Break Free From Plastic

This April, in Amsterdam (the Netherlands), plastic was on the agenda at one of Europe’s biggest banks’ Annual General Meetings. Campaigners and members of the Break Free From Plastic movement took their concerns directly to the Board of ING Bank, calling out the stark discrepancies between its public sustainability commitments and its far less publicised financing decisions.

Despite the well-documented harms plastic causes to environmental and human health, plastics are missing from many banks’ environmental policies. Banks have faced little accountability for their contribution to the plastic crisis, despite playing a central role in funding the production and proliferation of plastics worldwide.

Photo credit: Milieudefensie/Edo Landwehr, 2026

Financing is the oxygen that keeps plastic production alive and that is precisely why bank policies matter. When a bank establishes a plastics policy, it sets clear boundaries on what it will and will not fund, sending a powerful market signal that the most harmful parts of the plastic value chain carry real financial and reputational risk. Without such policies, there are no limitations, and capital flows freely to plastic producers, enabling the industry to expand unchecked. Beyond plastic production itself, banks also finance companies driving demand for single-use plastics and support downstream technological approaches that many campaigners and researchers argue risk delaying the transition to reduction, reuse and refill systems.

Policies also create accountability: once a bank makes a public commitment, it can be held to it by campaigners, shareholders, and regulators. Given that building and scaling plastic production is extremely capital-intensive, restricting access to that financing is one of the most direct levers available for reducing plastic production at its source. 

Photo credit: Fair Resource Foundation, 2026

ING, like many banks, currently lacks a plastics financing policy with clear criteria for limiting or excluding financing for plastics production. ING publicly acknowledges that plastic waste and pollution are a “downside”. It also points out that plastic waste is set to triple by 2060, with half still landfilled and less than a fifth recycled. ING states that it finances clients across the plastic value chain, “from upstream production to midstream users of plastic and downstream collection, sorting and recycling.”

Taken together, this raises questions about how ING’s recognition of plastic pollution translates into its financing decisions, particularly in the absence of clear criteria to limit continued expansion of virgin plastic production.

Annual General Meetings are spaces where executive leadership reports to a company's shareholders and provides an opportunity to expose the gaps between sustainability commitments and corporate behaviour. Through shareholder activism, civil society organisations have gradually gained access to AGMs using small amounts of shares to pressure  corporate decision-making from the inside. It is a tactic long used by climate groups, and one that is proving just as powerful in the fight against plastic pollution. 

Executives can ignore emails, campaigns and press releases, but they cannot ignore a formal question asked on the record in front of their major investors. By stepping into this space, we gained direct access to the bank’s leadership and had the opportunity to ask a question directly to the board and hold ING publicly accountable. 

Campaigners and activists from across the climate movement attended this year’s ING AGM, bringing attention to the investments ING has in oil, gas and coal. (pictures of protest). Inside, shareholders from these groups and organisations confronted the bank on  a range of policies, demonstrating that civil society is united to show up where decisions are actually made.

Photo credit: Fair Resource Foundation, 2026

At the AGM, ING was asked directly: how, while acknowledging plastic pollution as a material risk, does it justify continuing to finance companies expanding virgin plastic production, including INEOS' Project ONE, the ethane cracker currently being built in Antwerp? The bank was also pressed to provide a clear timeline for client requirements across the plastic value chain, including plastic footprint disclosure, time-bound reduction targets, and a prioritisation of reuse and refill models over downstream and technological fixes.

Their answer was deeply disappointing. ING deflected to the United Nations and the need for a Global Plastics Treaty, effectively arguing that it cannot act until international frameworks are in place. 

Attending ING’s AGM was just the first step in asking the bank to take meaningful action to address its role in the plastic crisis. This week, the Break Free From Plastic movement, together with members Fair Resource Foundation, Plastic Soup Foundation, Women Engage for a Common Future, and Fair Finance Guide Germany have sent a follow-up letter to ING bank with a series of questions. These include questions about how ING assesses clients involved in plastic production or users of plastic packaging, its policies on financing chemical recycling given its well-documented ineffectiveness, its engagement with ESG rating agencies to improve plastic-related metrics, its plans to reduce financing for fossil polymer production, and its timeline for developing a strategy that supports the investment and scaling up of reuse and refill models.

