Break Free From Plastic (2020) Branded - Demanding corporate responsibility for plastic pollution, Vol 3.pdf

Break Free From Plastic (2020) Branded - Demanding corporate responsibility for plastic pollution, Vol 3.pdf


# T I T L E H E R E

Nam et ellabor eiu

T I T L E H e r e


Executive Summary
In 2020, thanks to our members and allies, Break Free From Plastic engaged

14,734 volunteers in 55 countries to conduct 575 brand audits. These volun-

teers collected 346,494 pieces of plastic waste, 63% of which was marked with

a clear consumer brand. Despite the challenges of organizing during a global

pandemic, our volunteers safely coordinated more brand audit events in more

countries this year than in the previous two years. As a special activity during the

pandemic, we also worked with over 300 waste pickers to highlight their roles

as essential workers.

Participants catalogued over 5,000 brands in this year’s global audit. Our analysis

reveals the following as the 2020 Top 10 Global Polluters: The Coca-Cola Com-

pany; PepsiCo; Nestlé; Unilever; Mondelez International; Mars, Inc.; Procter &

Gamble; Philip Morris International; Colgate-Palmolive; and Perfetti Van Melle.

The title of Top Global Polluters describes the

parent companies whose brands were record-

ed polluting the most places around the world

with the greatest amount of plastic waste. Our

2020 Top Global Polluters remain remarkably

consistent with our previous brand audit re-

ports, demonstrating that the same corpora-

tions are continuing to pollute the most places

with the most single-use plastic1. Coca-Cola,

Nestlé, and PepsiCo have remained our Top

Three Global Polluters every year since our first

global brand audit in 20182.

For the third consecutive year, Coca-Cola

emerged as the #1 Top Global Polluter. A total

“Break Free From
Plastic engaged
14,734 volunteers
in 55 countries
to conduct 575
brand audits.
These volunteers
collected 346,494
pieces of plastic
waste.”

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

2


of 13,834 branded Coca-Cola plastics

were recorded in 51 countries, reflect-

ing more plastic than the next two top

global polluters combined. These re-

sults amount to a significant increase, as

we recorded 2,102 more branded Co-

ca-Cola plastic items in 14 more coun-

tries in 2020 than in last year’s global

brand audit.

Seven of the top polluters—The Co-

ca-Cola Company; PepsiCo; Nestlé;

Unilever; Mondelez International;

Mars, Inc.; and Colgate-Palmolive—have

joined The New Plastics Economy Glob-

al Commitment, but this is not enough.

According to a recent Ellen MacArthur

report, the signatories to the New Plastic Economy Global Commitment have

only reduced their use of virgin plastic by only 0.1% from 2018 to 20193.

The Break Free From Plastic movement is calling on companies to urgently re-

duce the amount of single-use plastic they use. The top polluters must reveal

how much single-use plastic they use, then set clear, measurable targets for

reducing the quantity of single-use plastic items they produce. Finally, they

must reinvent their product delivery systems to move beyond single-use plas-

tic altogether.

Image Credit: KKPKP/SWaCH

A waste picker in India holds up top polluter
Coca-Cola bottle during our 2020 brand audit.

3


Contents
2 Executive Summary
5 Dedication
6 Acknowledgements
7 Participant Appreciation: On the Ground

Auditing the World's Plastic Waste
12 Introduction
15 Methodology & Limitations
19 Brand Audits During a Global Pandemic
23 Special Edition: Waste Picker Brand Audits
29 Announcing the 2020 Top Polluters

37 Voices of the Movement
41 Greenwashing
46 Real Solutions
53 Conclusions
55 References

4


Dedication
We are proud to dedicate this report to waste pickers, especially the ones who joined
us in this year’s global brand audit. These essential workers disproportionately
shoulder the burden of our broken waste system, and we were grateful to collaborate
in demanding accountability from the corporations who continue to profit from the
plastic pollution crisis they themselves have created.

Thank you to the following groups for coordinating waste picker brand audits on
the ground:

KKPKP/SWaCH

EcoWaste Coalition

Greenpeace Philippines

South African Waste
Pickers Association

groundWork

GAIA Africa

WIEGO Ghana

Kpone Landfill Waste
Pickers Association

Cooperpac Waste Pickers
Cooperative

Pacific Environment

Vietnam Zero Waste
Alliance

Centre for Marine
life Conservation and
Community Development

The Centre for
Social Research and
Development

SUNGCO Limited
Liability Company

Environnement et
Développement Du
TIERS-MONDE

GAIA Latin America

Kpone Landfill Waste Pickers Association in Accra, Ghana

5


Acknowledgments
This report reflects the continuation of many years of hard work by members of the Break
Free From Plastic global movement to expose the world’s top corporate plastic polluters.

First and foremost, thank you to everyone who participated in a brand audit and submitted
their data. Recording this data is meticulous, time-consuming work, and we appreciate your
commitment to this important citizen action initiative, particularly during such a challenging
year. The “Branded” report relies on the efforts of people like you around the world. Thank
you again to the 14,734 volunteers who took part in this year’s brand audit!

We are also grateful for the pioneering efforts of the original groups who collaborated
in 2017 to design the foundational brand audit methodology: the Global Alliance for
Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Mother Earth Foundation, Citizen consumer and civic
Action Group (CAG), and Greenpeace Philippines. Thank you for laying the groundwork to
make this initiative possible.

Many thanks to Neil Tangri and Win Cowger for advising on our scientific methodology, as
well as to our data scientist Vince Vertulfo. Your contributions to improving the brand audit
methodology, tools and processes have been critical to the integrity of the data upon which
this report is built.

Our deepest gratitude goes to our translation team, whose work enabled more people
around the world to both participate in and learn from the global brand audit initiative:
Youssef Alshatti, Anastasiia Martynenko, Jaka Kranjc, Evgenia Tasheva, Claudia Sick, Isadora
Ortiz, Felipe Torres, Seema Prabhu, Rima Agustina, Gusti Krishna, Ira Jalik, Pennapa Kradtarn,
Liao Zita, Meg Imperio, Quach Thi Xuan, Carla Wichmann, Marina Tomović, Manfred Santen,
Giuseppe Ungherese, Iveta Cadrova, and Choony Kim.

A special thank you to this year’s editorial team: Marina Ivlev of 5Gyres, Felipe Torres of
GAIA Latin America, Anastasiia Martynenko of NGO Zero Waste Society Ukraine, Carissa
Marnce of GAIA Africa, Sherma Benosa of GAIA Asia Pacific, Jen Fela of Greenpeace USA,
as well as Emma Priestland, Brett Nadrich, Estelle Eonnet, Jed Alegado, Shilpi Chhotray and
Von Hernandez from the BFFP Team. Thank you for bringing your diverse perspectives and
thoughtful feedback to the report development process.

Thank you to all our guest writers who contributed to the report text: Alex Gordon, Dr. Ben
Locwin, Kathleen Collins, Lakshmi Narayan, Louise Edge, Miko Aliño, Dr. Owosu Boampong,
Simon Mbata, and Valquiria Candido da Silva.

Finally, none of the brand audit coordination or report publication could have been possible
without the generous financial support of the Flotilla Foundation and the Plastic Solutions
Fund. Thank you for believing in us and making our work a reality.

With gratitude,

Sybil Bullock
Global Brand Audit Coordinator
Break Free From Plastic

Cover Image: © Cecily Anderson/Anagramist.com
Published under responsibility of GAIA | 1958 University Avenue | Berkeley, CA 94704 USA

https://www.https://www.no-burn.org/
6


P A R T I C I P A N T A P P R E C I A T I O N

on the ground auditing
the world’s plastic waste

S
O
U
T
H
A

SI
A &

SOUTHEAST

A
S
I
A

Centre for Marine Life Conservation
and Community Development
(Vietnam)

Korean Federation of Environmental
Movements (KFEM)/Friends of the Earth Korea

Paryavaran Mitra (India)
Trash Hero Mamuju
(Indonesia)

Project Marigold
(Philippines)

7


People to People
International

(Nigeria)

Let’s Do It! Togo

AFRI CA

Nipe Fagio
(Tanzania)

Amis de l’Afrique Francophone-Bénin/
Let's Do It! Bénin

8


Strandliners
(United Kingdom)

NGO Zero Waste Society
Ukraine

Plastifreecame (Spain)

Plastic Change & artist Maj D
(Denmark)

Artwork is a great way to share
with the public, industry,
politicians and decision-makers
our work and efforts toward
a plastic-free environment.
Denmark’s first national brand
audit led by Plastic Change has
resulted in this wall hanging
with branded items collected
by Danish volunteers that
contributed to the dataset for
the global brand audit.

9


Marshal University Sustainability Club
(West Virginia, USA)

“I am fortunate enough to be able to
choose zero waste items and avoid
plastic packaging as much as I can,”
Sustainability Club president, Baleigh
Epperly said. “But I am dedicating my life
and my career to sustainability so that I
can help ensure that West Virginians and
people around the world have the same
access to these choices.”

Algalita Marine
Research &
Education

(California, USA)

Sea Shepherd
(Australia)

OCEANA

1 0


DiskOncept/Vamos a Hacerlo
(Colombia)

Taganga is a traditional fishing village
in the Caribbean coast of Colombia. It is
located at the northwestern flank of the
Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, some of
the world’s tallest coastal mountains.
Taganga is home to ancestral fisherfolk
and indigenous communities, and
their economy depends on artisanal
fishing and tourism. Various types of
corals, sponges, sea turtles, molluscs,
crustaceans and over 129 species of fish
have been identified in the waters around Taganga.

