Impact statement
Regulatory bodies at all levels of governance often struggle to implement sustainable conservation measures effectively, indicating that regulatory measures alone are insufficient to prevent marine and terrestrial plastic pollution. Effective plastic pollution governance requires the active participation of non-state actors in its design, development and implementation. Non-state actors, such as individuals or organisations with significant political influence not allied to any specific country or state, can play a crucial role in developing innovative waste management, circular economy, extended producer responsibility and product stewardship approaches to tackle plastic pollution.
This article explores the gaps in the governance of a plastics circular economy, highlighting the current focus on recycling and end-of-pipe/down-cycling solutions while neglecting other essential ‘Rs’ required for true circularity, such as refuse, reduce, resell, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose and recover energy. Our findings demonstrate that non-state actors can bridge these gaps through multi-stakeholder partnerships that establish the norms, culture and consumer practices necessary for transitioning to a circular economy. Community-based actors can drive, support and advocate for solutions higher up the R-hierarchy, such as reuse and repair systems. Additionally, third-party certification bodies can provide robust auditing processes that promote industry best practices, ensuring both environmental sustainability and public trust.
This research underscores the importance of fostering environments where non-state actors can contribute meaningfully and equitably to policy processes. Such inclusivity can enhance the legitimacy and social acceptance of resulting policies, ultimately driving more effective and sustainable solutions to plastic pollution.
Introduction
The movement to a circular economy (CE) on all levels of governance has been heralded as one way to reduce waste, especially plastics. Current approaches to waste management are linear, where materials are used and discarded, and there is little incentive for manufacturers to consider the impact of waste generated by this disposal. CE approaches involve a process where materials do not become waste and prevention of waste is incorporated into the material and product design (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). For plastics to be part of a closed-loop CE system, they need to be a market commodity whose value is too good to throw away (ERM Sustainability Institute, 2024). However, for decades, much of the focus on plastics in the CE has been on recycling and end-of-pipe/down-cycling solutions. A fully developed CE process needs to also address the other ‘Rs’, which include refuse, reduce, resell, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose and recover energy (Reike et al., Reference Reike, Vermeulen and Witjes2018; Morseletto, Reference Morseletto2020). Incorporating these principles into plastic pollution management policies and CE approaches could help address some of the regulatory challenges that governments face in reducing plastic pollution.
There have been varied policy responses by state actors, across all levels of governance (local, regional, national and international), to tackle plastic pollution by creating or transitioning to a ‘Plastics CE’ (Forrest et al., Reference Forrest, Giacovazzi, Dunlop, Reisser, Tickler, Jamieson and Meeuwig2019; Barford and Ahmad, Reference Barford and Ahmad2023). These responses include inter-alia new waste management practices, extended producer responsibility (EPR) and product stewardship policies. These approaches do not necessarily result in circularity; however, regulatory measures are needed to enforce compliance within a CE. Regulatory bodies often experience challenges with implementing sustainable, conservation measures, demonstrating that they alone cannot generate the required change to effectively stop marine and terrestrial plastic pollution (da Costa et al., Reference Da Costa, Mouneyrac, Costa, Duarte and Rocha-Santos2020).
Non-state actors such as industry, certification bodies, civil society, researchers and community groups are integral in addressing the governance challenges of reducing plastic waste and increasing circularity. We define non-state actors as individuals or organisations that can influence change in the political and policy processes but are not governments. While some international relations researchers identify local governments, cities and municipalities as non-state actors in global governance (Bäckstrand et al., Reference Bäckstrand, Kuyper, Linnér and Lövbrand2017), our focus is on governance across multiple levels and, for the purpose of this article, we define local governments, cities and municipalities as government entities.
While governments and their administrative agencies are crucial in establishing regulatory measures, non-state actors can be involved in the design, development and implementation of policy or can provide other regulatory measures such as certification (Vellema and van Wijk, Reference Vellema and Van Wijk2014; Vince, Reference Vince, A Kekez and Ramesh2019; Vince and Haward, Reference Vince and Haward2019). They can play an important role in the implementation of policy decisions, including providing financial resources and expertise. For example, in Australia, they are involved in private industry operations in the collection and recycling of plastic materials from households (Larshans, Reference Larshans2023), whereas in less wealthy countries, informal waste pickers undertake the collection and sorting operations (Velis, Reference Velis, Willis, Hardesty, Wilcox and Barrett2023).