ING’s response at their 2026 AGM reflects a pattern seen before: acknowledge the problem, defer the solution and continue business as usual. The formal letter sent this week is an opportunity for ING to move beyond deflection and demonstrate that its sustainability commitments amount to more than rhetoric. Financial institutions, as the enablers of the plastic and climate crises, have the power and responsibility to develop meaningful plastics policies that shift capital away from plastic production and toward real solutions. Until then, the scrutiny will continue.

On 30th April, The Guardian published an article ‘Germany was largest exporter of plastic waste in 2025, sending 810,000 tonnes overseas, analysis finds’ based on a deep dive by Leana Hosea, of Watershed Investigations. It spotlights work by BFFP members, Basel Action Network and Jan Dell of The Last Beach Cleanup.

The headline is stark: Germany was the world’s largest exporter of plastic waste in 2025, shipping over 810,000 tonnes abroad, with the UK close behind at more than 675,000 tonnes. Much of this waste continues to flow to countries like Türkiye, Malaysia and Indonesia, where repeated investigations, like those conducted by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), link imports to environmental harm, illegal dumping and burning and wider social impacts.

This is exactly why sustained, evidence-based advocacy matters. It is encouraging to see the foundations laid by years of campaigning beginning to translate into policy shifts, particularly with tighter controls in Europe.

But the story doesn’t end with an export ban to non-OECD countries slated for  November 2026.

As export restrictions evolve, there is a very real risk of displacement rather than reduction. The EIA is already watching this closely in Türkiye, the UK and across eastern European countries, where capacity constraints and enforcement gaps could once again concentrate harm. The reality in Türkiye, despite its claim to be a "zero waste" champion and government-led greenwashing, is that many regions are overwhelmed by huge amounts of waste that far exceed recycling capacity, with shocking imagery and harm, and citizens bearing the brunt of this pollution.

At the same time, it is genuinely encouraging to see the proactive energy emerging from European enforcement authorities as they work collaboratively across borders to address illegal waste trade and strengthen oversight. That momentum will be critical in the transition away from exports.

Because ultimately, this is not just a waste management issue. It is a systemic failure in how we produce, use and externalise the costs of plastic. And it is one we can no longer afford to export.

Yet every time such a media story appears on the international plastic waste trade, a familiar pattern follows. A highly presentable, data-heavy, modelling-oriented academic voice appears and says, in essence: “Actually, this is not quite correct, because our calculations show something else.” Then comes the usual lecture: we need “accurate information”, we need to be “consistent”, we need to “look at the data properly”.

Of course, accuracy matters. Data matters. Consistency matters.

But there is a serious problem when this type of intervention systematically ignores the most important part of the story: the environmental harm, the human cost, the occupational deaths, the illegal practices, the invisible pollution, and the fact that plastic waste trade is not merely a technical trade-flow issue.

We saw this pattern again after The Guardian article. Our views were included in that article, specifically on the environmental pollution dimension. And that is exactly where we think the discussion must remain focused. Because this is not simply a matter of whether one database, model, or trade-flow estimate is more elegant than another.

The data landscape itself is already deeply problematic: Comtrade, Eurostat and WTO-related datasets do not always capture the full picture. 

In fact, in a recent presentation by officials from the Turkish Ministry of Trade, we saw figures indicating that Türkiye imported around 1.3 million tonnes of plastic waste from the EU in 2024. You cannot find these figures anywhere else, they are very unlikely to be fabricated. So when there are such major discrepancies between different datasets, it is not intellectually serious to dismiss investigative journalism by simply saying: “Your data are incomplete; our model is better.”

That is not scientific rigour. That is selective framing. And selective framing becomes especially problematic when it repeatedly comes from people who are very comfortable defending industry collaboration, while directing most of their criticism toward civil society, investigative journalists, and environmental advocates.

The plastic waste trade is not just an economic transaction. It is a pollution issue, a human rights issue and also a colonial issue.

