A CRISIS OFCONVENIENCE

The corporations behindthe plastic pollution pandemic

A Greenpeace review of the policies, practices and ambitions ofsignificant fast-moving consumer good businesses.

Picture© Dennis Reher / Greenpeace

Front cover design adapted from an image published in Life, from
August 1, 1955, illustrating an article titled “Throwaway Living - disposable items cut downhousehold chores”. This article has been cited as the source that first used the term
“throw-away society”.

Table of Contents
5

Executive Summary9

1. Introduction10

2. Fast-moving consumer goods sector
What is the “fast-moving consumer goods” (FMCG) sector
Plastic packaging dependency - a medium for the consumer goods message
Branded consumer packaging creates plastic pollution globallyBox 1: Plastics - a life-cycle of problems
The case for single-use plastic relies on “recycling”
The global waste trade - a superhighway for exporting the plastic pollution crisis
Can the plastics crisis get any bigger?

17

3. Survey of fast-moving consumer goods companies
Assessment methodology
Analysis
The majority of companies are not willing or able to provide many details about theirplastic use		
Commitments allow companies to increase single-use plastic packaging
FMCG companies are increasing the amount of single-use plastic units produced
None of the companies surveyed know the ultimate fate of their packaging
Business is stuck in a single-use packaging mindset, solutions are mainly on recyclabilityor recycling
Box 2: The Recycling MythBox 3: No reduction or reuse solution for sachets and snack packaging
Analysis conclusions

30

4. Solutions
Box 4: Solutions in Action
False or insufficient solutions
Material substitution
Box 5: Bioplastics
Light-weighting
Relying on recycling to solve the plastics packaging problem
Incineration and “waste-to-energy”
Box 6: Why incineration and “waste to energy” can’t solve the plastics issue
Informal recycling36

5. Greenpeace call to action
1. Transparency and plastic footprint disclosure
2. Public Commitment to reduction of plastic footprint and transition plan/roadmap
3. Investments in reuse and new/ alternative delivery systems

39

Glossary

43

References
Appendices - see separate document
Appendix I: Assessment methodology
Appendix II: Questionnaire
Appendix III: Company responses
Disclaimer: all references to Greenpeace refer to Greenpeace International unless otherwise stated.

3© Holde Schneider / Greenpeace

Executive Summary
The sight of rivers, oceans and communities
overwhelmed with plastic waste has become ashocking - and all too common sight. The logos
and images of big consumer brands - clearlyvisible in this tsunami of disposable plastic - show
where the responsibility lies. These brands - with
their throwaway packaging - are promoting andperpetuating our modern throwaway lifestyles thatare driving mass production and overconsumption.
Now we are facing the evidence that “convenience”
has an unacceptable cost; the health of ourecosystems and the living beings that depend on
them.
Every minute of every day, the equivalent of one
truckload of plastic enters the sea,1 ​​with plastic
packaging being one of the highest contributors
to the global plastics waste stream.2​Each one ofthese packages - made to stand out from the crowd
and win brand loyalty - is designed to be used once
and thrown away, with little or no thought for theconsequences. Now, as these companies look to
expand in new markets, they are selling ever moreindividual units of s​ mall, single portions in plastic
sachets​​ that are not even possible to recycle.
Accountability - the first step towards asolutionbrakes on the growing production and marketing of
single-use plastics.
Key findings
The most concerning finding is that no company
shared specific plans or commitments to reduce
the total amount of single-use plastic items they are
producing. There is also a basic lack of transparency
undermining the credibility of any commitments.
This is compounded by misleading claims from somethat their packaging is “reusable” and not “single use
packaging” when it contains more than one portion.
• No commitments to phase out single-use plastic
packaging• No company surveyed has a commitment tophase out single-use plastic, or clear targets to
reduce the number of single-use plastic items
they are producing.
• Every single corporate commitment made by
the companies allows the use of single-use
plastic packaging to continue to grow.
• All companies are wedded to a single-use
packaging mindset; the solutions being explored
are mainly on recyclability or recycling - which
are not sufficient to address the plastics
pollution crisis on their own.

The brands driving the growth in single use
plastics - the world’s biggest fast-moving consumer
goods (FMCG) companies - are n​ ot being held
accountable​​ for the growing crisis associated withthe production, consumption, disposal and often
pollution of single-use plastics. These companies
are responsible for the majority of the throwaway
products which sustain our modern “disposable”
lifestyle3 and are the creators of much of the plastic
pollution that has led to this crisis, yet even basic
information about these companies’ operations,production trajectory and true plastic footprint islacking.

• Increasing amounts of single-use plastic

For this report, Greenpeace US sent acomprehensive survey to eleven of the largest
FMCG companies.4 The responses show that
despite commitments to reduce plastic waste
through more recycling, there is no plan to truly
address their plastics problem, that would put the• None of the companies surveyed know theultimate fate of their packaging, meaning they
do not know if it will continue to feed potential
eco-dumping through the global waste trade.

packaging• Most FMCG companies are increasing theamount of single-use plastic used: all but one
company reported an increase or steady state ofsingle-use plastic.
• Companies do not or are not able to reveal theirplastic footprint• None of the companies have provided fulldetails on their plastics footprint, although many
say they plan to do so in the future.

5

Impacts of plastic in our ecosystems
We don’t know exactly how long oil-based plastic
will take to degrade, but once in our soil, rivers or
oceans, it is impossible to clean up.
• What we see washing up on shores or floatingon the surface is only the tip of the iceberg. Over
two thirds of plastic in the oceans ends up
on the seabed creating a growing wasteland
beneath the surface,5 and the amount of plastic
entering marine environments is increasing.6• Larger pieces break apart into smaller andsmaller fragments known as microplastics,
which are not visible to the naked eye.
• Plastic has been recorded in Arctic sea ice to
Antarctic sea water, to the deepest trench of theseafloor.
• Plastic waste is equally problematic on land, fillingup landfill sites and clogging waterways,
increasing the risk of flooding or polluting
the land and air through open burning or
incineration.
• Some plastics also contain and leach out
hazardous chemicals, and microplastics canattract and concentrate these chemicals fromthe surrounding environment, posing further
risks to wildlife and people. 7
Our over-production of plastic packaging is pushingat the boundaries of the Earth’s capacity to absorb
greenhouse gases and polluting ecosystems withhazardous chemicals and waste.
The recycling myth
The clamour for something to be done about thisshameful problem is growing, with governments
and businesses all adding their voices to a new“war on throwaway culture”.8 Yet so far, this is awar with no meaningful strategy. Economies withmore robust waste and recycling infrastructures arecollecting growing quantities of packaging waste
for recycling. But what really happens to all of thisdiscarded packaging?
• Only 9% of plastic is recycled globally; indeveloped countries the recycling rate forplastics collected by households is often far lessthan 50%, with minimal amounts recycled backinto packaging.9

6• Most ‘recycled’ packaging waste is downcycled
into lower value/unrecyclable products.
• A lot of packaging is not even designed to beeasily recyclable, such as the single-use sachetsthat are a growing trend.
• Limitations to recycling,10 lack of infrastructure
and lack of traceability mean that large
amounts of plastic packaging will continue tobecome waste for the foreseeable future.
A problem exported
Even worse, much of the packaging collected for“recycling” in the global north is exported to theglobal south.
• It is estimated that China imported nearly 8 million
tonnes of plastic waste a year before it banned
the trade in 2018.
• The next destination for these huge volumes ofplastic waste is likely to be South East Asia,
where the lack of infrastructure for dealing withthe even larger quantities of domestic plastic
waste means that these countries are alreadythe origin of a significant portion (nearly 60%) ofplastics entering the ocean.11• The volume of plastic waste on the land and inrivers is also having huge impacts oncommunities in these countries, contributing to
the loss of livelihoods such as fishing or tourism,
exacerbating water pollution and increasing the
likelihood and severity of flooding, which takes
longer to recede.
The global waste ‘recycling’ trade means there is
no way of knowing whether recyclable materials
are actually recycled, downcycled, disposed of, or
leaked to the environment. In the meantime, FMCG
companies are accelerating their use of throwaway
plastics by opening up new markets in the global
south, pushing products packaged in single use andsingle portion plastics, to give a taste of consumer
luxury to those that can’t afford it.
This promotion of branded products - food, drink,cosmetics and cleaners - in one-way packaging, isdriving mass production, over-consumption andis significantly contributing to the plastic pollution
crisis. Meanwhile, the habit of overconsumption
fuels the anxieties of modern life and puts theburden of guilt for destroying the planet onto
individuals, while undermining true happiness bykeeping us from leading more imaginative, fulfilling
lives.
The various solutions being proposed bycompanies and governments alike must be
exposed as false. Now is the time to ensure that
consumer goods companies commit to reduce
their reliance on single-use plastics and transition
to a new business model based on transparency,
real solutions that are part of a more sustainableproduct delivery model and policies that prevent
waste and pollution.
A message to fast-moving consumer goods
brands: your customers are waiting!
It’s time to face reality. Although the collective andindividual efforts to collect and recycle plastics
packaging are important and commendable - thisis not the solution. We need to put the brakes
on the production of single-use plastics, startingright now. As a major contributor to the plastics
pollution crisis, the fast moving consumer goods
industry must take responsibility for this problem
and re-evaluate its dependency on single-use
plastic. Companies must now go beyond pledges
to improve recycling and commit to massively
reduce and phase out their use of single-use plastic
packaging, year on year.

Key recommendations
Greenpeace calls on the Fast Moving
Consumer Goods sector and othercompanies to prioritise the following four
actions:• Be transparent - publicly disclose
comprehensive information about theirplastic footprint and the plastics they use;
• Commit to reduction - set annual targets
for continually reducing their single-use
plastic footprint towards complete phaseout• Urgently eliminate problematic andunnecessary plastic - begin reduction
efforts by eliminating the most problematicand unnecessary single-use plastics by endof 2019;• Invest in reuse and alternative delivery
systems - make significant investment increating refillable, reusable containers andthe innovation of new delivery systems thatminimise the need for single-use packaging.

This means an end to the business model which
relies on disposable products and one way
packaging, and the start of a new paradigm, thatwill allow the co-creation of alternative delivery
systems - typically ones which have reuse and refill
at their heart.
Greenpeace calls on companies, governments, andcivil society to support a transition to a plastic-free
future by taking immediate action to facilitate a fullscale transformation away from our current oneway packaging systems.

7

Global plastic production by industry
in millions of tons (cumulative).

Total

448 Million tons produced in 2015

Growth in Asia
As the economies in Asia
grow, so does demand for
consumer products-andplastics. Half the world’s
plastics are made there,
29 percent in China.

Other

52 Million
includes healthcare & Agriculture400

5 years

Building & Construction
72 Million
2008 recession

Legacy of World War II
Shortages of natural
materials during the
war led to a search forsynthetic alternatives andto an exponential surge
in plastic production that
continues today.

35 years

Industrial Machinery
3 Million
20 years

300

Transportation
30 Million
13 years

Electrical
19 Million

The avarage time
plastics are used
before they’re
discarded

8 years

Textiles65 Million

200

5 years

Packaging
161 Million

Less than six months

The largest market for plastics
today is packaging materials. That
trash now accounts for nearly halfof all plastic waste generated
globally; most of it never gets
recycled or incinerated.

100
1973 oil crisis

1950

8

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2015

1. Introduction
The plastic pollution crisis has become increasingly
visible in recent years; shocking images ofchoked wildlife and piles of plastic waste in ourcommunities and ecosystems have intensified
public concern. Yet individuals might feel that it isalmost impossible to avoid creating plastic waste,even when shopping for basic needs such as food.
Whether we like it or not, the throwaway lifestyleis taking hold around the world - and most of theplastic packages that fill our bins and landfills, ourcommunities, rivers and oceans come from large
companies selling ‘fast-moving’ consumer goods.
Forty percent of all plastics made in 2015 wereused in packaging, the largest of all markets forplastics (see Figure 1). The promotion of branded
products - food, drink, cosmetics and cleaners - inone-way packaging, is one of the drivers of mass
production, over-consumption and is significantly
contributing to the plastic pollution crisis.
These “fast-moving” consumer goods brands
are responsible for a large part of this crisis andurgently need to reduce and eventually eliminate
single-use plastic, starting with transparency bydisclosing their plastic footprint.