Although non-state actors cannot decide what policy will be implemented, allowing them to meaningfully and equitably participate in the policy process (Campbell et al., Reference Campbell, Fail, Horan, Acton, Blackwatters, Garcia Lozano, Gill, Gray, Gruby, Melvin, Murray and Wiehe2022) allows them to contribute to transparent policymaking. Their participation can also add or reinforce the legitimacy and social acceptance of the resulting policy decisions (Cumming et al., Reference Cumming, Campbell, Norwood, Ranger, Richardson and Sanghera2022).
This review paper explores the roles of non-state actors in plastic policymaking. We undertook a desktop review to identify key examples of non-state actors’ participation in different aspects of the plastics CE and plastics policymaking. We utilised information from a wide range of sources, including academic literature, policy documents, reports and case studies. The paper addresses the gaps and opportunities for non-state actors to contribute to the development and implementation of holistic, integrated, ‘whole of life cycle’ and CE policies. We argue that non-state actors can help fill regulatory gaps through multi-stakeholder partnerships, community-led plastic programmes and policies and environmentally and socially responsible industry-based solutions that utilise market-based initiatives.
Non-state actors and gaps in plastic CE governance
Participation from non-state actors in the process of design, development and implementation is required for effective plastic pollution governance and policymaking. Traditional hierarchical governance and policymaking was centred on governments and vertical decision-making (Hill and Lynn, Reference Hill and Lynn2004). Since the 1990s, there has been a shift in modes of governance towards decentralisation, horizontal decision-making and network-, market- and community-based approaches (Rhodes, Reference Rhodes1997; Reddel, Reference Reddel2002; Kjaer, Reference Kjaer2011). This shift has also been reflective of the broader, more complex and challenging policy issues that governments face across multiple levels, different policy contexts and with diverse goals and cross-boundary and cross-sectoral issues (Howlett and Del, Reference Howlett and Del Rio2015; Howlett et al., Reference Howlett, Vince and Del Rio2017; Maggetti and Trein, Reference Maggetti and Trein2019; Trein et al., Reference Trein, Biesbroek, Bolognesi, Cejudo, Duffy, Hustedt and Meyer2021). For example, this can be seen in the implementation of integrated ocean management policies in many different states (Smith et al., Reference Smith, Fulton, Apfel, Cresswell, Gillanders, Haward, Sainsbury, Smith, Vince and Ward2017; Vince and Day, Reference Vince and Day2020; Winther et al., Reference Winther, Dai, Rist, Hoel, Li, Trice, Morrissey, Juinio-Meñez, Fernandes, Unger, Scarano, Halpin and Whitehouse2020; Sørdahl, Reference Sørdahl2023).
Today, governments and non-state actors are involved in various forms of partnerships through the process of co-creation (Ansell and Torfing, Reference Ansell and Torfing2021), co-design or ‘design as co-creation’ (van Buuren et al., Reference Van Buuren, Laaaewis, Guy Peters and Voorberg2020) and policy integration (Cejudo and Trein, Reference Cejudo and Trein2023). Underpinning these partnerships is trust and a perceived legitimacy of working with other actors (Ansell and Gash, Reference Ansell and Gash2008; Emerson et al., Reference Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh2012; Siddiki et al., Reference Siddiki, Beagles, Oesterling and Howlett2022). Research has outlined that a high degree of trust can facilitate engagement between non-state actors and governments in collaborative policy design (Ansell and Gash, Reference Ansell and Gash2008; Siddiki et al., Reference Siddiki, Kim and Leach2017; Siddiki et al., Reference Siddiki, Beagles, Oesterling and Howlett2022). This collaboration with non-state actors enables the sharing of knowledge and can result in them becoming knowledge brokers in the plastic policymaking process (Barford and Ahmad, Reference Barford and Ahmad2023). In industry settings, commercial collaboration between non-state actors can enable circularity while misaligned collaboration can hinder circular transitions (Todeschini et al., Reference Todeschini, Cortimiglia, Callegaro-de-Menezes and Ghezzi2017; Barford and Ahmad, Reference Barford and Ahmad2023).
