Voluntary commitments made by the world’s largest companies focus on recycling and packaging over other actions to address the plastics crisis

Summary

Plastic pollution has caused significant environmental and health challenges. Corporations that contribute to the make, use, and distribution of plastics can play a vital role in addressing global plastic pollution and many are committing to voluntary pledges. However, the extent to which corporation voluntary commitments are helping solve the problem remains underexplored. Here we develop a novel typology to characterize voluntary commitments to reduce plastic pollution made between 2015-2020 by 974 companies including the top 300 of the Fortune Global. We find that 72% of these companies have made commitments to reduce plastic pollution. About 67% of companies participating in voluntary environmental programs (VEPs) and 17% of non-VEPs participants made measurable and timebound commitments. However, rather than tackle virgin plastics, most companies target general plastics and frequently emphasize end-of-life controls with a primary focus on recycling. Growing commitments on plastic pollution are made by large and important companies, but significantly more efforts beyond plastic recycling are required to effectively address plastic pollution challenges.

Graphical Abstract

eTOC Blurb

Companies are becoming more aware of their role in fighting plastic challenges, yet it remains unclear whether and to what degree companies are committed to addressing plastic issues. Here we develop a novel topology to analyze voluntary commitments targeting plastic pollution made by 974 companies globally between 2015-2020. Companies participating in voluntary environmental programs were almost 4 times more likely than non-participants to make timebound and measurable commitments. Nevertheless, most commitments emphasized more on promoting plastic recycling, targeting packaging and general plastics.

Introduction

Since widespread commercialization in the 1950s, plastics have become ubiquitous in our daily lives.^1,2 Between 1950 and 2017, plastics production increased 174-fold and is forecast to double again by 2040.^3,4 Plastics are useful, long-lasting and persistent materials that require thoughtful design and waste management.^1,5 As of 2015, an estimated 79% of global plastic waste was in landfills or ended up in the natural environment, 12% was incinerated, and 9% was recycled.¹ Plastics in the environment have negative repercussions at all levels of biological organization.^6,7

Plastic pollution is an example of a negative environmental impact associated with the production of goods for which markets have failed to assign costs.^8,9 In the absence of market mechanisms, government regulations are used to compel corporations to internalize these costs.¹⁰ Governments, from the international to local level, have adopted regulations, laws, and policies to reduce plastic pollution.^11–14 From 2000 to 2018, the number of policies adopted annually by governments increased at least 16-fold, coinciding with increased international governance focused on plastics such as the 2011 Honolulu Strategy “Global Framework for Prevention and Management of Marine Debris” and a series of United Nations Environment Assembly Resolutions (e.g., Resolution 1/6, 2/11, 4/6).¹¹ Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a policy tool that governments have adopted to reduce plastic pollution.^11,15 EPR shifts the responsibility for plastic waste management from civil society to the state and industry, as seen in Canada and the European Union.^15,16 Despite government responses, global plastic production, and waste are dramatically outpacing our ability to monitor and assess plastic pollution.^3,4

There is a consensus that addressing the global problem of plastic pollution requires action by all stakeholders, including governments, industry, and civil society.^3,4,6,17,18 When both the market and governments falter, the general public can also provide an avenue for positive change by using its purchasing decisions to support zero-waste industry leaders and punish laggards.¹⁹ Despite advances made in identifying the top plastic waste producers by the Minderoo Foundation and Break Free From Plastic,^20,21 distinguishing between industry leaders and laggards is difficult due to opaque global supply chains and further research needs.^22,23 A comprehensive study that documents voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution is greatly needed.

A rich literature exists on voluntary environmental programs (VEPs), which are defined as programs with environmental standards that companies voluntarily join.²⁴ Various VEPs have emerged as companies proactively take steps beyond compliance with legal requirements to address environmental impacts.^24–28 A common aspect of VEPs is the tendency for companies to join in precompetitive collaboration to address a challenge that extends beyond what any single company can solve. Effective VEPs often have 1) strong membership standards to avoid the risk of members freeriding; 2) excludability, so members are incentivized to participate; 3) monitoring of members’ commitments and sanctioning mechanisms to address noncompliance; and 4) motivations for consumers and shareholders to reward members for premium goods produced.²⁸ Although a great amount of literature on the theory and performance of VEPs exists, few studies have examined the role that VEPs play in catalyzing corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution.²³

Recent reviews highlight efforts by entrepreneurs, startups, and small and medium enterprises²⁹ to remove plastic from waterways or create technologies to remediate plastic pollution.^30–32 Others have focused on the actions taken or commitments reported by large companies to reduce plastic pollution. For instance, Rhein and Sträter (2021)³³ used an inductive approach to review corporate reports from large consumer goods companies identified to be the top ten companies whose plastic waste was identified through brand audits conducted by Break Free From Plastic members. Blasiak et al., (2021)²³ reviewed commitments to reduce plastic pollution made by a broader set of companies, the top 200 companies of the Fortune Global 500, to determine if corporate commitments align with government plastic pollution policies. Both Blasiak et al., (2021)²³ and Rhein and Sträter (2021)³³ found that large companies emphasize recycling commitments to reduce plastic pollution, with low emphasis on upstream measures. Although these studies^{23, 33} advanced our knowledge of how corporate actors are responding to pollution, scientists have yet to formulate a typology of commitments unique to large transnational corporations and apply such a typology to an extensive set of corporate commitments. Filling this knowledge gap is key for understanding the role these actors could play in the global governance landscape managing plastics, for example providing a framework for monitoring disclosures and enhancing corporate accountability.

Here we identified and characterized recent voluntary corporate commitments made by the world’s largest companies, that could play a major role in advancing sustainability at a global structural level,^19,34,35 as called for in the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) Resolution 4/6.³⁶ In our study, we 1) performed a mixed methods analysis of voluntary commitments to reduce plastic pollution made in corporate reports published between 2015 and 2020; and 2) reviewed a sample of the scientific literature, news articles, and industry reports discussing the effectiveness of voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution. We qualitatively characterized the actions used, plastic types targeted, and the presence of timebound/measurable features, using a typology specific to corporate actors. We provided a novel typology of corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution and develop the beginning of a library of corporate reports containing timebound and measurable targets. We compared and contrasted commitments to reduce plastic pollution made by large companies in VEPs to those not participating in VEPs (non-VEPs). The results show that, in total, 72% of these companies have committed to reduce plastic pollution. There are more than two-thirds of companies that have participated in VEPs and close to one-fifth of non-VEPs companies have made measurable and timebound commitments (i.e. what and when to accomplish a target in relation to a plastic issue). However, we also find that, most of the commitments emphasize more on plastic recycling and commonly target on general plastics. They are important but partial solutions if we are to comprehensively address the plastic pollution problem. Our study provides a framework for systematically monitoring voluntary corporate commitments made by large companies, which may aid in advancing corporate accountability and accounting for these commitments in global models of plastic use, waste, and leakage into the environment.

Results

Method summary

We included the world’s largest companies (n=974 companies; n=3639 reports total) in our sample: 1) the top 300 companies on the Fortune Global 500 (referred to here as the “Fortune Global 300”);³⁷ 2) large companies (>$10 billion annual revenue) who participate in one or more select global voluntary environmental program(s) (VEPs) related to plastic pollution (i.e., Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s “Global Commitment”,³⁸ United Nations [UN] Ocean Conference (2017),³⁹ and the Our Ocean Conference (2019)^40,41); and 3) companies thought to have the greatest impact on the issue (data can be found in Appendix A in our data repository⁴²). These companies included those thought to have the greatest impact on the circular economy based on research by the World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA)⁴³ and companies referred to as the top companies whose was identified during brand audits conducted by Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) members.²¹ We chose these VEPs because the UN Ocean Conference and Our Ocean Conference are noted to be major international processes that garner voluntary commitments, as discussed in Neumann and Unger (2019).⁴¹ We included the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s “Global Commitment” because it is an important VEP for large companies aiming to reduce plastic pollution.²³

We developed a novel typology of voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution. This typology served as the codebook for qualitative content analysis in NVivo.⁴⁴ We qualitatively coded the most recent corporate report (sustainability, corporate social responsibility, integrated, or annual) published by VEPs and non-VEPs between January 2015 and October 2020 that contained a commitment to reduce plastic pollution (n=232 reports). An integrated report “incorporates corporate social responsibility (CSR) and financial reports into a single, integrated, annual report,” as defined by Crowther and Seifi (2018).⁴⁵ For the WBA and BFFP lists of companies, we conducted an automated keyword search in their corporate reports for the presence of words related to plastic pollution (i.e., “circular economy”, “plastic recycl*”, “plastic waste”). We reviewed a sample of the scientific literature, news articles, and industry reports to extract information on the effectiveness of voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution.

