SUP bans in the Philippines

The Philippines is cited as a key source of plastic pollution in oceans (Jambeck et al Reference Jambeck, Geyer, Wilcox, Siegler, Perryman, Andrady, Narayan and Law2015). Annually, some 16.5 billion translucent plastic bags (known locally as labo), 17.5 billion disposable shopping bags, and 60 billion sachets are produced, consumed, and thrown away as residual waste. This is waste which cannot be composted or recycled, thus ends up in landfills or waterways (Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives [GAIA] 2019). Residual waste, of which SUP forms a significant amount, represents 18% of total waste in the Philippines. In comparison, organic waste comprises 52% of total waste, and recyclable waste represents 28% (Alegado Reference Alegado2020). Therefore, the plastic problem in the country is severe, and effective action is imperative (Gomez et al Reference Gomez, Cragg, Ghiglione and Onda2023; Rhodes Reference Rhodes2018; Varca Reference Varca2012).

The 489 cities and towns that have enacted local SUP bans comprise some 30% of the total number of local governments (Department of the Interior and Local Government 2025). Local bans have been driven by efforts to mitigate waste and flooding (Garcia Reference Garcia2022). Yet, these local ordinances have been found to be inadequate in resolving the problem of plastic pollution (GAIA 2020). For example, although the SUP ban in Toledo City had a positive impact, the nearby Metro Cebu had no similar regulation, which created limitations in enforcement (Genon et al Reference Genon, Mabunay, Opsima, Zamora, Repaso and Sasan2022). The well-documented model of San Fernando City transitioned over the course of a year to a full ban in 2015. Strict enforcement and robust awareness raising led to a substantial decline in the use of plastic bags and a compliance rate of 85%. In contrast, Quezon City implemented a selective ban, which resulted in 12 times the plastic bag use compared to San Fernando (GAIA 2020). The absence of a national ban puts the burden on local government to manage the issue with more limited resources (Alegado Reference Alegado2020). The challenges of implementing local SUP bans bear similarities to the challenge of enforcing the law on solid waste management. Lack of political will and contradictory policies of implementing government agencies have subverted the spirit of the law (Alegado Reference Alegado2020). The World Bank (2023, 70) noted that the solid waste management law is ‘barely enforced’.

Besides inconsistent enforcement by authorities, consumer behaviour also plays a role in undercutting local SUP bans. Sagala and others (Reference Sagala, Diaz, Arquiza, Bat-og, Balasan, Dolatre, Guarino, Paguntalan, Penaranda and Vergara2020) found that consumers in one village in Bacolod City continued to use SUP despite a ban. The households were aware of the ban but not the deleterious effects of plastic pollution. On the other hand, there has been broad popular support for alternatives to plastics, recycling of waste, and regulation of SUP (Social Weather Stations 2020), although business groups have mixed opinions at best. Organised employers opposed local bans initially, but a city-based chamber of commerce later came out in support (Banzon Reference Banzon2020; Desiderio Reference Desiderio2012). Two literature reviews, one focusing on Africa, found that perceptions of the negative impacts of plastic pollution informed positive attitudes and behaviour (Mugobo et al Reference Mugobo, Ntuli and Iwu2022; Tang Reference Tang2023). A global study by Seblos and others (Reference Seblos, Sangcap, Tabañag, Tapdasan, Ocampo and Paño2023) also observed that a lack of information was among the challenges faced by anti-SUP initiatives in schools. These suggest that awareness of the impact of pollution as well as of initiatives to mitigate plastic use are relevant sociocultural barriers to climate action. Further, these affirm the significance of information dissemination as a lever for just transition in the Global South (Tume and Tanyanyiwa Reference Tume and Tanyanyiwa2018).

South and Southeast Asia are similarly challenged (Goh et al Reference Goh, Yap, Neo, Koo, Madhavan, Suwandi, Lew, Khoo and Tan2025), but some countries have already gone beyond the Philippines in enforcing SUP bans. For example, Jakarta prohibited plastic bags in 2020 (Kahfi Reference Kahfi2020), and by the end of 2029 Indonesia will have totally banned SUP (Rayda Reference Rayda2023). Thailand did so in 2021 (Bangkok Post 2020).