Governments form partnerships with non-state actors for a variety of reasons and the main goal of the partnership may not always be to achieve holistic and integrated policies, although this is what is desired for CE policy approaches. Governments often lack the resourcing and/or capacity required to implement and monitor the standards that industry and communities are seeking in environmental management. Industry and communities are starting to turn to non-state actors to address this gap (Buthe, Reference Buthe2004; Howlett and Ramesh, Reference Howlett and Ramesh2016). However, the reliance on non-state actors, particularly regarding resourcing, can also influence agenda-setting and non-decision-making (e.g., see Dauvergne, Reference Dauvergne2018; Mah, Reference Mah2021; Vince, Reference Vince2023). A risk with such partnerships is that non-state actors are not subject to the same accountability mechanisms as governments and, as such, their legitimacy and credibility can be dependent on their actions instead (Grabosky, Reference Grabosky2013). There is a possibility that regulatory capture can occur. This is where non-state actors use partnerships with governments to impact policy outcomes (Dal, Reference Dal Bó2006). On the other hand, regulation is not a panacea for barriers encountered when transitioning to an effective CE. Regulation can also be a constraint on CE policies as ‘policy can both drive and block moves towards circularity’ (Barford and Ahmad, Reference Barford and Ahmad2023). For example, a regulation in Italy prevents industrial companies from utilising another company’s scrap materials as raw materials, thereby restricting potential economic and environmental benefits from industrial collaborations (Taddeo et al., Reference Taddeo, Simboli, Morgante and Erkman2017).
Despite the potential issues around accountability and legitimacy, a need for and existence of non-state actors in the plastics CE has been recognised in plastic pollution governance literature (see, e.g., Vince and Hardesty, Reference Vince and Hardesty2017, Vince and Hardesty, Reference Vince and Hardesty2018, van Leeuwen et al., Reference Van Leeuwen, Walker and Vince2022, Stoll et al., Reference Stoll, Stoett, Vince, Hardesty, Rocha-Santos, Costa and Mouneyrac2020). Non-state actors are particularly useful in pursuing voluntary measures that can become a useful basis for future laws and regulations (Stoll et al., Reference Stoll, Stoett, Vince, Hardesty, Rocha-Santos, Costa and Mouneyrac2020). Vince and Hardesty (Reference Vince and Hardesty2018) identified non-state actors as crucial in driving a plastic CE via economic and market-based instruments such as shareholder influence, corporate social responsibility, certification and public–private partnerships. Non-state actors are also key to community-based approaches for a plastics CE through NGOs, local community groups, citizen science and social movements (see Figure 1). Within a holistic governance framework, non-state actors can achieve a social licence to operate at all levels of governance (local, national and global) whether they use community- or market-based approaches (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The role of non-state actors in a holistic governance approach to a plastics CE that reduces plastic pollution. Some key non-state actor opportunities within the system are highlighted in green with a pink outline. Figure adapted from Vince and Hardesty (Reference Vince and Hardesty2018).
Third-party certification schemes and bodies are recognised as a form of hybrid governance that includes private–social partnerships and excludes the state (Lemos and Agrawal, Reference Lemos and Agrawal2006). These voluntary, market-driven approaches have been successful in areas such as fisheries and aquaculture. For example, the Marine Stewardship Council and Aquaculture Stewardship Council (Gulbrandsen, Reference Gulbrandsen2009; Vince and Haward, Reference Vince and Haward2019; Rasal et al., Reference Rasal, Melnychuk, Lejbowicz, Montero-Castaño, Ferber and Longo2024) are third-party schemes operated by the fishing and aquaculture industry that certify sustainably caught and farmed seafood with little state intervention. Certification bodies can encourage best practices for industry and provide legitimacy for those seeking a social licence to operate (Vince, Reference Vince, A Kekez and Ramesh2019). However, some certification bodies do not provide clear information on the roles and responsibilities of parties involved in the certification process and, as such, lack accountability and transparency (Alexander et al., Reference Alexander, Andrachuk and Armitage2016). In the plastics pollution and CE space, numerous certification schemes exist at all levels of governance. Many of the schemes target recycling, the waste process and waste collection; however, not many focus on the other ‘Rs’ (Vince et al., Reference Vince, Walker, Willis, Stoett, Komyakova, Hardesty, Schofield, Van Leeuwen, Townsend, Baird and Elliott2024b).