Imported plastic waste washes up on beaches, thick as snowdrifts. Yet unlike snow, they break down into harmful microplastics and leach toxic chemicals into the water and soil. Image credits: Vedat Örüç.

Therefore, any commentary on this issue that reduces the debate to a technical dispute over datasets, while ignoring the environmental and human consequences, should be treated with caution. Science is not a decorative shield for political convenience. And “data” should not be used as a smoke screen to obscure pollution, injustice, and accountability. The real question is not only how many tonnes were traded. The real question is: who pays the environmental and human price for this trade?

These thoughts were originally shared as posts on LinkedIn.

Authors:

Amy Youngman (International Environmental Attorney, Environmental Investigation Agency)

Sedat Gündoğdu (Professor at Cukurova University | Head of Microplastic Research Group | Marine Pollution Researcher | Researcher at Istanbul Policy Center/Sabancı University)

BRUSSELS — A leaked letter signed by more than 100 food and beverage company CEOs, including Coca-Cola, Heineken, McDonald’s, Kraft Heinz and Mondelez, is calling on European Union institutions to delay and reopen key provisions of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), just months before implementation is set to begin in August 2026.

On 29 April, CEOs requested EU institutions to delay key implementation timelines and revise provisions. If acted upon, requests could weaken restrictions on harmful PFAS chemicals in food packaging, and expand exemptions to keep large volumes of single-use packaging on the market, undermining the EU’s objective to reduce packaging waste at a time when waste levels remain high. Notably, a number of signatories and active sponsors of this initiative are headquartered outside the EU, raising questions about the extent to which corporate interests beyond Europe are seeking to undermine democratically agreed EU law.

A broad alliance of over 160 Break Free From Plastic members and allies, communities impacted by plastic and PFAS pollution, universities, consumer rights organisations and businesses committed to reuse, have sent a letter in response urging EU leaders to reject this lobbying push and uphold the Regulation as agreed by the European Parliament, Council and Commission.

They have warned that reopening agreed legislation at this stage risks weakening environmental protections, undermines regulatory certainty for companies already investing in compliance, and sets a precedent for corporate influence over environmental law after adoption. 

The PPWR, one of the most heavily lobbied EU files, was adopted through the full legislative procedure, following extensive public and industry consultation. Companies have had both regulatory clarity and guidance to adapt their business models and supply chains.

Environmental and health groups argue that reopening agreed provisions would erode trust in the legislative process and deflect responsibility for democratically agreed environmental commitments back onto EU institutions. 

There is a contradiction between the voluntary sustainability commitments made by major brands and their behind-the-scenes policy positions. Several signatory companies have presented themselves as climate and circular economy leaders, yet are now seeking to weaken packaging reduction rules, delay chemical safety measures, and limit implementation of reuse systems. However, the PPWR mandatory reuse targets exist precisely because recycling alone cannot deliver the structural shift Europe needs to reduce packaging waste.

The lobbying push is creating collateral damage for businesses,  including major market players, that are genuinely committed to the success of the regulation and are already investing in the transition. Companies that have already started to adapt their supply chains around PPWR compliance are now facing unnecessary regulatory uncertainty, putting planned investments and innovation at risk. 

The outcome of this lobbying effort will be closely watched across Europe and beyond as governments around the world consider similar packaging and plastics policies. If corporate lobbying succeeds in reopening a regulation weeks before it applies, it risks signalling that even landmark environmental law remains vulnerable to last-minute, covert lobbying pressure, regardless of democratic process. 

Marco Musso, Deputy Policy Manager for Circular Economy at the European Environmental Bureau, said: 

''It is disappointing to witness yet another attempt to delay and dilute a legislation designed to protect citizens and to stop the uncontrolled growth of packaging waste. Fortunately, the usual suspects behind the CEO letter do not speak for the majority of the packaging value chain. Across Europe a multitude of businesses, including major players, remain genuinely supportive of the regulation and are already investing to prepare for it. We stand with the EU institutions to preserve the integrity of the regulation and ensure effective implementation.”

