Plastic pollution, the responsibilities of Big Food

The responsibilities of  Big Food for the continuous growth of plastic material consumption – also impacting the climate emergency, as has been seen – and plastic pollution clearly re-emerge in the very recent study of the University of Queensland (Phelan et al., 2022). (1)

Plastic pollution, the weight of food packaging

The Australian researchers  have conducted a systematic review of 68 corporate ‘sustainability’ reports (CS,  Corporate Sustainability) to examine the actions of  Big Food against plastic pollution.

The  Corporation under examination are the top global sellers of food and beverages, with a total turnover of about 784 billion dollars. Alcohol producers, almost always packaged in glass or aluminum, were excluded from the sample.

greenwashing impuned

The analysis of the reports of corporate sustainability focused on the research and analysis of every reference to the concepts of ‘plastic pollution', 'sustainable packaging strategies’ and ‘producer responsibility’. And the commitments (229 mentions),  it goes without saying, prevail over the actions (198 references).

‘The results show that  the transition towards sustainable packaging in the food and beverage sector is slow and inconsistent.’  (1)

The researchers  further note the current lack of rules that allow to affirm ‘the responsibility of industries for failing to meet voluntary commitments they have undertaken’. Although in some countries the greenwashing can be punished as misleading advertising.

The burdens on the consumer

Big Food appears focused on information related to separate waste collection, rather than on reducing consumption and designing sustainable packaging. As also prescribed in the EU by the SUP directive (Single Use Plastics).

The study therefore notes an effective delegation of responsibility for packaging management entirely to the consumer. A delegation that is improper and worthless in countries still lacking an efficient plastic waste collection system.

Word plays

Most of the CS reports do not address the issue of plastic pollution. Regarding plastic packaging, they avoid using words with a perceived negative connotation such as ‘waste’ and ‘pollution’.

Among the few positive examples, the researchers indicate those companies that properly use the terms of the phenomenon:

– 6 companies (9%) refer to plastic pollution,

– 9 (13%) cite ocean or marine plastic pollution,

– 12 (18%) mention single-use plastic.

The companies that address the topic of plastic pollution in their sustainability reports also mention climate change, food loss, and other social challenges.

The ranking

From the analysis of commitments, goals, funding, and concrete actions reported in the CS reports, the researchers identified 5 types of corporate behavior regarding the phenomenon of plastic pollution:

1) From minimal to no recognition and no responsiveness

This is the behavior of  more than half (57%) of the companies examined, which effectively ignore the phenomenon of plastic pollution. It appears  Ferrero, the only Italian multinational considered in the study (although based in Luxembourg, with a lighter tax regime than the Italian one).

2) Weak recognition and weak reactivity

It is the profile of 15 companies (22%) that  do not recognize plastic pollution, directly or indirectly, in their CS reports.

3) Strong recognition and weak reactivity

8 companies (12%) show a  awareness of the problem but do not address it decisively. These are Fonterra, Friesland Campina, Grupo Bimbo, Kellogg’s Company, Keurig Dr Pepper, Kirin Holdings, Nestlé Malaysia, and Nestlé India,

4) Strong recognition and strong reactivity

It is the profile of 3 big: PepsiCo, Mars and Danone, concretely committed to increasing recycled plastic and reducing the use of virgin plastic in packaging.

5) Strong recognition, strong responsiveness and  leadership

Another 3 giants  Unilever, Nestlé and The Coca-Cola Company have taken the  leadership on the issue. Their CS reports include goals, actions, initiatives, and commitments met.

In fact, these ‘virtuous companies’ are the most established global polluters with plastic packaging. A vicious circle.

Preliminary conclusions

Plastic pollution of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems represents, at a global level, one of the most serious environmental crises still lacking concrete solutions. With harmful impact on human and animal health due to exposure to micro and nanoplastics. And the European Commission, as seen, is about to partially revise the  Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).

Extended responsibility of producers, although considered in the SUP directive (Single-Use Plastics), it does not appear sufficient to resolve the primary goal of reducing material use. A political initiative is therefore essential to achieve measurable objectives in this direction, which is at the top of the Lansink scale, the model ofcircular economy. Reuse must also be encouraged, including through fiscal measures, via deposit-refund schemes already successfully tested in some EU member states.

#SDG3, #SDG12, #SDG14, #SDG15

Marta Strinati and Dario Dongo

Cover image by ZeroWasteEurope

Notes

(1) Anya Phelan, Katie Meissner, Jacquelyn Humphrey, Helen Ross (2022).  Plastic pollution and packaging: Corporate commitments and actions from the food and beverage sector, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 331, 2022,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129827