Increase in plastic-related keywords globally

Globally, the percentage of corporate reports using each keyword (“circular economy”, “plastic recycl*”, “plastic waste”) at least once significantly increased over the study period (years 2015 to 2019) (p<0.05, F-Test, n=2452 reports, Figure S1, Table S1). Because reports were only collected until October of 2020, we do not present results from 2020 in this section. The percentage of corporate reports using the term “plastic waste” at least once increased from 7% in 2015 to 24% in 2019 globally. References to “plastic recycl*” and “circular economy” increased from 2% to 6% and 18% to 47%, respectively, over the same time period. These results varied by region. Companies headquartered in Europe were the only region in which the percentage of reports significantly increased for all keywords over the study period (2015-2019). For the keyword “circular economy,” the percentage of company reports using each keyword significantly increased from 32% in 2015 to 71% in 2019 (p<0.05, F-Test); “plastic recycle*” significantly increased from 1% in 2015 to 6% in 2019 (p<0.05, F-Test); and “plastic waste” significantly increased from 3% in 2015 to 30% in 2019 (p<0.05, F-Test).

Companies headquartered in China were not far behind Europe for reports with the term “circular economy,” which increased significantly from 12% of corporate reports in 2015 to 48% in 2019 (p<0.05, F-Test). Companies headquartered in Japan only saw a significant increase in the term “circular economy” over the study period (p<0.05, F-Test). Companies headquartered in the United States only had the keyword “plastic waste” significantly increase from 5% in 2015 to 20% in 2019 (p<0.05, F-Test). The term “plastic recycl*” increased significantly over the study period in Europe and globally (p<0.05, F-Test).

Commitments emphasize recycling and packaging

The codebook in Table 1 served as our basis for qualitative coding in NVivo. The codebook was structured to provide an overview of how companies are committing to reduce plastic pollution by broadly classifying the actions used and plastic types targeted by commitments.

Table 1.

Typology of voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution

Code	Definition
	Commitment features
Explicit mention of greenhouse gas emissions or climate change	reported commitment or outcome that links actions or impacts related to plastic use, waste, or leakage reduction to greenhouse gas emissions specifically or climate broadly
Explicit mention of specific or measurable target	inclusion of measurable targets or measured outcomes
Explicit mention of target date or date achieved	time-bound commitments46
Office operations	“performance of a practical work” located in the “place where a particular kind of business is transacted or a service is supplied”47 excluding the production or industrial operations of a business
Standard	“requirements that producers, traders, manufacturers, retailers or service providers may be asked to meet, relating to the environmental impacts of production,” which can be set by governments, NGOs, and companies through multi-stakeholder initiatives48
	Material targeted
Explicit mention of packaging	plastic product used for the containment, protection, handling, delivery, storage, transport and presentation of goods, from raw materials to processed goods, from the producer to the user or consumer, including processor, assembler or other intermediary49
Non-plastic	products not defined as plastic (“material which contains as an essential ingredient a high polymer and which, at some stage in its processing into finished products, can be shaped by flow”)50 (e.g., glass, paper, metal)
Plastic - compostable or biodegradable	plastic which can be: 1) “manufactured from plant materials instead of being made from oil or natural gas”51 or 2) “broken down by biological treatment at a commercial or industrial composting facility” 51 or 3) broken down by living things (e.g., microorganisms)47
Plastic - recycled or recyclable	“product, packaging, or associated component that can be or has been diverted from the waste stream through available processes and programs and can be or has been collected, processed, and returned to use in the form of raw materials or products”52
Plastic - reused or reusable	“product, packaging, or associated component that can be or has been refilled or used for the same purpose for which it was conceived, with or without the support of auxiliary products present on the market enabling the product to be refilled” 53, (i.e., take back systems or reuse models)
Plastic - single-use	“goods that are made primarily from fossil fuel–based chemicals (petrochemicals) and are meant to be disposed of right after use—often, in mere minutes. Single-use plastics are most commonly used for packaging and service ware, such as bottles, wrappers, straws, and bags” 54
Plastic	material which contains as an essential ingredient a high polymer and which, at some stage in its processing into finished products, can be shaped by flow, the type of which is not named or stated explicitly50
Plastic - virgin	“plastic material in the form of pellets, granules, powder, floe, etc., that has not been subjected to use or processing other than that required for its initial manufacture” 50
Plastic - waste	“any plastic material or object which the holder discards, or intends to discard, or is required to discard” 50
Recovered marine debris	re-obtained plastics that were found in the ocean, rivers, or nearshore
	Consumption and production actions or intentions
Decrease or reduce	to lessen or diminish47
Eliminate	to fully remove47
Increase	to utilize or make more of or to a greater degree47
Unspecified action	to put into action, but whether this action is an increase, decrease, or elimination is unknown or unspecified
	End-of-life actions or intentions
Improved waste management	to increase the use, support, or development of formal systems around “collecting, treating, and disposing of solid material that is discarded because it has served its purpose or is no longer useful”55
Informal waste management	to engage with, use, support, or development of individuals, families, and private sector (micro-) enterprises working in waste management services and valorization, whose activities are neither organized, sponsored, financed, contracted, recognized, managed, taxed, nor reported upon by the formal solid waste authorities56
Recycling	to increase the use, support, or development of “physical or chemical process which converts collected and sorted used packaging [or other plastics], together in some instances with other material, into secondary (recycled) raw materials, products, or substances, by chemical or mechanical means, excluding energy recovery and the use of the product as a fuel”52
Take back systems	to increase the use, support, or development of return systems, with or without economic incentives (e.g., consumer-side recycling)
Waste-to-energy program	the use of plastic to generate usable power, including pyrolysis47,57
	Information actions or intentions
Education and outreach	to inform the public or targeted population about processes, products, or internal or external systems that have actual or potential plastic reduction qualities
Formal disclosure or reporting	“reporting and transparency regarding the production, use and handling of plastic and plastic waste by organizations”58 often to shareholders, public, or for specific rating, monitoring or certification schemes
Labels	to display information to the consumers47 about processes, products, or internal or external systems that have actual or potential plastic reduction qualities
	Miscellaneous actions or intentions
Market actions - funding, investing, adding or creating value	to commit money or otherwise invest in an industry or research and development efforts
Participation in VEPs	“partner with other areas of expertise, industry or sector with the aim of increasing sustainability”59
Research and development	the collecting of information or an investigation/experimentation48

Qualitative coding results indicated that large companies committed to reducing plastic pollution. Of those Fortune Global 300 companies not participating in VEPs, around 72% had reports identified by the researchers that made commitments to reduce plastic pollution. About 62% of companies in VEPs had identifiable reports that made voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution (Table 2).

Table 2.

The number of companies in our sample 1) participating in VEPs and 2) not in VEPs.

Category of companies	Total number of companies	Total number of companies (with reports that we found)	Total number of companies making voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution
Fortune Global 300 and other large (>$10 billion in annual revenue) companies that participate in select VEPs (VEPs)	66	58	36
Fortune Global 300 companies that do not participate in select VEPs (non-VEPs)	300	282	202

We found 14 companies in the Fortune Global 300 that participated in select VEPs: Carrefour, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Procter & Gamble, Walmart Inc., Nestlé, Total, Comcast Corporate (Sky Group), METRO AG, Target Corporation, Unilever, PepsiCo, DOW, HP Inc., and The Coca-Cola Company. We found 22 (non-Fortune Global 300) large companies (i.e., >$10 billion in annual revenue) who participated in VEPs, resulting in 36 total companies participating in select VEPs in our sample (Table 2).