“When we got here many of the corals were already dead,
they were white and the fishes were gone. Since we started
with our cleanup campaigns in 2015, we have seen changes
both in the coral reefs and in the communities,” said Carlos,
Director of DiskOncept. “We have organized more than 50
clean up campaigns, taking tons of plastic waste out of the
sea and the coral reefs.”

This is the first year they performed a formal brand audit
and they are excited to continue with the movement for
future cleanups and brand audits. They hope to engage
more with local communities, including indigenous people
and fisherfolk, since they are the most impacted.

11 Y Nos Vamos
(Mexico)

1 1


I N T R O D U C T I O N

Introduction
2020 has disrupted every part of our lives, creating circumstances ripe for the

systemic change we desperately need. There has never been a better time to

demand greater corporate accountability for the plastic pollution crisis that

plagues our planet. Brand audits are one tangible tool to push corporations and

policy makers towards building better systems for a plastic-free future.

Break Free From Plastic’s (BFFP) brand audit is a citizen action initiative that in-

volves counting and documenting the brands found on plastic waste collected

at a cleanup to identify the companies responsible for plastic pollution.

By collecting data on plastic waste, we challenge the industry narrative about

who is responsible for the plastic crisis and how to solve it. Brand audits enable

us to shift the focus back to the companies that are responsible for creating the

problem in the first place, and empower us to demand that they stop producing

unnecessary throwaway single-use plastics. The annual brand audit report holds

the top polluting companies accountable for

fueling the plastic pollution crisis. Our efforts

rely on people power to stand up to these mul-

tinational corporations.

People power launched the Break Free From

Plastic movement in the Philippines in 2016

to unite the voices of people worldwide advo-

cating to stop plastic pollution at every stage

of the plastic lifecycle. We are committed to

building a global movement towards a future

free from plastic pollution, while supporting

and empowering communities on the front-

lines of this crisis. Our movement unites over

11,000 organizations and individual supporters

Why do we do
brand audits?
Shift the narrative.
Hold plastic
polluting
companies
accountable.
Build a global
movement.

1 2


from around the world to bring system-

ic change through a holistic approach

that tackles plastic pollution across the

whole plastics value chain — from ex-

traction to disposal — focusing on pre-

vention rather than cure, and provid-

ing effective solutions. BFFP member

organizations and individuals share

the common values of environmental

protection and social justice.

Brand audits enable communities to

collectively influence the discourse

on plastic pollution and provide them

with the means to challenge polluters.

Everyone facing the consequences of plastic pollution is welcomed and encour-

aged to take part, from coastal communities impacted by microplastics, to peo-

ple living in neighborhoods choked by the toxic fumes from plastic incinerators,

to those whose water has been poisoned by petrochemical processing. Plas-

tic causes pollution and other environmental assaults at the expense of various

communities and stakeholders from the moment its raw materials — oil and gas

— are extracted.

Changemakers from all over the world have joined forces for this annual effort,

including small and large NGOs, community groups, schools and youth clubs,

and of course, individual volunteers. As with other environmental crises, plastic

pollution hits vulnerable communities and marginalized groups the hardest4. In

this year’s global brand audit, our goal was to support and further empower one

of the most vulnerable communities at the end of the plastic pollution life-cycle

— waste pickers.

© Wason Wanichakorn / Greenpeace

1 3


We coordinated brand audits with

waste picker groups in seven countries

to shed light on how plastic pollution

directly impacts waste picker’s liveli-

hoods. This initiative was framed within

BFFP’s Principles for a Just Recovery,

which we developed to guide our work

towards a post-pandemic world.

By focusing the 2020 report special

edition on waste pickers, we hope to

shine the spotlight on the essential role

they play in moving our societies closer

towards real sustainability, as opposed

to the industry’s belligerent role in per-

petuating the plastic pollution crisis.

Waste pickers deserve justice now.

Principles for a
Just Recovery:

Prioritize health for
people and planet

Invest in solutions, not
bailouts

Replace single-use with
sustainable systems

Demand corporate and
government accountability

Engage impacted
communities

Vietnam Zero Waste Alliance

1 4


M E T H O D O L O G Y & L I M I T A T I O N S

Methodology
FOUNDATIONS
The foundational brand audit methodology was designed by the Global Alliance

for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Mother Earth Foundation, Citizen consumer

and civic Action Group (CAG), and Greenpeace Philippines. These pioneering

groups collaborated in 2017 to organize the first large-scale brand audit on

Freedom Island in the Philippines. Our current methodology remains mostly

unchanged apart from a few simplifications.

RECRUITMENT
In August and September 2020, Break Free From Plastic mobilized people

around the world to organize brand audits in their communities. During this time-

frame, participants were recruited through

our BFFP social media channels, email

listservs, newsletters, and our movement

members who spread the word across

their networks and communities. All

participants took part in the brand audit

on a voluntary basis.

TRAINING
The BFFP Brand Audit Coordinator

provided online training webinars for

leaders, to support them with everything

from event planning logistics to data

collection details. The training sessions

were held in multiple languages including

English, Arabic, French, Spanish, and

Portuguese. BFFP movement member

Trash Hero led training webinars in

Fundación El Árbol

1 5


Bahasa Indonesia, Thai, and Malay.

We also provided a short animated

training video with subtitles available

in 15 languages.

COVID-19
Due to the coronavirus pandemic,

extra steps were taken to prioritize the

health and safety of participants. Brand

audit event organizers were requested

to follow a Cleanup and Brand Audit

Coronavirus Risk Assessment Guide

and adhere to the safety procedures.

When outdoor cleanup and brand

audit gatherings were not deemed safe due to the coronavirus, we encouraged

individual outdoor brand audits. We also presented the option for indoor brand

audits at home as a last resort.

SITE SELECTION
Participants choose their preferred site for the cleanup and brand audit. Brand

audit sites have ranged from urban city streets, parks, forests, beaches, coastal

areas, and any other place where plastic waste accumulates. Due to pandemic

restrictions against large public gatherings in some places, participants also had

the option of conducting indoor brand audits at home. This involved designating

a collection container for all the plastic packaging they disposed of during one

week and auditing the total at the end of the 7th day.

DATA RECORDING
Participants used the updated brand audit toolkit, data card, and visual guide,

available in 12 languages, to guide their data collection process in a standardized

BFFP created an animated training video with
subtitles in 15 languages.

HOW TO DO A
BRAND AUDIT

1 6


manner. The data card required participants to

document the following categories about the

plastic waste collected:

• brand names

• item descriptions

• types of products

• types of materials

• layers

DATA ANALYSIS
Participants submitted their data using one of three standardized digital

platforms: the BFFP online form, the TrashBlitz web app, or an Excel spreadsheet.

Outdoor data, indoor data, and waste picker data were analyzed together to

calculate the top 10 global corporate polluters. From Break Free From Plastic’s

perspective, all plastic is pollution — not just the plastic litter collected outdoors.

While outdoor brand audit data tells us about plastic that has escaped the waste

stream, indoor brand audit data as well as waste picker data reveal that plastic

within the waste stream is also problematic. As a fossil fuel product, single-use

plastic packaging causes pollution from the moment it is produced. Even if it

does end up being properly collected, plastic packaging is often incinerated or

exported to other countries unequipped to manage it.

ACCESSIBILITY
36 participants qualified for funds of up to $400 USD to help cover the expenses

associated with hosting a brand audit event. All waste picker groups also

received stipends.

“From Break Free
From Plastic’s
perspective,
all plastic is
pollution—not
just the plastic
litter collected
outdoors. ”

1 7


MODIFICATIONS
2020 marks BFFP’s third year coordinating a global brand audit. Each year,

feedback from participants have been incorporated to further improve our tools

and methodology in order to best serve their needs. Following our 2019 global

brand audit, a few changes were made to simplify the process including:

• We removed “volume” and “recyclability” as these categories provided little

usable data in practice.

• We specified that items recorded in the “other” materials type category must

be at least 50% plastic.

• We added surgical face masks to the “personal care” category.

LIMITATIONS
This report relies on self-reported data submitted by diverse participants from

all over the world. While our database has been significantly improved to match

brands with their parent companies, this is a participatory project composed of

thousands of brands and parent companies from many countries in different

languages. It is possible for us to have missed the brand-parent company

correlation in a few cases. To review the full list of brands recorded in each

country, see here. The data submitted is a sample of global plastic waste and

cannot claim to be fully representative of all plastic pollution. It is possible

that some brands not captured in this report may produce even more plastic

pollution than those listed in this report. The data reflects the plastic brands

most commonly found in Asia, Europe, and North America where BFFP has a

strong presence. Taking into account the 55 countries represented, the brand

audit data results give us a good indication of the most common brands found

polluting communities around the world.

1 8


B R A N D A U D I T S I N T I M E S O F P A N D E M I C

Brand Audits During
a Global Pandemic
Our 2020 global brand audit recorded 770 single-use surgical masks — which

are made primarily of polypropylene, a type of plastic — and 419 surgical gloves.*

Our first priority is the health and safety of our participants and their commu-

nities. To help ensure that brand audit events were as safe as possible, we de-

veloped a Cleanup and Brand Audit Coronavirus Risk Assessment Guide that

brand audit organizers were required to follow.

If local authorities imposed limitations on outdoor gatherings, participants were

encouraged to conduct an individual

brand audit on a solo walk outdoors.

As a last resort, to make brand audits

accessible for those unable to go out-

side, participants could do brand au-

dits at home by recording data on plas-

tic waste disposed over the course of

one week. Thanks to these precautions,

our volunteers safely coordinated more

brand audit events in more countries

this year than in the previous two years,

in large part due to a greater number of

smaller events with fewer people.