As plastic alternative materials enter the market, there is an increasing need for certifications of these materials, such as biodegradable plastics. In Australia, the Australasian Bioplastics Association (ABA) certifies compostable and biodegradable plastics and has a commercial and household compostable verification programme. Although the body does provide a commercial certification, when it comes to the organic recycling suitability of an item, they place the onus on the industry to self-regulate, stating that
“The ABA is not responsible for determining the acceptability of an item for organics recycling and the applicants should satisfy themselves of the suitability and acceptability of the item for the intended end of life” (Australasian Bioplastics Association, 2024).
There is an increasing number and variety of certifications available for plastic CE schemes, products and plastic alternative materials. An audit of these certification schemes is needed, for both the industry and consumers, to reveal commonalities and differences between schemes, standards, labels and responsibilities of the parties involved. Such an audit could be used to identify the schemes that are considered a form of ‘greenwashing’ for profit (Gale and Haward, Reference Gale and Haward2011; Miller, Reference Miller2017; Nygaard, Reference Nygaard2023) from those identified as having a clear purpose of achieving environmental sustainability. Industries involved in plastics CE transitions could demonstrate their willingness to change via certification or they could be forced to change through regulation. However, until the validity and trustworthiness of these schemes are established, governments and global regulatory bodies may end up driving these changes. Decisions such as these will likely be decided through the negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty where the responsibilities and obligations for states in developing their National Plastic Action Plans and National Implementation Plans will be agreed upon (Maes et al., Reference Maes, Wienrich, Weiand and Cowan2023). The Global Plastics Treaty is an international legally binding instrument under negotiation that aims to end plastic pollution at every stage of the material life cycle, from manufacturing to disposal (Dauvergne, Reference Dauvergne2023; Stöfen-O’Brien, Reference Stöfen-O’Brien2023; Arora et al., Reference Arora, March, Nieminen, Shejuti and Walker2024). Upon its agreement and adoption, the Treaty will be delivered nationally either through stringent requirements, voluntary national plans or a combination of the two (March et al., Reference March, Tsouza, Nieminen, Winton, Arora, Shejuti, Walker and Fletcher2024, United Nations Environment Programme, 2023).
A gap in the transition to a plastics CE is the lack of focus governments give to the role citizens and consumers have in the CE system (Hobson et al., Reference Hobson, Holmes, Welch, Wheeler and Wieser2021; Hobson, Reference Hobson2022). For example, Hobson et al. (Reference Hobson, Holmes, Welch, Wheeler and Wieser2021) argue the relevance of considering ‘consumption work’ in the success of CE models. Consumption work is the forms of labour necessary for the purchase, use, reuse and disposal of goods and services commonly completed by consumers, such as the cleaning and sorting of household product packaging for recycling (Wheeler and Glucksmann, Reference Wheeler and Glucksmann2015), or the practice of sharing (i.e., reusing) and repairing household appliances. Building and mainstreaming these consumer practices are pivotal to the success of a CE transition.
The transition to a CE to date has had a strong focus on solutions at the material/product end-of-life stage, such as improving waste and recycling collection systems or downcycling low-recycling-value plastic into higher-value products. For example, there are companies that have established a market for downcycling low-density polyethylene shopping bags or nylon fishing nets into furniture or clothing, see netplus by Bureo (bureo.co) or Replas (replas.com.au). End-of-pipe initiatives are only one part of the solution. However, both state and non-state actors need to shift their focus to encompass all of the ‘Rs’ including recycling, refuse, reduce, resell, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose and recover energy (Reike et al., Reference Reike, Vermeulen and Witjes2018; Morseletto, Reference Morseletto2020) (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Non-state actor roles encompass the core R’s needed to achieve a holistic plastics CE. Each concentric ring encompasses and feeds into the core target of a plastic CE.
This shift to all R’s is the core of achieving a true CE and in many cases, the institutional frameworks are ill equipped to deal with such changes. Institutional restructuring to support CE by state and industry will take time; however, in the meanwhile, there are opportunities for non-state actors to be innovative and to fill the gaps where state and regulatory approaches are lagging.
