The material usu-

ally won’t degrade at the end of its life and it has to be burned or landfilled. Like

all single-use items, it is a waste of precious resources and energy, and sends
confusing signals to the general public.

Another material that has been touted as a solution by companies is compostable
plastic. Compostable plastics have been designed so that they degrade after

a long time and in certain conditions like higher temperatures and pressures.
Many of these materials have to be sent to specialist industrial composting facilities and won’t degrade in a home compost heap or if dropped in the environ-ment. Compostable single-use plastics may have some uses in certain situations,but for most plastic items they are a false solution and further perpetuate thenotion that short-term technological fixes will save the day.

Some of the fast-moving consumer goods companies named in this year’s

brand audits have responded to the public concern about plastic pollution withcommitments to make 100% of their packaging recyclable, compostable or re-usable37. As we’ve discussed here, recycling and compostable packaging will
make little difference in their status as top plastic polluters.

43

BURNING PLASTIC
The plastic industry often claims thatburning plastic is an eco-friendly way
of disposing of it. Many municipalities
incinerate plastic waste as their normal waste disposal method instead oflandfilling. Plastic is also used as fuelin cement kilns or to make energy in“waste-to-energy” plants. Burning plas-

tic creates serious environmental and“Many of theschemes sellingcredits to othercompanies are
actually burning
the wastecollected.”social problems. Researchers at GAIA

have found that incineration emits toxic cancer and hormone disrupting chem-

icals and a host of other dangerous pollutants38. In the US and UK39 incinerators
are disproportionately situated near low-income communities, causing higher

air pollution and health concerns. Burning plastic in any form is not a solution,and has no part to play in a greener and more just future.

PLASTIC OFFSETTING
Plastic offsetting and plastic credits is a new idea that follows the concept ofcarbon offsetting40. One company earns “credits” for collecting and recycling or“treating” waste, then a different company buys those credits to offset the plastic
products they make, even though the second company does nothing to keep

their products out of the environment. Some of these plastic offsetting schemes
allow companies to claim their products are “plastic neutral” because they have
paid enough money into plastic collection projects41. Many of the schemes sell-ing credits to other companies are actually burning the waste collected, claim-

ing it has been “treated” and diverted from going into the ocean. In other words,
plastic offsetting is ultimately a form of creative accounting that allows a company to make environmental claims without ever actually reducing the amount ofplastic used or finding more sustainable ways to deliver their products to people(i.e. avoiding single-use plastic).

44

CHEMICAL RECYCLING
So-called “chemical recycling” is theprocess of breaking apart the building
blocks of plastic polymers into theirconstituent parts to either make newplastic or, more commonly, fuel and/or other substances that are eventually burned42. Although there are claims

that the process can be used to recycle

plastics that are otherwise impossible
to mechanically recycle, investigative“Chemical
recycling...
produces unknown
amounts of carbon
emissions, toxic
wastes and otherenvironmental
impacts.”

research has revealed that the numbers cited by the plastic industry areoften purposefully misleading43. Chemical recycling is the industry’s latest at-

tempt at a techno-fix that produces unknown amounts of carbon emissions,
toxic wastes and other environmental impacts. Both the technological processitself and the economic model behind it are still unproven. Chemical recycling is only happening at a tiny scale today, and there is serious debate about

whether or not the process actually works. However, many companies are stillrelying on chemical recycling to allow them to achieve their “100% recyclable”
commitments for products that cannot otherwise be recycled, such as multilayered single-use sachets.

"It is clear that big corporations have created the plastic pollution problem andthey, along with governments, must be held accountable for tackling it. Our task

is to use our mass movement to force change. We best do this by relentlessly documenting companies’ contribution to the problem, through brand audits

and surveys; by investigating and exposing their greenwashing and behind-the-scenes lobbying; and by highlighting the real solutions. Our power comes fromworking together to engage the public and exert the mass people power thatcan force big brands to change their path."- Louise Edge, Greenpeace Global Corporate Campaigner

45

SOLUTIONSReal Solutions
Now that we’ve revealed the top polluting companies of 2020 and looked at the

many ways single-use plastic harms people and the planet, we can delve into thereal solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. It’s important that we recognize that
there are no quick fixes, and false solutions abound. Given the increasing ap-

plications of single-use plastic in modern society, each application will require
tailored solutions, factoring in the actual and potential impacts of any solutions
to the environment and the well-being of communities.