* Surgical gloves are commonly made from either latex,
vinyl, or nitrile. Vinyl is a type of plastic, while latex is
a natural rubber and nitrile is a synthetic petroleum-
based rubber 5.

German Marine Litter Association

1 9


SAFETY PROCEDURE FOR CLEANUP & BRAND AUDITS
Developed by Trash Hero World

115 scientists and health experts from 18 countries agree that reusables can be

used safely during the pandemic6, and we cannot allow one global crisis to ex-

acerbate another. Here are the facts:

• Coronavirus spreads primarily from inhaling aerosolized droplets, rather

than through contact with surfaces7.

• Disposable products present similar issues as reusable ones8.

• Reusable products are easily sterilized9.

Safety procedure for cleanup & other events

PEOPLE

HYGIENE SOCIAL DISTANCE

INFORMATION

• Request that high risk people*
do not attend.

• Remind people who don’t feel
well and / or have visited a
high risk area‡ recently to stay
at home.

• Have hand sanitiser available
and remind people to wash
their hands after the event.

• Operate a “bring your own”
policy for gloves and water: no
food or drink to be provided
on site.

• Do not shake hands or hug.
Wave or bow instead :)

• Ask participants to wear masks
and stay at least 2 metres apart
during the cleanup. This helps
to stop the spread of the virus.

• Check public health guidelines
right up to the last minute and
be prepared to cancel.

• Make sure everyone knows and
understands the safety rules at
your briefing and debriefing.

*Who is a “high risk person”?
Anyone in the following categories:
• over 60 years old
• has a chronic health condition
• has a compromised immune system

‡ What is a high risk area?
This is changing all the time. For the latest
information on infected areas, please follow
local public health advice and / or monitor the
World Health Organisation website.

Trash Hero World | Coronavirus Advice | 12.03.20

2 0


How can we prioritize public health while

also addressing the plastic pollution cri-

sis? Here’s what one epidemiologist and

COVID-19 government policy advisor

has to say:

“As is always the case, it’s not EITHER pub-

lic health OR the future of the environ-

ment, but must be a combination of both.

Public health is inextricable from issues

of global consequence, and where one

goes so does the other... In approach-

ing public health in the context of what

it means to share this planet, we need to

‘do both’: Ask what can be done to rea-

sonably keep people healthy, while at the same time not — literally — throwing

away our future. Every single decision can be framed in this way to serve both the

individual and the collective. Companies that do good tend to do well, and we

should — as a society of consumers — incentivize them for doing the right things.

At the current rate… there will be no viable planet to reap profits from. It’s literally

in corporations’ best interests to be engaged.”

- Dr Ben Locwin
Healthcare Futurist, Science and Public Health Task Force member, and COVID-19 public policy advisor

The experts have spoken. Reusables can be safe, even in a pandemic. Plastic,

by contrast, is neither healthy nor safe. A new UN-backed report from the In-

ternational Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) revealed extensive evidence

that the chemical additives in plastics are poisoning people and the planet, in

addition to blocking a safe circular economy10. Harmful chemicals including per-

fluorinated chemicals, phthalates, and others are added to the plastics used in

consumer products like food packaging (Ibid). Exposure to even small amounts

A volunteer from Center for Peace Across
Borders wears a reusable cloth face mask for a
Covid-safe brand audit in Nigeria.

Center for Peace Across Borders

2 1


of these chemical additives in plastic

can cause cancers, damage to immune

and reproductive systems, impaired in-

tellectual functions, and developmental

delays (Ibid). Moreover, it is our most

vulnerable communities — low-income

front-line workers such as waste pickers

and people of color — who are dispro-

portionately impacted by plastics as well

as COVID-1911.

We cannot allow the plastic industry to take advantage of the coronavirus pan-

demic to justify the expansion of plastic production. It is possible for us to build

back better, by reimagining a future free from coronavirus and single-use plastic.

Better yet, we can do so in a way that leaves no one behind.

“The experts have
spoken. Reusables
can be safe, even
in a pandemic.
Plastic, by contrast,
is neither healthy
nor safe.”

2 2


WASTE PICKER
BRAND AUDITS

According to Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and
Organizing (WIEGO), a waste picker is someone who earns a living
by “collecting, sorting, recycling, and selling materials that someone
else has thrown away”12. Some are considered informal workers, while
others are organized in cooperatives and associations to improve their
working conditions.

Waste pickers are essential workers as they provide the vital service of
collecting and sorting valuable discards, and therefore play a pivotal role
in combating the plastic pollution crisis. Because they are often informal
workers and marginalized, the pandemic has made their precarious
situation even more dangerous while their work remains more essential
than ever. Now, 15 million informal waste pickers and their families risk
losing their livelihood due to COVID-1913. This comes as a combined result
of such factors as lockdowns and restrictions on waste pickers’ mobility and
price fluctuations for recovered recyclable plastics (Ibid).

The “Special Edition” brand audits, in collaboration with waste picker
groups, shine a spotlight on the essential work and service that they
provide to our societies, despite the challenges posed by the pandemic.
In emphasizing the vital work of waste pickers, we also wanted to
expose how the plastic industry’s dirty decisions on packaging are
impacting their livelihoods. This underscores the need for corporations

Waste pickers display Coca-Cola
bottles in South Africa.

S P E C I A L E D I T I O N

South Africa Waste Pickers Association/
groundWork/GAIA Africa

2 3


to be held accountable for the effect that their packaging has on
vulnerable communities. Waste pickers collect recyclable items from
many places, from within the waste stream in homes, businesses,
and landfills, to waste that has escaped the waste stream into the
environment. We worked specifically with waste picker groups who
collect from within the waste stream: landfills and doorstep waste
pickers (see Basic Categories of Waste Pickers to learn more). A total
of 332 waste pickers joined to conduct brand audits in seven countries:
Brazil, Chile, Ghana, India, Philippines, South Africa, and Vietnam. All
participating waste pickers were compensated fairly for their work.

For years, corporations have been propagating the self-serving myth
that plastic waste picking creates jobs for marginalized communities14.
But firsthand accounts from waste pickers expose a different reality: the
majority of the throwaway single-use plastics collected during the brand
audit have little to zero monetary value (Figure 2). Low value plastic
comes most often in the form of multi layered packaging
like sachets, which are used to sell small quantities of
products like shampoo, detergent, condiments and
coffee. Data from this year’s global brand audit reveals
sachets were the most commonly found type of item,
with 63,972 recorded in total. These tiny multilayer plastic
packages are so low value that it makes no economic
sense for waste pickers to collect them, making them very
hard to recycle15.

Adding insult to injury, many corporations claim that
these single-serve sachets are “pro-poor” because
they allow low-income people to purchase very small
quantities of packaged food or personal care products
at prices they can afford16. Ironically and unfairly, low-
income communities bear the hidden costs of this
unmanageable plastic waste. They are burdened with
cleaning up the sachets that often end up clogging
rivers and waterways or are endlessly piling up in
dumpsites with no solution for dealing with them in an
environmentally sound manner.

Waste pickers and the BFFP movement are demanding that companies
shift toward refill and reuse systems, to replace packaging that is not
recyclable and provides no economic benefit. As Simon Mbata, waste
picker and National Coordinator of the South African Waste Picker

“The majority of
the throwaway
single-use plastics
collected during
the brand audit
have little to zero
monetary value.”

2 4


Simon Mbata, waste picker and
National Coordinator of the South African
Waste Picker Association.

“Whatever
cannot be
recycled,
must not be
produced.”

Association (SAWPA) puts it: “Whatever
cannot be recycled, must not be
produced.”

In an effort to justify the continued
production of high quantities of
single-use plastic packaging, some
fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG)
companies have resorted to PR
campaigns ostensibly to show how
they are partnering with waste pickers
to collect their packaging17. Yet working
conditions for waste pickers have been
worsened due to the shift to lower value
plastic packaging that they cannot
resell for recycling. Worse, in countries
like the Philippines, throwaway plastic
collected by waste pickers and paid
for by FMCG companies as part of
their sustainability commitments, often
ends up being burned in cement kilns,
causing air pollution and health risks
to nearby communities18. Industry
predictions forecast a growing trend for FMCG companies to shift more
of their packaging to single-use flexible packaging, such as sachets and
pouches, especially in emerging markets around the world19.

Many of the companies that we have identified as top plastic polluters
in our previous brand audit reports have multiple small scale projects
around the world with waste pickers — such as Unilever in India, Danone
in Ghana, or Coca Cola in the Philippines — but they shy away from
making the changes that would be most impactful on a large scale20, 21,
22. These trends create a serious environmental and social injustice, as
the waste pickers who are relied upon to help realize the promises and
commitments made by corporations to reduce their plastic footprint, are
increasingly burdened with the challenge of sifting through more low-
quality single-use plastic.

Break Free From Plastic members around the world call on governments
to offer ambitious policy solutions, and on business leaders to publicly
announce corporate commitments, in order to ensure that waste collection
and refill systems provide safe, good quality jobs for waste pickers.

Niven
Reddy/GAIA Africa

2 5


FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

*A key explaining the different types of plastics can be found on page 34.

PET HDPE PP LDPE

BRAZIL $0.50 $0.36 $0.29 $0.036

CHILE $0.50 $0.36 $0.036

GHANA $0.07 $0.18 $0.29 $0.14

PHILIPPINES $0.21 $0.25 $0.25

VIETNAM $0.26 $0.17 $0.22 $0.07

SOUTH AFRICA $0.16 $0.19

INDIA $0.24 $0.24 $0.24 (transparent)—$0.19
(milk packets)—$0.054

USD/KG earned by
waste pickers for
types of plastic waste
collected.*

Based on self-reported data submitted from waste picker brand audits, here is the percentage

of types of plastic waste that waste pickers are currently able to resell for recycling.

