THE LIABILITIES OF A BUSINESS MODEL BASED ON SINGLE-USE PLASTIC ARE ABOUT TO BECOME PAINFULLY CLEAR
We expect Big Plastic – Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle, Unilever…. – to face a wave of legal challenges that will last for perhaps a decade and leave their reputations tarnished and their market valuations substantially reduced.
Core elements of the case against Big Plastic will be:
-
The harm their products do
-
Their deceit in promoting plastic as recyclable when they knew it wasn’t
Here’s a quick look at each.
The Case For Harm
A full accounting of the harm plastics causes —and will continue to cause — is slowly emerging.
A first and well-established point is the scale of the problem. In 2018
National Geographic summarized findings of a study that found 8.3 billion metric tons of plastic had been produced, of which 6.3 billion metric tons has become plastic waste, and of which just 9% has been recycled and 12% incinerated.
Since it’s a more likely vector to human harm, the amount of plastic in the marine environment is significant. This is estimated at 150 million metric tons with another 8 million to 20 million tons of plastic entering oceans annually.
Today, microplastics are abundant in human water supplies and many food sources. The average person is thought to ingest about 5 grams of plastic a week —roughly the equivalent of a credit card.
Scientific evidence of harm to humans is currently unclear but concern is widespread. For example, an
article entitled 'Microplastic pollution ‘number one threat’ to humankind' pointed out that:
“…chemicals in plastic have triggered rising levels of abnormal development and illnesses over the past five decades, ranging from stunted fertility and male/female sex malformations to obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart attacks and cognitive, behavioural and other brain-related problems such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity (ADH).”
While evidence is currently lacking, it seems a pretty good bet that it’s only a matter of time before harm is established. Proof of even a small impairment to human health could create a massive liability given the scale and scope of the pollution.
One critical point is that plastics will endure for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years: this damage comes as an annuity.
Harm beyond human health is currently clearer to establish. For example, plastic pollution threatens tourism, recreation, and fishing industries. Earth Island Institute alleges ‘global losses from all industries afflicted by marine pollution’ are about $13 billion annually.
The Case For Deceit
The essence of the deceit case is that CPGs are fully aware that for the most part its plastic packaging does not get recycled, yet persists in labelling it ‘Recyclable’.
A February 2020 report by
Greenpeace looked into the recycling infrastructure in the US. Based on a comprehensive survey of plastic product waste collection, sortation and reprocessing in the country, it found that only some PET #1 and HDPE #2 plastic bottles and jugs can be legitimately labeled as 'recyclable' in the US today. Similar situations exist in other countries.
In the US, there is a near absence of recycling capability for #3-7, making fallacious any claim these plastics are recyclable.
Plastic #3-7 waste collected in municipal systems across the country is being sent to landfills or incinerated.
Greenpeace says
“Companies that make “recyclable” claims in marketing materials or on products may face liability from consumers as well as from the FTC for misrepresentation and need to ensure that the claims are accurate and not deceptive or misleading.”
For plastic #1 and #2 the situation is better but not sufficient to make a full recyclable claim. Capacity of all US based recycling facilities is only 22.5% of the PET#1 plastic waste generated and the domestic processing capacity for HDPE#2 plastic waste is only 12% of the waste generated.
A compounding problem for the reputation of CPGs is the very low rates of recycled plastic in its packaging. For Unilever, for example, 99% of its plastic packaging comes from virgin plastic.
It is, choose your verb, deceitful, unethical, shameful, that companies will tout its packaging as recyclable or encourage consumers to “Check locally’ for recycling options when there is no prospect of the plastic going anywhere other than landfill or the ocean.
Consumers will not react well when they learn the extent to which they’ve been duped.
Lawsuits Are Here
Its early days but the lawsuits against Big Plastic are already starting to mount. Here are a couple:
Keurig Green Mountain
A class action
lawsuit on recyclable claims on single use plastic products is currently pending against Keurig Green Mountain in US Federal District Court. The plaintiff, Kathleen Smith, alleges that Keurig’s:
“recyclable” single-serve plastic coffee pods were mislabeled as such because they are not in fact recyclable, due to their size, composition, and a lack of a market to reuse the pods.
In June 2019, the District Court denied Keurig’s motion to dismiss the case and in October 2019 the case moved to Discovery phase.
In a possible early indication, the judge rejected Keurig's argument that it followed Federal Trade Commission requirements for such labels,
saying:
"if a product is rendered non-recyclable because of its size or its components -- even if the product's composite materials are recyclable -- then labeling the product as recyclable would constitute deceptive marketing."
Earth Island
In a
lawsuit filed February 26, 2020, Earth Island seeks to hold major food, beverage, and consumer goods companies accountable for plastic pollution. The lawsuit cites Crystal Geyser Water Company, The Clorox Company, The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo Inc., Mars, Incorporated, Danone North America, Mondelez International, INC., Colgate-Palmolive Company, The Procter & Gamble Company and Doe defendants 1 through 25, which will be named later (see image).
The lawsuit includes public nuisance, breach of warranty, and negligence claims, among others. It argues these companies are responsible for their knowing contribution to public harms and simultaneous effort to obscure those harms and deflect blame.
More Lawsuits Coming: Big Plastic Will Join Big Tobacco
A comparison to Big Tobacco felt a little ridiculous a year or so ago but today it looks informative. The harm tobacco caused emerged only slowly and was initially denied, then downplayed. The industry used a range of tactics from misdirection, misinformation and plain falsehoods to evade culpability, and for many years it worked.
It’s similar for plastics. It was once seen as an unsightly nuisance but slowly the harm it causes is getting clear. Each piece of plastic may be insignificant but taken together and over the years its impact is widespread and massive. Earth Island Institute says “The gravity of the potential harms caused by plastic packaging is extreme.”
It’s far from clear what legal culpability and financial liability Big Plastic will ultimately face, if any.
But it seems certain the reputations of these consumer-facing companies will be severely damaged. It may well be that they emerge as too tarnished to thrive. These consumer-focused companies will face an awkward challenge in lawyering-up against cases the public vehemently supports.
We have been arguing for some time that the best defense and opportunity for these companies is to assertively move to sustainable solutions. Opportunities exist but thus far corporate action has been slow and disappointing.
[Image Credit: © Earth Island Institute]