Primary plastic polymers: Urgently needed upstream reduction - Volume 2

While diffusion patterns are quite well understood in the context of the Global North, diffusion research has only been applied to a limited extent to investigate how policies spread across developing countries. In this article, we therefore analyze the diffusion patterns of plastic bag bans and plastic bag taxes in the Global South and Global North to contribute to the further refinement of diffusion theory by specifically addressing the under-researched Global South. Moreover, with an in-depth investigation of plastic bag policies through the lens of diffusion research, the article provides insights in the rather new and still underexplored policy field of plastic pollution. We find that industrialized countries have mostly adopted plastic bag taxes, while developing countries have mainly introduced plastic bag bans and thus more stringent legislation than countries in the Global North. So far, the key driving force for the diffusion of plastic bag policies in the Global North has been the global public pressure. In the Global South, where plastic bag litter is much more visible and harmful due to limited waste collection and recycling rates, national problem pressure has been much more influential.

Few other environmental problems have received as much public attention and criticism in recent years as plastic pollution. Accordingly, in recent years, a number of plastic policies have been adopted at the national and supranational level in the EU and worldwide. In the U.S., health risks were repeatedly raised in the decision-making process of these policies and scholars have pointed out the crucial role of these arguments for the adoption of plastic policies. Hence, this article uses a structuring qualitative content analysis to investigate the parliamentary debates of two recently adopted plastic policies in the EU—namely the EU Plastics Strategy and the Single-Use Plastics Directive—and to assess the relevance of public health and environmental arguments for the EU debate. The analysis reveals broad support for plastics regulation among Members of the European Parliament, who most often use environmental arguments to corroborate their support for the policies in question. In contrast, health concerns do not seem to be crucial for the adoption of plastic policies in the EU.

With the ongoing negotiations for an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, and the frustration at the end of Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-3), analyzing the zero draft text, which formed the basis for this negotiation round, is crucial. This analysis examines to what extent the zero draft conveys a clear problem definition as the foundation for an internationally legally binding instrument on plastic pollution. We find that the draft lacks a clear problem definition. Additionally, we investigate how the zero draft balances the focus between marine environments and other affected areas and discusses the implications for governance strategies. We find that the draft focuses particularly on fishing gear and hence has a downstream perspective, while upstream measures are equally important. Furthermore, this study delves into the key motivations driving the treaty negotiations, revealing that health and environmental concerns predominate. In comparing our results with previous research, we align with recent publications analyzing INC submissions and onsite statements. In addition, we identify significant differences in key motivations to tackle the plastic pollution issues between the EU and the international level. These disparities, evident in how health and economic arguments are prioritized, reflect varied approaches to combating plastic pollution across political spheres.

One of the fundamental challenges for the UN plastics treaty is to shift the current linear plastic economy into a more circular plastic economy. Transitioning to a circular plastic economy requires a profound transformation of socio-technical systems, and research suggests that disruptive policies must simultaneously destabilize the entrenched linear system and cultivate a new regime that supports circular business models. A major barrier to this transformation lies in the artificially low cost of primary plastics, maintained by substantial subsidies for fossil fuels and plastic production. These subsidies, alongside the failure to internalize negative externalities – such as extensive health impacts and environmental damage – mask the true cost of plastic use, thereby undermining the economic case for innovation in sustainable alternatives. The upcoming UN plastics treaty presents a unique opportunity to realign market incentives and drive the necessary transition toward a circular, regenerative plastic economy.