Search Climate Insights Directory

The Changing Markets Foundation's investigation into the ten most plastic-polluting companies reveals a global trend of corporations undermining legislative solutions to the plastic crisis. Specifically, the foundation criticizes Colgate-Palmolive for a lack of leadership, inconsistent reporting on recycled content, and an unambitious focus on light-weighting rather than absolute virgin plastic reduction. The letter demands that the company publicly support progressive legislation, such as global deposit return systems, and provide transparent, independently verified data on its full plastic footprint.

The Changing Markets Foundation's letter to Danone highlights a global trend of corporations undermining plastic legislation and critiques Danone's lack of transparency regarding reuse systems and sustainability criteria for bio-plastics, while acknowledging its support for mandatory collection systems.

The Changing Markets Foundation writes to Mars Incorporated, identifying it as one of the worst plastic polluters and criticizing its failure to meet packaging targets and its reliance on 'climate-unfriendly' chemical recycling. The letter demands that Mars publicly support global deposit return systems, increase transparency regarding its plastic footprint, and commit to meaningful reductions in single-use plastics.

The Changing Markets Foundation identifies Mondelēz International as one of the worst plastic polluters and criticizes its reliance on chemical recycling and low recycled content targets. The letter demands greater transparency regarding the company's plastic footprint and calls for public support of global deposit return systems and a reduction in single-use plastics.

The Changing Markets Foundation writes to Nestlé's CEO, Ulf Mark Schneider, regarding the company's role as a major plastic polluter and its failure to meet recycling and recycled content targets. The letter argues that Nestlé's voluntary commitments often lack specificity and accountability, and urges the company to support mandatory legislative solutions, such as global Deposit Return Systems (DRS), and to be transparent about its full plastic footprint.

The Changing Markets Foundation criticizes PepsiCo for its lack of support for mandatory plastic legislation, its failure to meet recycled content targets, and its reliance on 'climate-unfriendly' chemical recycling. The letter demands that PepsiCo publicly support deposit return systems, increase transparency regarding its plastic footprint, and commit to meaningful reductions in single-use plastics.

The Changing Markets Foundation's investigation into ten of the world's most plastic-polluting companies revealed a global trend of corporations undermining legislative solutions to the plastic crisis. The foundation specifically identifies Perfetti van Melle as one of the least ambitious and transparent companies, noting its failure to disclose its annual plastic footprint or support legislative measures. The letter urges Perfetti van Melle to adopt specific recommendations, including supporting global deposit return systems, disclosing its full plastic footprint, and committing to measurable reductions in single-use plastics.

The Changing Markets Foundation criticizes Procter & Gamble (P&G) for its inadequate response to the plastic pollution crisis, citing low recycled content targets and the use of 'greenwash' projects like marine-derived plastic. The letter demands that P&G support mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility and deposit return systems, increase transparency regarding its plastic footprint, and set measurable targets for the reduction of single-use plastics.

The Changing Markets Foundation writes to Unilever regarding its 'Talking Trash' report, which found a global trend of corporations undermining legislative solutions to plastic pollution. While acknowledging Unilever's progress in disclosing its plastic footprint and trialling refill pilots, the foundation criticises the company's low recycled content (1% of total purchased resin in 2018) and its reliance on chemical recycling. The letter demands that Unilever publicly support mandatory deposit return systems globally, increase transparency on its full plastic footprint, and commit to measurable reductions in single-use plastics.

The report argues that the plastic industry employs a 'corporate playbook' of delaying, distracting, and derailing progressive legislation to protect profits and maintain a linear economy. It analyzes the voluntary commitments of ten major polluters, including Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and PepsiCo, finding them largely non-binding and lacking transparency. The document details how industry groups use 'greenwashing' tactics—such as promoting chemical recycling and bioplastics—to divert attention from the need for mandatory collection systems like Deposit Return Schemes (DRS). Case studies across 15 countries, including the US, EU, China, and Kenya, illustrate how corporations lobby against bans on single-use plastics and shift responsibility to consumers. The report concludes that voluntary initiatives have failed and calls for mandatory legislation, including high collection targets, virgin plastic taxes, and a global treaty on plastic pollution.

The report argues that the plastics industry employs a 'corporate playbook' of delay, distraction, and derailment to protect its business model. It analyzes voluntary commitments from major polluters, finding them lacking in accountability and ambition. Through case studies in 15 countries, it demonstrates how companies lobby against mandatory collection systems like Deposit Return Systems (DRS) and promote 'false solutions' such as chemical recycling and bioplastics to shift responsibility onto consumers.

