What the Collapse of a Global Plastics Treaty Means for Tech
For the second time in less than 12 months, negotiations over a Global Plastics Treaty have collapsed, with the world's governments once again unable to reach an agreement on a collective approach to the reduction of plastic waste.
Negotiations were held in Geneva this week, nine months after talks first broke down in Busan, South Korea. With renewed terms and clearer goalposts, it was hoped that this second round of conversations would yield a positive result.
However, delegates from 184 countries left Switzerland without reaching a consensus on what would have been the world's first legally binding regulation on the pollution of plastics.
The collapse of the negotiations has left technology companies facing more regulatory uncertainty as they navigate conflicting national policies on the management of plastic waste and sustainability more broadly.
The tech sector, which relies heavily on plastic components in everything from smartphones to data centre infrastructure, must now confront a fragmented regulatory landscape that could complicate sustainability strategies, supply chain planning and technological innovations going forward.
The view from the industry
Tove Andersen, President and CEO of Norwegian technology company TOMRA, has spoken to the global nature of the challenge facing the sector since the breakdown of the talks.
"The value chains for production, consumption and handling of plastics after use are international in nature and a global treaty would be the absolute best way to tackle the massive challenges to nature, health and the climate that unregulated use of plastic represents," she says
“Today, only 9% of plastics is recycled. TOMRA remains determined to leverage our technology and insights from half a century’s work to promote circularity, aiding regulators, businesses and societies across the globe in their efforts to accelerate change and support policy harmonisation.”
TOMRA, which specialises in reverse vending machines and sensor-based waste sorting technologies, has positioned itself at the forefront of the circular economy globally.
The old adage that "necessity is the mother of invention" is particularly applicable to organisations like TOMRA, whose technologies look to combat global issues.
But if a global position on plastics cannot be agreed upon then establishing what is and isn't necessary becomes difficult for the customers and clients that would benefit from innovative products like TOMRA's.
Navigating regulations without a global consensus
The absence of a unified global framework means technology companies must navigate varying national regulations on plastic production limits, chemical restrictions and waste management requirements.
Companies developing recycling technologies, biodegradable alternatives and circular economy solutions face particular uncertainty about future market demand and regulatory support.
The High Ambition Coalition of approximately 100 countries had sought comprehensive production caps, whilst oil-producing nations including Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran opposed such restrictions, preferring waste management and recycling approaches.
The implications for innovation and investment
Marco Mensink, Council Secretary of the International Council of Chemical Associations and Director General of Cefic, acknowledges the disappointment in missing another opportunity, but also vows that he and his team will maintain their commitment to the cause.
Speaking for the Global Partners for Plastics Circularity, Marco says: "Our global coalition of plastics and chemical manufacturers remains committed to supporting a treaty that keeps plastics in the economy and out of the environment by advancing a circular economy."
"Across every region, our members are investing in the infrastructure, technologies and design changes needed to make plastics more reusable, recyclable and less likely to become pollution."
Still, without clear global standards, investments like these are inherently more risky. If companies cannot predict which technologies will gain regulatory support across different markets, it naturally makes them more reticent.
Many industry experts believe that tight, clear regulations are the only way to coordinate the actions of the public and private sector in the fight against climate change and environmental degradation.
"We must have bold, long-term, loud, legal, clear, not lobbied-against regulation, to correct the greatest failure of free markets we have ever seen," says Paul Simpson, Partner at ERM, discussing the free market's role in the climate crisis.
A crisis of plastic pollution
Environmental scientists emphasised the urgency of the challenge facing technology developers.
Dr Nina Wootton from the University of Adelaide warned that "recycling alone will not solve this problem" following the treaty's collapse.
Professor Steve Fletcher, Director of the Revolution Plastics Institute at the University of Portsmouth, notes that while "ambitious countries refused to accept a watered-down treaty," this latest failure means "the plastics crisis is worsening".
Steven maintains that solutions "are well known" but warned that "what is missing is not knowledge, but the will to match words with binding action".
The future of plastic in the tech sector
Despite suffering a second successive setback, talks over a Global Plastics Treaty will begin again, although at an unspecified date. Whenever that may be, negotiators will need to bridge fundamental disagreements about production limits versus waste management approaches.
For technology companies, the continued uncertainty means maintaining flexibility in product design strategies whilst preparing for potentially divergent regulatory requirements across different markets.
What is clear, however, is that the sector's role in developing both the technologies that create plastic waste and the solutions that could address it will remain a critical part of any future agreements.