Companies most frequently made commitments to reduce plastic pollution in their most recently published report. For example, companies participating in VEPs most frequently made commitments to reduce plastic pollution in the year 2019 (74%) followed by 2018 (12%), 2017 (10%), 2016 (3%), and 2015 (0%). Companies not in VEPs most frequently made commitments in 2019 (71%), followed by 2018 (16%), 2017 (5%), 2016 (3%), and 2015 (4%). This study was carried out at the end of 2019 and into early 2020 so data from 2020 is not presented here.

About 92% of companies participating in VEPs and 67% of companies not participating in VEPs committed to consumption- and production-related actions (i.e., increase, decrease, eliminate, and unspecified). Because these actions are tightly linked to the plastic type targeted, we analyzed consumption and production actions using the Pearson correlation coefficient in NVivo. The Pearson correlation coefficient measures coding similarity between nodes, with −1 being the least similar and 1 being the most similar⁶⁰ and performs a cluster analysis that links paired nodes that are often found near one another.⁶¹ We analyzed clusters according to how frequently codes at paired nodes (including both action-plastic type, plastic type-plastic type, and action-action pairings) were found together across and within corporate reports (Figure 1). The most frequently paired nodes for companies in both VEPs and non-VEPs paired “increase” with “recycled or recyclable plastics” (Pearson correlation coefficients, >0.62). The full list of paired nodes by Pearson correlation coefficient can be found in Appendix B in our data repository⁴². The number of companies using each action-plastic type combination can be found in Table S2.

Figure 1. Consumption and production actions clustered with plastic types.

Companies participating in VEPs are in Panel A and those not in VEPs are in Panel B. This figure was originally produced in NVivo. To improve image quality, only the text has been edited in PowerPoint to use a larger font and only black text.

As compared to non-VEP companies, a greater percentage of companies participating in VEPs committed to all action types, with the exception of “waste to energy.” All companies frequently committed to recycling as well as research and development, with education and outreach close behind (Figure 2). Companies participating in VEPs most frequently committed to recycling and least frequently committed to waste to energy and engagement with the informal waste management sector. Companies not in VEPs most frequently committed to recycling and were least frequently committed to engagement with the informal waste management sector. The number of companies committing to each action is in Table S3.

Figure 2. Percent of companies managing plastic in commitments.

The companies participating in VEPs are in orange and the companies not participating in VEPs are in blue.

Companies targeted each plastic type in the codebook (Table S4). A greater percentage of companies in VEPs targeted every plastic type than non-VEPs, with >80% targeting packaging, general plastics, and recycled plastic (Figure 3). Over half of non-VEPs made commitments targeting plastic and packaging. Companies in VEPs most frequently targeted packaging and least frequently targeted recovered marine debris. Non-VEPs most frequently targeted general plastics and least frequently targeted virgin plastics.

Figure 3. Percent of companies targeting each plastic type in commitments.

The companies participating in VEPs are in orange and the companies not participating in VEPs are in blue. Items coded as non-plastic included commitments that substituted non-plastic materials, such as glass or aluminum, for plastics.

We defined articulation strength as a measure of the design of clear voluntary corporate commitments (i.e., timebound and/or measurable). We characterized articulation strength as “strong,” “medium,” or “weak.” Time-bound and measurable commitments were characterized as “strong.” Either time-bound or measurable commitments were characterized as “medium.” Commitments that were neither time-bound nor measurable were characterized as “weak.” Companies made multiple commitments, using different actions and targeting different plastic types, in reports, so a company may have reported both weak and strong commitments in a report.

A greater percentage of companies in VEPs made strongly-articulated commitments than those not in VEPs. Approximately 67% (24 of 36) companies in VEPs made strongly-articulated commitments (Figure 4A). For example, L’Oréal, a company in a VEP, aimed to “reduce the Waste generated by…plants and distribution centres by 60% by the end of 2020, compared to 2005.” In contrast, around 17% (34 of 202) of non-VEPs made strongly-articulated commitments. An example of a strong commitment by a non-VEP company, Apple, was to “eliminate plastics in…packaging by 2025”.

Figure 4. Articulation strength of commitments.

The percentage of companies making commitment at each articulation strength is in Panel A. The ratio of VEP participation divided by non-VEP participation is in Panel B. The red line in Panel B represents the value if VEP and non-VEP participation were similar. In all categories, especially in the more stringent articulation, VEP companies had a higher percentage of commitments than non-VEPs.

A greater percentage of companies in VEPs made medium-strength commitments than those not in VEPs. About 47% of companies in VEPs made medium strength commitments that were measurable and 19% made timebound commitments. About 16% of non-VEPs made measurable commitments and 6% made timebound commitments. A greater percentage of companies in VEPs also made weakly-articulated commitments; about 89% of companies in VEPs made weakly-articulated commitments while about 76% of non-VEPs made weakly-articulated commitments.

Most companies, both VEPs and non-VEPs, are infrequently linking plastic pollution and climate change/greenhouse gas emissions in voluntary corporate commitments. About 20% of non-VEPs made voluntary commitments to address plastic pollution and climate change simultaneously as compared to 36% of companies in VEPs. For example, Total, a company in a VEP, announced that its venture capital arm, Total Carbon Neutrality Ventures, will now focus entirely on carbon neutrality, including through the circular economy and recycling, and will increase its investment capacity to $400 million over the next five years. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, a company not in the select VEPs, noted, “The Group is striving to reduce the amount of packaging materials used and to emit less CO2 in transporting products.” Other commitments linking plastics and climate change focused on reducing packaging, using recycled material, and conducting education and outreach regarding the carbon footprint of plastics, among others. Companies made climate change-related commitments but were not often linked to plastic commitments.

Evidence of commitments effectiveness is lacking

The goal of the literature review was to provide context on voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution, measures of observed or predicted effects on plastic pollution, motivations for actions, and a cross-check for the commitments database. This literature review is not comprehensive and provides a sample of the literature available. The literature review synthesizes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature (n=106 articles)

Effects of recycling and lightweighting commitments

We found five peer-reviewed papers^22,62–65 and 19 non-peer-reviewed articles^66–84 that discussed the effects observed from voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution. Only the results from the peer-reviewed literature are summarized in this section. Non-peer-reviewed results are available in Appendix D in our data repository⁴² and primarily discuss commitments to increasing recycled content in plastic packaging and occasionally, in plastic products more broadly.

The peer-reviewed literature noted effects on voluntary corporate commitments primarily related to plastic bottles. The Coca-Cola Company, for example, is selling their product in lighter and smaller plastic bottles and improving upon recycling rates by investing in larger recycling facilities.²² PepsiCo increased the amount of recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) in bottles by 4% in 2015 and uses 100% post-consumer recycled plastic in juice bottles.⁶³ Danone-AQUA has undergone a “#BijakBerplastik” (i.e., “#PlasticWise”) commitment that aims to collect more plastic waste than plastic bottles produced in Indonesia; conduct national recycling campaigns in 20 cities in Indonesia; and increase the amount of recycled plastics used in bottles to 50% by 2025.⁶⁴ The “#BijakBerplastik” commitments are a public relations strategy that have been noted to have favorable brand image despite not undergoing a program evaluation though this may be forthcoming after 2025.⁶⁴

The peer-reviewed literature also noted the effects on voluntary corporate commitments related to plastic packaging. Procter & Gamble increased the recycled content of their packaging by 30% between 2010-2016 and created an in-house recycling infrastructure.²² Similarly, Walmart thinned plastic packaging, increased plastic recycling collection in stores, and eliminated billions of plastic bags.²² The effects observed primarily focused on lightweighting plastic bottles, improving recycling, and increasing recycled content in bottles and packaging.

External factors motivate companies

We found five peer-reviewed papers^{62,64,85–87} and four non-peer-reviewed articles^{66, 67, 81, 88} that discussed the motivations behind voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution.

