As the Global Plastic Treaty negotiations enter a critical phase at the next Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee meeting (INC 5.2) this August, the role of harmonised global regulations versus voluntary national approaches is at the core of the debate on this agreement.
Since the start of the negotiations, the +280 global businesses, financial institutions and NGOs part of the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, have advocated for harmonised regulations, on the basis that they will deliver the most effective solution to address plastic pollution, while simultaneously creating value for all stakeholders involved.
To explore this further, we commissioned Systemiq* to develop a modelling study on the economic impacts for Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, and South Africa. The study is a comparison of a scenario with harmonised regulations for all parties to the agreement on key elements – phase-outs / eliminations (Article 3), product and system design (Article 5), and extended producer responsibility (Article 8) – with a more voluntary approach, in which each party would decide on their own measures to address plastic waste and pollution.
The study found that harmonised regulations on these key elements would bring benefits both globally and at a national level, including:
- A treaty with globally harmonised obligations and criteria to phase out the most problematic plastic products could help us eliminate more than twice as many problematic and avoidable plastic products (compared to a treaty based on voluntary national measures).
- The elimination of problematic and avoidable plastic products and the introduction of common design requirements should enhance collection and recycling rates, while increased EPR revenues would support the expansion of waste management capacity, leading to a reduction of global mismanaged plastic waste by 23%.
- A treaty that defines common criteria for product design could significantly increase the recyclability and reusability of products across the world. This consistency would help drive investment for the necessary infrastructure, reduce the compliance burden for businesses, and scale circular economy solutions. It would also improve waste stream quality, unlock larger value pools for alternative materials and business models, and reduce the cost of recycled materials – global recycled content availability is projected to increase by 77% by 2040.
- These improvements are also expected to deliver measurable social value through protecting and creating stable jobs across the plastics value chain, particularly in the waste management sector, which would benefit from improved working conditions and fair remuneration.
- A globally harmonised approach for national EPR schemes, with key principles and minimum requirements, would make recycling more efficient and expand the supply of high-quality recycled content. We, as businesses, are already contributing significantly to EPR fees in many countries. However, with common principles applied at a national level, global EPR revenues could more than double, to $576 billion, compared to $279 billion under inconsistent regulations.
- Cleaner waste streams, expanded waste collection and reduced plastic pollution can help support better public services and healthier communities, with knock-on benefits to other industries, like tourism and fishing.
- Regulatory harmonisation across markets will provide much-needed certainty for businesses and investors, improving long-term decision-making and lowering the cost of capital. This will catalyse investment and innovation towards long-term value creation.
This modelling exercise clearly highlights why a strong UN Global Plastics Treaty with a harmonised approach and common obligations for phase-outs, product design and extended producer responsibility (EPR) is the most effective way to tackle the plastic pollution crisis while delivering economic, environmental and social value.
*The model used for these findings was adapted from Systemiq’s Plastic Treaty Futures report. Explore the study’s methodology here.
This study informed a recent open letter which you can read here.
As the Global Plastic Treaty negotiations enter a critical phase at the next Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee meeting (INC 5.2) this August, the role of harmonised global regulations versus voluntary national approaches is at the core of the debate on this agreement.
Since the start of the negotiations, the +280 global businesses, financial institutions and NGOs part of the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, have advocated for harmonised regulations, on the basis that they will deliver the most effective solution to address plastic pollution, while simultaneously creating value for all stakeholders involved.
To explore this further, we commissioned Systemiq* to develop a modelling study on the economic impacts for Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, and South Africa. The study is a comparison of a scenario with harmonised regulations for all parties to the agreement on key elements – phase-outs / eliminations (Article 3), product and system design (Article 5), and extended producer responsibility (Article 8) – with a more voluntary approach, in which each party would decide on their own measures to address plastic waste and pollution.
The study found that harmonised regulations on these key elements would bring benefits both globally and at a national level, including:
- A treaty with globally harmonised obligations and criteria to phase out the most problematic plastic products could help us eliminate more than twice as many problematic and avoidable plastic products (compared to a treaty based on voluntary national measures).
- The elimination of problematic and avoidable plastic products and the introduction of common design requirements should enhance collection and recycling rates, while increased EPR revenues would support the expansion of waste management capacity, leading to a reduction of global mismanaged plastic waste by 23%.
- A treaty that defines common criteria for product design could significantly increase the recyclability and reusability of products across the world. This consistency would help drive investment for the necessary infrastructure, reduce the compliance burden for businesses, and scale circular economy solutions. It would also improve waste stream quality, unlock larger value pools for alternative materials and business models, and reduce the cost of recycled materials – global recycled content availability is projected to increase by 77% by 2040.
- These improvements are also expected to deliver measurable social value through protecting and creating stable jobs across the plastics value chain, particularly in the waste management sector, which would benefit from improved working conditions and fair remuneration.
- A globally harmonised approach for national EPR schemes, with key principles and minimum requirements, would make recycling more efficient and expand the supply of high-quality recycled content. We, as businesses, are already contributing significantly to EPR fees in many countries. However, with common principles applied at a national level, global EPR revenues could more than double, to $576 billion, compared to $279 billion under inconsistent regulations.
- Cleaner waste streams, expanded waste collection and reduced plastic pollution can help support better public services and healthier communities, with knock-on benefits to other industries, like tourism and fishing.
- Regulatory harmonisation across markets will provide much-needed certainty for businesses and investors, improving long-term decision-making and lowering the cost of capital. This will catalyse investment and innovation towards long-term value creation.
This modelling exercise clearly highlights why a strong UN Global Plastics Treaty with a harmonised approach and common obligations for phase-outs, product design and extended producer responsibility (EPR) is the most effective way to tackle the plastic pollution crisis while delivering economic, environmental and social value.
*The model used for these findings was adapted from Systemiq’s Plastic Treaty Futures report. Explore the study’s methodology here.
This study informed a recent open letter which you can read here.