The scale of the problem must be met with afundamental shift in the system that delivers
the products to people - and through therealisation that our reliance on single-use plastic
is unacceptable and is pushing us beyond
environmental boundaries. Consumer goods
brands must dissociate their businesses from theirdependency on single-use packaging and recognise
their vital role in solving the plastic pollution crisis
by driving innovation, scaling up and replicating
solutions that already exist or could be easily
developed.
Instead of promoting throwaway materialism weneed “true materialism” - a switch from an idea ofa consumer society where materials matter little,
to a truly material society, where materials – andthe natural world they rely on – are cherished.
Ultimately we need to transform our cultural
norms and together co-create a new normal, sothat lifestyles that rely on throwaway products andpackaging are no longer acceptable.

For this report, Greenpeace asked eleven of thebiggest consumer goods brands about their plansto tackle the plastics crisis. We found that none ofthem are taking the steps necessary to put a stopto the problem and set us on an alternative path.
No company discloses their plastic footprint with
sufficient transparency and all of them are relying
on false or insufficient solutions, in particularthat recycling plastics will be the answer to theplastics packaging problem. Unfortunately, we
cannot recycle our way out of plastic pollution,
recycling alone can never be a solution for theover-production of single-use plastic packaging.
Although a lot of plastic is collected, little is recycled
to make new packaging and much of it is exported
to lower-income countries in East Asia and SouthEast Asia. At the same time, brands are pushing to
expand their sales to markets in these countries,
including the promotion of single portions of theirproducts in unrecyclable sachets, only adding to
the flood of plastics that is overwhelming theircommunities. These brands are effectively using
the recycling- will-solve-it ‘myth’ to perpetuatebusiness as usual.

92. Fast-moving consumer goods sector
What is the “fast-moving consumer goods”(FMCG) sector
The fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector also known as the consumer packaged goods (CPG)
sector - represents one of the largest industries
worldwide, valued at approximately $493 billion
in 2017.12 It is mainly made up of companies that
supply low-cost products that are in constant highdemand, such as food, drinks, personal hygieneand household cleaning products. These “fastmoving” items, purchased on a regular basis byhouseholds, are non-durable with a short shelf life,
mostly sold at a low margin in high volumes, withslim profit margins.
Plastic packaging dependency - a medium forthe consumer goods message
The fast-moving consumer goods sector isa predominant force behind the throwaway
economic model driving the plastic pollution crisis.
Currently, these companies are just as dependent
on single-use plastic packaging to make a profit
as they are on the products they are selling.13 The
packaging is not only a vehicle to deliver products
but prime advertising real estate where companies
compete for customer attention and loyalty, allselling a lifestyle that is unsustainable and a threat
to biodiversity and human health.
According to KPMG, most FMCG brands employ
a strategy focused on driving top-line sales, withintense competition between numerous brands
with near-identical products within their category.14
FMCG brands rely on predatory marketing15 tocapture local markets and have been criticised for
creating rather than meeting the needs of poor
consumers, turning luxuries into necessities overtime, through advertising and promotion.16 These
companies make heavy investments in advertising,particularly for new products in new markets,17
while keeping their input costs as low as possible toincrease their bottom line profits.18
As these companies grow within the current
plastic packaging dependant business paradigm,19​
the plastics pollution crisis will inevitably grow10

in parallel. Market saturation in the wealthiest
countries has led many of these multinational
corporations, mostly headquartered in North
America and Europe, to pursue aggressive
expansion plans in the global south; in the caseof Nestlé, developing markets now account for 42
percent of its sales.20 Rural communities are a focus
for Unilever in South East Asia, where the growthin sales results from sachets containing individual
portions of products like shampoos, toothpastes,
lotions, condiments, and ready-to-eat food;21 thesesachets cannot be recycled and are overwhelming
municipal waste infrastructure systems.22
Branded consumer packaging creates plastic
pollution globally
Brand audit results: Recent brand audits,
where plastic packaging waste is collected andsorted according to the brand,23 led by the BreakFree From Plastic movement which includes
Greenpeace, found that C​ oca-Cola, PepsiCo,
Nestlé, Danone, Mondelez International,
Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Perfetti van Melle,
Mars Incorporated ​​and ​Colgate-Palmolive​​ werethe most frequent multinational brands identified,in that order. Branded products from each of these
multinational companies were found in at least 10of the 43 countries audited.
Greenpeace US’s survey of FMCG companies asked
them to provide data on the quantities of single-use
plastic sold in 2017. As the following graph shows,the four companies which reported the highest
sales of single-use plastic products were also the
top four brands identified in the brand audit, in thesame order. A further four companies - J&J, Kraft,
Mondelez, P&G - failed to provide any data on the
total quantities of single-use plastic sold in 2017.

© Danial Müller / Greenpeace

Single-use plastic sold by the eleven
FMCG companies surveyed in 201711

Box 1: Plastics - a life-cycle of problems
With plastic packaging being one of the highest contributors to the global plastics waste stream,24 itis clear that its use is an important contributor to the estimated 4.7 – 12.7 million tonnes of plastic
entering the ocean each year.25 It is estimated that over two thirds of plastic in the oceans ends up
on the seabed creating a growing wasteland beneath the surface.26 The environmental impacts ofplastic packaging are not limited to the oceans; plastics and microplastics are found throughout theenvironment where they can also have damaging effects. We don’t know exactly how long oil-based
plastic will take to degrade, but once in our soil, rivers or oceans, it is impossible to clean up.
• Microplastics - most petroleum plastic does not biodegrade -- it just fragments into tiny microplastics
that create a plastic smog or soup. Microplastics can carry toxic chemicals and are often mistaken forfood by marine life and ingested.
• Plastics and microplastics are also released from the manufacturing of plastics for packaging:plastic pellets - known as nurdles - the raw material for making plastic, are routinely released into the
local environment by plastics manufacturers.27• On land, the application of sludge from wastewater treatment plants was confirmed to be asignificant source of microplastic pollution in the environment. 28
Plastic packaging has environmental and health impacts beyond the problem of waste plastic itself,
which arise throughout its entire life cycle, including:
Oil and climate change• 99% of plastics produced are derived from virgin fossil feedstocks, 29 which rely on drilling or ‘fracking’for oil and gas, transport through pipelines and processing at refineries, with all the inherent impactsof these industries. 30 The Ellen Macarthur Foundation estimates that this represents, for all plastics(not just packaging), for feedstock and production process fuels, about 6% of global oil consumption,
which is equivalent to the oil consumption of the global aviation sector. 31• The production and disposal of plastic packaging adds enormously to the environmental impacts
of a product. Estimates for the UK suggest that PET bottles contribute approximately 24% of the total
carbon footprint across the whole soft drinks sector, more than the impacts of distribution. 32• Recent reports show that plastics in the environment release powerful greenhouse gases such as
methane, as they begin to degrade, a source not previously accounted for. 33
Hazardous chemicals• Plastics additives can include hazardous chemicals such as phthalates (in PVC) and Bisphenol A (inpolycarbonate), which have already raised concerns about impacts on health and the environment.
The estimated 150 million tonnes of plastics currently in the ocean may include roughly 23 million
tonnes of additives (stablisers, plasticisers and emulsifiers) which could be released over time. 34• Microplastics can also attract and concentrate Persistent Organic Pollutants from the surrounding
environment, posing further risks to wildlife and people. 35

12Plastics in our ecosystems, where they come from and where they go.

Wastewater
treatment microplastics in
Disposal of single-use plastic

effluent and sewage

Direct input of maritime

Flooding

plastics, fishing gear, shipping

sludgewaste, cargo losses
Manufacture ofSingle-use plastic

Soil erosion and runoff,plastic products

accumulates inreleasing microplastics

riversSynthetic textiles

Societal use of plastics

Plastics deposited& fibres releasing

domestic, industrial andby the tide

microplastic

agricultural

fibresDegradation into microplastics

Sediment
retention

Accumulation anddegradation in soils

What happens to plastic waste

The case for single-use plastic relies on“recycling”
There are no signs that large consumer brands
plan to move away from single-use packaging as
the main delivery system for their products, relying
instead on recycling. The current business model isbased on the assumption that ultimately all plastics
packaging can (and will) be collected and recycled
into new packaging or products. However, a great
deal of plastic packaging is not even designed tobe recycled at the moment.36 But is 100% recycling
ever likely to happen in reality (see Box 2)?
The World Economic Forum estimates that globally
32% of plastic packaging escapes collection
systems, generating significant impacts andeconomic costs by reducing the productivity of vitalnatural systems such as the ocean and clogging
urban infrastructure.37 This is despite the fact that
economies with more robust waste and recycling
infrastructure are collecting growing quantities of
packaging waste for recycling.
Very little packaging is recycled back into new
packaging. Even PET bottles, the most recycled
packaging, are not always collected and recycled ina manner sufficient to produce high grade quality

14

for reuse in the food and drink sector; Therefore
recycled PET is more often downgraded andused in other sectors, most commonly textiles.38
The recent brand audits show that PET, which istypically used in bottles, containers, and packaging,
was found the most, followed by polystyrene(which is often not recyclable or recycled) in many
locations.
Regardless of whether there are national recycling
systems in place, in developed countries therecycling rate of plastics is often far less than 50%(see Box 2).
Only 9% of plastic is recycled globally, and even in
Europe, where EU regulations require the collectionof packaging waste,39 there are reports that the
total plastics packaging recycling rate was less than
41% in 2016, with households achieving a 37.8%
level across the region with the balance being met
by trade and industry. Although the total recovery
rate was almost 80%, almost half of this material
was incinerated (see Box 6).40 ​Other sources statethat only a quarter of the 25-26 million tonnes ofplastics waste produced in the European Union
every year is recycled; before 2018 about half of
this was e​ xported to China​​, which uses recycledplastics to make products ranging from officefurniture to cable coatings.41

The global waste trade - a superhighway forexporting the plastic pollution crisis
Clearly, global north countries have not been able
to deal with their plastics problem and have been
exporting the plastic packaging collected for recycling
for decades: analysis of data shows that 70% of theplastic waste exported in 2016 was from higherincome countries, sent to lower-income countries in
East Asia and the Pacific.
Between 1992 and 2016, the vast majority of theseplastic waste exports (72.4%), mostly made up of
plastic packaging waste, have ended up in China andHong Kong, with a total of 106 million tonnes going
to China over the years. Most of this was imported
from 2000 onwards, peaking at nearly 9 million
tonnes in 2012.42
Then, in January 2018, China implemented a banon the import of waste - including plastic packaging- raising the question of where will it go now? It isestimated that by 2030 a cumulative amount of 111
million tonnes of plastic waste will be displaced with
the new Chinese policy.43
These huge quantities of plastic waste have only
added to the even more enormous problem ofChina’s own domestic plastics waste. Although theofficial plastics recycling rate in 2013 of 23%,44 isrelatively high, this includes the recycling of imported
packaging waste, meaning that only 15% of China’s
own waste is recycled. The remaining 78 million
tonnes of China’s own waste in 2013 was not officiallyrecycled (although this does not include statistics
for the informal recycling sector, which plays animportant role in the Chinese recycling industry).
Looking at the whole picture, it is not surprisingthat China has put a waste import ban in place.
Plastic packaging collected for recycling by municipal
authorities in the global north gets sent far away toEast Asia and the Pacific. Even if it does get recycled
once its there, as happened in China, it puts extra
pressure on the local recycling infrastructure,making it harder to deal with the large quantities ofdomestic plastic packaging waste. Which bring us
to the current plastics crisis, clearly visible in theircommunities, waterways and eventually in our
oceans.
Along with China, emerging economies in South-East
Asia such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand,
and Vietnam have frequently been named in recent
years as the origin of a significant portion of global
marine plastic pollution (estimated to be between 55
and 60 percent).45 Not only are the major consumer
goods brands aggressively marketing single-use
plastic to these countries, with the ban on plastic
waste imports to China from 2018, South-East Asia

15

This could be highly problematic as most SouthEast Asian countries are still facing many basic
problems managing their own domestic waste, witha lack of systems for waste segregation, collection
and recycling, and disposal in open dumps or byopen burning. In addition, waste prevention andrecycling rates are very low, with the latter due
to a very limited recycling infrastructure. As withother developing countries, in some South-East
Asian countries recycling is mostly in the hands ofthe informal sector.48 In addition, in most of thesecountries data on recycling rates is unavailable orinconsistent. The fast-moving consumer goods sector
continues to push increasing quantities of products
packaged in unnecessary and problematic singleuse plastic into South-East Asia, particularly single
portions of food or cosmetics such as shampoo insachets - tantamount to polluting the region withplastic waste.
Can the plastics crisis get any bigger?
Most FMCG companies are growing at between
1 – 6% each year. The fastest growing businesses
could double their size in as few as ten years atcurrent growth rates.49 ​Yet none of the biggest
global companies are publicly discussing theurgent need to address their business models to
remedy the environmental burden of operating
single-use product delivery systems.
With growing public outrage, governments exploring
policy fixes, and a steady drumbeat of new science
underscoring the impacts of single-use plastics, afundamental transformation of the fast-moving
consumer goods business model as it exists today
is required for these companies to remain viable in
the future. These companies are a key component
in the broken system of over-consumption. Thus, asa first step it is essential that they take responsibility
for their contribution to the crisis. From there, itwill be easier for them to play a role in co-creating
the appropriate conditions for all of us to live a life
without throwaway plastic packaging.