WHAT ARE RECYCLABLES WORTH?

INDIA: 57%

VIETNAM: 57%

GHANA: 57%

SOUTH AFRICA: 57%

2 6

RECYCLABLE

NONRECYCLABLE

HOW MUCH WASTE SURVEYED WAS RECYCLABLE?

BRAZIL: 57% CHILE: 42%

PHILIPPINES: 42%


WORDS FROM WASTE PICKERS
Companies say they have created small sachets for the
urban poor. If you could meet one of these corporate
CEOs, what would you say to them?


“This statement is of total disrespect, underestimating the intelligence of waste pickers. In our daily lives, we
see thousands of packages go through the conveyor belt
with no commercial value and that leave us distressed and
afflicted, to know that the thought of large corporations
is to treat waste pickers with indifference and not
recognizing the works done by the category.”

– Valquiria Candido da Silva
Waste picker from Brazil


How do company decisions about plastic packaging
directly impact the livelihoods of waste pickers?


“In my own experience, I work at a material recovery facility with waste pickers in VaalPark South Africa, and
the majority of the plastic that we come across is not
recyclable. This no value plastic impacts the livelihoods
of waste pickers, because it eats into the profits and surpluses of our
projects. The reality is that companies who produce this type of plastic are
not creating jobs for waste pickers, but are quickly destroying the planet.
The only way that these companies can create jobs for waste pickers, is
if they create recyclable materials that can go back into the economy.
Whatever cannot be recycled, must not be produced. My hope is to see
waste pickers in South Africa working in better environments and being
an integral part of the waste management system.”

– Simon Mbata, waste picker and National Coordinator of the South African Waste Picker
Association (SAWPA)

A WORD FROM WASTE PICKER EXPERTS

“I have been working as a consultant for WIEGO [Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing] to build the capacity of
waste pickers in Accra and to advocate for their inclusion into the formal
waste management system until the COVID-19 pandemic wreaked
havoc on their livelihoods. They have witnessed a drastic drop in their
incomes due to a decline in prices of recyclables and the closure of

Valquiria Candido da Silva,
Waste picker from Brazil

“We see
thousands
of packages
go through
the conveyor
belt with no
commercial
value.”

Felipe Torres/GAIA Latin America

2 7


recycling companies, making it difficult for them to meet
their basic needs and that of their families. Recyclable
plastics have long been their gold but they have recently
observed the gradual increase in the quantities of non-
recyclable plastics in the waste stream at the dump
site, which have no economic value to them. This is of
major concern to them, but they are determined not to
fall through the cracks. They have begun scoping for
doorstep collection as an alternative source of livelihood
in the Kpone coastal community. In order to achieve
their dream of doorstep collection, they have asked
for a waste collection contract from the government,
tricycles, a material recovery facility and support to
transition their association into a cooperative.”

– Dr. Owusu Boampong, waste picker specialist
Research Fellow, Department of Integrated Development Studies
University of Cape Coast, Ghana

“Around 15 million waste pickers retrieve paper, metal, glass and plastics from municipal solid waste, and move it up the value chain
through scrap traders to reprocessors. They form the base of a pyramid
responsible for over 50% of global recycling that employs millions.
Despite internalizing costs and subsidizing corporations whose waste
materials they recycle, they are fragmented, marginalized and often
displaced by corporate investment in pilots that incentivizes superficial
behavior change, encourages expensive, capital intensive, centralized
technologies, or research small-scale efforts in obscure, expensive,
inefficient recycling.”

“FMCG manufacturers unhesitatingly claim sachets ensure the poor
have access to their wonder products in bite-size, that littering and pol-
lution are due in equal measure to weak municipal solid waste manage-
ment systems and the ‘indisciplined’, illiterate poor, and that continued
production of plastics ensures waste pickers access to a steady income.
In fact, waste pickers neither want single-use plastics for recycling, nor
the expensive commodities they package.”


—Lakshmi Narayan, waste picker specialist

Lakshmi is an activist based in Pune, India. She is a co-founder and former secretary general of KKPKP,
a trade union of self-employed waste pickers. KKPKP was instrumental in the formation of SWaCH, an
autonomous waste picker cooperative offering decentralized, front end, waste management services to
the city of Pune.

“In fact, waste
pickers neither
want single-use
plastics for recycling,
nor the expensive
commodities they
package.”

2 8


T O P G L O B A L P O L L U T E R S

Announcing the 2020
Top Global Polluters
Despite clever marketing tactics and lofty “sustainability” goals, the same companies

continue to make our list of Top Global Polluters year after year. The Coca-Cola

Company, PepsiCo, and Nestlé have consistently remained the top three

global corporate plastic polluters since our first global brand audit

report in 2018. Unilever and Mondelez International have been in

the top five for two years in a row.

The Top Global Polluters Ranking reveals the corpora-

tions that pollute the most places around the world with

the greatest amount of plastic waste. These results are

ranked primarily according to widespread global dis-

tribution — in other words, by the number of countries

where brand audits reported finding these com-

panies. Our priority metric was to examine these

companies’ presence across the highest number

of countries, to be consistent with our method-

ology since 2018. We also factored in the total

number of branded items recorded that were

produced by these companies as a secondary

metric. Together, these “Top Global Polluters”

emerged, reflecting both depth and breadth.

Our worldwide network of volunteers record the

brand names found on the plastic waste they collect

in their clean ups. The data is analyzed to identify the

parent companies, which can own up to hundreds

of different brands. This year, participants recorded

2 9


#1 Cocoa cola
51countries
13,834 plastics
#2 Pepsico
43 countries
5,155 plastics
#3 Nestle
37countries
8,633 plastics
#4 Unilever
37countries
5,558plastics
#5 Mondelez
34countries
1,171plastics
#6 Mars
32countries
678plastics
#7 Proctor and Gamble
29countries
3,535plastics
#8 Philip Morris
28 countries
2,593plastics
#9
Colgate Palmolive
24countries
5,991plastics
#10 Parfetti
24 countries
465plastics

2nd

3rd

4th
5th

6th

1st

51countri
es

13,83
4 plastics

43countries
5,155 plastics

37countries
8,633

plastics

37countries 5,558plastics

34countries
1,171plastics

32countries

678plastics

29countr
ies

3,535
plastic

s

28countries 2,593plastics

24countries 5,991plastics

24 co
untr

ies


465
plas

tics

THE 10 WORST POLLUTERS
Numbers of countries in which waste was
found and pieces of waste recorded

1

2

3

4
5

6

7

8

9

10

FIGURE 3

3 0


over 5,000 brands owned by about 3,000 parent companies worldwide. All ten of our Top

Global Polluters are headquartered in Europe and the United States.

Our analysis of this year’s data reveals the following corporations as the 2020 Top 10 Global

Polluters: The Coca-Cola Company; PepsiCo; Nestlé; Unilever; Mondelez International; Mars,

Inc.; Procter & Gamble; Philip Morris International; Colgate-Palmolive; and Perfetti Van Melle.

Seven of these top polluters have joined The New Plastics Economy Global Commitment — a

project of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation bringing together hundreds of businesses to work

towards better plastic use through voluntary commitments — but have made very little progress

in meeting their own 2025 goals for addressing the plastic pollution crisis23. Corporations are

instead doubling down on false solutions that may appear encouraging on the surface but lack

substance24. Commitments to make all packaging “100% reusable, recyclable, or compostable

by 2025” are already insufficient because they fail to include reduction targets and enable cor-

porations to continue justifying their excessive production of single-use plastics.

Meanwhile, proven solutions exist, but are yet to

be adopted at scale by corporations25. These solu-

tions cut down on single-use plastic and focus in-

stead on reusable and refillable packaging. Even

Coca-Cola acknowledges in its 2019 World With-

out Waste report: “Refillable bottles are a critical

part of our World Without Waste strategy... In more

than 25 countries refillables make up half or more

of our sales, and in more than 50 countries refill-

ables make up 25% or more of sales, including

Chile, Colombia, Germany, Kenya, Pakistan, Peru,

the Philippines, and Tanzania”26. Despite the im-

portant role that refillables play in tackling plastic

pollution, some big brands are cutting down on re-

fillable bottles and working to undermine deposit

and return systems in many places, in favor of sin-

gle-use and disposables27.

NGO Zero Waste Society Ukraine.

3 1


575 BRAND AUDITS
14,734 VOLUNTEERS
55 COUNTRIES

FIGURE 4 | M A P O F B R A N D A U D I T S

L O C A T I O N S

WHERE WE AUDITED WASTE
The brand audits were conducted between August 1 and September 30, 2020 to coincide

with World Cleanup Day on September 19. Thanks to our members, Break Free From Plastic

engaged 14,734 volunteers in 55 countries to conduct 575 brand audits. Our volunteers col-

lected 346,494 pieces of plastic waste, 63% of which was marked with a clear consumer brand.

Click for interactive map with country level detail }

I N T O T A L

3 2


WORST POLLUTERS BY COUNTRY

The 10 countries that submitted the most data were Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria,

the Philippines, Switzerland, Togo, the United States of America, and Vietnam. Here are the top

three polluters in each of these countries.

N A T I O N A L T O P P O L L U T E R S

The Coca-Cola Co.4068
Pepsico2174

Rite Foods Limited1703

Universal Robina Corp.6350
Nestle6168

Colgate-Palmolive5580

The Coca-Cola Co.255
Migros150
Danone145

Tamil Nadu Co-operative
Milk Producers' Federation Ltd4250

Unilever1208
Britannia928

The Kroger Co.500
Pepsico440

The Coca-Cola Co.247

Philip Morris International1150
Voltic Ghana Limited47

The Coca-Cola Co.12

Danone1052
Wings Food552

Mayora Indah492

The Coca-Cola Co.3268
Jasmine675

Zeitu415

Pepsico474
Nestle101

Vinamilk92

Blow-Chem Industries1890
Voltic Ghana Limited980

Kasapreko Company Ltd446

To see the top three polluters from all countries that submitted brand audit data between 2018—2020,
check out the interactive dashboard at https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/globalbrandauditreport2020!