Motivations behind the adoption of voluntary corporate commitments have been characterized as: external pressures (e.g., consumer behavior, third-party certification);⁸⁵ consumer demand;⁸⁶ reputation and business risks;^{66, 67} company size; corporate image;⁶⁴ economic and competitive advantage;⁸¹ and societal “environmental norms” and engagement.^62,87 A news report noted that the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s “New Plastics Economy Global Commitment” served as a motivator for Mars Inc., Marks & Spencer, PepsiCo, The Coca-Cola Company, Unilever, and Werner & Mertz to adopt voluntary corporate commitments to achieve 100% reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging by 2025.⁸⁸ A few articles noted the role of industry standards in motivating voluntary corporate commitments to reduce microbeads and PET bottles (Note S1).

Dauvergne et al., (2018)⁶² discussed the motivations behind voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic microbead pollution. The primary motivator highlighted was the rising societal anti-microbead norm.⁶² Other motivations that were mentioned in the literature reinforced broad environmental goals such as creating a circular economy and reducing waste.⁶² The motivators behind voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution that were identified as a part of this study primarily include external motivators such as consumer behavior and demand, societal norms, and industry standards, among others.

Twelve voluntary environmental programs identified

We found two peer-reviewed papers^62,68 and 21 non-peer-reviewed articles^{67,69,70,76–78, 89–102, 3,59–61,72–85,103} discussed the role of VEPs, as defined in Potoski and Prakash, (2009)⁹⁰ in motivating voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution. We identified 12 VEPs in the literature that referenced voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution (Table 3).

Table 3.

VEPs and example signatories with reports coded in this study.

VEP	Brief description	Number of signatories	Example signatories with reports coded in this study	Geographic scope
Alliance to End of Plastic Waste (AEPW)68,89–91	An international non-profit that partners with governments, NGOs, and communities to develop and manage plastic waste management and promote post-use solutions.	52	Procter & Gamble, BASF, PepsiCo, Dow, ExxonMobil	Global
BP-Led Consortium92	A consortium formed by BP, Britvic, Danone and Unilever, along with Alpla and Remondis that aims to speed up the commercialization of BP’s Infinia recycling technology, infrastructure and demand needed to keep PET plastic products in the loop.	6	BP, Unilever	U.S.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s “New Plastics Economy Global Commitment” 67–70,76–78,90,93,103	A collaboration led by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and in partnership with the UN Environment Program that unites businesses, governments, and other organizations behind a common vision and targets to address plastic waste and pollution at the source.	458	Apple, Carrefour, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, Walmart	Global
European Plastics Pact 94	A public-private coalition led by France, the Netherlands and Denmark that forms a European network of companies, states, and other organizations (e.g., NGOs) on mastering single-use plastic products and packaging.	142	Unilever, Nestlé, Carrefour	Europe
Nestlé Partnership 95	A joint initiative of Nestlé, Logitech, SIG and other industry partners to tackle plastic waste.	3+	Nestlé, Logitech, SIG	Switzerland
NextGen Consortium and Beyond the Baa Initiative (Closed Looo Partners)96,97	Closed Loop Partners: An investment firm and innovation center focused on building a circular economy, partly by creating collaborations, such as NextGen and Beyond the Bag: NextGen: A multi-year, global consortium that aims to address single-use food packaging waste globally, founded by Starbucks and McDonald’s. Beyond the Bag: A multi-year collaboration across retail sectors that aims to identify, test and implement innovative design solutions that are more sustainable than the current retail bag.	27 (10 in the NextGen Consortium and 17 in the Beyond the Bag Initiative)	Coca-Cola Company, Nestlé, CVS Health, Target, Kroger, Walgreens Boots Alliance	Global
NextWave Plastics Consortium 98	A consortium of multinational technology and consumer brands that aim to decrease the volume of plastic litter entering the ocean by developing global ocean-bound plastic supply chains.	10	Dell, HP, General Motors	Global
ReSource 78,97	A consortium led by WWF made up of companies and organizations aiming to address our planet’s plastic waste crisis.	8	The Coca-Cola Company, Procter & Gamble	Global
Sustainable Packaging Coalition 99	A membership-based collaborative of packaging sustainability stakeholders that aim to catalyze actionable improvements to packaging systems and provide a voice on packaging sustainability issues.	442	Bayer, The Coca-Cola Company, Dow, ExxonMobil, HP	Global
The Association of Plastic Recyclers99	An international trade association representing the plastics recycling industry focused on advancing plastics recycling.	Not available	BASF, Walmart	Global
The Recycling Partnership 77,97	A national nonprofit that leverages corporate partner funding to advance recycling in the U.S. It engages with the full recycling supply chain.	55	The Coca-Cola Company, Target, ExxonMobil, PepsiCo, Amazon, Dow, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson	U.S.
U.S. Plastics Pact 102	A collaborative effort organized by The Recycling Partnership and the WWF and launched as part of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s global Plastics Pact to unify diverse public-private stakeholders across the plastics value chain to rethink the way we design, use, and reuse plastics. The goal is to create a path forward for a circular economy for plastic in the U.S.	83	Target, Unilever, The Coca-Cola Company, Nestlé	U.S.

The VEPs identified vary in their publicly stated description, number of signatories, and geographic scope (Table 3). For example, some VEPs, such as Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s “New Plastics Economy Global Commitment” focused on upstream solutions while others, such as the Alliance to End of Plastic Waste, focused on downstream solutions, based on the descriptions provided by the VEPs. The number of known signatories ranged from six to 458 members. Multiple VEPs, including the European Plastics Pact, NextGen, and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, targeted plastic packaging. Most of the VEPs identified had a global geographic scope (n=7 VEPs) and the others identified were in the United States (n=3 VEPs), Europe (n=1 VEP), or Switzerland (n= 1 VEP). The VEPs identified emerged as a motivator behind voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution.

Voluntary corporate commitments linking climate change and plastic pollution reduction can be found in the Note S2.

Discussion

Most large companies report plastic commitments

Qualitative coding of recent corporate reports showed that most large companies in our study are committing to reduce plastic pollution in publicly available reports. Companies in VEPs and non-VEPs most frequently made commitments in the most recently published report available. Automated keyword searches in reports published by companies on the World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA) and Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) lists show an increase in the occurrence of plastic pollution-related keywords (“plastic waste,” “plastic recycling,” and “circular economy”) in corporate reports over the study period (2015-2019). This is consistent with Blasiak et al., (2021)²³ who found an increase in the terms “plastic waste,” “plastic recycling,” and “circular economy” between the years 2010-2019 by the Fortune Global 500. This suggests an increased awareness of the issue. Although evidence is lacking, aware companies may be willing to consider best practices to reduce plastic pollution. We expect that this rise in commitments is due to the growing interest in plastic pollution on the global ocean governance agenda¹⁰⁴ and also due to governments pushing or nudging companies through increased adoption of government policies, laws, and regulations to reduce plastic pollution between years 2000 and 2019.^11–14

Companies may be increasingly committing to reduce plastic pollution as a form of preemption (i.e., taking action to prevent) of anticipated additional regulations on business activities. Alternatively, more extensive and potentially costly legal requirements may motivate companies to voluntarily commit to take action beyond existing legal requirements. We did not undergo an analysis to determine if commitments to reduce plastic pollution made by large companies met the same actions required by government mandates in some geographic jurisdictions. Further research may consider analyzing whether voluntary corporate commitments go above and beyond government mandates. For instance, both this study as well as Blasiak et al., (2021)²³ found that companies headquartered in Europe had the greatest percentage of corporate reports referring to plastic pollution-related terms, and that use of such terms significantly increased from 2015-2019. This corresponds with the widespread adoption of government policies by countries in Europe or the European Union to reduce plastic pollution.^12–14 This suggests that governments may be pushing or nudging companies headquartered in their jurisdictions to reduce plastic pollution through laws, policies, and regulations. Additional motivators may include higher consumer willingness to pay price premiums for products considered more sustainably made and good publicity, among other motivators.^24,105

Packaging and general plastics are frequently targeted

The plastic types emphasized by large companies in this sample were packaging and general plastics. Companies infrequently targeted virgin plastics, which may indicate a lack of focus on upstream solutions. Less than 10% of companies not in VEPs and a little over 30% of companies in VEPs targeted virgin plastics. Virgin plastics were the most infrequently targeted plastic for companies not in VEPs and second least frequently targeted plastic for companies in VEPs (behind recovered marine debris).