16© Jilson Tiu / Greenpeace

are facing increased pressure to receive millions of
tonnes of plastic waste from the global north;46 there
are signs that Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam arealready struggling to process and manage the tide ofplastic waste from countries such as the US and the
UK following the China ban.47

3. Survey of fast-moving consumer goods companies
Assessment methodology
In July – August 2018 Greenpeace US conducted a survey of eleven of the world’s biggest FMCG companies
to determine the degree to which their commitments, actions and performance are addressing theenvironmental and social impacts of their plastic packaging and waste. The eleven companies chosen own
well-known consumer brands globally, holding important market shares across all the regions of the world. A
combination of companies was chosen to cover multiple consumer goods in the beverage, food, householdproducts, cosmetics and health sectors.
The approach was to ask a range of questions in four broad areas:

Assessment Area

Description

Commitments towards phaseout of single-use plastic• What commitments has the company made to achieve a world
without single-use plastics?
• How has the company aligned its rhetoric with its supply chain
actions and lobbying efforts?

Plastics use changes in company packaging portfolios• Has there been a reduction in single-use plastics?
• What measures is the company undertaking to ensure that
reductions continue?
• How is the company investing in alternatives?

Initiatives being developed or
adopted by the company• What innovations are being developed by the company?
• How scalable are the solutions being used?
• How is the company promoting alternative delivery formats?

Company transparency
to questions on plasticuse• Has the company been open and supportive in engaging
Greenpeace and the public on its actions to address single use
plastics?
• Is disclosure a core part of how the company aims todemonstrate its progress towards moving towards a world freeof single-use plastics?

17

To determine how companies were performing in each of these areas a questionnaire was developed and sent
to the following eleven companies:
Table 1: Eleven FMCG companies selected for the survey and their sector

Companies

Revenue (2017)

Head Office

$35bn

USA

$15bn

USA

$29bn

France

$76bn

USA

$26bn

USA

$35bn

USA

$26bn

USA

$93bn

Switzerland

$64bn

USA

$15bn

USA

$63bn

Netherlands

Beverages

Food

Household Products

Cosmetics andhealthFor more details of the methodology see Appendix I.

Analysis
All eleven companies responded to the survey.
While some data was made available, none of thecompanies​disclosed all the information requested
by our survey about their single-use plastic
footprint or demonstrated a solid understandingof where their product packaging ultimately ends
up. Tracking data like this and making it publicly
available is an essential step to establishing abaseline for ‘peak’ single-use plastic usage fromwhich to measure annual reduction targets. These
numbers are also important in assessing where18

investments in innovation can have the mostimpact.
There was a significant range of responses andcommitments to addressing plastic pollution in the
responses, however, no company has committed
to any meaningful reduction of single-use plastic
packaging items in their business. Most companies
do not disclose their plastic footprints fully, andnone have committed to disclose how many unitsof plastic packaging they sell. Notably, Nestlé isthe only company that committed to disclose all
information except units, which it is considering.

None of the companies surveyed shared withus strategies which incorporate a commitment
to move away from, or reduce dependence on,
single-use plastic packaging materials. Everycorporate commitment made by the companies
allows the total amount of single-use plastic
packaging units to continue to grow.

category information related to their use of plastics,
an important step in taking responsibility for theirrole in the plastics pollution crisis. Full transparency
means publicly reporting on how much plastic isused, including the number of items, what kindsof plastic, and its purpose, to establish a baselinefrom which to measure progress. Our researchsought to identify how companies developed or
marketed products in different packaging formats
and whether they take into account the different
end of life infrastructure capabilities. However
the information supplied was not able to provide
any insight into this, a finding that is consistent
with research undertaken by the UN Environment
Programme in 2014.50

The following section identifies Greenpeace’s key
observations about the company responses.
The majority of companies are not willing or able
to provide many details about their plastic use
Nine of the eleven companies are unwilling or
unable to disclose both geographical and product

Table 2: Company responses to data-related questions on plastic use (plastics footprint - see Glossary)Companies

Data provided
on useGeographic
breakdown ofplastics use

Growth trajectoryof single-use plastics

Only PET

Qualitative*

Use of recycledcontent

Commits topublic disclosureof this data in
the future

Q3 2018
Annually - startdate not indicatedOct 2018

2019
Future - no date

RegionQualitative*

Future - no date
Future - no dateNovember 2018

Qualitative*

Future - no date

Grey indicates company did not answer question or answered it does not use recycled content;
Light Blue = Partially; Blue = Yes*Qualitative: a general statement on growth but no data was provided

19

None of the companies have provided full details
on their plastics footprint, although many say theyplan to do so in the future. The three companies
providing slightly more detail are, Unilever, Nestléand Danone. Unilever previously published adetailed polymer breakdown of its packaging
footprint, but hasn’t done so in several years.
All companies that plan to disclose further details
about their footprint to the public have stated that
this will happen within the next 12 – 24 months.
Only one company - Nestlé - detailed the specificindicators they will be using when they report.
The lack of a geographical breakdown of plastic use
means we cannot determine whether companies
are adjusting their business models to reflect
the inadequacies of collection systems in somecountries (e.g. in Africa where 57% of plastic is notcollected51) or if this is taken into account at all.
Commitments allow companies to increase
single-use plastic packaging
Although a​ ll companies h​ ave some form ofcommitment to address the use of packaging
materials, none of the companies indicatedclear plans to reduce the absolute quantities ofplastic items (ie. the number of single-use plastic
packaging units) used. There are several ways thatcompany commitments allow the companies toincrease single-use plastic packaging, including thefollowing:• Reducing the weight of plastics used per
product (relative reductions per sales unit) –this commitment allows for the increased use of
single-use plastics, or other materials, provided
that less material is used on a per product basis(e.g. reducing the weight of a PET bottle but
selling more PET bottles) (see False Solutions lightweighting).
		• 100% recyclable/ recyclability 52 – thiscommitment allows for the increased use of
these plastics without any reduction or separate
measurable reuse component; it perpetuates themyth that recycling of plastics alone can solve
plastic pollution (see Box 2).
• Generic packaging reduction – thesecommitments relate either to the reduction of
all packaging by weight or a general percentage
20

reduction, without necessarily specifying theparticular materials involved. The companies withthese targets do not always disclose how thisaffects plastic used; there could be an increasein the use of lightweight plastic and a growth intotal plastic units at the expense of heavier but
reusable plastics or other materials. The targets
for avoided materials were often not qualified
with information on the total tonnage produced
at the start or end point, so it’s not possible to tellif the commitments would result in any absolute
reductions in single-use plastics use by unit orotherwise.
• Recycled content – this commitment is to use, orcollect, a certain amount of plastic to displace
virgin material demand and create a market
incentive for waste managers to invest in
segregation and recycling facilities for plastic, butdoes not address the plastic pollution issue on its
own or prevent the use of virgin plastic (see False
solutions - relying on recycling).
At least three companies have mentioned thatthey will be committed to “take action to eliminate
problematic or unnecessary plastic packaging
by 2025” and “take action to move from singleuse towards reuse models where relevant by2025”. While these are both important elements,
this language does not specify the scope (of theelimination/phase-out) or measurable targets ofthe shift from single-use to reuse, therefore they
are not considered to be credible. To be credible
companies would need to publish a list of productsin the scope and a percentage or level of shift toreuse with intermediate milestones and dates.
None of the commitments shared by thecompanies included a stated ambition to reduceoverall volumes of single-use plastic items being
used or specific unit reduction targets. Fivecompanies mentioned lightweighting / packaging
optimization and six did not respond to thequestion on reduction. Reducing plastic packaging
by weight through lightweighting or ‘packaging
optimization’ does not address the issue of plastic
pollution.
In addition to this approach the concept of multiuse or reusable versus ‘single-use plastics’ is
not universally understood by the respondentcompanies. For example:

Table 3. Commitments companies have made towards their reduction inuse of single-use plastics (in units) versus plastic overall

Companies

SUP phase-out
dates/targets

SUP unit reduction
targets ***Reduce general
packaging weight

All packaging 100%
recyclable,***Relative*

Use ofrecycled plastic

Or Bioplastic
25%
25%
25%**
25%**
90% recyclability
in some countries
Yes but no data

Relative*

100% recyclability
by 2025

Relative*

25% EU
EU
25%

Relative*

Selective data

Relative*

25%

Grey = No, or did not answer question; Light Blue = responded partially, with not enough detail;Blue = Yes; No data indicates that the company provided qualitative remarks but not actual figures*Relative=relative reductions of plastic packaging used per sales unit ie. lightweighting; ** 50% for beverages.
*** See footnote 52.

• Avoiding disposal – any second use of the material is proposed by some companies as extending the life of the
packaging. For example, if a bottle is recycled and used as clothing fibre then a beverage company may claim that
their material is no longer having just one use. This definition is problematic because it undermines the distinction
between product reuse and material reuse (recycling), not recognising the general rule that product reuse has less
impacts than material reuse through avoiding the need for physical or chemical processing.
• Multiple ‘servings’ as ‘uses’ – if a packaged product is not consumed in one go – such as dishwasher
detergent that is used for multiple washes, or 500g of yoghurt that may be consumed over several meals - thensome manufacturers claim that the packaging is not “single-use”. This definition ignores the fact that the multiserving packaging is not refilled after it is depleted. If refilling the packaging is not designed or supported by
the company, it makes no difference whether it is thrown away within one day, or one month.
21

Companies need to use clear, consistent andtransparent definitions in order to be credible,
both in their commitments and reporting, and incommunicating with the public more broadly. The
terms of reusable /refillable should not be confusedwith recycling or further use in another industry;
likewise, the fact that non-refillable/reusable multiserving or bulk purchase packs generate further
single-use plastic waste by the end user should
exclude their description as reusable/refillable.

FMCG companies are increasing the amount of
single-use plastic units produced.
Only two companies surveyed, Danone and Mars,
reported a reduction in the absolute tonnes ofplastic used by their business, but did not indicate areduction of total single-use plastic items. All othercompanies reported an increase or steady state ofsingle-use plastic. As only Coke and Nestlé provided
information on the number of units supplied relative
to the weight of plastic used, it is not currently
possible to know if any reductions are the result ofshifting from single-use to reusable formats, othermaterials, or to lightweight materials.

Table 4: Plastics use changes in company packaging portfolios

Companies

Absolutechange byweightRelative weight
per sales unit
reduction+3-5%

Growth inreusable formats% Sold insingle-use
packaging

Decrease

72%

Increase
-5%

53

-7%

100%

+5%

98%

No change-29%

Grey indicates company did not “directly” or “specifically” answer the question; Orange = wrong direction; Light Blue =no change; Blue = reduction (however, note that this might include a reduction in ‘reusable formats’)*Qualitative: a general statement on growth but no data was provided

22

None of the companies surveyed know theultimate fate of their packaging
Despite the fact that all of the corporate
commitments made by the companies are basedon recycling or recyclability, none of the companies
are engaged in the active monitoring of recycling
statistics in all of the markets they operate in andnone were able to identify where the final material
recycling occurs (e.g. the destination of customers’
recycled plastic, either in the same country/region
where it was put on the market or exported

to another country). Only three respondents –Unilever, Nestlé and Danone - provided evidence ofmonitoring recycling rates for their main markets,and companies noted that this is a complex area
due to the different levels of national monitoringand statistics within countries. Those that domonitor recycling rates rely on national statistics
and stated that there were knowledge gaps
where this information is not made available bygovernments.

Table 5: Monitoring where plastics go at their end of life

Companies

Know how muchplastic wasactually recycled
by customers

Actively track
information

Know destinationof recycledmaterials

Not disclosed

Not disclosed

Not Disclosed
Not Disclosed
3rd Party Statistics

Not disclosed

3rd Party Statistics

Grey indicates company did not answer question; Orange = No; Light Blue = Partially; Blue = Yes
Not disclosed means the company said they tracked this, but provided no details, evidence, or sources.
3rd party statistics means they look at general national statistics but haven’t measured their own products or formats in any specific way.