Opportunities for non-state actors to fill the gaps in a plastics CE
Non-state actors play a major role in plastic management, policy implementation, manufacturing standards and best practices. This can be done through multi-stakeholder partnerships, community-led plastic programmes and policies and environmentally and socially responsible industry-based solutions. This section presents real-world examples where non-state actor initiatives and partnerships have addressed gaps in current CE upstream and downstream approaches.
Multi-stakeholder partnerships
Multi-stakeholder collaborations between governments and non-state actors, such as consumers, industry and civil society, are necessary to change the governance, norms, culture and behaviours required to transition to a CE (Vince and Hardesty, Reference Vince and Hardesty2017). These multi-stakeholder collaborative efforts take time and can be difficult to establish; however, when set up for the long term, they can result in societal transformation (Eiselein et al., Reference Eiselein, Keygnaert, Brabant, Kujala, Heikkinen and Blomberg2023). The relationships between stakeholders can be directive, mediative, collaborative and competitive. For collaboration to be successful, interactions need to be continuous and based on joint aims and trust (Blomberg et al., Reference Blomberg, Kujala and Heikkinen2023). The level and type of involvement of non-state actors in multi-stakeholder partnerships vary depending on the relationships formed and the positionality of those involved.
A recent case study of plastic pollution governance in Thailand identified three barriers that prevent multi-stakeholder collaborations: insufficient incentives to enact political change, scalar disconnect in waste management and inadequate civil society and private sector ownership over plastic waste reductions (Marks et al., Reference Marks, Miller and Vassanadumrongdee2020). Overcoming these barriers to multi-stakeholder collaborations has occurred in recent years through the involvement and strong leadership of non-state actors. For example, joint partnerships, international network platforms, voluntary industry standards and advocating by non-state actors have all led to successful CE initiatives that reduce plastic pollution.
Involving multi-stakeholder knowledge enriches government regulatory decision-making and can provide an opportunity for the representation of stakeholders who are affected by plastic pollution and policies. A current example of this can be seen in the Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee (INC) meetings for a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty. During these negotiations, different actors offer localised perspectives to tailor the negotiations to their unique social and environmental situations. For example, the ‘Friends of the Action Agenda’ is a government joint party, between the United States, Norway, Chile and Samoa, which calls for the inclusion of a sectoral approach in reducing plastic pollution (Drewell and Garin, Reference Drewell and Garin2023). The joint party commented on the need for non-state actor engagement in Treaty negotiations to facilitate credible, accountable and transparent participation from businesses across the entire plastics value chain. This non-state actor involvement could be in the form of ‘Stakeholder Action Reports’ where stakeholders from a given sector present the current state and opportunity areas for plastic reduction pathways (Drewell and Garin, Reference Drewell and Garin2023, Environmental Investigation Agency, 2023). Another way meaningful participation of non-state actors facilitated in Treaty negotiations is to follow a similar process to the Aarhus Convention, adopted in 1998. During the negotiations, representatives of civil society organisations sat at the table as negotiators, rather than observers, and followed the same rules as the member-state negotiators (CIEL., n.d.). This inclusion allowed the civil society to present its views and make proposals on equal grounds to member-state representatives. The Scientists Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty is another key organisation that provides scientific advice and information for decision-makers and stakeholders during INC negotiations (https://ikhapp.org/scientistscoalition/). It is made up of over 350 independent scientists from 60 states with a cohort of members attending each INC meeting (Vince et al., Reference Vince, Carney Almroth, De Miranda Grilli, Dwivedi, Stöfen-O’Brien and Beyer2024a). However, during the INC-5 negotiations in Busan, Korea, in November 2024, stakeholders were unable to participate as observers due to closed-door sessions and the Treaty was not finalised (https://www.ciel.org/news/inc-5-conclusion/). INC-5.2 session is planned to occur in 2025 but the date and location (at the time of writing) are yet to be decided.