Despite the challenges of implementation, the surge of local SUP bans in the early 2010s led to firms reporting reduced sales, job losses, and even closure of small firms (Asuncion Reference Asuncion2012). The result of such previous qualitative studies needs to be compared with this study’s quantitative findings.

Workers’ perceptions of the transition

The role of labour (Healy and Barry Reference Healy and Barry2017; Moilanen and Alasoini Reference Moilanen and Alasoini2023; Prinz and Pegels Reference Prinz and Pegels2018) and workers’ perceptions of the green transition (Pai et al Reference Pai, Harrison and Zerriffi2020; Sicotte et al Reference Sicotte, Joyce and Hesse2022) are insufficiently studied. Instead, much of the literature about the transition focuses on the economic and technological challenges (de Ruyter and Bentley Reference de Ruyter and Bentley2024). Workers are usually perceived as climate sceptics and transition defiant due to fears of job losses and employment insecurity (Cha et al Reference Cha, Price, Stevis, Vachon, Brecher and Brecia-Weiler2021; Kortetmäki et al Reference Kortetmäki, Huttunen, Järvelä and Turunen2025; Räthzel and Uzzell Reference Räthzel and Uzzell2011). Coal miners are seen to resist change because of high wages and work stability in the mining sector (Baran et al Reference Baran, Szpor and Witajewski-Baltvilks2020).

Yet, many studies have also concluded that workers can be labour environmentalists (Abraham Reference Abraham2017; Hampton Reference Hampton2018; Sicotte et al Reference Sicotte, Joyce and Hesse2022). German and US coal miners accepted a just transition, but this was dependent on the scope of workers’ input into the process (Abraham Reference Abraham2017). Unions have also been found to be advocates for a just transition (Hampton Reference Hampton2018; Räthzel and Uzzell Reference Räthzel and Uzzell2011; Snell Reference Snell, Morena, Krause and Stevis2020). A more nuanced understanding conceives of unions as being for and against the green transition (Prinz and Pegels Reference Prinz and Pegels2018) and of workers’ perceptions as ranging from anxiety to indifference to hope (Kortetmäki et al Reference Kortetmäki, Huttunen, Järvelä and Turunen2025; Malmberg and van Veelen Reference Malmberg and van Veelen2025).

Among the factors that contribute to workers’ negative perceptions of the transition are previous experiences of restructuring, that have oftentimes led to layoffs and precarity (Cha et al Reference Cha, Price, Stevis, Vachon, Brecher and Brecia-Weiler2021; Malmberg and van Veelen Reference Malmberg and van Veelen2025), or ongoing energy transitions that worsen class disparities (Stark et al Reference Stark, Gale and Murphy-Gregory2023). These imply that safeguarding workers’ material interests and easing the costs of the transition are key in getting their support for the transition (Baran et al Reference Baran, Szpor and Witajewski-Baltvilks2020; Sicotte et al Reference Sicotte, Joyce and Hesse2022). Huber (Reference Huber2022) argues that workers can be won over to the cause of labour environmentalism or proletarian ecology by focusing on improvements in their living and working standards through a just transition. He contrasts this politics of material interests with the prevailing emphasis on a politics of scientific knowledge or awareness-raising on climate change. Thus, ensuring distributive and procedural justice is integral in the transition (Kortetmäki et al Reference Kortetmäki, Huttunen, Järvelä and Turunen2025; Lempinen et al Reference Lempinen, Parks and Korpikoski2025; Sicotte et al Reference Sicotte, Joyce and Hesse2022; Stark et al Reference Stark, Gale and Murphy-Gregory2023). In practical terms, provision for skills training has frequently been cited as a crucial element (Pai et al Reference Pai, Harrison and Zerriffi2020; Stark et al Reference Stark, Gale and Murphy-Gregory2023), especially for older and less educated workers (Kortetmäki et al Reference Kortetmäki, Huttunen, Järvelä and Turunen2025).

Reviewing the working conditions of SUP workers, including their occupational safety and health issues, is pertinent. Azoulay and others (Reference Azoulay, Villa, Arellano, Gordon, Moon, Miller and Thompson2019) report that there is a myriad of short- and long-term safety risks for workers in plastic factories, especially poisonous chemicals that cause cancer or disrupt the endocrine system. Women plastic workers are at risk due to exposure to chemicals that are linked to breast cancer and reproductive issues. Heating raw materials releases toxic chemicals whose effects may take years to be detected.