23

Box 2: The Recycling Myth
100% recyclability strategies suggest that what is recycl’able’ will get recycl’ed’.
Unlike metal and glass, plastic is not an infinitely recyclable material. 54• The problem with any kind of plastic is that recovering 100% of the material is difficult withmechanical recycling due to quality losses, degradation and contamination. 55 The development of chemical
recycling is still at an early stage, 56 it is not suitable for certain types of plastics 57 and the costs and amountsof energy and hazardous chemicals used need to be considered. These limitations to recycling will mean thatlarge amounts of “recyclable” plastic packaging will most likely continue to become waste for the foreseeable
future.
Much of the plastic packaging used today is not even designed to be easily recycled.
• This is particularly true for plastic laminates and films, (see Box 3) where there is very little
incentive to collect as they are currently difficult to recycle. 58
The plastic pollution crisis, however, is not only the result of non-recyclable plastic polymers and formats
being used.
• PET bottles are the fifth most likely type of plastic packaging to appear among litter on beaches. 59
This is despite the fact that PET is one of the most recyclable packaging materials. In the US, the 2016 recycling
rate for PET bottles was approximately 28% with less than 6% of the total PET used in bottles being reused tomake new bottles. 60
Much of the plastic that is recycled is downgraded.
• One reason is that it is more expensive and energy intensive to recycle PET back into bottles
than for other uses such as fibres. 61 Therefore, the vast majority of recycled plastic is downgraded for use
in apparel, construction materials, and other non-packaging-based applications. For example, recycled PET
is used in the clothing and apparel sector, some of it to make throwaway fast fashion which is unlikely to berecycled again, ie. it is effectively ‘downcycling’; in turn, the fashion brands promote such products to show
their eco-credentials, while ignoring the inevitable loss of microplastic fibres into the aquatic environment
through washing (another form of plastic pollution), and the short lifespan of their products. The fashion
brands also serve to conveniently remove responsibility from the food and beverage industry for their singleuse plastics. 62
The current recycling rate for plastics packaging is low, even in the best possible circumstances.
• The maximum possible levels of recycling for plastics packaging are currently reported at somewhere between
36 % and 53%: beyond this limit the recycled plastic will be either of a very low quality, or not cost effective. 63
In truth the efficient collection, recycling capacity and infrastructure for plastics recycling are frequently
inadequate at present, a responsibility which is usually shifted onto local governments which have little influenceon the various factors that make plastics recycling so complex. Local infrastructure is lacking in many regions,for example, 57% of plastic in Africa, 40% in Asia, and 32% in Latin America is not even collected. 64 Even indeveloped countries, large amounts of plastics collected for recycling are routinely exported (see The global
waste trade, p.15), with no way of knowing whether these materials are actually recycled, downcycled, disposedof, or leaked to the environment. Any improvements in infrastructure and traceability would be unlikely to beachieved on the global scale needed, and more fundamentally, would not be able to overcome the technical andeconomic limitations of recycling plastic in a continuous closed loop (ie. so called circularity by the industry).
In short no country, company or organisation has committed to a 100% recycling rate because of theimpracticality of achieving this outcome or controlling a system that aims to do this, even in developed countries
with collection and recycling infrastructure. Based on the above it is clear that we cannot simply recycle our way
out of plastic pollution.

What happens to plastics packaging collected
for recycling

Business is stuck in a single-use packaging
mindset, solutions are mainly on recyclabilityor recycling
Striving towards recyclability has been an aim
for some FMCG companies for many years, withcommitments to 100% recyclable, biodegradable
or compostable plastic becoming a trend more
recently. There are a number of ways to increase
recyclability, from single polymer use to adjusting
the colours used in packaging. Achieving 100%
recyclability is a relatively easy goal, whencompared to the other side of the equation - theimpossibility of recycling 100% of plastic packaging.
The fixation on recycling as the predominant“solution” allows the focus to remain on keeping
single-use packaging as the main delivery systemfor connecting customers to products.
Company responses indicate that sustainable
packaging guidelines, when such policies exist,
are mostly focussed on recyclability. Sustainable
packaging guidelines should recognise that inprinciple the continued large scale use of single-use
materials is not appropriate. The guidelines should
require predominantly reusable and refillable
systems or alternative delivery systems that do notdepend on single-use packaging (see examples
in Box 4). All materials used should be free of
hazardous chemicals and avoid material substitutionthat risks shifting the environmental and social
impacts elsewhere (for example substitution withbio-based plastics or paper whose sourcing could
have impacts in agricultural or forest systems).
The approach to developing and adopting solutions
differs according to the company sector, withsnacks companies – Kraft-Heinz, Mars, Mondelez- reporting few plans or investment in researchand development to address the non-reusability
and non-recyclability of their product packaging, asshown below. Those companies with both snacks
and beverage lines have predominantly provided
information and investment projects on reusable
packaging related to the beverage side of theirportfolio (e.g. Danone, PepsiCo).

25

While several companies indicated projects or plans related to new delivery systems, the overall level ofinvestment was incredibly small given the size and amount of plastic being sold by the companies; none had
a comprehensive strategy with a clear plan showing how investment in new delivery systems would result in a
reduction in the overall amount of single-use plastic units produced.

Table 6: Solutions being developed or adopted by companies

Companies

Use ofsustainable
packaging
guidelines

Already use
multi-usepackaging forsome products

Recyclability*

Fountains

Plan to use reusableor refillable formats

Investing directly
in developing
new productdelivery systems

Engaging suppliers
on adopting or
supporting initiatives

Recyclability*

Recyclability*

Confidential
Beverage

Beverage

Beverage

Recyclability*

Recyclability*

Recyclability*

No**

Recyclability*
Water
Recyclability*

Beverage

GeneralBeverage

Beverage

Recyclability*

GeneralGrey indicates company did not answer question or answered ‘no’. Light Blue = Partially; Blue = Yes*Recyclability alone is not considered to be “sustainable packaging” nor is it recognised as a new /alternative delivery system to single use
plastic packaging systems. Sustainable packaging guidelines - in this context - should require predominantly reusable and refillable systems
or alternative delivery systems that do not depend on single-use packaging (see more details in discussion above, in Box 2 and definition ofalternative delivery systems in the Glossary).
**While the examples Mars provided (refillable gum bottles and bulk plastic pouches) might appear to be designed for reuse/refill the
combined system of gum bottle plus accessory bulk product still requires the end consumer to dispose of the refill pouch which would
appear to not be designed for refill or reuse, therefore we would still consider the combined system as one that depends on single-use
packaging.

26© Joshua Paul / Greenpeace

Box 3: No reduction or reuse solution for sachets and snack packaging
No companies appear to be investigating or developing reusable systems for single-use sachets or snack
packaging. The only company that reported any initiative specifically focussed on snacks packaging in
flexible plastic, including confectionary and potato crisps, is PepsiCo, which reports that it is looking at
innovations for collection systems, but not for re-usability. Danone, which also has non-recyclable food‘pouch’ formats in use, did not disclose any work to address reusability, and although it is collaboratingwith other brands on the CEFLEX initiative to develop solutions for sachets/laminates, this collaboration
seems focused on material reprocessing ( ie recycling). 65
There is a clear gap in commitments between beverages and food packaging, particularly for laminatesand flexible packaging, which are also used for personal care products like shampoo. Companies seemto be excluding them from innovation as solutions are harder to find: however, without investment thesituation is unlikely to change.
These low margin products sold at high volume are marketed to the large numbers of people on low
incomes in the global south, where the regulatory landscape may also be less restrictive; for example legal
and social consumer protection regulation on labelling, truth in advertising or marketing to minors, can beinadequate or lacking. 66
This single portion strategy is also creating an artificial demand for convenience and displacing theexisting tried and tested systems which provide more opportunities for local people supplying fresh local
produce, who are ultimately co-opted into selling FMCG products themselves. 67 The brands are rewarded
with expanding awareness of their products while perpetuating a narrative that places responsibility on
individuals to cleanup and recycle their ever-expanding plastic pollution footprints.

27

Analysis conclusions
Overall, responses to this survey reveal major
concerns about how the fast moving consumer
goods sector is attempting to address its
contribution to the plastic pollution crisis. Despite
initiatives such as “A World Without Waste”,68 every
commitment made by the companies surveyed
allows them to continue to increase the amountof single-use plastic items they produce. Almost
all of the efforts to address plastic pollution focus
on recycling, recyclability and recycled content.
There are no commitments to phase out single-use
plastic within a specified timeframe, and no specifictargets to reduce the overall number of singleuse plastic items be sold. Where companies docommit to make reductions, the scope and targets
are unclear; they are either included as part of a‘general’ packaging reduction target with no specificdetails on plastics, or lightweighting initiatives, orthe definitions used are questionable.
At the same time, the companies indicate a generalincrease in the number of single-use plastic items
being used. While there are some examples ofinnovation and alternative delivery models, these
initiatives are not clearly tied to strategies which
aim to reduce the overall number of single-use
plastic items being produced, and the ambition ofthese programs is remarkably inadequate given thesize of the companies and the scale of the problem.
Most collaboration and effort remains focused onrecycling and material recovery.
Survey responses also revealed an overall lack oftransparency on important details about plastic
use by the companies. Though some companies
made an effort to be open and candid in engaging
Greenpeace, none provided detailed information
about the number of single-use plastic units
they are selling in different markets, and many
only referred to certain lines of business, or
combined plastic with other materials in sharing
data about their plastic use. For a sector relying
almost exclusively on recycling to address plastic
pollution, the companies demonstrated a very
limited understanding of where their products
end up and the percentage of their products thatare actually recycled in the markets where they
are active. Many of the companies indicated thatthey intend to disclose more information about

28

their plastic use in the future, which would be an
important step. Without better data on the amounts
and units of plastic being produced, the credibilityof any commitment is questionable and means thatmeasuring progress against a baseline is challenging
if not impossible.
Just days before the release of this report, nine of
the eleven companies surveyed were identified as
top polluters in a global brand audit by the BreakFree From Plastic coalition, with plastic pollution
from their brands being found on six continents.
Companies in this sector need to fundamentallychange course by being fully transparent about
their plastic use, making concrete commitments
to phase out single-use plastic across theirbusinesses, with clear milestones and interim
targets, and investing heavily in alternative
delivery models.
Until then, we can expect that their products willcontinue to prop up the throwaway culture and be
found polluting oceans, waterways and communities
around the world.

© Dennis Reher / Greenpeace4. Solutions
To solve the plastic pollution crisis, it is necessary
to look into solutions that address the problem
at its source. While there may not be a one size
fits all approach, all companies must begin byexamining their business model that is centred on
disposal, with single-use plastic packaging as themain product delivery system for their customers,
and start to reimagine a model where disposable
plastics, waste and virgin inputs are eliminated.
A truly solutions-oriented approach takes into
account societal and ecological needs. True
extended producer responsibility means thinking
beyond how to deal with a product’s packaging
waste once it’s created, by aiming to slow andclose the loop for all facets of product creation,
which should maximize sustainable and socially
responsible inputs and outcomes.
Solutions include both immediate short termchanges such as eliminating unnecessary andproblematic products and packaging (for example
single use straws and bags and double/triple
packaging - see glossary for full definition), (re)expansion of the use of r​ eusable and refillable
systems​​and longer-term system changes in theform of changing consumption habits, for example
buying less processed products/ready meals, oralternative product delivery systems (ADS).
The phase out of unnecessary and problematic
single-use plastics has already been set in motion
in some parts of the world. In the UK, retailer
Iceland pledged to be plastic free by 2023,69, 70
while Tesco committed earlier this year to remove
problematic materials including PVC, Polystyrene
and industrial compostable plastics among others.
These phase outs do not have to happen all at
once, they should start with the most unnecessary(excess and non-essential) and problematic plastics,
and should involve setting hard sunset dates tomotivate and provide security for investment ininnovation. Single-use plastics that have essential
and necessary functions to promote public health(e.g. medical applications) may not necessarily bepart of a ban in the same way as other types of
packaging, but innovation is still needed.
In the long run, investment and innovation inalternative delivery systems and the expansion of30