Companies in VEPs most frequently targeted packaging, which is consistent with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s “Global Commitment,” which targets packaging as a first step toward building a circular economy.³⁸ For companies not in VEPs, plastic packaging was the second most targeted plastic type. Globally, plastic packaging comprised an estimated 40% of plastic usage in 2016.⁶ A recent report from Oceana noted that the volume of plastic waste produced by the company Amazon shows a mismatch or potential greenwashing with the breadth/depth of their voluntary corporate commitments to reduce packaging.¹⁰⁶ Packaging may be an opportune plastic type to target for advancing voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution given the demonstrated interest by companies in this study.

Large companies not in VEPs most frequently targeted general plastics. These companies did not state the specific type of plastic or plastic products targeted. Potential future disclosure mechanisms may consider incorporating mandatory reporting of the quantities (by mass) and resin identification codes of plastic manufactured. Although it is encouraging to see companies aiming to reduce plastic pollution, articulating the specific plastic type or product targeted would aid in corporate accountability.

A disconnect between rhetoric and reality

The most common commitment made by all companies included changes in consumption and production patterns, specifically by increasing the recycled or recyclable content in plastics produced. These commitments exclude and divert investment in preventative measures that may reduce virgin plastic production and promote reusables and alternative delivery systems. This is consistent with the findings of Rhein and Sträter (2021)³³, who determined that the top companies with plastic waste identified on coastlines, as determined by Break Free From Plastic’s brand audits,²¹ were increasing the recycled or recyclable content of packaging, rather than reducing packaging production overall.³³ Similarly, Blasiak et al., (2021)²³ found that the world’s 200 largest companies most commonly focused on the recycling stage of the plastics lifecycle, though some sectors also focused on other lifecycle stages.

The next most common action for all companies was advancing recycling. In our study, companies rarely disclosed the type of recycling (chemical or mechanical). Less than ten percent of companies (regardless of whether they were VEP members) committed to waste to energy, including pyrolysis and other methods (e.g., incineration to fuel) in corporate reports. Pyrolysis is an energy-intensive form of chemical recycling that yields hydrocarbon products and other gases that can be used as feedstock to petrochemical refineries.⁵ Sakthipriya (2022)¹⁰⁷ reviews pyrolysis technologies and notes that pyrolysis cannot be used for single-use plastics and multi-layered packaging due to issues in pretreatment and segregation. Additional issues include economic feasibility, the high temperatures required during pyrolysis, the production of hydrogen chloride during pyrolysis, and the resulting contaminants in the fuel produced.¹⁰⁷

The emphasis on recycling is consistent with Dauvergne (2018),²² who noted that industry has touted the value of recycling despite low global mechanical recycling rates – only 9% of plastic waste worldwide has been recycled over the past 50 years.²² Plastics are not recycled for many reasons. Poor design that overlooks plastics management after use and disposal is one explanation. Around 77% of global plastics produced have a carbon-carbon backbone, which is resistant to breakdown due to the carbon-carbon bond strength, resulting in these products persisting in the environment.⁵ Furthermore, low oil prices can make virgin plastics more affordable than recycled plastics, decreasing demand for recycled material.²² Oil, gas, and fossil fuel infrastructure are also heavily subsidized, lending to low costs.¹⁰⁸ Availability of recycling infrastructure is also limiting in some areas.⁶

Recently, the California legislature adopted Senate Bill 343, which outlaws the use of the recycling arrows, indicating the resin identification code, on plastic materials without documentation that the product meets statewide recyclability criteria to avoid making a “deceptive or misleading claim.”¹⁰⁹ In April of 2022, California Attorney General Bonta issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil and launched an investigation into the role of fossil fuel and petrochemical companies in misleading the public regarding plastics recycling and the subsequent harm caused to the environment and human health in the state.¹¹⁰ We suspect that, at best, the emphasis on recycling found in this study reflects industry efforts to raise global recycling rates and, at worst, reflects industry attempts to shift responsibility toward consumers,²² greenwashing, and potential preemption of legal EPR schemes or other legislation aimed at reducing plastic pollution.

Although improving recyclability is consistent with building a circular economy for plastics,²² the poor design of plastics limits the feasibility of recycling to build a safe circular economy for plastics. Currently, plastics can contain toxic, carcinogenic, and endocrine disruptive additives that enable plastic to be made into the initial product.^111–113 Wiesinger et al., (2022)¹¹³ identified over 10,000 compounds associated with plastics, about 2,400 of which have environmental and human health concerns as determined by the European Union’s Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (EU REACH) program. Fifty-three percent of the additives known to be hazardous are not regulated in the European Union, Japan, or the United States.¹¹³ The same additives that make plastic into useful products can restrict the recyclability of plastic items into food packaging, due to human health safety concerns.¹¹⁴ Overall, recycling delays but does not avoid plastic disposal.¹ Plastic quality is compromised with successive recycling partially due to the introduction of non-intentionally added substances (e.g., byproducts, breakdown products, contaminants).^1,113,115 Most plastics are only recycled once; between 1950 and 2015, only 9% of plastics have been recycled, and only 10% of the 9% have been recycled more than one time.¹

In addition to recycling, companies are “lightweighting” (or reducing the amount of virgin plastic used to make plastic products) in commitments to reduce plastic pollution. Lightweighting does not often provide actual gains in plastic pollution reduction on-the-ground. For example, from our literature review, we found that multiple companies, such as the Coca-Cola Company and Walmart, are producing lighter and smaller plastic products (e.g., bottles and bags). This lightweighting of plastic is considered an insufficient response because companies may reinvest this savings into markets that involve new plastic products and/or increase the total mass of plastic produced.²² For instance, global plastic bottle sales have increased from 300 billion in 2004 to 500 billion in 2016 and are projected to continue to increase, despite lightweighting achievements from companies with a significant share of global bottles.²² Voluntary corporate commitments are not leading to global solutions due to the reinvestment of cost savings from sustainability initiatives.

Ultimately, plastic recycling and lightweighting are not silver bullets to the rising tide of plastic waste. Refill and reuse models that avoid plastic entirely are preferable from a circular economy perspective. Design standards that incorporate thoughtful waste management may also be useful, which may include recycling for some items accompanied by reuse and refill systems and products for other items. We included standards in the codebook used in this study but did not find companies reporting standards as a part of voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution.

VEPs and precompetitive collaboration

In the best-case scenario, VEPs can reduce negative environmental impacts, promote positive branding for members, and ultimately create public policy that codifies these best practices into legal norms. In the worst-case scenario, they tick all the boxes of “greenwashing,” and the reputation of the VEPs will eventually erode, and corporate membership will grow less attractive. While the impacts of VEPs are notoriously difficult to assess, they are largely characterized by the existence of membership standards and sanctioning mechanisms.^27,116,117

The Ellen MacArthur Circular Economy Foundation (CEF) and Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW) are notable VEPs with memberships committed to addressing the problems of (plastic) waste in precompetitive collaboration. In a broader sense, voluntary commitments made under the auspices of the UN Ocean Conference (2017) (https://oceanconference.un.org/commitments/) and Our Ocean Conference (2019) (https://ourocean2019.no/commitments/) can also be considered in this space due to the voluntary corporate commitment registries associated with these conferences.^39,40 Public sanctioning mechanisms are notably absent in all four instances, and neither the CEF nor AEPW disclose information about membership standards or costs. Participation in the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s VEP is characterized in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Participation in Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s “Global Commitment.”.

Combining different sanctioning mechanisms and membership standards leads to a range of outcomes (reproduced with permission¹⁰⁴).