Emma Priestland, Corporate Campaigns Coordinator for the Break Free From Plastic movement, said: 

“The letter sent by some of the world’s biggest users and polluters of plastic is a shocking example of corporations trying to override the democratic will of 27 countries. Their last minute attempt to derail this vital piece of legislation shows a frankly appalling disregard for the wishes, safety and wellbeing of their own customers. Companies should be focusing on ending their reliance on single-use packaging rather than influencing the law of an entire region.”

Sam Pearse, Campaigns Director from Story of Stuff, said: 

“The PPWR is a direct response to decades of fast-moving consumer goods companies shifting to disposable packaging—shedding microplastics and harmful chemicals while pushing their costs onto society. Now, some of those same companies, including U.S.-based corporations like McDonald’s, claim to support the law’s intent after pouring resources into weakening it and carving out exemptions. Their complaints ring hollow. The PPWR sets a critical global benchmark for moving away from throwaway packaging. EU leaders must hold the line — the world is watching.”

Catia De Cao, from Italian civil society network Rete Zero PFAS Italia, said: 

"I am deeply concerned about PFAS, having grown up in a region of Italy’s Veneto that has been severely affected by ‘forever chemical’ contamination. Years of exposure have left many people in my community with dangerously high levels of PFAS in their blood, increasing the risk of a multitude of serious health issues. But regardless of whether people live in pollution hotspots or not, we are all exposed to PFAS on a daily basis, as it is commonly used in food and beverage packaging. To protect people’s health - and especially the health of the youngest generations - the European Commission must go ahead with the ban of PFAS in food packaging.”

Notes to the editor

• Read the Break Free From Plastic and allies’ response letter here
• Read the leaked CEO letter here
• The EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation text and implementation timeline: 2025/40 

Press Contacts: 

• Bethany Spendlove Keeley, European Communications Manager Break Free From Plastic | Bethany@breakfreefromplastic.org | +49 (0)176 595 87 941
• Caroline Will, Communications Coordinator Rethink Plastic alliance | caroline@rethinkplasticalliance.org | +32 456 56 07 05

In a global context marked by the intensifying plastic pollution crisis, civil society organizations have taken on a key role in raising awareness of its environmental, social, and health impacts. In Mexico, one of the most persistent voices in this struggle is that of Fronteras Comunes, an organization with more than three decades of experience defending socio-environmental justice and human rights.

For Marisa Jacott, sociologist and director of the organization, the mission is clear and deeply political: “Fronteras Comunes is an organization dedicated to justice and the defense of the land, fighting to protect human and environmental health against chemical, industrial, and plastic pollution. We work through advocacy, the defense of economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights, research, and exposing public policies that allow and promote this type of pollution.”

Since its founding in 1994, Fronteras Comunes has addressed the issue of plastic as part of a broader system of structural pollution, coordinating strategies involving litigation, research, and community work. “We have made progress on several of the many fronts in the fight against plastic through networks, interdisciplinary work, and collaboration with social movements, scientists, and environmental journalism,” explains Jacott.

One of the central pillars of Fronteras Comunes’ work has been to denounce so-called “waste colonialism”: the systematic transfer of waste from industrialized countries to nations in the Global South.

Following China’s closure of its borders to waste imports in 2018, countries like Mexico began receiving increasing volumes of plastic waste, mainly from the United States. For Jacott, this phenomenon cannot be understood solely as a commercial problem: “Plastic pollution and toxic colonialism are not just economic issues; they are also health issues. It reaches our bodies and territories; it is a matter of the present and the here and now, not the future.”

Jacott notes that over the past two decades, Mexico has imported at least 1.26 million tons of plastic waste, mostly from the United States, highlighting the magnitude of the problem. This dynamic, he notes, is sustained by misleading narratives: “False solutions are promoted under the guise of the circular economy, with ‘valorization’ processes and toxic recycling that mask environmental dumping practices*.”

To raise awareness of this issue, Fronteras Comunes, together with other organizations, is promoting the México Tóxico platform, a geovisualizer that documents the flow of waste and its impacts on local areas. “We aim to show how plastic pollution is present throughout its entire life cycle: from oil extraction to disposal and massive importation as trash,” he explains.