the use of reusable and refillable packaging will be
crucial to spark transformational change away froma throwaway culture.
Alternative delivery systems can take various
forms depending on the product in question, such as:• Shorter supply chains. Shortening supply
chains by sourcing and distributing more locallyreduces the need for lightweight packaging,
reduces carbon miles and allows for moreinnovative product delivery options that not
only foster reduced waste production but also
community connectedness. In short supply
chains, durable and heavier reusable packaging
becomes economically and ecologically viable71.
• Making buying bulk convenient. From zerowaste, to bulk and refill grocery stores, FMCG
products are being sold to customers without
the added packaging or waste, with the vendors
also demanding reduced bulk packaging andwaste, therefore decreasing the overall footprintof the supply chain. The success of bulk storesas well as interest in “plastic-free aisles” insupermarkets is showing that customers areready and willing to adopt a different approachto shopping.
• Service based business models. To shift fromsingle-use packaging towards alternative
delivery systems, companies need to move awayfrom their traditional business models, which
are based on product sales, towards models
that encompass both services and products.
One of the biggest opportunities for FMCG
businesses is to find ways to fundamentally shift
their throwaway material intensive businessmodels towards ones that dematerialise theeconomy. The greatest savings in materialvalue are derived from the reuse of packaging
as packaging, without being downgraded.
Businesses that can alter their approach toinvesting in packaging from the one-way
distribution of products to customers, to one
that is a long-term part of the product itself,
can also expect to deliver substantial materialsavings.
• Reuse and refill models are already employedby numerous companies and communities around© Stan Lear
© Greenpeacethe world. Deposit return systems for refill where end users are charged a modest deposit when a refillable
packaging format is purchased and then refunded upon return of the packaging, are tried and tested, withglass beer bottles being a well-known example. Allowing customers the option to bring their own containers
for refill, also presents opportunities for additional packaging and cost reductions on the part of the company.
Reuse and refill models require FMCGs to collaborate more closely with retailers or create direct-to-customer
relationships to enable the direct reuse of durable packaging to acquire food or other goods.
Greenpeace’s recommendations for immediate actions companies can take to facilitate this systemictransformation away from our current one-way packaging systems and disposable culture are presented in
section 5.

Box 4: Solutions in Action
Making beverages at home: Service systems that sell or lease a product that enables home carbonationof water. Customers can consume as carbonated water on its own, or can add homemade or purchased
syrups to create soft drinks. This system typically depends on customers reusing the same bottle forseveral years whilst the carbon dioxide aluminium canister is returnable for refilling. 72
Refillable beverage delivery: The most well-known example of refillable beverage delivery models is
milk. However, beverage types have expanded to juice and other drinks that are delivered to homes inreusable containers and returned or picked up for a refund. Drink fountain machines offer a popular
way to delivery beverages and are regularly used in restaurants and convenience stores, while beveragevending machines are becoming increasing popular ranging from hot to cold beverage types. 73. 74
Shortening supply chains: There are examples of big retailers in Belgium and Canada who are testing
the sourcing of their fruit and vegetables from the rooftop gardens of their own supermarkets. 75, 76
Refillable household and personal care products: Stores that allow customers to refill household andpersonal care staples such as shampoo, detergents, other cleaning supplies, lotions and even makeup are
growing in popularity. The Refill Station in Bangkok is the first of its kind in Thailand, 77 while several bulk
and zero waste stores around the world78 carry a wide range of dry goods, offering dispensers and refills
as alternatives to individually wrapped products.
Bulk snacks and treats: Bulk food stores79 have long carried non-packaged versions of many well-known
FMCG snack and treat products. From chocolate bars to candy, and even chips/crisps, stores with a highturnover of customers are able to keep various product types fresh while offering a refill alternative to theindividually wrapped products.

32

False or insufficient solutions
Several of the initiatives, commitments or actions
by companies aim to address some of theenvironmental impacts of conventional fossilbased plastics but are not a sufficient or adequate
approach to addressing the issue of plastics
pollution. These are summarised below:
1. Material substitution
Shifting away from fossil-based single-use
plastics to single-use bioplastics, paper, metal,
glass, or other materials.
Problem: On its own, material substitution
simply shifts the burden of environmental
impacts from one single-use material to another,
without addressing the problems of overproduction and consumption. Increased material
use, deforestation, land use, competition withfood production, ocean pollution, recycling
challenges (see Box 2) and high energy impacts
may all be associated with other materials;
companies must prevent replacing one problem
with another.
2. Light-weighting = reducing the amount ofplastic used in each packaging unit
Problem: Changing the weight of the material

does not affect whether or not that material
will end up in the ocean, and it may not evenaffect the volume of plastic used in single-use
packaging if the amounts produced continue
to grow. It also does not address the singleuse plastics challenge: even company actions
to reduce total volumes of plastic used by
reducing the weight per unit will not make asignificant difference in addressing plastic in theenvironment as the same number units, andtherefore risk of leakage, will remain. Significant
changes in packaging formats may further affectthe recyclability of plastic itself. This could alsopresent further challenges if companies movefrom heavy widely recyclable formats to lightweight non-recyclable formats.
3. Relying on recycling to solve the plastics
packaging problem
100% recyclability commitments:
Problem: 100% recyclability strategies suggestthat what is recycl’able’ will get recycl’ed’...
No country, company or organisation has
committed to a 100% recycling rate because of
the impracticality of achieving this outcome orcontrolling a system that aims to do this, even indeveloped countries with collection and recycling
infrastructure (see Box 2).

33© Dennis Reher / GreenpeaceCommitments on recycled content:
Problem: increasing the use of recycled material
in the packaging material itself is one of themeasures that companies should be working
towards in their short-term objectives to address
the system as it is today, but it will not deliver
the ultimate solution of preventing plastics fromentering ecosystems. These targets provide an
incentive to implement end of life systems tocollect and reuse materials and d​ rive some of thecomplementary improvements that are needed.
Also recycled content targets are usually for alimited percentage: it is still necessary to use virginplastic. These commitments do not therefore leadto a sustainable solution, but they do address
one of the key challenges for investment ininfrastructure by providing more stable demand
for materials.
Both recycled content and recyclability/recycling
can prevent some plastics entering ecosystems,
but these measures alone are not enough.
Commitments on “equivalent” collection:
ensuring that the same amount of packaging
that is placed on the market is collected by thecompany.
Problem: in theory, this commitment would

Box 5: Bioplastics
Bioplastics, 80 often promoted as ‘sustainable alternatives’ to petroleum-based plastics by companies, arederived from very limited biomass resources and their end-of-life impacts can be as damaging as theirfossil based equivalents.
For example, not all bioplastics are designed to be recyclable in the same way as conventional plastics.
As labelling for bioplastic is not legally-binding in most countries, claims such as “environmental-friendly”,“biodegradable”, “compostable” frequently lead to public misconceptions about the material. They still
enter the current plastic recycling processes and can lower the quality of recycled materials as manylabelling, recycling and composting systems are not designed to separate and treat them adequately. 81, 82
They are also not necessarily designed to degrade in the marine environment and so will not reduce thequantity or risks of plastics in the ocean and the risks of physical or chemical impacts. 83
Furthermore, about 80% of current bio-based plastics are manufactured using starch as a feedstock,which relies heavily on agricultural cultivation, competing with food production. 84 Although newtechnologies and feedstocks (i.e. algae, seaweed, methane, organic waste etc.) are under development,
the major feedstock for bioplastic currently is from agricultural products, with more than half produced in
Asia. 85
With various new bioplastic polymers under development and expected to enter the market soon, theglobal production capacity of bioplastic is increasing. According to European Bioplastics, bio-based, nonbiodegradable plastics represents 57% of current bioplastic production capacity, and more than half ofthe bioplastic produced is used as packaging materials. 86
Replacing the growing amount of fossil-based feedstocks for plastics with biomass feedstocks, would
significantly increase the existing burden on our planet’s ecosystems, and in particular forests andagricultural systems. Simply swapping to bioplastic still leads to mass disposability and cannot solve theplastic problem arising from over-consumption and the throwaway culture. Rather than being used to
substitute single-use plastics, renewable biomass feedstocks should be prioritised for the production offood, as well as maintaining soil fertility and providing long-term storage of carbon in products, thereby
helping to mitigate climate change.

34

ensure that the company would be required
to invest in its major countries of operation
to ensure that they have a net neutral impact
on national waste systems. In addition to thelack of clarity on how the direct attributionof material collection could happen for any
particular manufacturer, the bigger challenge
is to ensure that these commitments are
implemented in every market they operate inand not at a general global level. This distinction
is critical as companies can otherwise apply
a mass-balance approach to accounting fortheir plastics use. In other words, they could‘collect’ bottles above the equivalent of theirglobal sales in high consumption markets withadvanced recycling systems already in place,whilst continuing to avoid investment in morechallenging countries with underdeveloped
infrastructure.
4. Incineration and “waste-to-energy” 87
Many businesses proudly announce that they
are diverting waste from landfills, crediting
themselves as a “zero waste to landfill”
company. Not only is this deceptively similar to“zero waste”, 88 achieving “zero waste to landfill”
can conceal the practice of sending waste totrash incinerators, including so-called “waste-toenergy” facilities

Informal recycling
In some geographies, informal recycling plays animportant role in recovering parts of the plastic
waste generated. The World Bank estimatesthat in developing countries about 1 percentof the urban population—at least 15 million
people—survive by salvaging recyclables fromwaste. Studies suggest that when organized andsupported, waste picking can spur grassroots
investment by poor people, create jobs, reducepoverty, save municipalities money, improveindustrial competitiveness, conserve natural
resources, and protect the environment.92 While
recycling is not the priority solution required
to solve the plastic pollution problem, in thesegeographies businesses and policy makers should
involve workers in recycling system transitions:waste-pickers and informal recyclers must havethe power to improve materials management andto be integrated in the change to new systems andbusiness models (e.g. new delivery systems thathave been established as alternatives to disposable
plastic packaging).

Box 6: Why incineration and “waste toenergy” can’t solve the plastics issue
Post-consumer plastics are typicallyincinerated in mixed municipal or household
solid waste incinerators. Incineration converts
discarded materials into air pollutants, flyash, bottom ash, and boiler ash/slag throughburning. This process can harm human healthand the planet by emitting respiratory irritants,
cancer-causing dioxins/furans, heavy metals
including mercury, cadmium and lead, andmajor greenhouse gases. Even with the mostadvanced pollution control equipment somepollution is still released into the atmosphere,
while captured pollutants remain concentrated
in by-products such as fly ash from filtersand bottom ash, which are sent to landfills
and may leach into soil and groundwater.89
Valuable resources are lost permanently:
recycling and composting conserves three tofive times the amount of energy produced by“waste-to-energy” incineration.90 It is also themost expensive way to manage waste andproduce energy due to the low and variable
combustibility of mixed household waste andthe constant demand for feedstock required
to keep the system operational (the “lock-in”
effect).91 It further perpetuates a wastefullinear economy that is based on excessive
extraction and production, a throw-away
culture and capital-intensive infrastructure,often disproportionately located in lessprivileged communities.

35

5. Greenpeace call to action

commit to massively reduce and phase out their useof single-use plastic packaging, year on year.

Many of the world’s biggest fast moving consumer
goods companies say they are committed totackling the plastic pollution crisis. However, as theresults of our global survey show, their pledges rely
almost exclusively on increasing recycling and therecyclability of their products.

This means an end to the business model which
relies on disposable products and one way packaging,and the start of a new paradigm, that will allow theco-creation of alternative delivery systems - typicallyones which have reuse and refill at their heart.

The fact is that recycling alone is not sufficient toaddress the scale of the plastic pollution problem. At
the moment only 9% of plastic is recycled globally,93
and based on the latest data from the US somepredict that plastic recycling rates there could drop as
low as 4.4% in 2018, following the China waste importban.94Furthermore, there are no signs that the growing
volumes of single-use plastics produced by thecompanies covered in our survey will start to reduce;
all but two95 report growing or steady state volumes.
We do not even know the numbers of individual
single-use plastic items that were produced andwhether these are increasing, as only two companies
reported on this.96 At current growth rates, the fastest
growing businesses are set to double in size in as few
as ten years;97 if current trends continue, their use of
single-use plastic will increase in parallel.
It’s time to face reality. Although the collective andindividual efforts to collect and recycle plastics
packaging are important and commendable - this is
not the solution. We need to put the brakes on the
production of single-use plastics, starting right now.
As a major contributor to the plastics pollution crisis,
the fast moving consumer goods industry must takeresponsibility for this problem and re-evaluate its
dependency on single use plastic. Companies must
now go beyond pledges to improve recycling and© Greenpeace
36

Greenpeace calls on companies, governments, andcivil society to support a transition to a plastic-free
future by taking immediate action to facilitate a fullscale transformation away from our current one-way
packaging systems.
The Fast Moving Consumer Goods sector and othercompanies need to prioritise the following four
actions:
Be transparent
Publicly disclose comprehensive information about
their plastic footprint and the plastics they use;
Commit to reduction
Set annual targets for continually reducing theirsingle-use plastic footprint towards complete phase
out;
Urgently eliminate problematic and unnecessary
plastic
Begin reduction efforts by eliminating the mostproblematic and unnecessary single-use plastics byend of 2019;
Invest in reuse and alternative delivery systems
Make significant investment in creating refillable,
reusable containers and the innovation of newdelivery systems that minimise the need for singleuse plastic packaging.