Evidently, workers’ attitudes and behaviours are factors in the outcome of the transition (Moilanen and Alasoini Reference Moilanen and Alasoini2023). Sociocultural, not just economic factors, need to be considered in winning over workers to the green transition (Janssen et al Reference Janssen, Beers and van Mierlo2022; Malmberg and van Veelen Reference Malmberg and van Veelen2025). In this respect, workers’ identities can be enablers or barriers to the development of labour environmentalism (Malmberg and van Veelen Reference Malmberg and van Veelen2025; McNamara Reference McNamara2024). Nonetheless, Sicotte and others (Reference Sicotte, Joyce and Hesse2022) observed that workers’ political identities were not determinants of their attitudes to the transition.

However, the literature on just transition and workers’ perceptions is skewed to the Global North, while clearly the parameters for the transition will be different for the Global South (Pai et al Reference Pai, Harrison and Zerriffi2020; Ramos-Mejíaa et al Reference Ramos-Mejíaa, Franco-Garcia and Jauregui-Becker2018). There appears to be an absence of research about the just transition for SUP workers in the Philippines, except for a single study by Amurao (Reference Amurao2019) that calculated the number of workers to be affected by a national SUP ban. This study responds to this literature gap while also updating the findings of Amurao temporally and methodologically to arrive at a more accurate measure of the employment impact of a national SUP ban.

Employment in the SUP Sector

As shown in Figure 1, there were 486 firms engaged mainly in the manufacture of SUP products as of 2018. Of these, 369 firms make plastic articles for packing goods, 87 produce plastic household wares, and 30 create primary plastic products. This means that the overwhelming number of SUP factories manufacture plastic boxes, bags, and sacks.

Figure 1. Firms and types of SUP products in 2018.

The total number of SUP firms slowly rose to 479 in 2014 and 2015, as can be seen in Figure 2. It then declined gradually but peaked at 486 in 2018. The number of SUP firms involved in the manufacture of packaging and primary plastic products followed this pattern. However, the number of SUP firms that made household wares rose in one year and then fell the next year.

Figure 2. Time series of type of firms.

Figure 3 shows that there were 32,462 workers employed in SUP firms as of 2018. Over two-thirds were men, with 21,424 (66%) male, and 11,038 (34%) female. There is an insignificant number of unpaid workers in the sector.

Figure 3. Employed workers in 2018.

The total number of employed workers in SUP enterprises has risen incrementally over time. As revealed in Figure 4, employment growth peaked in 2014 at 30,467 workers. After a slight fall, a rebound started in 2016 despite the drop in the number of SUP firms operating that year until 2017. The gender distribution of workers has generally remained unchanged over time, with male employees approximately double the number of female employees.

Figure 4. Times series of employed workers.

To recap, the trend from 2010 to 2018 was a rising number of SUP firms and employed workers. These findings contrast with the conclusion of Asuncion (Reference Asuncion2012) while affirming the literature on the limited impact of local SUP bans on the industry.

Figure 5 shows that out of the total number of individuals engaged in SUP firms, 21,446, or 74%, are production workers. A very small number, 43 people, are research and development personnel. The remainder, comprising 26% of personnel, presumably are supervisors, managers, and executives. Therefore, one in four people in the SUP sector hold supervisory or managerial positions, making them less vulnerable to economic shocks such as loss of livelihood compared to rank-and-file workers. This data pertains to 2017, not 2018. The 2018 data for this variable is incomparable to previous years, probably because it was a census, not a survey year.

Figure 5. Number of SUP industry workers according to type in 2017.

The distribution of workers across each type – production, research and development (R&D) personnel, and supervisory/managerial – has stayed similar over time as illustrated in Figure 6. Most workers were rank-and-file and engaged in production from 2012 to 2017. Very few workers were in R&D, which suggests challenges in innovation, signifying possible difficulties in shifting to ecologically sustainable alternatives. No data on the number of R&D personnel was available for 2010. The data for 2018 is not used due to incompatibility.

Figure 6. Time series of type of workers.