FIGURE 5 | N U M B E R O F W A S T E I T E M S F O U N D

3 3


MOST COMMON

PRODUCT TYPES
Food Packaging | 203,427 PIECES
(e.g. Food wrappers, coffee cup lids,
beverage bottles)

Smoking Materials | 72,342 PIECES
(e.g. Cigarette butts, lighters, cigar tips)

Household Products | 21,030 PIECES
(e.g. Laundry detergent bottle, shampoo
bottle, cleaning product containers)

W H A T W E F O U N D

1

2

3

PET: Polyethylene terephthalate
Clear or tinted plastic; often
used for drink bottles, cups,

pouches, etc.

HDPE: High-density polyethylene
White or colored plastic; often
used for product bottles, jars, milk
jugs, etc.

PVC: Polyvinyl chloride
Durable plastic, hard or rubbery;

often used for building materials,
toys, shower curtains, etc.

LDPE: Low-density polyethylene
Clear, white, or colored plastic;
often used for bags, plastic trays,
holders, dispensers, etc.

PP: Polypropylene
Hard but flexible plastic; often
used for food containers or tubs,
bottle caps, etc.

PS: Polystyrene
Rigid, brittle plastic OR foam;
often used for cups, take-out food
containers, lids, etc.

O: Other / Unknown
Bioplastics, products containing
other plastics or types of
materials, including textiles, etc.

WHAT WE FOUND
MOST COMMON

PLASTIC TYPES
O | 132,445 PIECES
Other/unknown includes sachets
(e.g. Ketchup packets) and cigarette butts

PET | 81,904 PIECES
Polyethylene terephthalate includes
beverage bottles for water, soda

PP | 61,720 PIECES
Polypropylene includes bottle caps, surgical
face masks

PLASTICS KEY
While there are close to 50 different types of plastic worldwide, we typically group them in 7 major categories.

These different types of plastic range widely in terms of quality, health risks, and recyclability.

1

2

3

MOST COMMON

ITEMS FOUND Sachets | 63,972 Cigarette butts | 60,344 Plastic Bottles | 50,968

FIGURE 6

3 4


W H E R E W E F O U N D I T

WHERE WE FOUND IT

Indoors
45,663 PIECES

Outdoors
300,472 PIECES

OUTDOORS

38% City

21% Coast/
Shoreline

13% Land

12%
Other

10% Park
>1%

Ocean

5% River
1% Lake6% Office

74% Home

INDOORS

8% School

11%
Other

NGO Zero Waste Society Ukraine

FIGURE 7

3 5


3 6

T R E N D S O V E R T I M E

THREE YEAR DATA COMPARISON
2 0 1 8 — 2 0 2 0

FIGURE 8

2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0

40 out of 42
countries

9,216
plastics

37 out of 51
countries

11,732
plastics

36 out of 42
countries

5,750
plastics

28 out of 51
countries

3,362
plastics

31 out of 42
countries

2,950
plastics

31 out of 51
countries

4,846
plastics


3 7

“While these polluters and their
waste negatively impact the lives of
so many young people, we are taking
charge of our future.”

V O I C E S O F T H E M O V E M E N T

Voices of the
Movement
Spotlight on: Youth
As a student organizer committed to ending plastic
pollution, what do you want corporate plastic
polluters to know about the impacts their decisions
have on the life of young people?

“Last year students working with PIRG [Public Interest
Research Group] collected over 300 pounds of waste
which was all audited and included in the BFFP Global
Brand Audit Report. I, and students like me, work
incredibly hard to preserve a future for ourselves,
while PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and other corporations consistently trash that
future. Corporate polluters should know that young people are invested
in ending plastic pollution, and we are effective agents of change on the
issue. We’ve banned single-use plastics on our campuses, have educated
thousands of peers about the alternatives to plastics, and brought other
young folks into the movement. While these polluters and their waste
negatively impact the lives of so many young people, we are taking charge
of our future, and not going anywhere on the issue of plastic pollution.”

Alex Gordon
Florida Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) at Eckerd Chapter Chair
ECOS Director of Environmental Responsibility

Alex Gordon with Eckerd College’s president
signing the Plastic-Free Campus pledge

Photo provided by Alex Gordon


3 8

Spotlight on:
Climate
How are the root causes—and solutions—
to climate change connected to plastic
pollution?

“Over 99 percent of all plastic is made
from fossil fuels, most commonly oil
and natural gas. Drilling for these fuels,
extracting them from the ground,
and transporting them to processing
facilities are all very emissions-intensive
processes. In fact, in the United States
alone, extracting and transporting natural
gas for plastic production generates an
estimated 12.5 to 13.5 million metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per
year — that’s the same as driving nearly 3
million cars for a year! Moreover, research
estimates that across its lifecycle, plastics

account for 3.8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. To put that
in perspective, if plastic use were a country, it would be the fifth largest
emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. Plastics have a staggering impact
through each emissions-intensive step of its lifecycle — they are a threat to
healthy natural habitats, wildlife, and communities everywhere.”

Kathleen Collins
Campaign Strategist at The Climate Reality Project

Exxon-Mobil oil refinery, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana (USA).

“If plastic use were a country, it
would be the fifth largest emitter
of greenhouse gases in the world.”

cc WClarke


3 9

Spotlight on:
Brand audits at home
While indoor brand audits were already an option
in Break Free From Plastic’s global brand audit ini-
tiative in 2019, they were a very small part of our
total dataset. Due to the COVID-19 public health
crisis in 2020, we expanded this option in order
to make brand audits more accessible and safer
for participants who are still largely confined to
their homes. This year, volunteers in 23 countries
conducted 214 home brand audits and collected
33,882 pieces of plastic. For these home brand
audits, participants designated a collection con-
tainer for all the plastic packaging they disposed
of during one week and audited the total at the
end of the 7th day.

A group of students in Professor Robin Pelc’s
Marine Science Service Learning class at California State University, Monterey Bay con-
ducted home brand audits as part of their course. Here are some of their reflections.

What was one new thing you learned?
Plastics are unavoidable! I feel like everything I purchased or used had some little
piece of plastic on the packaging.

What surprised you?
What surprised me is that the products that I buy that I thought are considered
recyclable are actually not because of the type of [plastic] material they are.

What, if anything, were you able to purchase in refill/reuse containers?
Nothing—with COVID a lot of places in my home town are not allowing reusable
containers to be used, so we have accumulated more trash.

How have COVID-related changes, like lockdowns or store closures, impacted
your purchasing options?
COVID-19 has definitely increased the amount of plastic waste in my family as the
virus has forced us to order everything online in order to ensure our safety.

As individuals, we may try very hard to avoid plastic whenever possible. But often
it just isn’t possible, and many of us simply don’t have the privilege of choice. After
participating in this indoor brand audit, what kinds of “systems change” would
you like to see?
I would like to see brands pay to ensure they are accountable in the long term for
any plastic they produce.

“As a fossil fuel
product, plastic is
pollution the moment
its raw material is
extracted, and it
continues to cause
pollution at every stage
of its life cycle.”


4 0

Spotlight on:
Zero Waste
What does the path from individual
action to community action look like
for you?

"We sort our waste, refuse plastic cups
for coffee, nourish soils with compost,
and send recoverable discards to local
recyclers. However, we’ve been circling
around the industry playbook all this time,
demanding behavior change among in-
dividuals. Even if this behavior change
happens to everyone, our communities—
including those with the best Zero Waste
practices—are likely to continue struggling
with unwanted plastic waste. It’s time to
elevate our citizenship! Let’s push gov-
ernments to embrace Zero Waste and de-

mand corporations to drop the hypocrisy and take responsibility for their
products. The change has to happen at the very starting point of the prob-
lem, and that’s with plastic-producing polluters."

Miko Aliño
Zero Waste Program Manager at GAIA
(Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives) in Asia-Pacific Region

A waste picker holds up personal care
product packaging during our 2020
brand audit.

KKPKP/SWaCH


G R E E N W A S H I N G

Greenwashing
Greenwashing — (noun) the intersection of two company behaviors: poor environmental
performance and positive communication about environmental performance.(28)

The plastic industry refers to all of the different companies involved in the pro-

duction and sale of plastic products, and 99% of plastic is made out of fossil

fuels29. This includes the companies that extract fossil fuels, turn fossil fuels into

the building blocks of plastic, shape plastic into packaging and the fast-moving

consumer goods companies (FMCGs) turning packaging into branded items.

Fossil fuel companies—such as Dow, DuPont, ExxonMobil, INEOS, and others—

are involved in multiple parts of the plastic supply chain, including fossil fuel

exploration and extraction, chemical processing, and consumer goods manu-

facturing. These petrochemical giants benefit from vertical integration, which is

where a company also owns its suppliers, distributors and/or retailers. This cre-

ates a financial incentive for them to continuously increase the dual production

of fossil fuels and single-use plastic products

(e.g. sachets, water bottles, and countless oth-

er forms of packaging) to be sold around the

world. While the world is already drowning in

single-use plastic, the petrochemical industry

plans to increase plastic production by 40%

over the next decade30.