Community-led plastic programmes and policies
Joint partnerships in waste management commonly occur as public–private partnerships between the government and industry (Andonova, Reference Andonova2010). These partnerships are a solution to providing effective and efficient waste management that the public sector, commonly local governments, cannot solely provide due to a lack of resources and/or expertise (Forsyth, Reference Forsyth2005; Saadeh et al., Reference Saadeh, Al-Khatib and Kontogianni2019). Public–private partnerships in the waste management sector are established in developed countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom (Saadeh et al., Reference Saadeh, Al-Khatib and Kontogianni2019), and are growing in developing countries, such as Brazil, Uganda, India, Sri Lanka and Palestine (Talyan et al., Reference Talyan, Dahiya and Sreekrishnan2008; Marconsin and Rosa, Reference Marconsin and Rosa2013; Saadeh et al., Reference Saadeh, Al-Khatib and Kontogianni2019). For example, in Pune, India, the municipal government partnered with a union of informal waste pickers to improve the disposal, collection and recycling of household waste (Moora and Barde, Reference Moora, Barde, Le Doze, Harms, Siddique, Vougioukas, Archer, Johnson and Gadgil2018), whereas in Sri Lanka, a newly implemented EPR policy has led to partnerships between local governments, waste collectors and the private sector to operate and establish a national network of material recovery facilities (Gillet and Disselkoen, Reference Gillet and Disselkoen2021). Conversely, in the Czech Republic, public–private partnership services for local waste collection were found to be more costly than contracting out local waste collection (Soukopová et al., Reference Soukopová, Vaceková and Klimovský2017). Establishing these types of state and non-state actor partnerships could offer opportunities for building and mainstreaming these plastic waste practices that are pivotal to the success of a CE transition.
Other community-led or integrated approaches to incorporate non-state actors into plastic pollution programmes are social enterprises. Social enterprises on a local scale reinvest profits to fulfil a social and/or environmental mission. These enterprises “perform a vital role in the social and systemic integration of material, environmental and social elements of the CE at the local scale. This is even more important as they help to ‘restore community solidarity’ (p.1427) (Kim and Lim [Reference Kim and Lim2017])] as well as form, capitalise on and act as conduits for social capital. Social enterprises can thus enrich the CE concept with a social dimension, which remains underrepresented in the existing CE literature” (Pusz et al., Reference Pusz, Jonas and Deutz2023). It is found that these social enterprises can focus on activities higher on the waste hierarchy such as reuse, upcycling, refurbishing and repair ‘which are often overlooked by mainstream CE policies and require a change in consumer behaviour’ (Pusz et al., Reference Pusz, Jonas and Deutz2023).
Other approaches to a plastic CE that improve the management of plastic have been, in part, largely driven and advocated for by non-governmental, non-for-profit and charity organisations. These organisations often advocate for regulatory action from governments to eliminate problematic plastics, place greater responsibility on plastic producers and provide effective infrastructure for households and businesses to discard their waste appropriately. For example, the Chilean government worked with NGOs Oceana Chile and Plastic Oceans Chile to implement the single-use plastic law (Law No. 21.368), which bans single-use plastics. The law was developed jointly between legislators and the local NGOs after the NGOs released a report on the state of plastic pollution and current regulations in Chile (Plastic Oceans Chile., 2021). In the United States, Break Free From Plastic has advocated for amendments to the Clean Water Act, and has successfully introduced a bill to Congress, the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act 2022 (117th Congress, USA). The organisation has also created an initiative to help identify companies responsible for plastic pollution and hold them accountable (Cowger et al., Reference Cowger, Willis, Bullock, Conlon, Emmanuel, Erdle, Eriksen, Farrelly, Hardesty, Kerge, Li, Li, Laaiebman, Tangri, Thiel, Villarrubia-Gómez, Walker and Wang2024, Break Free from Plastic, 2021). In Australia, the Boomerang Alliance has advocated for a national container deposit legislation over the past 16 years. In March 2022, the announcement of a refund scheme in the state of Tasmania saw the last of all Australian state and territory governments to implement a container refund scheme (Boomerang Alliance., 2022).