The report argues that the plastic industry employs a 'playbook' of distraction, delay, and diversion to protect profits while appearing to address the plastic crisis. It analyzes the voluntary commitments of ten major polluters, finding them largely lacking in transparency and accountability. The document highlights how companies use trade associations and fake environmental groups to lobby against mandatory collection and reuse laws, even while publicly supporting some initiatives. It concludes that voluntary actions have failed and calls for mandatory legislation, including deposit return systems and taxes on virgin plastics.

The document exposes how the plastic industry uses a 'playbook' of confusion, delay, and prevention to thwart progressive laws. It argues that voluntary commitments by major corporations are largely 'lip service' and that the industry actively lobbies against mandatory collection and reuse systems while promoting 'false solutions' like chemical recycling.

The document argues that the plastic industry uses a 'manual' of delay, distraction, and derailment tactics to protect profits and avoid mandatory regulations. It analyzes voluntary commitments from ten major polluters and over 50 collective initiatives, concluding that they lack transparency, accountability, and effectiveness. The report highlights how companies promote 'false solutions' like chemical recycling and bio-based plastics while lobbying against deposit return systems and mandatory collection targets. Case studies across 15 countries demonstrate a pattern of corporate hypocrisy, where companies may support legislation in the EU while fighting it in Africa, China, and the US.

The report argues that major plastic polluters use voluntary initiatives as a 'smoke screen' to delay, distract, and derail progressive legislation. It analyzes the commitments of the ten largest plastic polluters and over 50 joint initiatives, finding them lacking in ambition, transparency, and accountability. The document details industry tactics such as shifting blame to consumers and promoting chemical recycling, while calling for mandatory legislation, including 90% collection targets and deposit return systems.

The report argues that the plastic industry employs a 'corporate playbook' of delay, distraction, and derailment to protect profits and avoid mandatory regulation. It finds that voluntary commitments from major polluters are often 'paper promises' lacking transparency and accountability, while group initiatives serve as a 'smokescreen' for continued plastic production. The document calls for robust, mandatory legislation, including deposit return systems and virgin-plastic taxes, to address the crisis.

The report argues that the plastic industry in India employs lobbying and distraction tactics to protect profits and maintain the production of single-use plastics. It highlights how key legislation, such as the Plastic Waste Management Rules, has been watered down through industry influence, specifically regarding the phase-out of multi-layered plastics. The document also criticizes voluntary corporate pledges from companies like Nestlé, Unilever, and PepsiCo, characterizing them as lacking transparency and relying on 'downcycling' rather than true circularity.

California's bottle bill, once successful with 85% recycling rates, has seen redemption rates fall to 66% due to the closure of recycling centers. This has resulted in consumers receiving only 2.65 cents of their 5-cent deposit on average, with $400 million in deposits failing to return to residents annually. A YouGov poll from March 2020 indicates 37% of Californians are unaware of the bill and 53% do not use redemption centers. The COVID-19 pandemic has further decreased onsite redemption. The document proposes reforming the system using "no-touch" reverse vending machines (RVMs) and bag-drop systems, and increasing the number of redemption sites. It suggests using part of the $400 million in the Beverage Container Recycling Fund for modernization. A system with a 90% redemption rate could provide $1.2 billion in annual refunds to residents, secure 8,000 existing jobs, and create 5,000 new ones. The briefing references a study by Eunomia Research & Consulting comparing California to best-in-class systems in Oregon, Michigan, Norway, and Germany.

The report advocates for a mandatory deposit return system (DRS) in Austria to achieve EU targets of a 90% collection rate for single-use plastic bottles by 2029 and a 30% recycled content rate by 2030. It identifies a 'plastic pollution lobby'—including Altstoff Recycling Austria (ARA), major retailers like REWE, Spar, Hofer, and Lidl, and various beverage producers—that opposes the DRS to protect existing financial interests and market positions. The document highlights that a DRS is the most cost-effective method for high-quality recycling and is supported by 83% of the Austrian public, contrasting this with the current system where only 25% of plastic packaging is recycled.

The report argues that a deposit return system (DRS) is the most cost-effective and environmentally sound method for Austria to achieve the EU's target of collecting 90% of plastic bottles by 2029. It identifies a powerful coalition—led by Altstoff Recycling Austria (ARA) and including major retailers like REWE Group, Spar, Hofer, and Lidl, as well as beverage companies—that is lobbying the Austrian government against a DRS to protect licensing fee revenues and market dominance. The document highlights that 83% of Austrians support a DRS and rebuts industry claims that current collection rates are sufficient or that a DRS would be too expensive.