The plastics/fossil fuel industry is trying hard to kneecap the UN Global Plastics Treaty, which is exactly why we have to mandate lobbying disclosure by industry representatives and implement rules around conflicts of interest. If allowed to work from the shadows, bad faith industry interference will block progress toward saving our oceans and fighting climate change.
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Senator for Rhode Island
InfluenceMap examined 311 incidents of corporate communications (across a range of channels including consultation responses, media interventions, company statements and social media) on the UN Global Plastics Treaty since March 2022 and found 93% of unsupportive statements made by companies and industry associations to have come from the chemical and petrochemical sectors.
ExxonMobil, Dow Inc, BASF, SABIC and their industry associations PlasticsEurope and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) strongly advocated to weaken the ambition of the UN Global Plastics Treaty in 2022–24, calling for governments to prioritize recycling measures and opposing provisions to reduce the production of harmful plastics.
However, this negative sentiment on plastics regulation is not representative of the corporate sector as a whole. The messaging from the chemical and petrochemical sectors makes up less than 20% of public corporate engagement on the Treaty to date. The consumer goods and retail sectors have strongly supported an ambitious science-aligned UN Global Plastics Treaty, forming a coalition that has promoted upstream solutions such as the elimination of problematic plastic materials and chemicals of concern, better product design, and scaling of reuse and refill systems.
Advocacy positions on the UN Global Plastics Treaty from members of the chemical and petrochemical sectors mirror their engagement on regional, national, and local circular economy regulations. This analysis identifies a consistent, global pattern of oppositional lobbying on policy that aims to align economies with science-led circular principles. The findings call into question the high-level statements that industry players including Chevron-Phillips, Covestro, Shell, Sinopec and TotalEnergies made through groups like the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, suggesting they support the creation of a circular economy for plastics.
This highly effective and strategic opposition to progressive and science based policy mirrors that of the fossil fuel sector on climate policy in general - while they represent only a small portion of the corporate sector, they appear to engage more intensely and at present seem to have the upper hand on both the UN Global Plastics Treaty and regional climate related-circular economy policies.
Chemical and petrochemical companies and industry associations in the plastics value chain continue to promote a vision of plastic waste management that could preserve the production of fossil–fuel-based plastics in economies. The research finds that these entities consistently push narratives that frame plastic as environmentally friendly and essential for the energy transition to undermine efforts to reduce plastic use. Such narratives do not align with the full extent of scientific recommendations from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Despite broad support for the UN Global Plastics Treaty across sectors, the research identified a gap in corporate leadership on supporting regional circular economy policies. However, several cross-sector associations appear to consistently support ambitious policies tackling plastic and plastic waste, including the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) and the Corporate Leaders Group (CLG).
This briefing covers InfluenceMap’s analysis of engagement by members of the plastics value chain on the UN Global Plastics Treaty in 2022–24, with a focus on the chemical and petrochemical sectors. The research overviews the advocacy positions of the most actively engaged chemical and petrochemical companies and industry associations on the LobbyMap platform, covering advocacy on the Treaty and on regional and national climate-related circular economy policies. The briefing also includes an analysis of the common misleading narratives that entities promoted in obstructive engagement on circular economy policy.
In March 2022, the fifth session of the UN Environment Assembly adopted a Resolution to end plastic pollution and establish an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to work on the development of a global legally binding instrument that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics.
The Resolution acknowledged global concern over the continuous increase of plastic pollution and emphasized the need to strengthen science-aligned policy to address related issues. It highlighted the importance of implementing policy measures covering the whole lifecycle of plastics, such as provisions to minimize the generation of waste and sustainable design measures for reuse and recycling to help retain products and the resources they are made of in the economy for as long as possible. The Resolution also noted the urgent need to promote, incentivize, and regulate the sustainable production and consumption of plastics.
The INC aimed to complete a draft Agreement by its fifth and final convention, scheduled for 25 November to 1 December 2024 in Busan, Republic of Korea.
InfluenceMap’s LobbyMap platform tracks and assesses corporate climate policy engagement, covering over 500 companies and 250 industry associations. Climate policy engagement is defined based on the 2013 UN Guide for Responsible Corporate Engagement in Climate Policy and includes climate-related circular economy policy that intends to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as well as align economies with the waste hierarchy. The findings of this briefing focus on 16 companies and five industry associations on the LobbyMap platform in the chemical and petrochemical sectors that are most actively engaged on climate-related circular economy policies in 2022–24. Using seven publicly accessible data sources, entities are analyzed for evidence of climate policy engagement, with each evidence item scored individually against science-aligned benchmarks. InfluenceMap uses two types of benchmarks to assess lobbying and regulatory behavior: Government Policy Benchmarks and Science-Based Policy Benchmarks.