Only 9% of all the plastic ever made has been

recycled31, yet the companies that produce

this plastic continue to hail recycling as the ul-

timate solution to combating the plastic pol-

lution crisis. This places the blame for plastic

waste and pollution on individuals who fail to

recycle plastic after it is used. This approach

“Only 9% of all the
plastic ever made
has been recycled,
yet...[producers]
continue to hail
recycling as the
ultimate solution
to combating the
plastic pollution
crisis.”

4 1


also blames local municipalities and governments for not providing sufficient

recycling infrastructure for all the plastic waste that is generated. However,

most single-use plastic simply can’t be recycled or it’s just not economical to

do so, especially when the cost of virgin plastic is very low. Even in countries

where the plastic recycling system is advanced, recycling rates are still low and

the majority of plastic ends up being incinerated, landfilled or dumped in the

environment. The only way to truly solve the plastic pollution crisis is to stop

making so much plastic.

Researchers from Changing Markets have identified three primary tactics the

plastic industry uses to promote false solutions, while they continue to produce

ever more plastic: (1) delay regulation by pushing for “voluntary commitments”

instead, (2) distract from their role at the heart of the crisis, and (3) derail legis-

lation by lobbying against real solutions32.

Voluntary commitments are used to delay legislation because the companies

can claim they are already dealing with the problem. They are also used as gre-

enwashing marketing tools, and are often featured in public advertising cam-

paigns. Voluntary commitments rarely make much headway in tackling envi-

ronmental damage even though they receive media attention and shareholder

praise. Furthermore, if all current corporate and government commitments were

to be fully implemented, in 20 years the plastic flowing to the oceans will have

only been reduced by 7%33.

The most powerful industry strategies often manifest in international coalitions.

Groups such as the Alliance to End Plastic Waste include some of the world’s

biggest petrochemical producers and top plastic polluting companies as mem-

bers. Under this banner, the Alliance spends hundreds of millions of dollars

highlighting false solutions and running small scale recycling and clean up proj-

4 2


ects34. While they do this, their member companies continue to make billions of

dollars selling the same plastic waste they claim to want to put a stop to. While

some companies encourage end of life tactics like recycling and beach clean-

ups, they are also aggressively increasing the amount of plastic they produce.

Worse, they lobby heavily against any governmental action to restrict the prolif-

eration of single-use plastics35.

BIO AND COMPOSTABLE PLASTICS
Greenpeace36 has found that companies distract by promoting false solutions

such as “bio” or “compostable” types of plastic. Bioplastics are made using some

percentage of plant matter as the virgin material, instead of being entirely made

out of fossil fuels. In extreme greenwashing examples, products made out of this

material are labeled as “plant plastic” or “not plastic”. The reality is, plant materi-

als undergo similar chemical reactions as conventional plastic. The material usu-

ally won’t degrade at the end of its life and it has to be burned or landfilled. Like

all single-use items, it is a waste of precious resources and energy, and sends

confusing signals to the general public.

Another material that has been touted as a solution by companies is compostable

plastic. Compostable plastics have been designed so that they degrade after

a long time and in certain conditions like higher temperatures and pressures.

Many of these materials have to be sent to specialist industrial composting facil-

ities and won’t degrade in a home compost heap or if dropped in the environ-

ment. Compostable single-use plastics may have some uses in certain situations,

but for most plastic items they are a false solution and further perpetuate the

notion that short-term technological fixes will save the day.


Some of the fast-moving consumer goods companies named in this year’s

brand audits have responded to the public concern about plastic pollution with

commitments to make 100% of their packaging recyclable, compostable or re-

usable37. As we’ve discussed here, recycling and compostable packaging will

make little difference in their status as top plastic polluters.

4 3


BURNING PLASTIC
The plastic industry often claims that

burning plastic is an eco-friendly way

of disposing of it. Many municipalities

incinerate plastic waste as their nor-

mal waste disposal method instead of

landfilling. Plastic is also used as fuel

in cement kilns or to make energy in

“waste-to-energy” plants. Burning plas-

tic creates serious environmental and

social problems. Researchers at GAIA

have found that incineration emits toxic cancer and hormone disrupting chem-

icals and a host of other dangerous pollutants38. In the US and UK39 incinerators

are disproportionately situated near low-income communities, causing higher

air pollution and health concerns. Burning plastic in any form is not a solution,

and has no part to play in a greener and more just future.

PLASTIC OFFSETTING
Plastic offsetting and plastic credits is a new idea that follows the concept of

carbon offsetting40. One company earns “credits” for collecting and recycling or

“treating” waste, then a different company buys those credits to offset the plastic

products they make, even though the second company does nothing to keep

their products out of the environment. Some of these plastic offsetting schemes

allow companies to claim their products are “plastic neutral” because they have

paid enough money into plastic collection projects41. Many of the schemes sell-

ing credits to other companies are actually burning the waste collected, claim-

ing it has been “treated” and diverted from going into the ocean. In other words,

plastic offsetting is ultimately a form of creative accounting that allows a compa-

ny to make environmental claims without ever actually reducing the amount of

plastic used or finding more sustainable ways to deliver their products to people

(i.e. avoiding single-use plastic).

“Many of the
schemes selling
credits to other
companies are
actually burning
the waste
collected.”

4 4


CHEMICAL RECYCLING
So-called “chemical recycling” is the

process of breaking apart the building

blocks of plastic polymers into their

constituent parts to either make new

plastic or, more commonly, fuel and/

or other substances that are eventual-

ly burned42. Although there are claims

that the process can be used to recycle

plastics that are otherwise impossible

to mechanically recycle, investigative

research has revealed that the num-

bers cited by the plastic industry are

often purposefully misleading43. Chemical recycling is the industry’s latest at-

tempt at a techno-fix that produces unknown amounts of carbon emissions,

toxic wastes and other environmental impacts. Both the technological process

itself and the economic model behind it are still unproven. Chemical recy-

cling is only happening at a tiny scale today, and there is serious debate about

whether or not the process actually works. However, many companies are still

relying on chemical recycling to allow them to achieve their “100% recyclable”

commitments for products that cannot otherwise be recycled, such as multilay-

ered single-use sachets.

"It is clear that big corporations have created the plastic pollution problem and

they, along with governments, must be held accountable for tackling it. Our task

is to use our mass movement to force change. We best do this by relentless-

ly documenting companies’ contribution to the problem, through brand audits

and surveys; by investigating and exposing their greenwashing and behind-the-

scenes lobbying; and by highlighting the real solutions. Our power comes from

working together to engage the public and exert the mass people power that

can force big brands to change their path."

- Louise Edge, Greenpeace Global Corporate Campaigner

“Chemical
recycling...
produces unknown
amounts of carbon
emissions, toxic
wastes and other
environmental
impacts.”

4 5


S O L U T I O N S

Real Solutions
Now that we’ve revealed the top polluting companies of 2020 and looked at the

many ways single-use plastic harms people and the planet, we can delve into the

real solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. It’s important that we recognize that

there are no quick fixes, and false solutions abound. Given the increasing ap-

plications of single-use plastic in modern society, each application will require

tailored solutions, factoring in the actual and potential impacts of any solutions

to the environment and the well-being of communities.

Companies, governments and individuals must consider the following ques-

tions when assessing potential solutions:

1. Is the solution affordable and accessible to all?

2. Will this solution use more energy and resources than the item or system

it is replacing?

3. Is this a solution to the cause of the problem or is it merely swapping one

single-use material for another?

COMPANIES MUST CHANGE

Reveal
It is vitally important that fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) compa-

nies and retailers be transparent about how much plastic they use every

year, reported per item as well as by weight. The only way a company can

set meaningful, measurable reduction targets is by knowing and sharing

its starting point and yearly progress. Legislators also need to know how

much plastic each company is using in order to design new laws that sup-

port a transition to lower plastic use.

4 6


Many companies are already revealing their plastic footprints by weight

as part of their sustainability commitments to the Ellen MacArthur Foun-

dation’s Global Plastic Commitment 44. Unfortunately, these annual reports

are not subject to an independent audit to check for accuracy and verac-

ity of claims, which is important for transparency and trust. The single-use

plastic use that has been reported is staggering: the top five polluting

companies combined have reported using 7,692,421 metric tonnes of

plastic in 201945.

Reduce
Reducing overall single-use plastic use is the only way we will ever solve

the plastic pollution crisis. As this year’s brand audits have demonstrated,

there is so much low value single-use plastic in circulation that it is inevita-

ble that a lot ends up polluting the environment, and even if plastic goes

to waste treatment, it is still causing pollution along its entire life cycle.

Even in countries with more advanced waste collection and recycling sys-

tems, plastic pollution is still highly prevalent. Recycling alone will never

be enough as most plastic cannot be effectively or economically recycled.

The worst example of low value single-use plastics are multilayered sa-

chets that are used to sell small quantities of products to people. Multi-

layered sachets were the most found item this year, with 63,972 individual

sachets collected. They are very hard to recycle and end up in the envi-

ronment polluting communities, in huge quantities46. Several of this year’s

top plastic polluters make and sell multilayered sachets, yet they also have

sustainability commitments to make all their packaging 100% recyclable,

reusable or compostable. Sachets are none of these things and companies

must stop producing them in order to achieve their own commitments.

To drive the reduction of plastic, companies need to set clear, measur-

able, ambitious targets. Ideally these targets will increase over time to

4 7


drive further reductions. The ultimate goal should be to remove single-use

plastic from their operations entirely, and replace them with long-lasting,

reusable, refillable packaging or simply no packaging at all. These goals

should be set per unit, not as a reduction of the overall weight of plastic

used. This is because existing reduction targets that focus on weight of

plastic have led to companies reducing the overall amount of plastic in a

piece of plastic—called lightweighting—but they do not address their reli-

ance on single-use plastic47. This might have benefits in terms of use of raw

materials, but it has little impact on the amount of plastic that ends up in

the environment. A lighter weight single-use plastic bottle can still end up

in the sea; whereas, a real solution would be a durable water bottle that

can be reused over and over again. An ideal target should be specific,

time-bound and measurable, for example, some members of the Break

Free From Plastic movement are calling on companies to reduce the num-

ber of plastic packaging items they produce by 50% by 202548.