Companies, governments and individuals must consider the following questions when assessing potential solutions:

1. Is the solution affordable and accessible to all?

2. Will this solution use more energy and resources than the item or system
it is replacing?

3. Is this a solution to the cause of the problem or is it merely swapping one
single-use material for another?

COMPANIES MUST CHANGE
Reveal

It is vitally important that fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies and retailers be transparent about how much plastic they use every

year, reported per item as well as by weight. The only way a company can
set meaningful, measurable reduction targets is by knowing and sharing
its starting point and yearly progress. Legislators also need to know how

much plastic each company is using in order to design new laws that support a transition to lower plastic use.

46

Many companies are already revealing their plastic footprints by weightas part of their sustainability commitments to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s Global Plastic Commitment 44. Unfortunately, these annual reports

are not subject to an independent audit to check for accuracy and verac-

ity of claims, which is important for transparency and trust. The single-use
plastic use that has been reported is staggering: the top five polluting
companies combined have reported using 7,692,421 metric tonnes ofplastic in 201945.

ReduceReducing overall single-use plastic use is the only way we will ever solve

the plastic pollution crisis. As this year’s brand audits have demonstrated,
there is so much low value single-use plastic in circulation that it is inevita-

ble that a lot ends up polluting the environment, and even if plastic goesto waste treatment, it is still causing pollution along its entire life cycle.
Even in countries with more advanced waste collection and recycling systems, plastic pollution is still highly prevalent. Recycling alone will neverbe enough as most plastic cannot be effectively or economically recycled.
The worst example of low value single-use plastics are multilayered sachets that are used to sell small quantities of products to people. Multilayered sachets were the most found item this year, with 63,972 individual

sachets collected. They are very hard to recycle and end up in the environment polluting communities, in huge quantities46. Several of this year’s

top plastic polluters make and sell multilayered sachets, yet they also havesustainability commitments to make all their packaging 100% recyclable,
reusable or compostable. Sachets are none of these things and companies
must stop producing them in order to achieve their own commitments.

To drive the reduction of plastic, companies need to set clear, measurable, ambitious targets. Ideally these targets will increase over time to47

drive further reductions. The ultimate goal should be to remove single-use

plastic from their operations entirely, and replace them with long-lasting,reusable, refillable packaging or simply no packaging at all. These goals
should be set per unit, not as a reduction of the overall weight of plastic
used. This is because existing reduction targets that focus on weight ofplastic have led to companies reducing the overall amount of plastic in apiece of plastic—called lightweighting—but they do not address their reliance on single-use plastic47. This might have benefits in terms of use of raw

materials, but it has little impact on the amount of plastic that ends up in
the environment. A lighter weight single-use plastic bottle can still end up

in the sea; whereas, a real solution would be a durable water bottle thatcan be reused over and over again. An ideal target should be specific,
time-bound and measurable, for example, some members of the BreakFree From Plastic movement are calling on companies to reduce the number of plastic packaging items they produce by 50% by 202548.

Reinvent

Companies must urgently rethink and redesign how they deliver products
to their customers. The current business models of FMCG companies are

based on marketing and selling their products in single-use plastic packaging, and conveniently passing the burden of managing their throwaway

packaging onto consumers, taxpayers and local governments. This has re-

sulted in massive environmental damage and harm to the health of com-munities living around plastic production facilities49. This is unsustainable,

unfair and has no place in a world facing multiple environmental and social
justice crises.

The reliance on single-use plastic packaging as the method for delivering
products to customers has become the norm in the last few decades, but

it has not always been this way. Before the rise of single-use, beverages
came in reusable glass bottles to be returned after use to be cleaned andrefilled, in fact this is still the case in many communities around the world48

today50. Companies can look to the past where refillable, reusable packaging was commonly used and combine the old ways with modern tech-

nology such as phone apps and tracking barcodes to make the systems
convenient and affordable. There are examples of refill and reuse systems
all over the world for a diversity of products51. We are not starting fromscratch. Companies and retailers need to reimagine their business models
with an end to single-use as the starting point, then work with other stakeholders to make the new systems safe and convenient to use.