We assessed the strength of companies’ commitments in select VEPs and companies not participating in these VEPs. A strongly designed corporate commitment is an important baseline for public accountability and tracking progress toward meeting previously published commitments. Management best practices include commitments that are either: specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, and time-related – in total, referred to as SMART criteria.¹¹⁸

Although reviewing all SMART criteria was outside the scope of this study, we found that only 17% of companies not in VEPs made strong (i.e., timebound and measurable) commitments compared to 67% of companies participating in VEPs. We expect that this reflects an integration of the goals set by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s “Global Commitment” into reporting by companies in VEPs because the “Global Commitment” includes timebound goals to build a circular economy.³⁸ VEP participation may have a greater impact on commitment articulation because the commitments become more stringent/strongly-articulated. However, The Ocean Conference³⁹ and Our Ocean Conference⁴⁰ do not require specific commitments like Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s “Global Commitment”.

Some larger companies with an expected lower plastic footprint (e.g., pharmaceutical companies, finance companies) than fast-moving consumer goods companies may be less likely to join VEPs, to begin with, potentially lending to the lower percentage of strong commitments by non-VEPs found in this study. The true impact of timebound and measurable targets on plastic pollution reductions is still unknown, and further research should be conducted in this area. However, timebound and measurable targets allow companies to be held accountable, which is a starting point for shifting responsibility for plastic pollution toward producers. Third-party reporting and disclosure mechanisms could be used to evaluate whether companies meet reported commitments that include SMART criteria. For example, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation publishes progress reports that can be used to track companies’ progress in meeting commitments. Leveraging the field of accounting may be an entry point to hold companies accountable to the timebound and measurable commitments reported, as described by Bebbington et al., (2019)¹¹⁹ regarding accountability in the global seafood sector.

Timebound and measurable targets also help to build critical data that lend toward global plastic waste models, national plastic pollution prevention plans,¹²⁰ and regional and/or global commitments to reduce plastic pollution. For example, the United Nations Environment Assembly 5.2 agreed to negotiate an international, legally binding treaty to reduce plastic pollution by 2024.¹²¹ Bergmann and colleagues¹²¹ have suggested that this treaty should include a cap on virgin plastic production. Timebound and measurable targets that incorporate sharing the amounts of virgin plastic produced in a given timeframe could support a global treaty and a potential cap on virgin plastic production.

Of the top 10 companies producing the greatest amounts of identifiable plastic waste that has leaked into the environment, as evidenced by BFFP’s brand audits,²¹ seven participate in one of the select VEPs (Table 4). This finding suggests that joining a VEP may not result in actual plastic pollution reduction and/or there is a time lag in observing plastic waste reduction in the environment. Of these seven, six participate in the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s “Global Commitment,”³⁸ and six made commitments through the Our Ocean conferences.⁴⁰ Five of the top six companies have committed to both. None of the BFFP companies made commitments through the UN Ocean Conference³⁹ (therefore, it does not appear in Table 4). Further monitoring of plastic waste by brands will aid in determining whether voluntary corporate commitments actually result in plastic pollution reductions in the environment and over the long-term.

Table 4.

BFFP’s top ten companies and participation in voluntary environmental programs.

BFFP Top 10 Companies	Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s “Global Commitment”	Our Ocean
1. The Coca-Cola Companya	x	x
2. PepsiCoa	x	x
3. Nestléa	x	x
4. Unilevera	x	x
5. Mondelez Internationala
6. Mars, Inc.a	x	x
7. Procter & Gamblea		x
8. Philip Morris International
9. Colgate-Palmolive Companya	x
10. Perfetti Van Melle

^aOn WBA list of large companies that are most influential to the circular economy.

With the exception of waste to energy, we consistently found that a greater percentage of companies in VEPs used each action and targeted each plastic type as compared to those companies not participating in VEPs. Companies in VEPs most frequently used changes in consumption and production patterns or promoted recycling to target plastic packaging, which is consistent with the goals set out in the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s “Global Commitment,”³⁸ which broadly aims to promote reuse models by eliminating problematic or unnecessary packaging and have 100% of plastic be reusable recyclable, or compostable by 2025, among other goals.³⁸ We were unable to determine if the companies participating in the select VEPs were more likely to make these commitments regardless of VEP participation, and instead joined the VEP to improve the company’s image,¹²² or if participation in the VEP spurred the commitment. Future studies may consider comparing and contrasting the voluntary corporate commitments of companies before joining VEPs and following joining VEPs.

Emphasis is needed on plastics and climate change

About 23% (54 of 238) of companies report voluntary commitments that link carbon reduction goals and plastics reduction. However, companies participating in the Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) (https://sciencebasedtargets.org)¹²³ are already reporting greenhouse gas reduction commitments due to plastic reductions as a part of this initiative.

At every stage of the plastics life cycle, greenhouse gases are emitted.¹²⁴ The plastics sector is projected to account for 15% of the world’s carbon budget (i.e., the amount of carbon allotted to avoid a 2°C global temperature increase) by 2050.¹²⁵ Climate mitigation goals may be a lever to drive voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution.

Future research directions

This study sets the stage for the creation of an analytical framework that describes the range of voluntary corporate commitments that companies can take to reduce plastic pollution and ties these measures to outcomes observed. This analytical framework should build upon the framework of CSR, corporate sustainability (CS), and sustainable development, as proposed by Ashrafi and colleagues (2018).¹²⁶ The typology of voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution built in this study could be conceptualized within this analytical framework and applied to determine whether a company or set of companies are focusing more on short-term pollution control, where CSR is not the same as CS, or source control and reduction that has societal, economic, and environmental long-term benefits.¹²⁶ This framework would provide both theoretical contributions to the field and serve as a tool that practitioners could use to differentiate between commitments that merely fall into a business-as-usual scenario or go above what is required by law.

Further research should evaluate voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution from sources that are not reported by companies themselves to provide a more independent lens. In addition, our study was limited to corporate reports published in English. Future research should be conducted by researchers with additional language skills and utilize automatic translation services to lessen English-language bias. The non-comprehensive literature review conducted in this study could be improved upon through additional searches in other research databases. This study could also be productively expanded in future work by systematically identifying firms (e.g., using the Herfindahl-Hirschman index) with a clear focus on guiding policy actions.¹²⁷

The evidence base for the effectiveness of voluntary corporate commitments in reducing plastic pollution is limited. This is not surprising given that many of the commitments were neither measurable nor time-bound. As such, effectiveness studies would be difficult or impossible to conduct. For those voluntary corporate commitments that are timebound and measurable, independent organizations or scientists may be able to play a role in tracking corporate progress or measuring the effectiveness of voluntary corporate commitments in actual plastic pollution reductions. Similarly, independent scientists and companies can collaborate to “co-produce” knowledge¹²⁸ and find solutions that are evidence-based and make business sense.¹²⁹

Conclusion

Our study provides a framework for monitoring the voluntary corporate commitments made by large companies, potentially aiding in corporate accountability and monitoring. Understanding if and how the world’s largest companies are responding to the global plastic pollution problem is one of the first steps toward leveraging these actors to become leaders in reducing plastic pollution. Plastic pollution is projected to grow enormously in a business-as-usual scenario.^3,4,18,130 The rate of plastic pollution, including both macroplastics and microplastics, entering aquatic and terrestrial environments is expected to increase 2.6 and 2.8 fold respectively, between 2016 and 2040.^3,4 The current emphasis on recycling-related actions and light-weighting in corporate commitments is unlikely to keep pace with growing plastic pollution levels. A focus on upstream measures that reduce virgin plastic production is needed.¹²¹

The literature reviewed in this study primarily notes that external motivators impel companies to commit to reduce plastic pollution.^62,85,86 As such, external parties, such as the finance sector, governments, consumers, third-party certification systems, or others, may aid in engaging large companies to promote upstream solutions. As was suggested for promoting seafood sustainability by Jouffray et al., (2019),¹³¹ the finance industry could serve as “gate keepers” toward corporate accountability by identifying leverage points (e.g., shareholder activism) to promote accountability and upstream solutions. For example, banks provided $1.7 trillion U.S. dollars in financing to companies involved in the plastics supply chain without waste management or pollution-related provisions.^23,131,132 The collection of time-bound and measurable targets shared in this study may be used to fast-track transparent corporate monitoring and reporting, adding to the Plastic Disclosure Project (https://www.plasticdisclosure.org).¹³³ Governments may also leverage timebound and measurable commitments to target gaps in the governance landscape when creating policies to reduce plastic pollution.