Reinvent
Companies must urgently rethink and redesign how they deliver products

to their customers. The current business models of FMCG companies are

based on marketing and selling their products in single-use plastic pack-

aging, and conveniently passing the burden of managing their throwaway

packaging onto consumers, taxpayers and local governments. This has re-

sulted in massive environmental damage and harm to the health of com-

munities living around plastic production facilities49. This is unsustainable,

unfair and has no place in a world facing multiple environmental and social

justice crises.

The reliance on single-use plastic packaging as the method for delivering

products to customers has become the norm in the last few decades, but

it has not always been this way. Before the rise of single-use, beverages

came in reusable glass bottles to be returned after use to be cleaned and

refilled, in fact this is still the case in many communities around the world

4 8


today50. Companies can look to the past where refillable, reusable pack-

aging was commonly used and combine the old ways with modern tech-

nology such as phone apps and tracking barcodes to make the systems

convenient and affordable. There are examples of refill and reuse systems

all over the world for a diversity of products51. We are not starting from

scratch. Companies and retailers need to reimagine their business models

with an end to single-use as the starting point, then work with other stake-

holders to make the new systems safe and convenient to use.

Reusable packaging often works best when it is standardized across all the

companies in the sector. If each company forgoes their individual pack-

aging styles, they no longer need to design separate reuse systems. By

standardizing packaging design, companies can pool resources on the

transportation and cleaning logistics to spread the costs and reduce emis-

sions. This has worked successfully in Germany, for example, where multi-

ple companies banded together to standardize beverage bottles so they

could be reusable52. The only differentiating feature on these bottles is the

label identifying the brand.


INVESTORS CAN TRANSFORM COMPANIES
Investors can play an important role pushing for change in consumer goods

companies by choosing to invest in zero waste businesses, those committed

to real solutions, or by working to transform companies they have already in-

vested in. Shareholder resolutions have been proven to work in getting com-

panies to set more ambitious targets, change specific packaging methods or

improve other aspects of their sustainability performance. Shareholder activ-

ism by organisations, such as As You Sow, are responsible for mobilizing com-

mitments from YUM! Brands in phasing out non-recyclable styrofoam pack-

aging53 and Starbucks in developing reusable packaging targets54, amongst

many other wins.

4 9


Investors should be aware of the risks

associated with business models that

depend on the use of single-use plas-

tic and act accordingly. As the world

wakes up to the damage caused by the

plastic and fossil fuel industries, more

and more governments are developing

regulations that can harm a companies’

profit margin if they fail to implement a

low plastic business model55. Single-use

packaging based business models are

also at risk of becoming irrelevant and

losing market share if new startup companies with zero or low waste business

models take off and become popular. The reputational risks associated with re-

liance on single-use plastic must also be taken into account by investors. More

and more, customers are demanding companies find real solutions to their plas-

tic footprint.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION IS ESSENTIAL
Corporations are generally unwilling to make significant changes if they fear it

will impact their profit margins and market share. That’s why voluntary commit-

ments from companies are rarely ambitious or fast enough to tackle major en-

vironmental problems56. The only way we will solve the plastic pollution crisis is

to see significant change to the way companies do business. It’s no longer an

option for corporations to rely on single-use plastic packaging and expect tax-

payers and local municipalities to pick up the bill for managing their waste. Leg-

islation is vital to ensuring that businesses protect citizens and the environment,

not just profit margins.

Countries are already bringing in game-changing laws to help tackle the plastic

pollution crisis, they include:

“The reputational
risks associated
with reliance on
single-use plastic
must also be taken
into account by
investors.”

5 0


• Banning the most harmful types of plastic and single-use plastic items

• Making companies pay for the cost of collection and waste treatment

of their products at their end of life

• Imposing targets for the amount of recycled plastic that must

be included in packaging

• Implementing deposit schemes for reusable packaging such

as beverage bottles

• Setting high targets for recycling, combined with ensuring that

recycling happens in the country where the waste was made

• Legislating to reduce plastic use and increase reusable packaging

• Bringing in taxes, levies and other financial tools to incentivize

real solutions

While corporate voluntary action is not enough to solve the plastic pollution crisis,

neither is legislation on its own sufficient enough. Both governments and compa-

nies need to make changes and work together to achieve real and lasting impact.

A GLOBAL TREATY
Countries from around the world are in discussions about a global treaty to

tackle plastic pollution. History has shown that environmental protection is most

successful when all governments work together with a common goal like the

case of the Montreal Protocol57, which united governments around the world

to phase out the use of chemicals responsible for the hole in the ozone Layer.

The United Nations Environment Assembly recognizes marine plastic pollution

as a serious environmental threat, and is investigating ways to address it. Mean-

while, the Break Free From Plastic movement is demanding a global treaty that

addresses plastic pollution at every stage of its life cycle. In 2020, two thirds of

United Nations members states declared their support for a new treaty on plas-

tic pollution58, but many oil- and gas-producing nations are opposed. It is time

for all national governments to commit to a new treaty that covers the entire life

cycle of plastic.

5 1


INDIVIDUALS ARE PART OF THE SOLUTION
Everyday people around the world have a vital role to play in solving the plastic

pollution crisis. Without pressure from their customers or the people who vote

them in power, companies and governments are slow to change. By boycotting

the most polluting corporations, writing letters to decision makers, using wallet

power to support zero waste businesses, being vocal on social media, protest-

ing new plastic production facilities and of course by taking direct action such as

conducting a brand audit, people have enormous power to affect change. Com-

munity groups around the world are encouraging their local businesses and mu-

nicipalities to adopt zero waste principles and fight back against the expansion

of petrochemical facilities that make plastic. The Break Free From Plastic move-

ment is made up of individuals who are committed to making broad, sweeping,

positive change for people and the planet by collaborating with changemakers

around the globe. Congratulations; by reading this report and learning about

waste pickers, corporate accountability and alternatives to single-use, you are

already part of the solution.

5 2


C O N C L U S I O N S

Conclusions
Thanks to the Break Free From Plastic movement and its allies around the world,

corporations are increasingly scrutinized and held to higher standards because

people are demanding better. Instead of pursuing real solutions, however, many

corporations are choosing to double down on the single-use disposable busi-

ness model that created the plastic pollution crisis in the first place59. In doing so,

corporations continue to fail people and the planet, and further perpetuate the

illusion that recycling is enough to stem this crisis.

Top plastic polluters like The Coca-Cola Company, Nestlé, and PepsiCo have

made very little progress in reducing total plastic use or switching to reusable

packaging. According to a recent Ellen

MacArthur report, the signatories to the

New Plastic Economy Global Commit-

ment have reduced their use of virgin

plastic by 0.1% from 2018 to 201960.

Coca-Cola has actually increased the

amount of plastic they use*. Top polluting

companies are not only failing to meet

their already weak commitments, they

are increasingly relying on greenwashing

to present an outward mirage of sustain-

ability while continuing to “delay, distract,

and derail” real progress61.

One particularly offensive ploy is the

growing market trend toward low-quality,

lightweight multilayer packaging62. Light-

weight packaging may be cheaper to

* Coca-Cola reported to Ellen MacArthur for their 2020 progress
report that in 2019 they used 2,982,421 metric tonnes of plastic,
but in 2018 they reported 2,970,289 metric tonnes used.

Plastic Free Bohol

5 3


transport, but the multilayers make it very difficult to manage as waste, creating

a much more expensive problem in the long term63. Furthermore, it threatens the

livelihoods of waste pickers who rely on reselling high-quality plastic to recyclers.

Companies are effectively dumping the full cost of plastic pollution onto people

who pay the price with a deluge of plastic packaging flooding their communities.

Sachets are one prominent example, as these miniature plastic packages are inun-

dating the markets in Global South countries under the corporate guise of “pro-

poor marketing.” Sixty-four million sachets are used each day in the Philippines

alone64. These sachets are not only unrecyclable, they are replacing higher quality

plastics that waste pickers rely on for their livelihood.

The industry’s addiction to single-use plastic has been exacerbated this year with

the explosive production of single-use plastic personal protective equipment

(PPE) to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus65. In our global brand audit,

participants recorded 419 surgical gloves and 770 single-use masks, which are

made primarily of polypropylene—a type of plastic. This is a unique challenge to

2020, but not unique to our disposable culture. It is merely the latest symptom

of a larger problem of how we deal with waste.

People can no longer afford the toxic cycle of fossil fuel extraction, single-use

packaging, and unmanageable plastic waste. Corporations must act now to re-

veal their total global plastic footprint—and that includes fully accounting for the

impact of their products throughout their life cycle, including toxics and carbon

emissions. They must commit to drastically reduce the amount of plastic they

produce—and governments must hold them legally accountable for the conse-

quences associated with their continuing reliance on single-use plastic packag-

ing. Voluntary corporate commitments are proving to be ineffectual and inad-

equate in dealing with this worsening crisis. Finally, corporations must reinvent

the way they deliver their products to people in a way that does not rely on

single-use plastic, such as through standardized refill and reuse systems.

At Break Free From Plastic, we are committed to build back better. We condemn

the plastic industry taking advantage of the coronavirus pandemic to justify more

single-use plastic production, and we will continue to hold them accountable in

2020 and beyond. Visit www.breakfreefromplastic.org to take action by joining

the global Break Free From Plastic movement.