Reusable packaging often works best when it is standardized across all thecompanies in the sector. If each company forgoes their individual pack-aging styles, they no longer need to design separate reuse systems. Bystandardizing packaging design, companies can pool resources on thetransportation and cleaning logistics to spread the costs and reduce emis-

sions. This has worked successfully in Germany, for example, where multiple companies banded together to standardize beverage bottles so they

could be reusable52. The only differentiating feature on these bottles is thelabel identifying the brand.

INVESTORS CAN TRANSFORM COMPANIESInvestors can play an important role pushing for change in consumer goods

companies by choosing to invest in zero waste businesses, those committed
to real solutions, or by working to transform companies they have already in-vested in. Shareholder resolutions have been proven to work in getting companies to set more ambitious targets, change specific packaging methods or

improve other aspects of their sustainability performance. Shareholder activ-

ism by organisations, such as As You Sow, are responsible for mobilizing commitments from YUM! Brands in phasing out non-recyclable styrofoam pack-aging53 and Starbucks in developing reusable packaging targets54, amongst
many other wins.

49

Investors should be aware of the risks

associated with business models that
depend on the use of single-use plas-

tic and act accordingly. As the world
wakes up to the damage caused by theplastic and fossil fuel industries, more
and more governments are developing
regulations that can harm a companies’
profit margin if they fail to implement alow plastic business model55. Single-use“The reputationalrisks associatedwith reliance on
single-use plastic
must also be taken
into account byinvestors.”

packaging based business models arealso at risk of becoming irrelevant andlosing market share if new startup companies with zero or low waste businessmodels take off and become popular. The reputational risks associated with reliance on single-use plastic must also be taken into account by investors. Moreand more, customers are demanding companies find real solutions to their plastic footprint.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION IS ESSENTIAL
Corporations are generally unwilling to make significant changes if they fear it

will impact their profit margins and market share. That’s why voluntary commitments from companies are rarely ambitious or fast enough to tackle major en-

vironmental problems56. The only way we will solve the plastic pollution crisis is

to see significant change to the way companies do business. It’s no longer an
option for corporations to rely on single-use plastic packaging and expect tax-

payers and local municipalities to pick up the bill for managing their waste. Leg-islation is vital to ensuring that businesses protect citizens and the environment,
not just profit margins.

Countries are already bringing in game-changing laws to help tackle the plastic
pollution crisis, they include:

50

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Banning the most harmful types of plastic and single-use plastic items
Making companies pay for the cost of collection and waste treatmentof their products at their end of life

Imposing targets for the amount of recycled plastic that must
be included in packaging

Implementing deposit schemes for reusable packaging suchas beverage bottles

Setting high targets for recycling, combined with ensuring thatrecycling happens in the country where the waste was madeLegislating to reduce plastic use and increase reusable packaging
Bringing in taxes, levies and other financial tools to incentivize
real solutions

While corporate voluntary action is not enough to solve the plastic pollution crisis,
neither is legislation on its own sufficient enough. Both governments and compa-

nies need to make changes and work together to achieve real and lasting impact.

A GLOBAL TREATYCountries from around the world are in discussions about a global treaty totackle plastic pollution. History has shown that environmental protection is mostsuccessful when all governments work together with a common goal like thecase of the Montreal Protocol57, which united governments around the world

to phase out the use of chemicals responsible for the hole in the ozone Layer.
The United Nations Environment Assembly recognizes marine plastic pollution

as a serious environmental threat, and is investigating ways to address it. Meanwhile, the Break Free From Plastic movement is demanding a global treaty that
addresses plastic pollution at every stage of its life cycle. In 2020, two thirds ofUnited Nations members states declared their support for a new treaty on plas-

tic pollution58, but many oil- and gas-producing nations are opposed. It is time

for all national governments to commit to a new treaty that covers the entire life
cycle of plastic.

