The ESG Shell Game Behind The U.S. Plastics Pact

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jack McPherrin and H. Sterling Burnett

In recent years, corporate coalitions have increasingly taken center stage in environmental policymaking, often through public-private partnerships aligned with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals that promise systemic change.

One of the most prominent examples is the U.S. Plastics Pact (USPP). At first glance, the USPP may appear to some as a promising solution for reducing plastic pollution. But in practice, it has encouraged companies to make changes that are more cosmetic than environmental—and in some cases, actively counterproductive—while increasing their control over the market.

The USPP, launched in 2020, consists of more than 850 companies, non-profits, research institutions, government agencies, and other entities working together to create a new “circular economy for plastics.” Dozens of major retailers and consumer goods companies—including Coca-Cola, Danone, Kraft Heinz, Target, and Unilever—have signed on as “Activators,” pledging to eliminate certain plastics, shift to recyclable packaging, and increase the use of recycled plastics.

Yet, rather than curbing plastic production or reducing waste, the USPP has led many companies to simply transition from polystyrene to polyethylene terephthalate (PET). This shift has been encouraged by claims that PET is more widely recyclable, easier to sort, and better aligned with existing U.S. recycling infrastructure.

However, polystyrene is more moldable, is recyclable, and has insulation properties that PET doesn’t. In addition, PET is approximately 30 percent heavier than polystyrene, meaning more material is required for the same functional use. Moreover, PET requires more energy and is more expensive to produce than polystyrene. And PET’s denser packaging increases transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and raises costs even more—though these higher costs don’t bother USPP participants, as they simply pass them on to consumers.

Only 5 to 6 percent of all plastics in the United States are recycled. Even for PET products, the overall recycling rate remains low. Just one-third of PET bottles are recycled, while the recycling rate for many other PET products such as thermoforms is less than 10 percent. Most PET products end up in landfills.

This ineffective, costly, and counterproductive shift was not accidental. It reflects the broader incentives baked into ESG scoring systems that reward superficial compliance over substantive outcomes.

ESG frameworks reward companies financially and reputationally for achieving certain narrow targets such as reductions in single-use plastics or increases in the use of packaging that is technically recyclable. However, these metrics often fail to accurately assess total plastic use in a product’s lifecycle, associated emissions, and real-world recovery. A package that uses more plastic and energy—and therefore generates more emissions—may still earn high sustainability marks, so long as the plastic is recyclable in theory. This is a textbook example of greenwashing.

A closer look at the USPP reveals that some of the world’s top plastic users and producers—Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé—are among the Pact’s strongest backers. These corporations, which produce billions of PET containers per year, benefit substantially from signing onto agreements such as the USPP, adopting ESG standards, and pledging support for various green goals—even if they do not deliver any green results. In fact, a 2022 report found that a large majority of retail signatories to the USPP actually increased their consumption of virgin plastic from 2020 to 2021.

Many of these same companies fund the non-profit that organized the USPP: the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. This creates a feedback loop in which large companies shape sustainability standards to their own advantage, defining which materials are “acceptable,” reaping the rewards of ESG compliance, and marginalizing smaller firms that lack the resources to adapt.

For example, by promoting PET as the preferred packaging material, the USPP conveniently reinforces the existing supply chains of these multinational bottlers, while sidelining other materials such as polystyrene that may be more cost-efficient and suitable for specific applications. Smaller manufacturers, who can’t easily switch packaging or absorb the added costs, are effectively squeezed out of the marketplace.

The USPP has not built a circular economy. Rather, it has constructed a closed circle of corporate sponsors that gain reputational boosts and higher ESG scores on the backs of consumers, despite increasing energy and plastics use.

The USPP unites ESG financiers, government agencies, nonprofits, and the largest corporate polluters in a mutually beneficial arrangement. This system rewards compliance, deflects scrutiny, manipulates public trust, eliminates free-market competition, stifles innovation, and increases costs to consumers—all while creating more waste.

Policymakers and consumers alike must recognize that ESG-aligned coalitions such as the U.S. Plastics Pact are nothing more than corporate lobbying groups disguised as sustainability initiatives. They do not improve environmental quality, but they do profit immensely from the illusion of doing so.

Jack McPherrin ([email protected]) is a Research Fellow for the Glenn C. Haskins Emerging Issues Center and H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., ([email protected]) is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, both at The Heartland Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

Up Next

The WHO Pandemic Treaty could strip Canada of its ability to make its own health decisions

Don't Miss

Alberta’s industrial carbon tax freeze is a good first step

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump warns Russia not to give Iran nukes after US bombing run

Business / 3 hours ago

Trump reins in oil markets with one Truth Social post

International / 3 hours ago

Iran targets U.S. military in Qatar, attacks thwarted

Business

Trump reins in oil markets with one Truth Social post

Published on June 23, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Trump on Monday warned oil producers not to raise prices in the wake of U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, cautioning that a spike would benefit America’s enemies. “EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I’M WATCHING!”