InfluenceMap’s Government Policy Benchmarks are “policy neutral” in that the system does not evaluate the quality of the governmental policy measures. Engagement with specific policies is assessed using Government Policy Benchmarks that are drawn from statements and ambitions of governmental bodies mandated to implement the Paris Agreement. In the EU, the original policy ambition of the European Commission is used as InfluenceMap’s benchmark.
Science-Based Policy Benchmarks, derived from global mandated bodies such as the IPCC, are used to assess engagement with energy sources and technologies to facilitate the energy transition. The IPCC’s 2018 Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) and 2022 Mitigation of Climate Change Report (AR6) provide a framework for understanding 1.5°C- aligned policy positions, from which InfluenceMap’s benchmarks were developed. Further information on our methodology and benchmarks can be found here.
LobbyMap assesses advocacy on circular economy policy according to science-based benchmarks drawn from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s 2022 Annual Report 6 and 1.5°C reports. The table below outlines the IPCC’s position on two key areas of circular economy policy which align with the waste hierarchy principle.
| Issue | Science-Based Benchmarks |
|---|---|
| Reducing Plastics Production | In its 2022 Mitigation of Climate Change Report (AR6), the IPCC stated that “projections for increasing plastic production as well as petroleum use, together with the lack of investments in breakthrough low-emission technologies, do not align with necessary emission reductions” to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C (Chapter 11.4.1.3, pp. 1191-1194). |
| Aligning Policy with the Waste Hierarchy | The IPCC first mentioned the importance of the waste hierarchy to tackle GHG emissions from waste in its 2014 Synthesis Report (AR5), stating that “important options for mitigation in waste management are waste reduction, followed by re-use, recycling and energy recovery (robust evidence, high agreement)” (p.102). In its 2022 Mitigation of Climate Change Report (AR6), it stated that “the implementation of a circular economy relies on the operationalization of the R-imperatives or strategies which extend from the original 3Rs: Reduce, Reuse and Recycle, with the addition of Refuse, Reduce, Resell/Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose, Recycle, Recover (energy), Re-mine and more (Reike et al. 2018). The R - implementation strategies are diverse across countries (Ghisellini et al. 2016; Kalmykova et al. 2018) but, in practice, the lower forms of retention of materials, such as recycling and recover (energy), often dominate. The lack of policies for higher retention of material use such as Reduce, Reuse, Repair and Remanufacture is due to institutional failures, lack of coordination and lack of strong advocates” (Chapter 11, Box 11.5, p.1942). |
InfluenceMap detected intense, unsupportive engagement from the chemical and petrochemical sectors on the UN Global Plastics Treaty (the Treaty) in 2022–24. The figure below overviews the companies included in this analysis and their links with the five most actively engaged sectoral industry associations, highlighting which entities directly engaged with the Treaty.
The chemical and petrochemical sectors are almost entirely responsible for business’ opposition to the UN Global Plastics Treaty. InfluenceMap examined 311 incidents of corporate communications (across a range of channels including consultation responses, media interventions, company statements and social media). Across all companies and industry associations in the LobbyMap database, the chemical and petrochemical sectors accounted for 20% of all engagement tracked on the Treaty, yet were responsible for 93% of unsupportive statements.
Of the chemical and petrochemical companies found to be actively engaging with the UN Global Plastics Treaty, a significant majority (78%) took unsupportive positions. Only one company, OMV subsidiary Borealis supported an ambitious Treaty (see next section for overview of positive engagement). Covestro did not take a clear position on the ambition of the Treaty.
Of the companies identified as actively engaging with circular economy regulations, four (ExxonMobil, Dow Inc, Eastman Chemical, Chevron-Phillips) are headquartered in the US, four (BASF, Covestro, Evonik, Lanxess) in Germany, two in the UK (LyondellBasell and Shell), and one in France (TotalEnergies), Spain (Repsol), Finland (Neste), Austria (Borealis), Saudi Arabia (SABIC), and China (Sinopec).