51

INDIVIDUALS ARE PART OF THE SOLUTION
Everyday people around the world have a vital role to play in solving the plastic
pollution crisis. Without pressure from their customers or the people who votethem in power, companies and governments are slow to change. By boycotting
the most polluting corporations, writing letters to decision makers, using wallet

power to support zero waste businesses, being vocal on social media, protest-

ing new plastic production facilities and of course by taking direct action such as
conducting a brand audit, people have enormous power to affect change. Com-munity groups around the world are encouraging their local businesses and municipalities to adopt zero waste principles and fight back against the expansionof petrochemical facilities that make plastic. The Break Free From Plastic move-

ment is made up of individuals who are committed to making broad, sweeping,
positive change for people and the planet by collaborating with changemakers
around the globe. Congratulations; by reading this report and learning about

waste pickers, corporate accountability and alternatives to single-use, you arealready part of the solution.

52

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions
Thanks to the Break Free From Plastic movement and its allies around the world,
corporations are increasingly scrutinized and held to higher standards because

people are demanding better. Instead of pursuing real solutions, however, many
corporations are choosing to double down on the single-use disposable busi-

ness model that created the plastic pollution crisis in the first place59. In doing so,

corporations continue to fail people and the planet, and further perpetuate theillusion that recycling is enough to stem this crisis.

Top plastic polluters like The Coca-Cola Company, Nestlé, and PepsiCo havemade very little progress in reducing total plastic use or switching to reusable
packaging. According to a recent Ellen
MacArthur report, the signatories to the

New Plastic Economy Global Commitment have reduced their use of virginplastic by 0.1% from 2018 to 201960.
Coca-Cola has actually increased theamount of plastic they use*. Top polluting

companies are not only failing to meettheir already weak commitments, they
are increasingly relying on greenwashing
to present an outward mirage of sustain-

ability while continuing to “delay, distract,and derail” real progress61.

One particularly offensive ploy is thegrowing market trend toward low-quality,
lightweight multilayer packaging62. Light-

weight packaging may be cheaper to* Coca-Cola reported to Ellen MacArthur for their 2020 progress
report that in 2019 they used 2,982,421 metric tonnes of plastic,
but in 2018 they reported 2,970,289 metric tonnes used.
Plastic Free Bohol

53

transport, but the multilayers make it very difficult to manage as waste, creating
a much more expensive problem in the long term63. Furthermore, it threatens the

livelihoods of waste pickers who rely on reselling high-quality plastic to recyclers.
Companies are effectively dumping the full cost of plastic pollution onto people

who pay the price with a deluge of plastic packaging flooding their communities.
Sachets are one prominent example, as these miniature plastic packages are inun-

dating the markets in Global South countries under the corporate guise of “propoor marketing.” Sixty-four million sachets are used each day in the Philippines
alone64. These sachets are not only unrecyclable, they are replacing higher quality

plastics that waste pickers rely on for their livelihood.

The industry’s addiction to single-use plastic has been exacerbated this year withthe explosive production of single-use plastic personal protective equipment(PPE) to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus65. In our global brand audit,
participants recorded 419 surgical gloves and 770 single-use masks, which are
made primarily of polypropylene—a type of plastic. This is a unique challenge to2020, but not unique to our disposable culture. It is merely the latest symptomof a larger problem of how we deal with waste.

People can no longer afford the toxic cycle of fossil fuel extraction, single-use
packaging, and unmanageable plastic waste. Corporations must act now to reveal their total global plastic footprint—and that includes fully accounting for the

impact of their products throughout their life cycle, including toxics and carbon
emissions. They must commit to drastically reduce the amount of plastic they

produce—and governments must hold them legally accountable for the consequences associated with their continuing reliance on single-use plastic packag-

ing. Voluntary corporate commitments are proving to be ineffectual and inad-

equate in dealing with this worsening crisis. Finally, corporations must reinvent
the way they deliver their products to people in a way that does not rely on
single-use plastic, such as through standardized refill and reuse systems.

At Break Free From Plastic, we are committed to build back better. We condemn

the plastic industry taking advantage of the coronavirus pandemic to justify more

single-use plastic production, and we will continue to hold them accountable in2020 and beyond. Visit www.breakfreefromplastic.org to take action by joining
the global Break Free From Plastic movement.