As noted above, the total figure of 32,462 workers in 486 SUP firms in 2018 is an overestimation, given the limitations of the PSA data. The workers most vulnerable to a national phaseout of SUP are the approximately 21,000 production workers. If the estimate of Amurao (Reference Amurao2019) of 24,600 workers is taken as the lower bound and the study’s finding of 32,462 is considered the upper limit, then the maximum margin of error is 24%. The actual error in the overestimation will be lower.

The SUP ban would also affect other workers who are engaged in the forward and backward linkages of SUP plants. The forward linkages of the SUP sector are myriad, from food to electronics. For example, plastic drinking straws produced by SUP factories are sold by wholesalers and retailers to various establishments, including restaurants, hotels, fast food chains, food carts, canteens, local eateries, street vendors, and numerous other outlets. In other words, the linkages span different sectors from industry to services. These linkages are in both the formal and informal economy and are spread out nationwide from cities to the farthest towns and villages.

It is very difficult to estimate the impact on employment in the forward linkages. Except for wholesalers exclusively trading in SUP products, the establishments found in the forward links are not tied to SUP products. They can easily find alternatives. For instance, large shopping malls painlessly transitioned out of plastic bags into reusable or paper bags, and their workers were not affected. Similarly, fast food chains shifted away from plastic straws and utensils. The transition from SUP would have an impact on the operational costs of firms in the forward linkages, but this impact would not be enough to result in mass layoffs.

In contrast, the backward linkages of the SUP sector – the midstream of the plastic industry – would feel the brunt of the loss of production due to a ban. The SUP ban would affect workers in factories making the resins that are the raw materials of SUP products. According to the preliminary data of the 2019 ASPBI, there were 9,428 workers engaged in the production of basic chemicals spread over 196 firms (PSA 2022).

A national SUP ban would, directly and indirectly, affect more than 41,000 workers in the upstream and downstream plastic industries. This will result in mass retrenchments and total loss of livelihood for some, or reduced working hours and decreased pay for others. These figures suggest the scale of the economic barriers to climate action.

Awareness of health risks

Workers are aware of the health and safety hazards of working in a plastic factory. They mention the extreme heat, foul odour, toxic chemicals, and dirty dust that pervade the shop floor.

Ana described the health risks as ‘side effects’ of working in a plastic firm. She and her workmates listed goitre, tuberculosis, and illnesses of the lungs and gallbladder as among the diseases prevalent in workers. According to Ana, ‘First of all, if you are not careful, the machines would indeed smell bad—the burning plastic. This is one of the causes of goitre. Some of our employees contracted goitre. What are their other illnesses?’ Her two workmates, Cathy and Betty, replied, ‘Those that affect the lungs and the gallbladder’.

Ana further described the dire situation:

Similarly, Danny of Company B stated:

Company B issues only gloves and uniforms as personal protective equipment (PPE). Workers buy their own face masks and safety shoes if they prefer to wear them. Meanwhile, the company gives masks to workers involved in painting. In contrast, Company A provides masks, gloves, laboratory gowns, and alcohol to workers. However, the respondents are unsure if the safety shoes worn by male workers are given for free, implying that most female workers do not wear them.

Eloy described the working conditions inside the Company C factory as too hot, with workers soaked in sweat despite the presence of exhaust fans and individual electric fans provided by the management. There are also fumes and steam due to the production process. According to Eloy, workers have experienced chest pains while working. Meanwhile, the available PPE for Company C workers are face masks, which are mandatory in all departments, as well as goggles and earplugs, but their availability depends on the section or department. However, Eloy commented that some workers take off their masks because wearing them complicates their work. He did not mention whether working conditions have led to occupational safety and health issues among the workers. He did say that at least one worker had spots in his lungs, but was unsure if this was a result of working in the factory.

Perspectives on plastic pollution

Respondents were aware of the pollution created by plastic and its deleterious impact on the environment. However, one respondent nuanced his opinion and showed ambivalence by placing the responsibility of the proper use and recycling of plastic on consumers.

Ana described the end-life of plastic as follows:

Similarly, Danny affirmed that:

In contrast, Eloy opined, ‘Plastic would not harm the environment if used correctly. Promote and allocate funds to recycling to reduce its harmful effects on the environment’.