All companies but one are direct members of industry associations that actively and negatively engaged with the Treaty in 2022–24. Of the five industry associations identified as actively not supporting the Treaty, two (the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)) are based in the US, two (PlasticsEurope and the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic)) in Brussels, and one (the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI)) in Germany.
Companies’ Membership to Industry Associations and Engagement with the UN Global Plastics Treaty
The chemical and petrochemical sectors advocated for a limited scope of the UN Global Plastics Treaty to prioritize downstream measures, primarily recycling of plastic waste, over measures to reduce plastic use and to scale up reuse, a position which appears to be misaligned with IPCC guidance on climate related- circular economy policy.
Chemicals and petrochemicals industry actors called on governments to abandon proposals to restrict virgin plastics production and phase out plastics that are difficult to recycle. For example, the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI) stated concerns regarding “moves to impose blanket restrictions on plastic production” and warned governments against “losing sight of the most important goal in the negotiations: the circular economy” in 2023. Industry representatives including PlasticsEurope, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Association (AFPM), Dow Inc., ExxonMobil, Chevron-Phillips, and BASF directly engaged with EU and US officials as well as the INC Executive Secretariat in 2023–24, advocating against the inclusion of measures to limit primary plastic polymers production and address harmful chemicals in the UN Global Plastics Treaty. Similar arguments were detected in Sinopec messaging directed to the Chinese government, which stated that the circular economy threatens national plastic consumption goals.
Some industry actors seemed to call for the Treaty to prioritize mandating measures to scale up downstream recycling, emphasizing the importance of reliance on innovative technologies, without stating the need for provisions such as reducing overall plastic production and use. For example, Dow stated that “governments must mandate recycling and provide more access to waste management” in 2024, while Covestro stressed “the need for more innovative recycling technologies” in 2023 . Support for recycling is not inherently negative in climate change discussions. However, promoting the importance of waste management options lower down in the waste hierarchy could lead to a weakening of the Treaty’s ambition and maintain the presence of fossil–fuel-based plastics in the long term.
InfluenceMap found that 10 companies—BASF, Chevron-Phillips, Covestro, Dow Inc, ExxonMobil, LyondellBasell, SABIC, Shell, Sinopec, and TotalEnergies—are members of the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, an organization that promotes a vision “to end plastic waste entering the environment and to create circular systems that keep materials and products in use for as long as possible.”
The Alliance to End Plastic Waste did not appear to support an ambitious UN Global Plastics Treaty in 2022–24. The Alliance advocated for the Treaty to prioritize measures to improve waste management and increase recycling rates without stating support for actions to reduce plastic use and measures to scale up reuse in a November 2022 press release. In a December 2023 press release, the Alliance’s CEO Jacob Duer advocated for the Treaty to support measures to improve waste collection, sorting, and recycling without clearly aligning with the waste hierarchy recommendations to prioritize reuse and reduce plastic use overall.
InfluenceMap detected supportive advocacy on the UN Global Plastics Treaty originating from a coalition of primarily consumer goods companies and retailers, which consistently advocated for an ambitious Treaty that covers the entire lifecycle of plastics in 2022–24. The coalition endorsed a vision statement from the Business Coalition For a Global Plastics Treaty and includes companies on the LobbyMap platform such as: Colgate-Palmolive, Danone, FrieslandCampina, H&M Group, Ingka Group - IKEA, Kering, Kraft Heinz, L’Oréal, Lego Group, Mondi, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Walmart, and 3M. Signatories also included chemical company OMV subsidiary Borealis.
The Coalition repeatedly emphasized the importance of taking action across the entire plastics value chain in line with the waste hierarchy. It called for upstream solutions, such as elimination of problematic plastic materials and chemicals of concern, better product design, and scaling of reuse and refill systems, in a November 2023 statement. The Coalition reiterated its support for “a global objective regarding the sustainable production of primary plastic polymers” in an October 2024 joint declaration.
However, the consumer goods sector’s mobilization in support of an ambitious UN Global Plastics Treaty contrasts with previous advocacy on climate-related plastic circular economy policies, such as the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation. Advocacy on this regulation from the consumer goods sector appeared to align with the chemical sector’s opposition to ambitious policy aligned with the waste hierarchy.
InfluenceMap analysis shows that the predominantly oppositional positions taken by the chemical and petrochemical sectors on the UN Global Plastics Treaty mirror advocacy positions taken on regional, national, and local circular economy policies in areas where InfluenceMap tracks corporate climate policy engagement. No chemical and petrochemical companies with medium or high engagement appeared to take positive positions on such policies in 2022–24.