54

REFERENCES

References
1. Break Free From Plastic, 2019. “BRANDED, Vol II. Identifying the World’s Top Corporate Plastic Polluters.”
https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/globalbrandauditreport2019/
2. Break Free From Plastic, 2018. “BRANDED: In Search of the World’s Top Corporate Plastic Polluters.”
https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/globalbrandauditreport2018/
3. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2020. “Global Commitment 2020 Progress Report.”
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/apply/global-commitment-progress-report
4. Williams, M.; Gower, R. and Green, J. with Whitebread, E.; Lenkiewicz, Z. and Schröder, P. (2019) No Time to
Waste: Tackling the Plastic Pollution Crisis Before it’s Too Late, London: Tearfund.
https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/14490
5. World Health Organization, 2009. WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care: First Global Patient
Safety Challenge Clean Care Is Safer Care. Geneva: 23. Practical issues and potential barriers to optimal
hand hygiene practices. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK144047/
6. Greenpeace, 2020. Reusables can be used safely: Over 125 health experts fire back at the plastic industry.
https://www.greenpeace.org/africa/en/blogs/11438/reusables-can-be-used-safely-over-125-health-experts-fire-back-at-the-plastic-industry/
7.

How COVID-19 Spreads. CDC. (October 2020)

8.

Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental conditions. The Lancet. (April 2020)

9.

Cleaning and Disinfection for Households. US Environmental Protection Agency.

10. International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), 2020. “Plastic's Toxic Additives.”
https://ipen.org/site/plastics-toxic-additives
11. Surfrider Foundation, 2020. “A Reality Check on Environmental Racism & Plastics.”
https://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/a-reality-check-on-environmental-racism-plastics
12. Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing (WIEGO). “Waste Pickers.”
https://www.wiego.org/informal-economy/occupational-groups/waste-pickers
13. GAIA, 2020. “Waste Pickers in Time of Crisis.”
https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/waste-pickers-in-time-of-crisis.pdf
14. Coca-Cola India, 2016. “Recycling and Sustainable Packaging and Model Villages.”
https://www.coca-colaindia.com/sustainability-report/sustainability-recycling
15. Kaiser, K., Schmid, M., Schlummer, M., 2017. Recycling of Polymer-Based Multilayer Packaging: A Review.
Recycling, Vol.1, issue 1.
16. Posadas, Dennis. The Guardian, 2014. “Sachets help low-income communities but are a waste nightmare.” https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sachet-packaging-low-income-communities-waste-nightmare
17. Danone, 2018. “Partnering With Waste Pickers For Inclusive Recycling.”
https://www.danone.com/stories/articles-list/partnership-inclusive-recycling.html
18. Tearfund, 2020. The Burning Question: Will Companies Reduce Their Plastic Use? https://learn.tearfund.
org/~/media/files/tilz/circular_economy/2020-tearfund-the-burning-question-en.pdf
19. Future Market Insights, 2019. “Sachet Packaging Market — Key Research Findings.”
https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/sachet-packaging-market