Workers were also conscious of possible and existing technical fixes to the plastic problem. At one point, Cathy commented, ‘There are new types of plastic, they say, and they dissolve. Are they biodegradable?’ Interestingly, she did not compare these technological solutions to the regulatory instrument of a SUP ban. She later explained that one of their former coworkers found work in a factory that produced eco-bricks: ‘They grind those used bottles. Afterward, they make bricks. I learned this alternative. They grind plastic, and from these plastics, they would make bricks. A former coworker now works there’.

Views on SUP ban

The respondents’ initial opinions of the SUP ban span from opposition to acceptance. Corollary to this, they either believe that individual discipline is the answer to the problem of plastic pollution or think that a ban is a necessary regulatory solution.

Echoing the familiar argument that a ban leads to widespread loss of employment, Danny explained his opposition to a ban:

Danny insisted that if people were disciplined in throwing out their waste, the plastic would not end up destroying the environment. On this basis, there is no need for a regulation like a ban, he reasoned. He argued:

Echoing Danny’s sentiment, Eloy said, ‘Single-use plastic can be banned for dry goods, but wet markets should still be allowed to use them. But it is important to continue raising awareness and encouraging people to bring their own baskets’. He added, ‘But what would be a reason to reduce plastic production if plastic is the more effective container than other materials? People often use it every day’. Eloy was insistent about the grave impact of a SUP ban. ‘If production would be reduced, workers would earn less, and the plastic manufacturing industry would weaken’.

The union in Company B had discussed the SUP ban in one of their meetings, and it was resolved that they would oppose the proposal due to its employment impact. Danny related, ‘They do not agree with it. All union members disagree’. However, at one point during the interview, he said that most union members, but not all of them, opposed a SUP ban: ‘From what I remember, we discussed this in a union meeting. From our discussion, because we heard that plastic would be banned, most members disagreed’.

In contrast, Ana understood the reality of job losses resulting from banning SUP but acknowledged its necessity. According to her:

The two other Company A workers also agreed with Ana when prompted for their separate opinions. Cathy said, ‘If there is such a law, there should be options available to people who would be retrenched, right?’ Betty, referring to job replacement for the affected, said, ‘Indeed. We are humane’. It is worth noting that, when asked to clarify their opinions, their opinions on the SUP ban were without the benefit of discussion with environmental or labour advocates and campaigners. The three Company A respondents recognised the relevance of a ban but called for alternative employment. They insisted that the shift cannot happen immediately without sufficient preparation and mentioned going on strike if the ban were to be enforced haphazardly. They also do not foresee any challenges in explaining the just transition to their union members and in convincing them of the necessity of a ban on SUP.

Perceptions of just transition

All respondents agreed with the concept of a just transition for workers who will be affected by a SUP ban. Even Danny and Eloy, who at the start expressed opposition to the ban, shifted their position once the idea and meaning of just transition were explained. Just transition was clarified to the respondents as follows:

In contrast to his previous position, Danny responded positively to this:

Furthermore, he added, ‘We might encourage transferring companies—those that no longer focus on plastic. Still, we would earn money. Yet many of us, who would lose jobs, would consider starting a business’. As for Eloy, he stated, ‘We are open to learn new skills, and affected workers in plastic manufacturing should be prioritised in training. We support change if this should benefit the industry, especially the job security of workers’.

Ana explained her point of view this way:

It is interesting to note that the respondents more frequently used the words ‘second option’ rather than ‘alternative,’ which suggests the lack of interaction and discussion with environmental activists. Framing it in the negative, Ana explained the necessity for a just transition in this manner:

When asked about the possible standpoint of their co-workers about the just transition, all the respondents answered positively. Referencing the initial opposition of Company B union members to a SUP ban, Danny clarified, ‘They will change their minds. This is their reason too. My reason would also be theirs’. Respondents agreed with the need for alternative jobs since workers need income. If this can be guaranteed, a phaseout of SUP is not a deal-breaker for workers.

Proposals for a just transition

Surprisingly, the respondents did not set a high bar for the alternative jobs and livelihoods that a just transition would require. They basically asked that their wages and benefits from working in the plastic industry should be matched in the alternative employment for a just transition.

