By narrowing the conversation to waste management, the industry avoids addressing the root cause of plastic pollution: overproduction.
As the world faces the growing crisis of plastic overconsumption and waste, extended producer responsibility (EPR) has emerged as a vital policy framework to mitigate the environmental impact of plastic pollution. The concept of EPR, first introduced in 1990, has become a globally recognised principle that mandates producers to take responsibility for the entire lifespan of their products, including the collection, recycling and disposal of their packaging. The goal is to ensure companies are financially and legally accountable for the waste their products generate.
In India, EPR covers various waste streams, including e-waste, plastic, batteries and used oil. The Plastic Waste Management (PWM) Rules were introduced in 2016 and updated in 2022, when the Union environment ministry issued EPR guidelines for plastic packaging. However, its implementation has been slow despite the framework being in place.
Industry Resistance to Responsibility
While EPR aims to hold producers accountable for post-consumer plastic waste, industry players have consistently resisted fulfilling this responsibility. A key issue is the mandatory use of 30% recycled plastic in beverage bottles made from Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), effective from April 1, 2025. As the deadline approached, calls for an extension became louder, with some even threatening legal action, citing inadequate infrastructure and insufficient recycling capacity. However, as of April 2025, there has been no clear word from either the government or the industry on whether they have complied with this guideline.
This resistance highlights a fundamental issue: despite over a decade of discussions and guidance, the industry has failed to implement the necessary systems to meet government-set targets. This failure stems not from a lack of resources, but from the industry’s reluctance to take responsibility and the government’s inability to enforce accountability.
The industry has long promoted plastic as a “miracle material,” arguing against restrictions and emphasising its recyclability. They invested heavily in marketing campaigns to convince consumers and policymakers that recycling alone could solve the plastic waste crisis. However, the industry’s lack of action on EPR, despite years of awareness and guidance, questions their commitment to sustainability. With multiple avenues for compliance – such as deposit return schemes, partnerships with waste-picker organisations, or even reverting to reusable glass bottles – the industry has failed to take decisive action.
Delay, distract, derail
The industry’s approach to delaying and derailing EPR progress is troubling. Tactics like lobbying against stronger regulations, citing insufficient infrastructure, high costs and logistical challenges aim to buy time and shift responsibility. While some concerns are valid, they are often exaggerated to protect industry interests and delay compliance.
The Talking Trash report by the Changing Markets Foundation shows how plastic producers consistently lobby against regulations, focusing on the complexity and cost of compliance to distract from the core issue: their reluctance to take responsibility for the waste they create.
Additionally, many companies make ambitious yet unscientific sustainability commitments that often amount to greenwashing. For example, companies like Unilever and Nestlé set flexible plastic reduction targets that lack transparency and independent verification, undermining any lasting impact. Instead of investing in real solutions like improving recycling systems or shifting to sustainable alternatives, companies focus on diversion tactics. They push for more government investment in infrastructure, shifting the burden to the public sector, and sponsor corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives like beach cleanups to divert attention from the need to redesign packaging.
By narrowing the conversation to waste management, the industry avoids addressing the root cause of plastic pollution: overproduction. The Talking Trash report reveals how producers downplay the need for systemic change, favouring incremental improvements to waste management, which fail to tackle the core issue. Through these tactics, the industry has maintained the status quo, where the responsibility for managing plastic waste continues to fall on public authorities rather than the producers.
The need for stronger industry accountability
It is time for stronger accountability and enforcement mechanisms to ensure the industry meets its obligations under the EPR framework. While the government has established the foundation for EPR implementation, its success depends largely on industry compliance. However, the industry’s track record of resistance and non-compliance indicates that voluntary measures and guidelines have failed, given the lobbying tactics of corporations.
It is critical to recognise that the industry’s historical behaviour – shifting from reusable glass bottles to single-use plastics (SUPs), investing in misleading narratives about recycling, and opposing regulations – is directly responsible for the current waste crisis. Companies like Coca-Cola, which made the decision to abandon refillable glass bottles in favour of SUP-based packaging, have played a significant role in the plastic pollution crisis. Their decision not only transferred the environmental burden to public waste systems but also led to massive job losses in collection of reusable glass bottles and refilling operations.
Now, with the deadline for mandatory rPET in beverage bottles approaching, the industry’s delay tactics must no longer be tolerated. The government must take a firm stance, enforce existing regulations, and ensure that the industry fulfills its EPR obligations. This includes holding companies accountable for failing to build infrastructure and invest in sustainable packaging alternatives.
Moreover, the global community must advocate for an international agreement on reducing plastic production. A global plastic treaty would provide a framework for decreasing plastic production and consumption, preventing the industry from continuing business-as-usual practices that rely on waste management instead of addressing overproduction. Industry lobbies should not be allowed to dictate the terms of the conversation, especially when their actions have contributed to the environmental crisis.
Towards meaningful change
The fight against plastic pollution is not just about waste management – it is about addressing the root causes of overproduction and unsustainable consumption. If properly enforced, EPR can drive the changes needed to reduce plastic use and increase recycling. However, this requires collective action from both the government and the industry to create lasting solutions.
It is time for the industry to stop hiding behind lobbying tactics and excuses. They must be held accountable for their role in the plastic waste crisis. Only through stronger regulations, better enforcement and a genuine commitment to sustainability can we hope to reverse the damage caused by plastic pollution and move toward a circular economy.
This article was originally published in The Wire and can be read here.