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

International Monetary Fund paper suggests CBDCs could turn society cashless

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

‘Transgender’ males have 51% higher death rate than general population: study

Red Deer / 36 mins ago

Scott Robinson and the Red Deer District Chamber of Commerce agree to part ways

conflict / 3 hours ago

Despite shaky start, ceasefire shows signs of holding

Red Deer

Scott Robinson and the Red Deer District Chamber of Commerce agree to part ways

Published on June 24, 2025

Todayville

The Red Deer District Chamber announces a change in executive leadership, effective June 19, 2025. Following discussions the Red Deer District Chamber Board of Directors and Scott Robinson have agreed to part ways. This decision reflects a mutual agreement that new leadership is needed to guide the organization into its next chapter.

As part of this transition, Chamber President Mike Szyszka will assume the role of Interim Chief Executive Officer. This interim appointment will ensure continuity of leadership and provide operational stability while the Board initiates the process to recruit a new permanent CEO.

Szyszka, a longtime Chamber member of over 17 years and current Board President in his second consecutive term, is a respected local business owner with deep roots in Central Alberta’s business community. In keeping with Chamber policy, he will serve in this interim capacity on a volunteer basis as an act of service to the organization.

“Our focus is on supporting our staff, members, and partners through this transition while reaffirming our commitment to the mission and values that have guided the Chamber for over a century,” said Szyszka. “We remain dedicated to advancing the interests of our business community and
strengthening the Chamber’s long-standing role as a champion for economic development in Central Alberta.”

The Board has struck a hiring committee that will lead the search for new leadership. Updates regarding this process will be shared in the weeks ahead. The Chamber would like to thank all stakeholders for their continued support as we move through this period of change.

Business

Potential For Abuse Embedded In Bill C-5

Published on June 24, 2025

Todayville

From the National Citizens Coalition

By Peter Coleman

“The Liberal government’s latest economic bill could cut red tape — or entrench central planning and ideological pet projects.”

On the final day of Parliament’s session before its September return, and with Conservative support, the Liberal government rushed through Bill C-5, ambitiously titled “One Canadian Economy: An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act.”

Beneath the lofty rhetoric, the bill aims to dismantle interprovincial trade barriers, enhance labour mobility, and streamline infrastructure projects. In principle, these are worthy goals. In a functional economy, free trade between provinces and the ability of workers to move without bureaucratic roadblocks would be standard practice. Yet, in Canada, decades of entrenched Liberal and Liberal-lite interests, along with red tape, have made such basics a pipe dream.

If Bill C-5 is indeed wielded for good, and delivers by cutting through this morass, it could unlock vast, wasted economic potential. For instance, enabling pipelines to bypass endless environmental challenges and the usual hand-out seeking gatekeepers — who often demand their cut to greenlight projects — would be a win. But here’s where optimism wanes, this bill does nothing to fix the deeper rot of Canada’s Laurentian economy: a failing system propped up by central and upper Canadian elitism and cronyism. Rather than addressing these structural flaws of non-competitiveness, Bill C-5 risks becoming a tool for the Liberal government to pick more winners and losers, funneling benefits to pet progressive projects while sidelining the needs of most Canadians, and in particular Canada’s ever-expanding missing middle-class.

Worse, the bill’s broad powers raise alarms about government overreach. Coming from a Liberal government that recently fear-mongered an “elbows up” emergency to conveniently secure an electoral advantage, this is no small concern. The lingering influence of eco-radicals like former Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, still at the cabinet table, only heightens suspicion. Guilbeault and his allies, who cling to fantasies like eliminating gas-powered cars in a decade, could steer Bill C-5’s powers toward ideological crusades rather than pragmatic economic gains. The potential for emergency powers embedded in this legislation to be misused is chilling, especially from a government with a track record of exploiting crises for political gain – as they also did during Covid.

For Bill C-5 to succeed, it requires more than good intentions. It demands a seismic shift in mindset, and a government willing to grow a spine, confront far-left, de-growth special-interest groups, and prioritize Canada’s resource-driven economy and its future over progressive pipe dreams. The Liberals’ history under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, marked by economic mismanagement and job-killing policies, offers little reassurance. The National Citizens Coalition views this bill with caution, and encourages the public to remain vigilant. Any hint of overreach, of again kowtowing to hand-out obsessed interests, or abuse of these emergency-like powers must be met with fierce scrutiny.

Canadians deserve a government that delivers results, not one that manipulates crises or picks favourites. Bill C-5 could be a step toward a freer, stronger economy, but only if it’s wielded with accountability and restraint, something the Liberals have failed at time and time again. We’ll be watching closely. The time for empty promises is over; concrete action is what Canadians demand.

Let’s hope the Liberals don’t squander this chance. And let’s hope that we’re wrong about the potential for disaster.

Peter Coleman is the President of the National Citizens Coalition, Canada’s longest-serving conservative non-profit advocacy group.