The chemical and petrochemical sectors within the plastics value chain advocated for circular economy policies around the world that would prioritize recycling of plastic waste over measures to reduce plastic use and the scale up of reuse, a position which appears to be misaligned with IPCC guidance on climate related- circular economy policy.
Chemical and petrochemical industry players pushed for regional and national legislation to increase support for recycling systems and scale up chemical recycling technologies—for example, in comments from BASF, Neste, and ExxonMobil in relation to US legislation, as well as from Repsol and Eastman Chemical on EU-level policy. The sector advocated for the regulatory recognition of chemical recycling and for a mass balance approach to recycled content in recycled plastics, which is presented as a necessary condition to further incentivize pyrolysis technology use by entities including SABIC.
Fact-check: Pyrolysis technologies are associated with significant CO2 emissions. The IPCC calls for caution in their deployment, stating that pyrolysis processes should be combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) and that the CO2 from the products obtained with pyrolysis would require either recirculation through energy-consuming synthesis routes or capture and storage (IPCC 2022, AR6, Chapter 11, p.1193). No industry advocacy assessed recognized the need for such conditions around chemical recycling deployment.
Members of the chemical and petrochemical sector, such as the AFPM, opposed a regulatory focus on plastic production, claiming that “it is post-consumer management of plastic that is the real issue” and suggesting “that plastic production is not a large source of overall plastic pollution.” Industry players across the US and the EU consistently advocated against provisions that aim to reduce single-use plastic packaging, restrict the use of materials that limit recyclability, or incentivize reuse over recycling, for example PlasticsEurope, ExxonMobil, and the AFPM in 2022–24.
Chemical and petrochemical companies and industry associations in the plastics value chain employ two main narratives in corporate advocacy to promote circular economy policy in a way that fails to align with the full extent of scientific recommendations.
Several obstructive industry actors that advocate against regulatory measures to reduce the production of certain plastics claim that plastics have a lower environmental footprint compared to other materials. Dow, for example, stated that “if you’re shipping plastic packages versus glass or metal or some other alternative, you really have tremendous greenhouse gas emissions reduction. It makes plastic the lowest CO2 per pound of product footprint that’s out there.”
Fact-check: This narrative fails to acknowledge the scale of plastic production’s impact on climate change. According to the IPCC, the global production of plastics is now estimated to be above 400 million tonnes, and current trajectories point towards doubled production by 2035 and tripled production by 2060. In line with such trajectories, forecasts also show that oil and gas feedstock demand for chemicals will rise, which does not align with scientific recommendations on necessary GHG emissions reductions to stay within 1.5°C (IPCC 2022, AR6, Chapter 11, p.1194).
Some industry players present plastics as essential for the energy transition and suggest that limiting their production or banning certain types could jeopardize climate objectives. The ACC stated, for example, that “the world will need to rely on plastic more, not less. Plastics enable solar and wind energy, are critical to modern healthcare, deliver clean drinking water, reduce home, building and transportation energy needs, and help prevent food wastage.”
Fact-check: The IPCC recognizes that plastics can help reducing emissions in certain other sectors yet stresses the importance of reducing plastics’ GHG emissions throughout their lifecycle. It notes that while some reduction can be achieved via recycling, other measures, such as material efficiency and feedstock substitution, are required to achieve necessary emissions reductions. It also highlights persisting challenges to effective recycling rates of plastics, including the design, complexity, and contamination of plastics (IPCC 2022, AR6, Chapter 11, pp.1193-1194).
InfluenceMap detected limited supportive engagement on specific circular economy regulations in regions tracked by the LobbyMap platform in 2022–24. Research showed that no sector emerges as a clear leader in supporting ambitious circular economy policies. However, several cross-sector associations across different regions appear to have consistently supported ambitious circular economy policies tackling plastic and plastic waste.
For example, the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) called for measures to help reduce waste generation in Korea in 2024, while the Confederation of Indian Industry advocated for the reduction of unnecessary and problematic plastics and more stringent rules on plastic packaging design in 2023. In the EU, the Corporate Leaders Group (CLG) pushed for the EU Commission to propose an ambitious Circular Economy Act in line with the waste hierarchy, including binding targets, taxation measures, revised standards, and clearer definitions, in 2024.