© Dennis Reher / Greenpeace

35© Daniel Müller / GreenpeaceMore specifically these actions involve:
1. Transparency and plastic footprint 98
disclosure• Frequency - at least annually, going forward,
setting up a benchmark year/data reference
point no later than 2018;• Scope - amount and types of all single -use
and multi-use plastic packaging and productproduced (ie placed on the market - directly or
through third parties), globally with country bycountry breakdown;		• Comprehensive - meaning data needs to be
based on units of product or packaging (aswell as volumes), differentiated by reduction(avoided), reuse, recycling and disposal(incineration and landfill).
2. Public Commitment to reduction of plastic
footprint and transition plan/roadmap• Scope - create and implement a policy that:• is consistent across regional, national andglobal operations covering the elements
outlined below;• Set a sunset date of end of 2019 to eliminate/complete phase out of the most problematicand unnecessary single-use plastics;• Commit to stop promoting a throwaway
culture, acknowledging that we cannot simply
recycle our way out of the plastic pollution
crisis.
3. Investments in reuse and new/ alternative
delivery systems• Invest in Research and Development (R&D)
into innovative, socially and environmentally
responsible ways of delivering your goods
without single-use plastic packaging - forexample in at least two regions pilot new
innovative delivery systems that could be
expanded across supply chains, avoiding nicheor only high-end products;• Prioritize implementation of reuse options andalternative delivery system development in“high leakage” countries and regions withlimited waste infrastructure.

• supports full extended producer social andenvironmental responsibility (EPR) (seeglossary;• clearly excludes false solutions (see Glossary);• recognises the need to shift away from athrowaway culture and the role that singleuse plastics role plays in this;		• Share your plan/ roadmap:• Provide clear and publicly transparent
action plans, with time-bound milestones
and benchmarks so that progress towards
objectives can be clearly monitored.
• Ambition• Set annual targets for continually reducing
your single-use plastic footprint, specificallytargets for replacing single-use plastic
packaging with reusable packaging and newdelivery systems;© Dennis Reher / Greenpeace38

Glossary
Alternative delivery systems (ADS)ADS can take various forms depending on the
product in question; they could include (re)expansion of reuse and refill systems or restructuring
delivery systems in other ways, for example making
bulk shopping convenient, shortening supply chainsto avoid the need for long storage and transport
packaging or shifts to service based business models,for example leasing products or delivering services.
Biodegradable
Biodegradable plastics are plastics that aredecomposed by the action of living organisms,
including bacteria and fungi. Biodegradable plastics
can be bioplastics, but can also include plastics madefrom petrochemical feedstock (or mixes of both)containing additives which enhance biodegradation.
However, They are not necessarily designed todegrade in the marine environment or to berecyclable, (see Box 5).
Chemical recycling (of plastics)
Chemical recycling, (or feedstock recycling) of
plastics, is the process of breaking down plastics
into monomers and other basic chemical elements(“depolymerization”). It includes conversion
processes such as pyrolysis, gasification andhydrogenation.
Circular economy and circularity
A circular economy is a regenerative system in which
resource input and waste, emission, and energy
leakage are minimized by slowing, closing, andnarrowing energy and material loops; this can beachieved through long-lasting design, maintenance,
repair, reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing,recycling, and upcycling. This is in contrast to a linear
economy which is a ‘take, make, dispose’ model ofproduction.
Compostable
Compostable plastics are those that aredecomposed by the action of living organisms,
including bacteria and fungi and result in compost(a mixture of organic matter that has decayed or
has been digested by organisms, and can be used
to improve soil structure and provide nutrients).
However, They are not necessarily designed todegrade in the marine environment or to berecyclable, (see Box 5).

Delivery System
Delivery systems are systems that supply and provide
goods and services. For example the transport andpackaging of food, goods, etc.
Deposit Return System (DRS)
A surcharge on a product when purchased and arebate when it is returned. A well-known example iswhen container deposit legislation mandates that a
refund is given when reusable packaging is returned.
Downcycling
Downcycling is the reprocessing of plastic wastematerials or components to produce new productsof lesser quality or value, (a lower quality,
contaminated or polluting product) products which
are not further recyclable and recycled .
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
Principle that those producing the product (orpackaging) take full responsibility (social andenvironmental) for the entire lifecycle of the product.
Used as a basis for creating financial responsibility
for the end of life management of packaging in the
EU Packaging Directive (Directive 94/62/EC).
Full extended producer social and environmental
responsibility should include taking full responsibility
for the entire lifecycle of the product and its
packaging by:• Commiting and delivering on plastic footprint
reduction ie elimination and reuse targets• Addressing (internalising/assuming financial
responsibility for) ocean, waterway andenvironmental pollution caused by yourpackaging,• Conducting lifecycle and environmental
assessments of all products, which include marine
litter impacts as an explicit characterisation/
impact factor,• Assessing impacts on local communities andwaste pickers and ensuring that environmental
impacts and social impacts on local communities
are monitored and managed in accordance withyour policy and relevant regulations,• Supporting safe and healthy local jobs,• Support waste reduction regulations andregulations that ensure that all producers,
importers, service providers, buyers and retailers
of fast moving consumer goods products have an
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).

39

False Solutions• Incineration or waste-to-energy (heat or electricity)
technologies• Substitution with single-use bio-plastics or othersingle-use product/material substitutes (suchas paper and cardboard) that can cause otherenvironmental problems such as deforestation,
habitat destruction, conversion of food crops or are
not sourced from ecological agriculture, etc.
• Chemical recycling• Downcycling• Biodegradable or compostable materials as amarine litter solution• Sourcing materials/feedstocks that contain or use
hazardous chemicals• Relying on recycled content as the sole way ofaddressing the environmental impacts of the use of
single-use plastics• Giving priority to recycling over reduction, reuse
and alternative delivery systems• Putting the responsibility of inaction or thechallenge on your end-users• Focusing on environmental clean-up initiatives
Fracking
Hydraulic fracking is the process of drilling down into
the earth before a high-pressure water mixture isdirected at the rock to release the gas inside. Water,sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at highpressure which allows the gas to flow out to thehead of the well.
Hazardous chemicals
These are chemicals that show intrinsicallyhazardous properties, including: persistent,
bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT); very persistent andvery bioaccumulative (vPvB); carcinogenic, mutagenic
and toxic for reproduction (CMR); endocrine
disruptors (ED), or other properties of equivalentconcern, (not just those that have been regulated or
restricted in other regions).
Some types of toxicity make it difficult to define‘safe’ levels for substances, even at low doses, forexample, substances may be:• carcinogenic (causing cancer), mutagenic (ableto alter genes) and/or reprotoxic (harmful
to reproduction); or endocrine disruptors(interfering with hormone systems).

40

LightweightingThis is reducing the total volumes of material usedby reducing the weight per unit of packaging.
However, this will not make a significant difference
to addressing plastic in the environment as thesame number units, and therefore risk of leakage,
will remain. Significant changes in packaging
formats may further affect the recyclability of plastic
itself. This could also present further challenges if
companies move from widely (technically)recyclable
formats which are heavier to lightweight nonrecyclable formats.
Open burningOpen burning is defined as a fire where any material
is burned on the ground or in an open receptacle,
without any air pollution controls in place.
Persistent Organic Pollutants
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are carbonbased chemical substances with a particular
combination of physical and chemical properties.
Once released into the environment, they:• remain intact for exceptionally long periods of time
(many years);• become widely distributed throughout theenvironment as a result of natural processes
involving soil, water and, most notably, air;• accumulate in the fatty tissue of living organisms
including humans, and are found at higher
concentrations at higher levels in the food chain;• and are toxic to both humans and wildlife.
POPs are now widely distributed over large regions(including those where POPs have never been used)
and, in some cases, they are found around theglobe. There is a global treaty to protect humanhealth and the environment from the effects of
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), the Stockholm
Convention, which entered into force on 17 May
2004.100Plastic
A synthetic ‘polymer’ material, most often madefrom petrochemicals, and commonly combinedwith other chemical additives in order to give it
certain properties of flexibility, colour or durability.
Plastics include but are not limited to polycarbonate,polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high-density
polyethylene (HDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), lowdensity polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP) and,polystyrene (PS).

Plastic additives• stabilisers• plasticisers• emulsifiers
All plastics products are made from the essential
polymer mixed with a complex blend of materials
known collectively as additives. For example:• stabilisers prevent decomposition of the polymer
during processing and are used to inhibit thereactions in plastics which cause undesirable
chemical degradation from exposure to UV light• plasticisers are used to make plastics softer andmore flexible.
• emulsifiers are used in the production of polymers
Other plastics additives include antimicrobials,
antioxidants, antistatic agents, lubricants, fillers,
flame retardants, pigments and reinforcements.
Plastics additives include hazardous chemicals suchas phthalates or brominated flame retardants.
Plastic footprint, plastic footprint disclosure
The amount (in units) of plastic used by a company
in their supply chain for own products, packaging
and transport within a defined twelve-month
period, including geographical and product category
information related to their use of plastics.
Full transparency means publicly reporting on how
much plastic is used, including the number of items,
what kinds of plastic, and its purpose, to establish
a baseline from which to measure progress. The
provision of sales data alone is not disclosure of acompany’s plastic footprint.
Problematic and unnecessary single-use plastic
Problematic single-use plastics include those mostcommonly found in the environment (in particularoceans, waterways and beaches), non or poorlyrecyclable plastics and plastic linked to hazardous
chemicals and chemicals of concern. Unnecessary
single-use plastics are excessive (or pointless) plastic
packaging and non-essential plastic items for whichalternatives exist (or could be easily developed).

Producer (or Importer)In the case of EPR and packaging the producer(or importer) normally refers to the filler of the
packaging with the product (often a brand or
retailer). In this report producer (or importer) would
also mean actor that manufactures and/or places
the product and/or packaging on the market.
Recyclable packaging, recyclability
To qualify as recyclable, there needs to be a system
for recycling in place that enables the user of the
package to ensure it is recycled in practice wherever
the item is placed on the market. Such a system forrecycling should be able to prove a significant actual
recycling rate.
The inherent properties of the material or thedesign of the product, might make it easier/harder
to recycle (for example using only one material in the
product, known as mono-material).
Recyclability on its own is not a sustainable
packaging criteria, as there needs to be a system
in place for recycling in practice (see Recyclable
packaging above). Within an Alternative Delivery
System, where packaging is reusable or refillable,
the recyclability/recycling of materials and designof packaging used in the system is also important,as refillable containers themselves have a limited
lifetime and will need to be recycled once they reachthe end of their lives.
Reduction of single-use plastic (SUP)
An overall reduction of the number of single-use
plastic units being produced and/or sold by acompany.
Reusable/refillable/multi-use packaging
Packaging that is constructed of durable materials
and is designed to achieve multiple uses in its
existing form without any physical or chemical
modification and is refilled or used for the same
purpose for which it was conceived. To qualify asreusable, there needs to be a reuse system in placethat ensures it is reused in practice where the item
is placed on the market. Such a system for reuseshould be able to prove a significant actual reuse
rate.

41

Single-use plastic (SUP) and Single-use plastic
packaging (SUPP)
Single-use plastic (SUP) - Any plastic that is intended
or designed for one-time use, regardless of therecyclability of any component materials.
Single-use plastic packaging (SUPP) - any plastic
packaging, as above.
Examples include: plastic bags, sachets, food and nonfood plastic packaging that is only used once and thenrecycled or disposed of.
It also includes items that can be recycled to forma material closed loop (i.e. material recycling, eg
bottle to bottle recycling). Material closed loop is
distinguished from product closed loop (i.e. reuse,
where the physical unit and form of the e.g. bottle isretained and refilled).
Throwaway society or culture
The throwaway society is a human society strongly
influenced by consumerism. The term describes
a critical view of overconsumption and excessive
production of short-lived or disposable items overdurable goods that can be repaired.
Virgin fossil feedstock
Fossil fuels, eg. oil, are the raw material for oil-based
plastic, which is processed into petrochemicals forplastics manufacturing. “Virgin” refers to the useof primary raw materials versus materials that arerecycled.
Waste Picker
A person who salvages waste materials, to sell or for
personal consumption.

