An incredibly sharp and frank analysis into the plastics crediting and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, and the misleading binary narrative created by global polluters, like Coca Cola and Unilever.

As the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) convened for the first time in Uruguay in November 2022 to develop an 'international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution', among its key measures to address the plastics pollution were implementing EPR and creating international standards for plastic credits.

Both EPR and plastic credits are in essence similar mechanisms that deploy the principle of 'polluters pay', explains the author. The key difference would lie in their legal effect; EPR schemes usually involve national and regional governments as enforcers, whereas plastic credits - much like carbon credits - operate on a voluntary basis.

Despite the 'legally binding' principle of EPR, it turns out Coca-cola and Unilver, seemed to rail against the plastic credits and instead lend strong support for the EPR schemes. The author identifies the reason to this 'misleading' commitment in their intention to exploit the procedural challenges in creating government-led legislations, and how they can attempt to impose "maximum participation in the design and development of these programs". As a result, companies like the two have contributed to creating a false narrative that EPR and plastic credits are essentially competing, mutually exclusive measures; when in reality they need co-existing to complement each other.

Recommend a read if you have been craving a more deep-dive in the technical measures which are to be deployed as UNEP and its INC moves their legally binding plastics pollutions framework forward.