Key Details:

Trump posted on Truth Social: “YOU’RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. DON’T DO IT!”
Oil prices fell after the post, with Brent Crude and West Texas Intermediate both slipping by about one percent following earlier gains driven by Middle East tensions.
In a follow-up message, Trump told the Department of Energy: “DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!”

pic.twitter.com/7Y1VRpxrog

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 23, 2025

Diving Deeper:

President Donald Trump issued a blunt warning to oil producers Monday morning following a weekend of U.S. military action against Iran, urging them to keep prices under control amid rising geopolitical tensions. His message, posted on Truth Social, was clear and emphatic: “EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I’M WATCHING! YOU’RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. DON’T DO IT!”

The timing of the post was significant. Over the weekend, U.S. forces struck three major Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—in a bold escalation that raised fears of a broader regional conflict and potential threats to global energy infrastructure. Initial market reactions were swift, with Brent Crude jumping over 5 percent and briefly breaking above $81 a barrel. West Texas Intermediate followed, climbing to its highest level since January.

However, after Trump’s post circulated Monday, both benchmarks began to pull back, each falling by about one percent. Traders appeared to interpret Trump’s comments as a call for restraint, especially as domestic producers weigh output decisions amid a softening price environment and a looser global supply picture.

While Trump didn’t name names, his message seemed clearly aimed at American oil companies, some of which have recently floated the possibility of scaling back production due to lower margins. Meanwhile, OPEC+ continues its efforts to bring previously curtailed output back online, further complicating the global supply-demand dynamic.

In a second post, Trump added: “To The Department of Energy: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!”

Despite the military flare-up, markets have largely stabilized, suggesting that investors are waiting to see how Iran will respond. Tehran’s parliament has called for the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil shipping, but such a move would require the approval of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

For now, traders appear cautious but unconvinced that supply routes will be disrupted in the immediate term. Trump, however, has made it clear that if oil producers try to capitalize on the crisis by raising prices, he’ll be watching—and he won’t be quiet.

Banks

Scrapping net-zero commitments step in right direction for Canadian Pension Plan

Published on June 23, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

And in January, all of Canada’s six largest banks quit the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, an alliance formerly led by Mark Carney (before he resigned to run for leadership of the Liberal Party) that aimed to align banking activities with net-zero emissions by 2050.

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) has cancelled its commitment, established just three years ago, to transition to net-zero emissions by 2050. According to the CPPIB, “Forcing alignment with rigid milestones could lead to investment decisions that are misaligned with our investment strategy.”

This latest development is good news. The CPPIB, which invest the funds Canadians contribute to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), has a fiduciary duty to Canadians who are forced to pay into the CPP and who rely on it for retirement income. The CPPIB’s objective should not be climate activism or other environmental or social concerns, but risk-adjusted financial returns. And as noted in a broad literature review by Steven Globerman, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, there’s a lack of consistent evidence that pursuing ESG (environmental, social and governance) objectives helps improve financial returns.

Indeed, as economist John Cochrane pointed out, it’s logically impossible for ESG investing to achieve social or environmental goals while also improving financial returns. That’s because investors push for these goals by supplying firms aligned with these goals with cheaper capital. But cheaper capital for the firm is equivalent to lower returns for the investor. Therefore, “if you don’t lose money on ESG investing, ESG investing doesn’t work,” Cochrane explained. “Take your pick.”

The CPPIB is not alone among financial institutions abandoning environmental objectives in recent months. In April, Canada’s largest company by market capitalization, RBC, announced it will cancel its sustainable finance targets and reduce its environmental disclosures due to new federal rules around how companies make claims about their environmental performance.

And in January, all of Canada’s six largest banks quit the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, an alliance formerly led by Mark Carney (before he resigned to run for leadership of the Liberal Party) that aimed to align banking activities with net-zero emissions by 2050. Shortly before Canada’s six largest banks quit the initiative, the six largest U.S. banks did the same.

There’s a second potential benefit to the CPPIB cancelling its net-zero commitment. Now, perhaps with the net-zero objective out of the way, the CPPIB can rein in some of the administrative and management expenses associated with pursuing net-zero.

As Andrew Coyne noted in a recent commentary, the CPPIB has become bloated in the past two decades. Before 2006, the CPP invested passively, which meant it invested Canadians’ money in a way that tracked market indexes. But since switching to active investing, which includes picking stocks and other strategies, the CPPIB ballooned from 150 employees and total costs of $118 million to more than 2,100 employees and total expenses (before taxes and financing) of more than $6 billion.

This administrative ballooning took place well before the rise of environmentally-themed investing or the CPPIB’s announcement of net-zero targets, but the net-zero targets didn’t help. And as Coyne noted, the CPPIB’s active investment strategy in general has not improved financial returns either.

On the contrary, since switching to active investing the CPPIB has underperformed the index to a cumulative tune of about $70 billion, or nearly one-tenth of its current fund size. “The fund’s managers,” Coyne concluded, “have spent nearly two decades and a total of $53-billion trying to beat the market, only to produce a fund that is nearly 10-per-cent smaller than it would be had they just heaved darts at the listings.”

Scrapping net-zero commitments won’t turn that awful track record around overnight. But it’s finally a step in the right direction.