Cathy opined, ‘As long as workers have alternative jobs…. Better benefits. Higher wages. Should they lose their jobs, they should be given a separation pay that is a bit high; it is up to the workers to choose what they want’. For Danny, ‘Keep the wages and let us have jobs…. Regarding benefits, we would be more okay with the same benefits that we have been receiving before. We don’t want them to get reduced’. Additionally, he said ‘As long as we receive the full benefits. If we could avail of leaves and receive our 13th-month pay, we would be okay. We are also okay with receiving benefits from SSS [social security] and the government’. Regarding alternative employment as part of a just transition, Eloy responded, ‘If the alternative is better … with liveable wages’. He also said, ‘I just want a job’.

The respondents not only mentioned replacement jobs but also alternative livelihoods. For the older workers, such as Ana and Danny, who knew that it would be difficult to find new jobs considering their age, they insisted on livelihood assistance. Ana described her alternative as going back to farming: ‘If I were given a house and lot, I would do farming, and I would be okay with it’. Betty agreed with Ana and explained that, because their children already have stable jobs, an alternative livelihood is preferable. ‘I can start a business’, Cathy elaborated.

They also proposed that a substantial separation pay would be acceptable and could be utilised to set up a micro or small enterprise. For Danny, ‘My priority, should I be paid a lump sum, would be starting a business’. He also said, ‘Workers could only afford to run a small business. They could operate one through their separation pay. They are lucky if they earn from it. But if they find themselves unlucky, that separation pay could become worthless’. All respondents agreed that both the government and management must contribute to assist affected workers. Danny explained it succinctly: ‘Both of them should help. Of course, the management should help us workers, and the government should also do it’. Nonetheless, Betty insisted that the State should be primarily responsible: ‘No. The government has the better capacity to do so’.

All respondents were receptive to the idea of training for affected workers, but insisted that it must be with compensation. Ana stated that:

Danny qualified his opinion on retraining and upskilling with the age of the workers involved: ‘I would not object to their training. But, for me, I think the younger workers could commit to training. For us older workers, we are more likely to start a business’.

Interestingly, respondents from Company A were aware of the problem of alternative green jobs possibly being worse in terms of working conditions. They were familiar with the experience of a previous co-worker who transferred to an enterprise that downcycled plastic waste into eco-bricks. The company did not issue pay slips or remit social security contributions. The respondents mentioned that they had even helped their co-worker file a case at the labour court against the recycling company.

Information dissemination on SUP ban

No information from the government about the proposed national SUP ban had reached the respondents and their fellow union members. The management of Company A had also not informed its workers or the union. However, the union knew that the city government could possibly close the factory. The local government allegedly wanted to relocate all factories, not just SUP firms, out of the city due to pollution concerns. Thus, the union was aware of management’s preparations to transform the factory into a warehouse instead, but this possibility did not transpire.

In the case of Company B, its management mentioned the proposed national SUP ban during Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations. Thus, it was not actually information dissemination but a negotiation manoeuvre. Danny detailed it as follows:

The Company B union knew of the SUP ban because of Danny’s participation in a forum where the proposal was discussed. When Danny relayed this to the union, they tabled it in a union assembly. This reveals the real concern and the quick initiative of the union when the officers were alerted to the possibility of a nationwide SUP ban. Contrasting the concern of workers and the complacency of management, Danny maintained, ‘We are worried because the ban would affect us. Although the management would also be affected, they could change the nature of their company because they have the money. Workers could only save money. Once you save up, you could start a business’.

The respondents were not aware of any preparations that their respective companies were making for such a possibility. They observed no apparent changes in the operations of the factory, especially since production was in full swing until the pandemic happened.

Recommendations for future research

While an exploratory labour-centric approach provides rich data for interrogating workers’ perceptions of the transition, future research should expand the number of worker respondents to a bigger sample size using a sampling frame that aligns with the geographic spread and firm size of SUP factories, and the gender composition of workers. Cooperation of the industry association can be secured so that non-unionised SUP companies can be sampled.

Analysing the industry data for the years 2019 onwards would reveal the impact of COVID-19 and uncover the post-pandemic trend. Updated employment figures will be useful in substantiating the demand for a just transition, as well as proposed legislation for a national SUP ban. Future research could evaluate the reasons for the ineffectiveness of local bans in limiting SUP use. Finally, investigating the situation of waste workers – who are mostly informal in status – will be useful in probing the possibility of SUP workers transitioning to work in recycling.