5520. Unilever. ”A decent and dignified income for India’s waste pickers.” https://www.unilever.com/about/take-action/initiative/a-decent-and-dignified-income-for-india-s-waste-pickers-554991/
21. Danone, 2017. “Pick-It!” http://ecosysteme.danone.com/projectslists/pick-it/
22. Business Inquirer, 2020. “Coca-Cola PH partners with Plastic Bank® to stop Ocean Plastic.”
https://business.inquirer.net/306576/coca-cola-ph-partners-with-plastic-bank-to-stop-ocean-plastic
23. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2020. “Global Commitment 2020 Progress Report.”
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/apply/global-commitment-progress-report
24. Greenpeace, 2019. “Throwing Away the Future: How Companies Still Have it Wrong on Plastic Pollution‘Solutions.’” https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/report-throwing-away-the-future-false-solutions-plastic-pollution-2019.pdf
25. Unilever, 2020. “Reuse. Refill. Rethink. Our progress towards a packaging revolution.”
https://www.unilever.com/reuse-refill-rethink-plastic.html
26. The Coca-Cola Company, 2019. “The Coca-Cola Company 2019 World Without Waste Report.”
https://www.coca-colacompany.com/content/dam/journey/us/en/reports/coca-cola-world-without-wastereport-2019.pdf
27. Container Recycling Institute, 2020. “The Decline of Refillable Beverage Bottles in the U.S.”
http://www.container-recycling.org/index.php/53-facts-a-statistics/glass/428-the-decline-of-refillable-beverage-bottles-in-the-us
28. Delmas, M.A., Burbano, V.C., 2011. The Drivers of Greenwashing.
29. Center for International Environmental Law, 2017.
Fueling Plastics: Fossils, Plastics and Petrochemical Feedstocks
30. Center for International Environmental Law, 2017.
Fueling Plastics: How Fracked Gas, Cheap Oil and Unburnable Coal are Driving the Plastics Boom
31. Geyer, Jambeck, & Law, 2017. Science Advances Vol. 3, no. 7.
Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made.
32. Changing Markets Foundation, 2020. Talking Trash: the corporate playbook of false solutions to the plasticcrisis.
33. Pew Charitable Trusts and Systemiq, 2020. Breaking the Plastic Wave
34. Alliance To End Plastic Waste, 2020. https://endplasticwaste.org/projects/
35. Changing Markets Foundation, 2020. Talking Trash: the corporate playbook of false solutions to the plasticcrisis
36. See Greenpeace 2019 report ‘Throwing away the future: how companies still have it wrong on plastic pollution solutions’ for more details
37. Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2018, New Plastic Economy Global Commitment
38. See GAIA’s 2019 fact sheet on incineration for more information
39. The Guardian, 2020. UK waste incinerators three times as likely to be in deprived areas
40. RePurpose, 2019. Plastic Offset: How It Works And Who It Impacts
41. The Inquirer, 2020. Committing to plastic neutrality: Nestlé PH recovers equivalent amount of plastic waste
used in packaging
42. GAIA, 2020. “Questions and Answers: Chemical Recycling”.
43. Greenpeace, 2020. Deception by the Numbers: Claims about Chemical Recycling Don’t Hold Up to Scrutiny.
44. Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2018, New Plastic Economy Global Commitment
45. Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2020, New Plastic Economy Global Commitment individual company reports

5646. Kaiser, K., Schmid, M., Schlummer, M., 2017. Recycling of Polymer-Based Multilayer Packaging: A Review.
Recycling, Vol.1, issue 1.
47. Packaging Digest, 2017. Solving the problems of lightweighting in consumer product packaging
48. Greenpeace UK, 2020.
UK supermarkets can halve throwaway plastic by 2025 by reducing plastic across 54 grocery categories
49. CIEL, 2019. Plastics and Health: the Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet
50. Packaging Europe, 2020. Reuse: a closer look at Coca-Cola Brazil’s unique returnable bottle initiative
51. Greenpeace, 2020. “Reusables are Doable”
52. For more information on reusable bottle systems in German see https://www.mehrweg.org (in German)
53. As You Sow, 2020. “YUM! Brands agree to phase out polystyrene foam packaging by 2022 following engagement with As You Sow”
54. As You Sow, 2020. “After As You Sow dialogue, Starbucks signals intent to move from single-use cups andplastics to reusable packaging”
55. Client Earth, 2018. “Risk unwrapped: plastic pollution as a material business risk”
56.Changing Markets Foundation, 2020. Talking Trash: the corporate playbook of false solutions to the plasticcrisis
57. The Montreal Protocol
58. The Guardian, 2020. “Global treaty to tackle plastic pollution gains steam without US and UK”
59 Greenpeace, 2019. “Throwing Away the Future: How Companies Still Have it Wrong on Plastic Pollution‘Solutions.’” https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/report-throwing-away-the-future-false-solutions-plastic-pollution-2019.pdf
60 Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2020. “Global Commitment 2020 Progress Report.”
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/apply/global-commitment-progress-report
61 Changing Markets Foundation, 2020.
Talking Trash: the corporate playbook of false solutions to the plastic crisis.
62 Future Market Insights, 2019. “Sachet Packaging Market — Key Research Findings.”
https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/sachet-packaging-market
63 Packaging Digest, 2017. Solving the problems of lightweighting in consumer product packaging
64 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives GAIA Asia Pacific, 2020.
“Sachet Economy: Big Problems in Small Packets.”
65 Patrício Silva, Ana L et al. “Increased plastic pollution due to COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and recommendations.” Chemical engineering journal Lausanne, Switzerland: 1996 vol. 405 2021: 126683.
doi:10.1016/j.cej.2020.126683#BREAKFREEFROMPLASTICW W W. B R E A K F R E E F R O M P L A S T I C . O R G
57