42

References
1. European Parliamentary Research Service Blog
(2013) Recycling rate and total amount of plastic packaging
per inhabitant, EU27, 2011. Available: http://epthinktank.
eu/2013/11/07/plastic-waste/recycling-rate-and-total-amountof-plastic-packaging-per-inhabitant/
2. American Chemistry Council and Trucost(2016) Plastics and sustainability: a valuation of environmental
benefits, costs and opportunities. Available: https://plastics.
americanchemistry.com/Plastics-and-Sustainability.pdf
3. The combined top 50 fast-moving consumer goods companies
have a total sales revenue of $1.09 trillion. Consultancy.uk,
2018, The 50 largest FMCG / consumer goods companies in
the world, 24 September 2018; https://www.consultancy.uk/
news/18765/the-50-largest-fmcg-consumer-goods-companiesin-the-world
4. The eleven companies chosen own well-known
consumer brands globally, holding important market sharesacross all the regions of the world. We chose a combination ofcompanies to cover multiple consumer goods in the beverage,
food, household products, cosmetics and health sectors.
5. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2014,
Valuing Plastics: The Business Case for Measuring, Managing
and Disclosing Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry.
ISBN 9789280734003
6. McKinsey & Company and Ocean Conservancy (2015),
Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies for a plastic- freeocean, September 2015; https://oceanconservancy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/04/full-report-stemming-the.pdf
7. Bakir A, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC, (2014), Enhanced
desorption of persistent organic pollutants from microplastics
under simulated physiological conditions, Environmental
Pollution, Volume 185, February 2014, Pages 16-23; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749113005277
8. Finanacial Times (2018), Theresa May targets
plastics in war on ‘throwaway culture , January 2018; https://www.ft.com/content/31125996-f62e-11e7-88f7-5465a6ce1a00
9. Geyer R, Jambeck J R, Law K L, 2017, Production, use, and fate of
all plastics ever made, Science Advances 19 July 2017, Vol. 3,
no. 7, e1700782; http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/
e1700782.full Less than 6% of discarded PET bottles, the mostrecyclable plastic, is recycled back into packaging in the US.
National Association for PET Container Resources (Napcor),2017, Report on postconsumer PET container recycling activity
in 2016; https://napcor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/
NAPCOR-APR_2016RateReport_FINAL.pdf
10. The maximum possible levels of recycling for plastics
packaging are currently reported at somewhere between 36% and 53%: beyond this limit the recycled plastic will be eitherof a very low quality, or not cost effective. The recycling levelsof 36 % and 53% are not yet entirely utilised.Denkstatt,2015,
The potential for plastic packaging to contribute to a circularand resource-efficient economy. Presentation at International
Conference on recycling and recovery of plastics, Identiplast,
Rome 29th April 2015; https://denkstatt.eu/publications/

11. McKinsey & Company and Ocean Conservancy 2015, op.cit.
12. Global Newswire, 2018, Global FMCG Packaging
Market Will Reach USD 657.27 Billion by 2024: Zion Market
Research, 27 July 2018; https://globenewswire.com/newsrelease/2018/07/27/1543205/0/en/Global-FMCG-PackagingMarket-Will-Reach-USD-657-27-Billion-by-2024-Zion-MarketResearch.html
13. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2014,
op.cit.
14. KPMG, 2016, Fast Moving Consumer Goods Sector Report.
KPMG Africa https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/br/
pdf/2016/09/fast-moving-consumer-goods.pdf
15. Predatory marketing: “any activity instigated—usually, by the larger manufacturer—to tangibly harm or
eliminate smaller competitors.” https://www.urbandictionary.
com/define.php?term=predatory%20marketing
16. Oxfam GB, Novib, Unilever and Unilever Indonesia, 2005,
Exploring the links between international business andpoverty reduction: a case study of Unilever in Indonesia, page20; Information Press, Eynsham, UK
17. Oxfam GB et.al. (2005), op.cit. Page 94, between
15 and 50% of net sales is invested in advertising.
18. KPMG. 2016. Fast Moving Consumer Goods Sector
Report. Op Cit.
19. A UNEP report which quantifies the use of plastic
use in monetary term shows the interdependency of
the FMCG companies on plastics: 8 tonnes of plastic are
consumed for every $1m in revenue, (within this, 2 tonnes
per $1m revenue is from the plastic-in-packaging usedin the consumer goods industry; another 2 tonnes per$1m revenue is plastic-in-product; while 4 tonnes per$1m revenue is plastic-in-supply-chain). In the soft drinks
sector the proportion is even higher, with 34.6 tonnes ofplastic consumed for every $1m in revenue. United Nations
Environmental Protection (UNEP). 2014. op.cit.
20. Jacobs, A. & Richtel, M. 2017. How Big Business
Got Brazil Hooked on Junk Food. The New York Times,
16th September 2017; https://www.nytimes.com/
interactive/2017/09/16/health/brazil-obesity-nestle.html
21. Hindustan Unilever Limited, an Indian subsidiaryof Unilever sells 27 billion sachets a year. https://hbr.
org/2016/12/how-unilever-reaches-rural-consumers-inemerging-markets
22. Posadas, D. 2014. Sachets help low-income
communities but are a waste nightmare. The Guardian,
22nd May 2014; https://www.theguardian.com/sustainablebusiness/sachet-packaging-low-income-communitieswaste-nightmare Horodytska, O, Valdés FJ, Fullana, A, 2018,
Plastic flexible films waste management – A state of art
review, Waste Management, Volume 77, July 2018, Pages
413-425; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0956053X18302447

4323. Brand audit results: These companies have been well
documented as major contributors of plastic pollution and haveconsistently shown up in plastic waste brand audits around theworld, where plastic waste collected from beaches and otherlocations is sorted and analysed according to their branding.

35. Bakir A, Rowland SJ, Thompson RC. 2014. Enhanced
desorption of persistent organic pollutants from microplastics
under simulated physiological conditions, Environmental
Pollution (185) : 16 - 23, February 2014 https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749113005277

24. American Chemistry Council and Trucost, 2016, Plastics andsustainability: a valuation of environmental benefits, costs andopportunities, July 2016; https://plastics.americanchemistry.
com/Plastics-and-Sustainability.pdf

36. The Guardian (2018); Scrap ‘smorgasbord’ of plastics used inpackaging, councils urge, 4 August 2018; https://www.
theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/04/only-a-third-ofplastic-food-packaging-can-be-recycled-councils-say

25. Jambeck J R, Geyer C, Wilcox T R, Siegler M, Perryman A,
Andrady R, Narayan R & Law K L, 2015, Plastic Waste inputs
from land into the Ocean. 13 Feb 2015, Science (347) : 768-771;
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768

37. World Economic Forum, et.al. 2016, The New Plastics
Economy. op cit.

26. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2014, op.cit.
27. Keane, K, 2018, Fife beach ‘worst’ for nurdle pollution, BBC News,
21 May 2018; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ukscotland-44196556
28. Li X, Chen L, Mei Q, Dong B, Dai X, Ging G, Zeng EY, 2018,
Microplastics in sewage sludge from the wastewater treatment
plants in China, Water Research, Volume 142, 1 October 2018,
Pages 75-85; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0043135418304068
UNEP 2018, Wastewater treatment plants – a surprising sourceof microplastic pollution, 22 Aug 2018https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/
wastewater-treatment-plants-surprising-source-microplasticpollution
29. European Bioplastics, Bioplastics facts and figures; http://docs.
european-bioplastics.org/publications/EUBP_Facts_and_figures.
pdf
30. Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) 2017, Fueling
Plastics: Series examines deep linkages between the fossil fuels
and plastics industries, and the products they produce, 20
September 2017; https://www.ciel.org/reports/fuelingplastics/
31. World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and
McKinsey & Company, 2016, The New Plastics Economy —Rethinking the future of plastics, 19 January 2016; https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/
EllenMacArthurFoundation_TheNewPlasticsEconomy_Pages.pdf
32. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
2012, Evidence for a soft drinks roadmap – Phase 2 Final Report,
11 January 2013; http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?D
ocument=11109_201304305EvidenceforasoftdrinksroadmapPhase2Final.pdf
33. Royer S J, Ferrón S, Wilson S T, Karl D M, 2018, Production of
methane and ethylene from plastic in the environment, August
1, 2018; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200574
34. World Economic Forum, et. al. 2016. The New Plastics Economy.
op cit.

44

38. National Association for PET Container Resources (Napcor),2017, op.cit.
39. Geyer R, Jambeck J R, Law K L, 2017, op.cit. European
Commission, 2015, EU Packaging Directive 94/62/EC
and amendments; 29th April 2015; http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/waste/packaging/index_en.htm European
Commission, 2015, Development of guidance on Extended
Producer Responsibility; 17th August 2015 (last update) http://
ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/waste/eu_guidance/
introduction.html
40. European Association of Plastics Recycling, 2018, Plastic
packaging waste statistics 2016; http://www.eproplasticsrecycling.org/pages/75/epro_statistics
41. Doyle A, & Burger L, 2018, EU plea to industry to reuse more
plastic lacks bite. Reuters. 29th June 2018; https://uk.reuters.
com/article/uk-eu-recycling-plastic-exclusive/exclusive-eu-pleato-industry-to-reuse-more-plastic-lacks-bite-idUKKBN1JP1E2
42. 7.35million MT was imported in 2016. Brooks, A L, Wang S,& Jambeck J R, 2018, The Chinese import ban and its impact
on global plastic waste trade. Science Advances 4(6), 20th June
2018; http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaat0131
43. Brooks, et. al. 2018. op.cit.
44. National Development and Reform Commission, thePeople’s Republic of China. 2014. Annual report for resources
use. 中国国家发展和改革委员会,《中国资源综合利用年度报告
（2014）》(in Chinese) http://hzs.ndrc.gov.cn/zhly/201410/
W020141015504221663989.pdf
45.McKinsey & Company & Ocean Conservancy, 2015, op.cit.
46. McGeough, H, 2017, How will China’s waste plastic ban impact
the global recycling chain? Wood Mackenzie. 5th December
2017; https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/china-wasteplastic-ban-global-recycling/
47. The Guardian, 2018, Huge rise in US plastic waste shipments
to poor countries following China ban, 5 October 2018; https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/oct/05/
huge-rise-us-plastic-waste-shipments-to-poor-countrieschina-ban-thailand-malaysia-vietnam Unearthed, 2018,
Plastics crisis set to intensify as more countries look to restrict
foreign waste, 14 June 2018 https://unearthed.greenpeace.
org/2018/06/14/china-plastics-ban-malaysia-vietnam-poland/48. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2017, Waste
Management in ASEAN Countries; http://wedocs.unep.org/
handle/20.500.11822/21134
49. Greenpeace International research for this report involved
assessing the public statements made in 2017/2018 corporate
annual reports of Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, PepsiCo, Unilever,Coca Cola, Kraft-Heinz, Mondelez, Colgate Palmolive, Johnson& Johnson, and Danone. Also see: WWF Global 2016, Asian
Fast Moving Consumer Goods: A Sustainability Guide forFinanciers and Companies (Packaging), 15 April 2016; http://
wwf.panda.org/our_work/markets/publications/?265550/
Asian-Fast-Moving-Consumer-Goods---A-Sustainability-Guidefor-Financiers-and-Companies
50. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2014,
Valuing plastics. op cit.
51. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2014,
Valuing plastics. op cit.WWF Global 2016, op.cit.
52. Nine of the eleven companies surveyed have 100% recyclable
or recyclability commitments by a specified date, one has 90%
recyclability and one has no recyclability commitment. Someof these recyclability commitments also include reuse (eg
100% reusable or recyclable, or 100% reusable, recyclable orcompostable by a specified date) but as these are aggregatedcommitments with no clarity on the proportion of reuse to
be achieved it would allow a company to focus solely on
recyclability, therefore we don’t consider this a measurable
commitment to reduction through reuse.
53. Mars initially responded that 100% of their primary packaging
is single-use plastic. In a follow up response, the company
noted an example of a single-use plastic refill pouch for gum
that was the equivalent of 180 boxes. While the examples
Mars provided (refillable gum bottles and bulk plastic
pouches) might appear to be designed for reuse/refill the
combined system of gum bottle plus accessory bulk productstill requires the end consumer to dispose of the refill pouch
which would appear to not be designed for refill or reuse,
therefore we would still consider the combined system as one
that depends on single-use packaging.
54. Plastics can be recycled up to six times. British Plastics
Federation, Oil Consumption, http://www.bpf.co.uk/Press/
Oil_Consumption.aspx
55. Chemical & Engineering News, 2018, Chemistry may have
solutions to our plastic trash problem, June 15, 2018, Volume
96, Issue 25; https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/
Chemistry-solutions-plastic-trash-problem/96/i25
56. Packaging Europe, 2018, Chemical Recycling 101, 28 February
2018; https://packagingeurope.com/chemical-recycling-101plastic-waste/
57. Chemical & Engineering News, 2018, op.cit. Ultimately“chemically recyclable polymers are the best solution to the
problem of plastic trash …. Still, intrinsically recyclable plastics
are a long way from commercial reality. Besides technicalhurdles, there are also economic ones.”