Environmentally and socially responsible industry-based solutions
Voluntary industry standards have led to improvements in plastic recycling and manufacturing without government regulatory action. This voluntary action has been driven by growth in the recycling economy, voluntary investment from producers and manufacturers and the industry pre-empting possible government regulatory action and wanting to implement more effective, sustainable, lower cost solutions than the government-imposed regulations (Godfrey and Oelofse, Reference Godfrey and Oelofse2017). For example, in South Africa, a private entity of PET recyclers and producers co-finance the price of recycled PET to ensure the market price remains competitive with virgin PET. Since the establishment of the private entity, post-consumer PET bottle recycling has increased from 16% in 2005 to 55% in 2016 (Godfrey and Oelofse, Reference Godfrey and Oelofse2017). In Australia, the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation collaborates with the national government to improve the management and performance of packaging (Burritt et al., Reference Burritt, Lewis and James2005) and meet national packaging targets by 2025 (Hardesty et al., Reference Hardesty, Willis and Vince2022). These targets include all members of the covenant using 100% reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging by 2025 with 86% of the target being met by members in 2019–2020 (APCO., 2022). Most recently, the Coca-Cola Company announced from 1 August 2022, a switch from their coloured plastic bottles, such as the Sprite green bottle, to clear plastic bottles to increase the recycling likelihood and value of the material (The Coca-Cola Company, 2022).
Reuse initiatives are placed high on the waste hierarchy and considered a higher priority and more desired system to achieve a CE (Potting et al., Reference Potting, Hekkert and Worrell2016; Kirchherr et al., Reference Kirchherr, Reike and Hekkert2017); however, currently, only 4% of investment capital is directed to reuse solutions (Mah, Reference Mah2021; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Bauer, Syberg and Gammage2023). Reuse systems extend the lifespan of a product and materials with minor adaptations or restoration (Vermeulen et al., Reference Vermeulen, Reike and Witjes2019). Reuse models can be distinguished into two categories: exclusive reuse where the reusable packaging is owned by the customer, who controls when the product is reused but is often limited to where they can reuse the product, and sequential reuse where the reusable packaging is owned by a company and access to the product is offered to customers (Muranko et al., Reference Muranko, Tassell, Zeeuw Van Der Laan and Aurisicchio2021). A recent sequential reuse initiative has led to significant reductions in the amount of single-use plastic bottles the dairy-milk industry generates. The Udder Way (theudderway.com), established by an Australian owner and operator of three cafes, replaces single-use plastic milk bottles with reusable, refillable 18 L food-grade plastic keg systems for milk dispensing, storage and transport. Each keg has an expected 8–10 years lifespan and can be used up to 800 times. This lifespan equates to preventing the generation of 302 kg of single-use plastic or ~ 7,000 plastic bottles. Each keg fits the dimensions of an Australian standard milk crate to ensure the kegs can be transported using pre-existing systems. Kegs are returned to milk producers for cleaning, sanitation and refilling. Exclusive reuse systems implemented by private industry are reusable coffee cups. This reuse system commonly relies on both cafes and consumers to opt-in to the system, with consumers purchasing and providing the reusable cup to the cafe and the cafe accepting reusable cups. Whereas exclusive reuse systems such as water refill stations that enable consumers to commonly have free access to water to refill their drink containers have been a joint partnership between local government, NGOs and private industry. For example, refill stations installed along the Brisbane River, Australia (Willis et al., Reference Willis, Hardesty, Vince and Wilcox2019), or installed across London (refill.org.uk/refill-london) were the joint partnership between a company providing the refill station unit and the municipality allowing the station to be tapped into the local water supply facilities. Reuse systems, particularly for fast-moving consumer goods packaging, are growing (Coelho et al., Reference Coelho, Corona, Ten Klooster and Worrell2020; Long et al., Reference Long, Ceschin, Mansour and Harrison2020; Muranko et al., Reference Muranko, Tassell, Zeeuw Van Der Laan and Aurisicchio2021) and it is estimated that 20% of plastic packaging could be replaced by reusable systems (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019).
In all three categories – multi-stakeholder partnerships, community-led plastic programmes and policies and environmentally and socially responsible industry-based solutions – the examples demonstrate that non-state actors have been instrumental in filling governance gaps and providing solutions where other actors have not. These actors have played a key role in advancing the transition to a CE for plastics, as outlined in Section 2. However, the success of each example depends on a range of factors, including the specific nature of the problem being addressed, the political and legal environments and the levels of trust and collaboration between stakeholders and governments. As such, the potential for non-state actors to contribute meaningfully to the implementation of the Plastics Treaty will be closely linked to the final provisions of the Treaty, the national plans developed by individual countries and the degree of political will to engage these actors in a collaborative governance framework (Vince et al., Reference Vince, Carney Almroth, De Miranda Grilli, Dwivedi, Stöfen-O’Brien and Beyer2024a). The diversity of non-state actors’ roles across different contexts, and their interactions with governmental structures, underscores the need for flexibility in how they are integrated into governance systems. While the precise nature of their involvement will depend on the Treaty’s final form and national priorities, the examples presented here highlight the existing potential for non-state actors to play a significant role in advancing the goals of a plastics CE.