Scientists (including natural, life, and social scientists) have an important role in monitoring and defining environmental issues, which may aid in holding companies accountable¹²⁹ Independent scientists could create an SBTi for plastic pollution that focuses on establishing science-based targets for upstream solutions and reporting of absolute amounts of plastic produced in a given timeframe, allowing for greater transparency and accountability. Corporate commitments are considered “science based” by the SBTi if they align with what external parties suggest will meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.¹²³ An SBTi should consider toxic and harmful compounds associated with plastics as well as the entire life cycle of plastics. Along the plastics lifecycle, the independent scientific body should take a precautionary approach and account for environmental justice and equity issues.

An SBTi for plastics should coordinate with other relevant international agreements, such as the Basel Convention, Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, Rotterdam Convention, International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), and London Convention. Such collaboration would allow governments and scientists to better understand and monitor the progress, or lack thereof, in meeting global plastic pollution reduction goals, especially toward the future international treaty to reduce plastic pollution.^71,134,135

Experimental procedures

Resource availability

Lead contact

Further information and requests should be made to the Lead Contact, Zoie Diana (Zoie.Diana@Duke.edu).

Materials availability

This study produced no novel materials.

Data and code availability

All appendices and original data from automated keyword searches and qualitative coding are shared publicly on Mendeley Data (10.17632/xc3sjvm765.1).⁴² Appendix C⁴² on Mendeley Data contains NVivo output coded as timebound and measurable as well as the original reports where the coded content was found. No original code was used in this study – the code used is by Levsen (2018),¹³⁶, Cantino and Maxwell (2013),¹³⁷ and Loon (2017).¹³⁸

Research framework

The mixed quantitative-qualitative methods used in this study are broadly outlined in Figure 6. In brief, we created a database of the following companies and collected their corporate sustainability, integrated, and annual reports published between January 1, 2015 and October, 31 2020: 1) the Fortune Global 300;³⁷ 2) large companies; (>$10 billion annual revenue) who participate in select global voluntary environmental program(s) (VEPs) (i.e., Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s “Global Commitment”,³⁸ United Nations [UN] Ocean Conference,³⁹ and the Our Ocean Conference⁴⁰); and 3) those companies thought to have the greatest impact on the problem according to the World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA) (i.e., the circular economy subset of the SDG2000)⁴³ and as evidenced by Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) members’ brand audits.²¹ For Fortune Global 300 companies and large companies in the select VEPs, the most recent reports with a voluntary corporate commitment to reduce plastic pollution underwent qualitative content analysis through coding in NVivo. Reports published by the WBA and BFFP lists of companies underwent an automated keyword search for plastic pollution-related terms.

Figure 6. Summary of methods.

The methods followed in the mixed quantitative-qualitative analysis of corporate reports and literature review are outlined. Created with BioRender.com.

Database construction

We used a web scraping, cascading style selector tool, “Selector Gadget,” ¹³⁷ in R using code by Loon (2017)¹³⁸ to create a database of the “keystone companies” (n=734) determined to have the greatest impact on the circular economy by the World Benchmarking Alliance.⁴³ We excluded companies that were no longer in operation (n=14). Companies from the Fortune Global 300 at the midpoint of the study (the year 2017) were added to the database (n=300).³⁷ We initially added companies from the Fortune Global 500, but due to the number of companies, we ended up analyzing corporate reports from the top 300 of the Fortune Global 500 only and have included only these 300 companies in the final database.

Large companies participating in VEPs were selected based on annual revenue, which we collected from multiple sources (e.g., Orbis, Owler).^139–141 Annual revenues that were greater than the 25^th percentile of annual revenues (calculated to be approximately US$10.36 billion) were included (n=39), and those less than the 25^th percentile were excluded (n=19). Private companies and others with unknown annual revenues were added to the database to be conservative. In this study, companies referred to as those participating in VEPs only include those that participate in one of the three VEPs (i.e., Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s “Global Commitment”, UN Ocean Conference, Our Ocean Conference) and fall above the annual revenue cutoff or had unknown annual revenues.

The top companies with plastic waste identified in the environment, as evidenced by BFFP brand audits,²¹ were added to the database (n=10). When a company or companies were included in more than one of the above lists, it was noted in the database and counted only once. The database had 974 companies total.

Data collection

To identify voluntary commitments to reduce plastic pollution, the public-facing sustainability, CSR, integrated, or annual reports published by each company between January 1, 2015, to October 31,2020 were collected (n=3639 reports total). These reports often categorized sustainability initiatives based on Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards. To collect these reports, two researchers conducted a Google search with the following keywords:

• company name and

• “sustainability report” or

• “corporate social governance report” or

• “corporate social responsibility report” or

• “environmental social governance reports.”

If the sustainability report was identified using the first keyword (“sustainability report”), then the subsequent keywords were not used in searches. If a report detailing primarily sustainability activities was unavailable, researchers searched for company annual or integrated reports by searching the following keywords: company name and “annual reports,” which was then substituted for “integrated reports”. If this search did not result in an annual or integrated report, researchers went to the company webpage describing investor relations to try to locate an annual or integrated report, or, as a last resort, a company website detailing sustainability efforts.

Reports were downloaded directly from the company website if possible. If only specific years were available (e.g., the most recent year), researchers repeated the previous search string and added the target year (2015-2020) to the end of the search string. If reports were still not yet identified, the company was searched for in the GRI Sustainability Disclosure Database to find missing reports or alternative documents (e.g., GRI Index). Reports published in languages other than English were noted in the database but not included in analyses. If no reports were available, information regarding the company’s sustainability actions or commitments was collected from the company’s website if available.

Automated keyword search

To gain an understanding of the level of relevance or significance of plastic pollution to those companies thought to have the greatest impact on the issue (i.e., companies on the BFFP and WBA lists [n=734 companies), we conducted an automated keyword search in R. The WBA “circular economy” subset consists of 748, but 14 have been dissolved or declared bankruptcy and were excluded. This search scanned the PDF files containing the sustainability or CSR reports collected (n=2452 reports) for three keywords: “plastic waste,” “plastic recycl*, and ” “circular economy” using code by Levsen (2018)¹³⁶ in R.¹⁴² We used these keywords since each word directly related to plastic pollution and built on work by Blasiak et al., (2021).²³ The word “report” was used as a positive control. Reports that did not use the word “report” or others that were unsearchable in R due to report formatting were manually searched in Adobe or Preview or through reading reports to identify the same keywords (“plastic waste,” “plastic recycl*,” “circular economy,”) by one researcher (n=223).

We excluded reports that were not in English (n=29) due to limited language proficiency skills on the team. Reports in English that were unsearchable in Adobe or Preview due were also excluded (n=3). If a company released a full and abbreviated version of the same report in a given year, only the full report was analyzed through automated keyword searching in R. Because reporting was incomplete in 2020, we only present automated keyword search data from years 2015-2019.

Reports from the large companies in VEPs and non-VEPs (Fortune Global 300 not in VEPs) underwent an automated keyword search using the same methods to identify the most recent report with a plastics-related commitment for later qualitative content analysis in NVivo.¹⁴³ The most recent report for each company that contained at least one keyword during the period of study was included into a smaller library and those reports were qualitatively coded.

Typology of voluntary corporate commitments

A typology of voluntary corporate commitments to address plastic pollution was created to qualitatively identify and classify commitments in the corporate reports using NVivo (Table 1).¹⁴³ Since colleagues²³ had already collected voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution from the top 200 companies on the Fortune Global 500,¹²⁸ one researcher reviewed these voluntary corporate commitments along with background literature to develop a draft typology of these commitments.¹²⁹ This typology formed our codebook used in qualitative coding. Three researchers tested and modified the codebook to maximize suitability for the diversity of reports until the inter-rater reliability (IRR) test indicated that the three coders had a Cohen’s Kappa¹⁴⁴ of 0.44 or greater and >99% Percent Agreement (Table S5). Discrepancies between coders were discussed within the coding group until all members reached consensus about how we should proceed to code. The Kappa score is indicative of “fair to good agreement” and consistent selection and coding between the researchers.^145,146 Once the codebook was finalized, three researchers identified and coded the most recent relevant reports published by companies participating in VEPs and those not participating in VEPs. Researchers first opened the most recent report with at least one keyword (based on automated keyword searches) and then read the report to determine if the company made voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution. Researchers then coded the most recently published report with at least one voluntary corporate commitment to reduce plastic pollution.