Coordination among organizations has also led to significant legal advances. One of the most significant is an Amparo won in 2024 that compels the Mexican Congress to legislate on single-use plastics.

The case was filed by six organizations in 2023, in response to attempts to block local regulations such as those in the state of Oaxaca. The reaction from industry and certain sectors of the state government was strong. “We faced fierce opposition from industry and open support from government institutions to prevent the ban,” notes Jacott.

However, although the ruling was favorable, its implementation remains pending: “We won the ruling in August 2024, but to date the decision has not been enforced, so we continue working.”

The case has also gained international relevance. During a recent visit to Mexico, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on toxic substances and human rights, Marcos Orellana, expressed concern over attempts to circumvent this Amparo ruling through the General Law on the Circular Economy. From his perspective, such frameworks can only be considered adequate if they guarantee chemical safety and do not replace reduction obligations with insufficient technological solutions.

His statements echoed warnings from civil society organizations, which have pointed out that the law does not establish clear measures to limit the production of single-use plastics and opens the door to processes such as pyrolysis, which are questioned for their impacts on health and the environment.

Over the past decade, the Break Free From Plastic movement has demonstrated that global coordination can amplify local struggles. For Fronteras Comunes, this aspect has been central from the very beginning in alliances such as GAIA, which later gave rise to BFFP itself. “The importance of networking lies in the ability to work and share—from the local to the international level—the issues that unite us,” says Jacott. “Networking nourishes us, allows us to build and rebuild connections to move forward, and must be grounded in trust, transparency, and common goals.”

This coordination has made it possible not only to strengthen capacities but also to drive concrete initiatives. In 2022, organizations in Mexico convened the first national BFFP meeting, which was attended by representatives from 15 civil society organizations and two scientific institutions and culminated in the Xitla Declaration, a statement demanding a halt to imports of contaminated plastics into Mexico, transparency regarding the final destination of such materials, and respect for the rights of waste pickers. The declaration also calls for the strengthening of laws banning single-use plastics and for the elimination from legislation of all forms of incineration, co-processing, energy recovery, or thermal treatment as alternatives for plastic management in Mexico.

For Jacott, the value of belonging to a global movement is strategic: “BFFP gives us strength at the local, national, regional, and global levels. It has taught us the power of tools like brand audits, the value of citizen science, and the importance of exposing corporate responsibility and debunking false solutions.”

The work of these networks also extends to the negotiation of a Global Plastics Treaty, a key process for establishing binding rules at the international level.

Jacott emphasizes that the treaty must go beyond general commitments: “It must adopt a precautionary approach, reduce plastic production, regulate toxic substances, and prevent the cross-border trade of waste.”

Among the critical points, she highlights the need to recognize the impacts of plastic throughout its entire life cycle, set limits on single-use plastics, and prevent these materials from continuing to be considered as fuels or energy inputs.

“The challenge is ensuring these agreements are actually implemented in countries like Mexico, where international commitments often do not translate into public policies,” she concludes.

In recent years, public perception of plastic has changed. “There is indeed greater collective awareness and more stakeholders involved, from different perspectives,” notes Jacott.

However, he warns that this progress coexists with institutional narratives that promote insufficient solutions: “In Mexico, this awareness is being undermined by a state policy that promotes industrial and energy recycling of plastic.” Even so, he highlights the role of tools such as brand audits—even on a domestic scale—to demonstrate the responsibility of large corporations.

For Jacott, the challenge remains structural: addressing not only consumption but also production, associated chemicals, and waste management as part of the same system.

Taking stock personally, his reflection is forceful: “I never imagined the scale of the current plastic crisis, its pervasive and toxic nature, its structural damage. We need to keep building alternative paths in the face of a future that is no longer fiction.”

Ten years after BFFP, the message from organizations like Fronteras Comunes is clear: in the face of a global crisis, the answer still lies in coordination, evidence, and collective action. And in the conviction that another model—one where life comes before plastic—is not only necessary but urgent.

*Environmental dumping refers to the transfer of waste or pollutants from one country to another, typically from developed nations to developing countries, taking advantage of weaker environmental regulations and lower disposal costs.