5 4


R E F E R E N C E S

References
1. Break Free From Plastic, 2019. “BRANDED, Vol II. Identifying the World’s Top Corporate Plastic Polluters.”

https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/globalbrandauditreport2019/

2. Break Free From Plastic, 2018. “BRANDED: In Search of the World’s Top Corporate Plastic Polluters.”
https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/globalbrandauditreport2018/

3. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2020. “Global Commitment 2020 Progress Report.”
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/apply/global-commitment-progress-report

4. Williams, M.; Gower, R. and Green, J. with Whitebread, E.; Lenkiewicz, Z. and Schröder, P. (2019) No Time to
Waste: Tackling the Plastic Pollution Crisis Before it’s Too Late, London: Tearfund.
https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/14490

5. World Health Organization, 2009. WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care: First Global Patient
Safety Challenge Clean Care Is Safer Care. Geneva: 23. Practical issues and potential barriers to optimal
hand hygiene practices. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK144047/

6. Greenpeace, 2020. Reusables can be used safely: Over 125 health experts fire back at the plastic industry.
https://www.greenpeace.org/africa/en/blogs/11438/reusables-can-be-used-safely-over-125-health-ex-
perts-fire-back-at-the-plastic-industry/

7. How COVID-19 Spreads. CDC. (October 2020)

8. Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental conditions. The Lancet. (April 2020)

9. Cleaning and Disinfection for Households. US Environmental Protection Agency.

10. International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), 2020. “Plastic's Toxic Additives.”
https://ipen.org/site/plastics-toxic-additives

11. Surfrider Foundation, 2020. “A Reality Check on Environmental Racism & Plastics.”
https://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/a-reality-check-on-environmental-racism-plastics

12. Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing (WIEGO). “Waste Pickers.”
https://www.wiego.org/informal-economy/occupational-groups/waste-pickers

13. GAIA, 2020. “Waste Pickers in Time of Crisis.”
https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/waste-pickers-in-time-of-crisis.pdf

14. Coca-Cola India, 2016. “Recycling and Sustainable Packaging and Model Villages.”
https://www.coca-colaindia.com/sustainability-report/sustainability-recycling

15. Kaiser, K., Schmid, M., Schlummer, M., 2017. Recycling of Polymer-Based Multilayer Packaging: A Review.
Recycling, Vol.1, issue 1.

16. Posadas, Dennis. The Guardian, 2014. “Sachets help low-income communities but are a waste night-
mare.” https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sachet-packaging-low-income-communi-
ties-waste-nightmare

17. Danone, 2018. “Partnering With Waste Pickers For Inclusive Recycling.”
https://www.danone.com/stories/articles-list/partnership-inclusive-recycling.html

18. Tearfund, 2020. The Burning Question: Will Companies Reduce Their Plastic Use? https://learn.tearfund.
org/~/media/files/tilz/circular_economy/2020-tearfund-the-burning-question-en.pdf

19. Future Market Insights, 2019. “Sachet Packaging Market — Key Research Findings.”
https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/sachet-packaging-market

5 5


20. Unilever. ”A decent and dignified income for India’s waste pickers.” https://www.unilever.com/about/
take-action/initiative/a-decent-and-dignified-income-for-india-s-waste-pickers-554991/

21. Danone, 2017. “Pick-It!” http://ecosysteme.danone.com/projectslists/pick-it/

22. Business Inquirer, 2020. “Coca-Cola PH partners with Plastic Bank® to stop Ocean Plastic.”
https://business.inquirer.net/306576/coca-cola-ph-partners-with-plastic-bank-to-stop-ocean-plastic

23. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2020. “Global Commitment 2020 Progress Report.”
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/apply/global-commitment-progress-report

24. Greenpeace, 2019. “Throwing Away the Future: How Companies Still Have it Wrong on Plastic Pollution
‘Solutions.’” https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/report-throwing-away-the-fu-
ture-false-solutions-plastic-pollution-2019.pdf

25. Unilever, 2020. “Reuse. Refill. Rethink. Our progress towards a packaging revolution.”
https://www.unilever.com/reuse-refill-rethink-plastic.html

26. The Coca-Cola Company, 2019. “The Coca-Cola Company 2019 World Without Waste Report.”
https://www.coca-colacompany.com/content/dam/journey/us/en/reports/coca-cola-world-without-waste-
report-2019.pdf

27. Container Recycling Institute, 2020. “The Decline of Refillable Beverage Bottles in the U.S.”
http://www.container-recycling.org/index.php/53-facts-a-statistics/glass/428-the-decline-of-refillable-bev-
erage-bottles-in-the-us

28. Delmas, M.A., Burbano, V.C., 2011. The Drivers of Greenwashing.

29. Center for International Environmental Law, 2017.
Fueling Plastics: Fossils, Plastics and Petrochemical Feedstocks

30. Center for International Environmental Law, 2017.
Fueling Plastics: How Fracked Gas, Cheap Oil and Unburnable Coal are Driving the Plastics Boom

31. Geyer, Jambeck, & Law, 2017. Science Advances Vol. 3, no. 7.
Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made.

32. Changing Markets Foundation, 2020. Talking Trash: the corporate playbook of false solutions to the plastic
crisis.

33. Pew Charitable Trusts and Systemiq, 2020. Breaking the Plastic Wave

34. Alliance To End Plastic Waste, 2020. https://endplasticwaste.org/projects/

35. Changing Markets Foundation, 2020. Talking Trash: the corporate playbook of false solutions to the plastic
crisis

36. See Greenpeace 2019 report ‘Throwing away the future: how companies still have it wrong on plastic pol-
lution solutions’ for more details

37. Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2018, New Plastic Economy Global Commitment

38. See GAIA’s 2019 fact sheet on incineration for more information

39. The Guardian, 2020. UK waste incinerators three times as likely to be in deprived areas

40. RePurpose, 2019. Plastic Offset: How It Works And Who It Impacts

41. The Inquirer, 2020. Committing to plastic neutrality: Nestlé PH recovers equivalent amount of plastic waste
used in packaging

42. GAIA, 2020. “Questions and Answers: Chemical Recycling”.

43. Greenpeace, 2020. Deception by the Numbers: Claims about Chemical Recycling Don’t Hold Up to Scrutiny.

44. Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2018, New Plastic Economy Global Commitment

45. Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2020, New Plastic Economy Global Commitment individual company reports

5 6


46. Kaiser, K., Schmid, M., Schlummer, M., 2017. Recycling of Polymer-Based Multilayer Packaging: A Review.
Recycling, Vol.1, issue 1.

47. Packaging Digest, 2017. Solving the problems of lightweighting in consumer product packaging

48. Greenpeace UK, 2020.
UK supermarkets can halve throwaway plastic by 2025 by reducing plastic across 54 grocery categories

49. CIEL, 2019. Plastics and Health: the Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet

50. Packaging Europe, 2020. Reuse: a closer look at Coca-Cola Brazil’s unique returnable bottle initiative

51. Greenpeace, 2020. “Reusables are Doable”

52. For more information on reusable bottle systems in German see https://www.mehrweg.org (in German)

53. As You Sow, 2020. “YUM! Brands agree to phase out polystyrene foam packaging by 2022 following en-
gagement with As You Sow”

54. As You Sow, 2020. “After As You Sow dialogue, Starbucks signals intent to move from single-use cups and
plastics to reusable packaging”

55. Client Earth, 2018. “Risk unwrapped: plastic pollution as a material business risk”

56.Changing Markets Foundation, 2020. Talking Trash: the corporate playbook of false solutions to the plastic
crisis

57. The Montreal Protocol

58. The Guardian, 2020. “Global treaty to tackle plastic pollution gains steam without US and UK”

59 Greenpeace, 2019. “Throwing Away the Future: How Companies Still Have it Wrong on Plastic Pollution
‘Solutions.’” https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/report-throwing-away-the-fu-
ture-false-solutions-plastic-pollution-2019.pdf

60 Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2020. “Global Commitment 2020 Progress Report.”
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/resources/apply/global-commitment-progress-report

61 Changing Markets Foundation, 2020.
Talking Trash: the corporate playbook of false solutions to the plastic crisis.

62 Future Market Insights, 2019. “Sachet Packaging Market — Key Research Findings.”
https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/sachet-packaging-market

63 Packaging Digest, 2017. Solving the problems of lightweighting in consumer product packaging

64 Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives GAIA Asia Pacific, 2020.
“Sachet Economy: Big Problems in Small Packets.”

65 Patrício Silva, Ana L et al. “Increased plastic pollution due to COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and rec-
ommendations.” Chemical engineering journal Lausanne, Switzerland: 1996 vol. 405 2021: 126683.
doi:10.1016/j.cej.2020.126683

# B R E A K F R E E F R O M P L A ST I C
WWW.BREAKFREEFROMPLASTIC.ORG

5 7


Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57


Bs |

VOL. Ill


WARE te
ACCOUNTABILITY
Wee STE ARG


&

et

=>
ee
a
[- ar 4
|

-.
i

a


MYER Wem eit WAS


Kenya

Number of Events 3
Total Volunteers 608

Total Plastic items —ga56

¥ -0.02355, 37,90619


Plastic Supply Chain

Point of Sale


Extraction &
Production

Incinerators


Consumers
Manufacturing Distribution

Landfill

Water


a oe *.

WE ASK THE CORPORATE.
~. _ POLLUTERS 10:

S REVEAL ow much plastic you produce.
REDUCE. yoo" total plastic Footprint.

REDESIGN, Packogng fo be reisabk ores

‘tplasterrectodhol F locokpresromplastic