Qualitative analysis of corporate reports

Three researchers qualitatively coded in NVivo¹⁴³ the most recent, relevant version (as determined by the presence of a commitment to reduce plastic pollution) of reports published by the large companies in VEPs and large companies not participating in VEPs to classify commitments to reduce plastic pollution (232 reports were coded of the 279 total reports from 216 unique companies). Reports not in English or lacking relevant commitments to reducing plastic pollution were not coded. In their sustainability reports, some companies linked to more detailed reports relevant to plastic pollution reduction commitments, so we coded both documents to represent their efforts fully. Therefore, we have more reports than companies in our sample. Qualitative coding distilled text describing voluntary corporate commitments into common categories (e.g., actions, plastic types targeted) and summarized the overall trends observed.⁴⁴ If sustainability reports, annual reports, or other reports were not accessible, the company’s website was saved as a PDF and coded.

Data analyses

Data analysis approaches were selected based on how company reports were analyzed: through an automated keyword search only (WBA, BFFP) or an automated keyword search, then qualitatively coded in NVivo (those participating in VEPs and non-VEPs).

WBA company headquarters locations were sorted into six regions: China (154 companies), Europe (180 companies), Japan (104 companies), the United States (181 companies), and other (115 companies) (Table S6). Countries in the other category were Australia (n=9), Brazil (n=8), Canada (n=12), Chile (n=4), Colombia (n=1), India (n=17), Indonesia (n=3), Mexico (n=7), Morocco (n=1), New Zealand (n=3), Peru (n=2), Russia (n=7), Saudi Arabia (n=1), Singapore (n=1), South Africa (n=11), South Korea (n=21), Thailand (n=6), and Vietnam (n=1). These regions were selected so the WBA sample had roughly the same number of companies per region.

We ran queries in NVivo based on coded content to determine qualitative patterns in voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution by companies participating in VEPs and companies not participating in VEPs. Queries were run to determine the type of action used in the commitment (e.g., research and development) and plastic type targeted (e.g., recycled plastics).

Additionally, time-bound and/or measurable targets were used as a proxy for the articulation strength of the voluntary corporate commitment. Based on the codebook (Table 1), we considered commitments to be timebound if they had an explicit mention of a target date and/or date achieved. We considered commitments to be measurable if they had a specific number or otherwise measurable target, such as eliminating a certain type of plastic entirely. Voluntary corporate commitments that were not qualitatively coded as either time-bound or measurable were characterized as “weak.” Voluntary corporate commitments that were qualitatively coded as either time-bound or measurable were characterized as “medium.” Time-bound and measurable commitments were characterized as “strong.”

Literature review

A non-comprehensive literature review, consistent with the methodology of Haddaway et al., (2015),¹⁴⁷ was conducted to provide context on predetermined variables of interest: voluntary corporate commitments to reduce plastic pollution, measures of observed or predicted effects on plastic pollution, motivations for action, and a cross-check on the commitments database.

After initial testing to determine if the keywords returned articles relevant to our predetermined variables of interest and meeting with a research librarian, we used Boolean search strings (Table 4) to search Google Scholar and ProQuest and the keyword “plastic” to search IBISWorld to identify relevant journal articles, book chapters, gray literature, news releases, press releases, technical reports, industry reports, and PhD dissertations (hereafter all referred to as articles). We used the term “plastic” to search IBISWorld since this database searches industry reports and does not use Boolean strings. We did not use Web of Science due to its selectivity and focus on medical and natural science papers instead of social science articles discussing businesses and corporate sustainability.¹⁴⁸ We reviewed articles published after 2015 that either 1) mention plastic/plastic waste reduction as a goal of a specified company, or as an overarching goal of CSR, circular economy, or other sustainability framework or 2) discuss large companies that are part of a VEP aiming to address plastic pollution. We also included articles that were not necessarily about corporate commitments but were widely-cited scientific articles addressing plastic pollution for context.

We then reviewed all potentially useful articles (n=336) and extracted data on the following predetermined variables of interest:

1. specific corporate commitments or actions;

2. commitment related to industry standards (yes/no);

3. commitment related to VEPs (yes/no);

4. effects observed of specific or general types of commitments, including costs or benefits;

5. explanatory factors given for effects observed or predicted in terms of corporate achievements or commitments;

6. motivations for voluntary corporate commitment or action;

7. discussion of voluntary or regulatory standards;

8. description of monitoring and reporting procedures or accountability mechanisms;

9. reference or linkage to climate change; and

10. relevance to the circular economy (yes/no).

Standards are defined here to be the sustainability requirements that producers, traders, manufacturers, retailers or service providers may be asked to meet (varying in stringency).⁴⁸ For each search string and search platform, we used a cutoff criterion to determine when searches were complete: either 1) after 20% of the hits had been screened or 2) if there were over 10 pages of results without a relevant article, whichever came first.

Articles were screened by reading the title and the abstract (when available) to determine general relevancy to the project theme (n=336). When reading the title and abstract did not result in a conclusive determination of relevance, the entire article was screened to ensure it contained data on at least one of the pre-defined variables of interest. Literature review results were collated and summarized according to the variables of interest.

Table 5.

Boolean search strings used to return relevant literature and number of hits returned in all databases.

Search string	Hits in Google Scholar after the year 2015
(“plastic pollution”) AND (Corporat* OR Transnational OR Multinational OR “Voluntary Commitment” OR Steward* OR Sustainable Development OR Circular Economy)	2340
(“plastic waste”) AND (Corporat* OR Transnational OR Multinational OR “Voluntary Commitment” OR Steward* OR Sustainable Development OR Circular Economy)	6760
(“plastic” AND “recycl*”) AND (Corporat* OR Transnational OR Multinational OR “Voluntary Commitment” OR Steward* OR Sustainable Development OR Circular Economy)	2590
(“ocean plastic”) AND (Corporat* OR Transnational OR Multinational OR “Voluntary Commitment” OR Steward* OR Sustainable Development OR Circular Economy)	501
(microplastic*) AND (Corporat* OR Transnational OR Multinational OR “Voluntary Commitment” OR Steward* OR Sustainable Development OR Circular Economy)	2410
(“plastic packaging”) AND (Corporat* OR Transnational OR Multinational OR “Voluntary Commitment” OR Steward* OR Sustainable Development OR Circular Economy)	3350
(plastic* AND reduc*) AND (Corporat* OR Transnational OR Multinational OR “Voluntary Commitment” OR Steward* OR Sustainable Development OR Circular Economy)	16600
(“plastic” AND (bag* OR bottle)) AND (Corporat* OR Transnational OR Multinational OR “Voluntary Commitment” OR Steward* OR Sustainable Development OR Circular Economy)	17100

Science for Society.

Our vast production, use, and irresponsible disposal of plastic is threatening human and enviornmental well-being. Companies with considerable plastic footprints, through either providing feedstocks (e.g. ExxonMobil), plastic production (e.g. BASF) or distribution (e.g. Unilever) are well positioned to help alleviate the plastic crisis. Positively, a growing number of these companies have commited to mitigating the plastic crisis, but the extent to which these commitments are measurable, have a clear tmeline, and are effective remains unclear. An examination of publicly available company reports and scientific literature relating to 974 companies (including the top 300 of the Fortune 500) published between 2015-2020 reveals that almost three quarters made plastic-related commitments and companies that participate in voluntary environmental programs such as the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment are four times more likely to make measurable targets with a clear finishing time. However, there is a heavy focus on recycling and less attention is being paid to turning off the plastic tap as the source.

Highlights.

• 72% of the world’s largest companies committed to reducing plastic pollution.

• Companies frequently committed to increasing recycled or recyclable content.

• Voluntary programs are associated with timebound and measurable commitments.

• Few studies examine if voluntary commitments reduce plastic pollution.