INC-5.2: Anti-plastic campaigner sees “quiet revolution” in packaging

The packaging industry is undergoing a “quiet revolution,” shifting away from “the risky economic path” of continuous plastic production, according to Sian Sutherland, the co-founder at A Plastic Planet.

Sutherland tells Packaging Insights that rather than accepting stalled UN Global Plastics Treaty progress and “patchwork regulations,” industry and policymakers should recognize this moment as the “tipping point before transformational change.” 

“The question isn’t whether this transformation will happen, but how quickly we can accelerate it. Industry leaders already understand their license to operate depends on fundamentally reimagining their relationship with materials — government policy needs to catch up with this reality.” 

As the UN Environment Assembly begins its final round of negotiations (INC-5.2) for a global plastics treaty in Geneva, Switzerland, this week, we speak to Sutherland about how she expects the packaging industry’s “transformational change” to be represented in the talks.

What has so far been addressed at INC-5.2?
Sutherland: This round of negotiations is still in its infancy, with the main bulk of provisions still to be debated and voted on. Countries like Panama and others that have been pioneers in the process will undoubtedly be pushing hard truths to delegates in the chamber. Next week, we’re hoping to see positive news coming from Geneva on an agreement around financing mechanisms, chemicals of concern, and enforcement alongside the overarching issue of production caps. 

What is the most important issue that must be addressed by the treaty?
Sutherland: Production reduction targets are absolutely critical — this is the element the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee emphasised the UK should not compromise on and what the majority of nations in negotiations are backing. We cannot continue to leave the plastic tap running. 

Sutherland demands treaty negotiators in Geneva to consider economic aspects of plastics versus alternative packaging materials.Beyond this, the treaty must include robust provisions on chemicals of concern, banning known hazardous chemical groupings, and phasing out harmful plastic products. The plastic crisis is a health crisis. Once we accept the issue is not just litter but so much more, then we see the real need for a strong treaty. 

Any agreement needs an independent scientific panel to govern these measures, ensuring that science-backed regulation remains central to the treaty’s provisions. 

Will INC-5.2 be able to establish a meaningful treaty? 
Sutherland: While there is a great deal of pessimism around the treaty, the opportunity is significant — we’re at a tipping point where industry economics are aligning with environmental necessity. 

The main challenge remains political will rather than business resistance. Many companies are actually crying out for certainty in a world of patchwork regulations. A unified framework would allow for businesses to reduce their plastic usage across borders and an established set of rules on chemicals of concern or reduction targets would bring standardization that many would welcome, and therefore presents an opportunity. 

Plastic already poses a US$100 billion annual risk to global businesses by 2040, with near-term liabilities exceeding US$20 billion in the US alone between 2022 and 2030. A recent Lancet report has found that it is responsible for at least US$1.5 trillion a year in health-related damages. So if lobbyists are concerned about protecting profits, they should look at the impact of plastic.

What have the treaty talks established so far, ahead of INC-5.2?
Sutherland: The majority of nations at INC-5 in Ottawa, Canada, came to an agreement on a broad range of progressive measures. Such measures included caps on the production of virgin plastic and chemicals of concern being banned from use in the material. 

However, ever-present attempts from Big Oil and its grouping of lobbyists, including Saudi Arabia and China, at negotiations have put the brakes on an agreement, INC-5.2 being a result of the failure to ratify a treaty. But the past negotiations should not be seen as a failure. There is consensus globally that action needs to be taken, and regulation is rising on a state level as a result. I hope that we now see the barrier to unified action removed.

Is the packaging industry moving away from plastic?
Sutherland: Absolutely. The transformation is happening not because companies have suddenly developed environmental consciences, but because they’ve done the calculations. Plastic is becoming an unaffordable material.

The key drivers are risk-based economics: mounting carbon taxes, EPR programs, or lawsuits are making plastic’s true costs visible. When producers must take full responsibility for their products’ entire lifecycle, choosing plastic becomes increasingly irrational.

What are some recent examples of the industry shifting away from single-use plastic?
Sutherland: Unilever’s acquisition of refillable deodorant brand Wild — reportedly worth £230 million (~US$307 million) — represents one of the most significant sustainable packaging investments to date, signalling a fundamental bet on the refill, non-plastic economy. 

Major supermarkets in the UK have also recently pledged to move away from single-use plastic to refill systems. Investment in truly circular materials — those that can return safely to natural ecosystems — is accelerating across the innovation pipeline.

Is the UK government supporting more sustainable material innovation?
Sutherland: Since coming into power, the Labour Party has taken a step forward in setting in motion an imminent implementation of an EPR scheme and a long-awaited DRS. But these measures are the bare minimum, and as we have seen, recycling alone does not work. 

The government, conscious of not being “anti-business,” may drag its feet on substantive change, but its fears are misplaced. In the past weeks, the EFRA Committee members called for the UK to take a lead in negotiations following its inquiry on the treaty. They echoed A Plastic Planet and other testimonies, urging the government to “do everything possible to convince parties to include targets on reducing production and not accept a compromised agreement which lacks this element.”

They also recommended robust provisions on chemicals of concern, banning known hazardous chemical groupings, and phasing out harmful plastic products — with substitutes held to the same standards. Crucially, the committee recommended that an independent scientific panel govern these measures, emphasising that science-backed regulation must be central to any agreement. 

The UK parliament has given its recommendations, scientists and campaigners have provided a comprehensive bank of evidence, and business is on the move. The government has a script from which it can be a leader at the negotiations in Geneva and at home, with the Defra Circular Economy Taskforce set to publish its strategy in Autumn.