Conclusion
This article explored the pivotal roles, identified the significant gaps and highlighted promising opportunities for non-state actors to contribute to the development and implementation of holistic and integrated CE policies for plastic. Gaps that exist in the current governance of a plastics CE include a focus on end-of-pipe/down-cycling solutions and a lack of attention on the other ‘Rs’ that are required for true circularity. There are opportunities where non-state actors can do more to advance the transition to a plastics CE. Collaborations between industry and science could drive innovative research that prioritises solutions further up the R hierarchy (i.e., before recycling), such as reuse and refill systems, and designing-out waste strategies. Involving community-based actors, such NGOs and local groups, could drive and support a repair culture and advocate for government regulatory action that encourages reuse and repair systems. Effective multi-stakeholder partnerships could enrich government regulatory decision-making, ensuring plastic CE policies reflect diverse stakeholder interests. These collaborations are often necessary to build and mainstream the norms, culture and consumer practices required to transition to a plastics CE. In the absence of comprehensive government regulatory intervention, there is a pressing need for robust auditing processes by third-party certification bodies to promote best practices for industry that provide both environmental sustainability and public trust. As more plastic-alternative materials enter the market, there is a growing demand for this in biodegradable plastics certification. Moving forward, it is essential to foster environments where non-state actors can contribute meaningfully and equitably to policy processes, thereby enhancing the legitimacy and societal acceptance of resultant policies. By addressing these considerations, we can foster a transition towards a plastics CE that is both environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive.
Open peer review
To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/plc.2025.3.
Data availability statement
Data availability is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Judith Van Leeuwen and Valeriya Komakova for their constructive comments at the initial stages of this manuscript.
Author Contribution
Joanna Vince: Conceptualisation, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing-original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualisation. Kathryn A. Willis: Conceptualisation, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing-original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualisation.
Financial support
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interest
The authors declare no competing interests exist.
Open access
Comments
10 July 2024
Prof. Steve Fletcher
Editor-in-Chief
Cambridge Prisms: Plastics
Dear Prof. Fletcher,
We wish to submit our Review manuscript entitled “The gaps and opportunities for non-state actors in plastics circular economy approaches” for consideration by Cambridge Prisms: Plastics.
While the issue of plastic pollution is undeniably a global challenge, it is imperative to recognize that its governance, and potential solutions that use regulatory measures alone cannot generate the change required to effectively reduce marine and terrestrial pollution.
Our manuscript explores the critical roles non-state actors play in addressing the challenges posed by plastic pollution and promoting a circular economy for plastics. This paper identifies significant gaps in current governance strategies, which often emphasize end-of-pipe solutions, and argues for a more holistic approach that includes the full spectrum of ‘Rs’ necessary for true circularity. Additionally, it highlights how non-state actors can contribute to this transition through multistakeholder partnerships, community-led programs, and market-based initiatives.
We believe that our research provides valuable insights into the interplay between plastics policy and practice at various levels of governance. This aligns well with Plastics aim to publish interdisciplinary research that addresses the urgent societal challenge of reducing plastic pollution. As the Global Plastics Treaty enters the fifth and final negotiation in November, it is essential to foster environments where non-state actors can contribute meaningfully and equitably to policy processes, thereby enhancing the legitimacy and societal acceptance of resultant policies.
We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere, nor is it under consideration for publication at any other journal. All the authors listed on the manuscript have agreed with it submission to Cambridge Prisms: Plastics. We have no conflicts of interest.
We hope that you consider this topic relevant for Cambridge Prisms: Plastics’ readership. Thank you in advance for considering the enclosed manuscript for publication. Please find a list of referee suggestions below.
Sincerely on behalf of myself and Dr Joanna Vince,
Dr Kathryn A. Willis
CSIRO Environment and
The Centre for Marine Socioecology (CMS), Tasmania, Australia.
3-4 Castray Esplanade, Battery Point, Tasmania, Australia 7004
E: Kathy.willis@csiro.au