58. For example, post-consumer laminated packaging is not atargeted material for collection and is not currently recycled
in the UK. A study on separating out the aluminium (but not
the plastic) for recycling concluded that separating laminatedpackaging from residual household waste is unlikely to beconsidered financially viable as a stand-alone activity. WRAP,
website, Recycling of aluminium plastic laminated tubes
and pouches http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/recyclingaluminium-plastic-laminated-tubes-and-pouches Unilever
has also opened a pilot plant in Indonesia for the chemical
recycling of plastics in sachets (the CreaSolv® Process), which
involves several steps including the use of solvents to separate
the polymer from the waste fraction and other contaminants.
Packaging Europe, 2018, op.cit.
59. International Coastal Cleanup, 2009, Most common and visible
litter items in beaches. Plastic bottle rank goes up from5th to 2nd place. See also report for International Ocean
Cleanup. 2017. https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/06/International-Coastal-Cleanup_2017-Report.
pdf
60. National Association for PET Container Resources (Napcor),2017, op.cit.
61. Recycling Today (2001), Recycled PET: Should it be Used in
Making New Bottles? 22nd January 2001 http://www.
recyclingtoday.com/article/recycled-pet--should-it-be-used-inmaking-new-bottles-/
62. Greenpeace Germany, 2017, Fashion at the Crossroads, 18th
September 2017; https://www.greenpeace.org/international/
publication/6969/fashion-at-the-crossroads/
63. Denkstatt (2015), op.cit. The recycling levels of 36 % and 53%
are not yet entirely utilised.
64. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2014,
Valuing plastics. op cit.
65. CEFLEX, a collaborative initiative of a European consortium ofcompanies and associations representing the entire value
chain of flexible packaging. Its vision is that by “2020 flexible
packaging will have a comprehensive sustainability andcircular economy roadmap ... including widely recognised
design guidelines and a robust approach to measure,demonstrate and communicate the significant value flexible
packaging adds to the circular economy”.. “By 2025 there
will be an established collection, sorting and reprocessing
infrastructure/economy developed for post-consumer flexible
packaging across Europe”. Website: https://ceflex.eu/
66. Karnani A, (2009), The Bottom of the Pyramid Strategy for
Reducing Poverty: A Failed Promise, Ross School of Business,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, DESA Working Paper No. 80
ST/ESA/2009/DWP/80
67. Jacobs A, & Richtel M, 2017, op.cit.

4568. Coca Cola, A World Without Waste: Coca-Cola Announces
Ambitious Sustainable Packaging Goal, Jay Moye, Jan 19, 2018;https://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/world-withoutwaste
69. Tesco PLC, 2018, Tesco sets out aspiration for ‘closed loop’
packaging system - calls on government to support withnational recycling infrastructure, 23 May 2018; https://www.
tescoplc.com/news/news-releases/2018/tesco-igd-packaging/
70. CBC Radio 2017, ‘Wasted’: U.K. food retailer vows to be theworld’s first to go plastic-free, 27 February 2018; https://www.
cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-375-serial-killer-fallout-superbowl-ad-pranks-plastic-free-groceries-dead-people-suck-andmore-1.4510657/wasted-u-k-food-retailer-vows-to-be-theworld-s-first-to-go-plastic-free-1.4510678
71. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), 2018,
Understanding the role of plastic packaging in the foodsystem, 10 April 2018; https://ieep.eu/news/understandingthe-role-of-plastic-packaging-in-the-food-system
72. One example is the service offered by Sodastream; https://sodastream.com/
73. Organic Consumers Association (2018), Raw Milk Vending
Machines Flourish in Europe, September 4 2018; https://www.
organicconsumers.org/news/raw-milk-vending-machinesflourish-europe#close
74. Onusic S P, 2018. Raw Milk Vending Machine Sales Soar on theWorld Market. Campaign for Real Milk. Posted on January
6, 2018 https://www.realmilk.com/international-updates/
vending-machine-sales-soar/
75. Global News (2018), Montreal supermarket offers fresh
produce from its rooftop garden, 13 July 2018; https://globalnews.ca/news/4331220/montreal-supermarket-freshproduce-rooftop-garden/
76. World Economic Forum (2018), This Belgian supermarket isselling produce from its own rooftop farm, 6 July, 2018;https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/07/belgian-storetries-out-farm-to-table-growing-on-its-own-roof
77. Bangkok Venue, Refill Station, website; https://bk.asia-city.
com/bangkok-places/shop/beauty/refill-station
78. For a list of zero waste supermarkets around the world(Europe, Americas, Australia and Asia), see: https://www.
bepakt.com/
79. For example, see Canadian based Bulk Barn; www.bulkbarn.
ca/en/home
80. The term bioplastic, as defined by European Bioplastics, refers
to both the bio-based origin, mix of bio-based and fossil fuelbased origin, and/or the biodegradable character of a plastic.
However, in the context of this report Greenpeace is using theterm bioplastics to only consider 100% bio-based polymers as
bioplastic (both biodegradable or non-biodegradable).

46

81. European Plastic Recyclers (EuPR), 2010, How to increase themechanical recycling of Post-consumer Plastics: Strategy
paper of the European Plastics Recyclers Association, February
2010; http://plasticker.de/news/docs/EuPR_How_To_Increase_
Plastics_Recycling_FINAL_low.pdf
82. European Plastics Converters, 2013, EuPC calls on legislator to
support separate collection of degradable plastic materials
and ban oxo fragmentable plastics, Press Release, Brussels,
9th September 2013; http://assobioplastiche.org/assets/
documenti/news/news2013/EuPC-Press-Release-DegradableTests.pdf
83. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2015,
Biodegradable Plastics & Marine Litter: misconception,
concerns and impacts on marine environments,
Nairobi. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/
handle/20.500.11822/7468/-Biodegradable_Plastics_and_Marine_Litter_Misconceptions,_concerns_and_impacts_on_
marine_environments-2015BiodegradablePlasticsAndMarineL
itter.pdf.pdf
84. BPF (undated), Bio-based plastics: Feedstocks, Production
and the UK Market, British Plastics Federation http://www.bpf.
co.uk/plastipedia/polymers/biobased_plastics_feedstocks_
production_and_the_uk_market.aspx
85. European Bioplastics (undated), Bioplastics facts andfigures; http://docs.european-bioplastics.org/publications/
EUBP_Facts_and_figures.pdf Institute for Bioplastics andBiocomposites (IfBB), 2017, Biopolymers facts and statistics:
Production capacities, processing routes, feedstock, land andwater uses 2017. Hannover University of Applied Science andArts. https://www.ifbb-hannover.de/files/IfBB/downloads/
faltblaetter_broschueren/Biopolymers-Facts-Statistics_2017.
pdf
86. European Bioplastics (undated). Bioplastics facts andfigures. op.cit.
87. Global Alliance for Incineration Alternatives (GAIA),
2017, Green businesses and cities at risk: How your waste
management plan may be leading you in the wrong direction.
GAIA and the Tishman Environment and Design Center,
September 2017; http://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/
uploads/Businesses-and-cities-at-risk.pdf
88. Zero Waste Europe, website, What is Zero Waste? https://
zerowasteeurope.eu/what-is-zero-waste/
89. Römbke J, Moser T. & Moser H, 2009, Ecotoxicologicalcharacterisation of 12 incineration ashes using 6 laboratory
tests. Waste management 29(9): 2475-82.
90. Morris J, 2005, Comparative LCAs for Curbside Recycling
Versus Either Landfilling or Incineration with Energy Recovery,
4 October 2004, The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 10(4) : 273–284; http://www.springerlink.com/
content/m423181w2hh036n4/
91. Vahk J, The Nordics addiction to incineration fuels thecontroversy on renewable energy, 2018. Zero Waste Europe,
19th April 2018; https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2018/04/thenordics-addiction-to-incineration-fuels-the-controversy-onrenewable-energy/

92. Public-Private-Partnership Legal Resource Center (PPPLRC),
2019, The informal recycling sector in developing countries,
The World Bank Group, last updated 31st Oct 2016 https://
ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/library/
informal-recycling-sector-developing-countries
93. Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL, 2017, op.cit.
94. This estimate is based on the latest data from the US andassumes Business As Usual growth in plastic waste
generation. Dell, J, 2018, U.S. Plastic Recycling Rate Projected
to Drop to 4.4% in 2018, 4 October 2018; https://www.
plasticpollutioncoalition.org/pft/2018/10/4/us-plasticrecycling-rate-projected-to-drop-to-44-in-2018
95. Danone and Mars, however, neither of these companies
indicated a reduction in the number of single-use-plastic
units that were sold.
96. As only Coke and Nestlé provided information on thenumber of units supplied relative to the weight of plastic
used.

04. What happens to plastic waste. Based on Figure 1.8,
Global flow of plastic packaging waste, 2015, in: United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2018, Single-use
plastics - a roadmap for sustainability; https://wedocs.unep.
org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/25496/singleUsePlastic_
sustainability.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1;
05. Top 10 exporters and importers of plastic waste between
1988 and 2016. Based on data from: Geyer, Roland,
Jenna R. Jambeck, and Kara Lavender Law (2017) Science
Advances 19 Jul 2017: Vol. 3, no. 7. Production, use, and fateof all plastics ever made. http://advances.sciencemag.org/
content/3/7/e1700782.full
06. What happens to plastics packaging collected forrecycling, based on data in Petcore Europe, 2016, PET
collection and recycling rates in Europe significantly
increased in 2016, Monday, December 18, 2017; https://petcore-europe.prezly.com/pet-collection-and-recyclingrates-in-europe-significantly-increased-in-2016#

97. Greenpeace International research, op.cit.
WWF Global 2016, op.cit.
98. See Glossary for precise definition.
99. When considering a product or delivery system’s impact,
consider the complete lifecycle of the product from theorigin of the material, to transport, production, distribution,
capture/collection, reuse, recycling or disposal, and ensure
cumulative impacts are accounted for in local market
contexts.
100. UNEP, Stockholm Convention, website;
http://chm.pops.int/Convention/tabid/54/language/en-US/
Default.aspx

Sources for infographics
01. Global plastic production by industry in millions of tons.
Image adapted from “A Lifetime of Plastic” in National
Geographic (2018), We Made Plastic. We Depend on It. Now
We’re Drowning in It, by Laura Parker, June 2018; https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/06/plasticplanet-waste-pollution-trash-crisis/
02. Single-use plastic sold by the eleven FMCG companies
surveyed in 2017. Data provided by FMCG companies in
response to Greenpeace’s survey.
03. Plastics in our ecosystems, where they come fromand where they go., sources include: Horton A A, Walkton
A, Spurgeon D J, Lahive E, Svendsen C, 2017, Microplastics
in freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating thecurrent understanding to identify the knowledge gaps andfuture research priorities, Science of The Total Environment,
Volume 586, 15 May 2017, Pages 127-141;https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0048969717302073?via%3Dihub Eunomia, 2016,
Plastics in the Marine Environment, 1st June 2016, by Dr
Chris Sherrington; http://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/
plastics-in-the-marine-nvironment/

47

Author: Madeleine Cobbing
Design (apart from cover):William Morris-Julien

GGreenpeace International
Ottho Heldringstraat 5,1066 AZ Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Greenpeace is an independent
global organisations that acts tochange attitudes and behaviour,
to protect and conserve theenvironment and to promote
peace.

© Justin Hofman / Greenpeacegreenpeace.org