Produced by: Environmental Culture Technical Advisor Andrés Ramirez
In this context, “de-plasticizing” does not mean denying the technical value of the material, but
rather critically reviewing where it is necessary and where it is simply customary, and redesigning
systems to reduce emissions, risks and operating costs, without losing functionality.
But today the global conversation has changed: plastic pollution is no longer understood only as a
waste problem, but as a phenomenon that connects with the triple planetary crisis (climate
change, loss of biodiversity and pollution) and, in particular, with climate change for one key
reason: most plastic is manufactured from fossil fuels and generates emissions throughout its
entire life cycle.
Produced by: Environmental Culture Technical Advisor Andrés Ramirez, For decades, plastic has
become “invisible” to us: it’s in supermarket packaging, logistics, industrial supplies, cleaning
products, offices, and takeout food. Its ubiquity is so pervasive that, in many organizations, the
idea of a “plastic-free” product or byproduct seems unnatural. This almost automatic cultural
normalization is precisely one of the strongest barriers to change.
Why reducing plastic is also a climate measure
When we talk about climate mitigation, the focus often shifts to energy, transportation, industrial
processes. However, plastic also has a significant climate footprint: Plastic generates emissions
from the extraction and refining of oil and gas, through production and conversion (resins,
additives, transformation), to transport, use andof life (incineration, final disposal, recycling with
different efficiencies).
At the same time, the climate emergency is clear: even with progress, the world Assessments and
syntheses cited by the UN system indicate that production and conversion account for a large part
of these emissions and that, without structural changes, emissions associated with plastics could
grow significantly towards 2040–2050.
It needs to cut emissions rapidly to align itself with not increasing the planet’s temperature by
more than 1.5°C or 2°C.
Business translation: plasticizing is a real mitigation lever when it focuses on reducing problematic
and unnecessary plastics, increasing reuse and redesigning for circularity, because those decisions
attack emissions “upstream” (production) and “downstream” (management).
The “cultural lock-in”: why we continue to choose plastic even though we know the impact In many production chains, plastic is not chosen because it is always the best option, but because the system is already built to make it “the easiest”:
- Logistics standardization (stretch film, strapping, bags, heat sealing).
- Purchases based on unit price, without considering total cost (management, shrinkage,
- reputation, regulatory risks).
- Design focused on use and discard (single dose, over-packaged, disposable by default).
- Lack of available alternatives in the local market or lack of scalability.
- Operational fear (“if I change the packaging, will the product be ruined? Will my returns
- increase?”).
- Eliminating plastic requires recognizing that this isn’t just a technical issue: it’s a cultural
- and management shift. And every cultural shift needs leadership, metrics, and a plan
The role of civil society: the missing bridge to the business world
Civil society organizations (CSOs), academia, recycling cooperatives and citizen
movements have promoted the plastic reduction agenda for years, highlighting impacts on
ecosystems, health and environmental justice.
Often, however, a common problem occurs:
- CSOs arrive with a diagnosis and urgency, but not always with “plug-and-play” solutions for complex operations
- Companies, for their part, need continuity, quality, traceability, cost control, and compliance, and if they don’t find a clear path forward, they return to what they know: cheap, readily available, and operational plastic.
This produces a perverse result: plastic continues to be chosen as a logistical solution,
when, in systemic terms, the problem is being deepened.
The challenge (and the opportunity) is to build operational bridges: pilots, standards,
supply
agreements, packaging redesign, reuse systems, return and traceability contracts, and tools that
allow change to be measurable and manageable, not just desirable.
A practical approach: “de-plasticization” as a continuous improvement
program
Primary, secondary and tertiary packaging A serious reduction in plastic use in a company cannot
be achieved with a single “material replacement.” It works best as a phased program, similar to
environmental management/
ISO standards: identify, prioritize, pilot, standardize, and scale up.
Make a map of plastic points on the chain:
- Primary, secondary and tertiary packaging
- Production inputs (protections, separators, films, liners)
- Internal consumption (glasses, bottles, cafeteria, cleaning)
- Outsourced services (distribution, e-commerce, merchandising)
- End of life (what is recycled, what is not, why)
Expected result: a baseline (kg, units, costs, destinations) and a criticality rating: necessary /
replaceable / eliminable.
2) Prioritization: attacking what is “problematic and unnecessary”
International experience and evidence compiled by UNEP highlight that systemic change begins by
reducing what is problematic and unnecessary, and then redesigning and circularizing
Simple criteria for prioritizing:
- High volume or high frequency
- Difficult to recycle (multi-layered, mixed, contaminated)
- Reputational risk (visible single-use)
- Available alternatives
- Impact on emissions and total cost
3) Concrete solutions for cultural and operational change
A. Reincorporation of plastics into the chain (real circularity, not just “recycling”)
- Reincorporation of post-consumer or post-industrial recycling into products/packaging
- where technically feasible.
- Contracts with quality specifications (MFI, density, contaminants).
- Material traceability and verification (to avoid greenwashing).
Note: This requires that the design allows for recyclability and that the recycling market has
stability (quality and volume). UNEP insists that the system must be redesigned for circularity not
just “managing waste.”
B. Reuse of “first and second type” packaging (reuse as the norm)
This is usually where the greatest potential for reduction lies:
- Returnable primary container (first use) in closed circuits or with deposit.
- Reusable secondary packaging (boxes, bins, pallets with returnable covers)
- Washing, sanitizing and quality control systems.
- “Pooling” models between suppliers/customer to lower costs.
In simple terms: moving from “buying disposable items” to managing reusable assets.
C. Non-plastic alternatives: replace with discernment (not because of fashion)
- Paper/cardboard with improved barriers where applicable (taking care of origin and recyclability).
- Glass or metal in premium or returnable niches (evaluating weight/transport)
- Compostable materials only when there is real organic management and the use case justifies it (otherwise, they end up as mixed waste).
The golden rule: it’s not about “changing plastic for anything,” but optimizing performance +
circularity + total footprint, ideally with a life cycle approach.
D. Redesign and elimination (the most powerful option)
- Eliminate components: unnecessary lids, double wrappers, promotional accessories
- Standardize formats to facilitate reuse/return.
UNEP shows that the combination of reducing, reusing and recycling systematically can
achieve very significant reductions in plastic pollution by 2040.
Internal governance: how to turn “de-plasticizing” into a business decision
For cultural change to happen, it needs to be moved from the “environmental team” to the
operations table:
- Purchasing: selection criteria that include circularity, recycled content, returnability, and total cost.
- Innovation and design: packaging and material specifications with goals.
- Operations and quality: controlled pilots, shrinkage metrics and satisfaction.
- Finances: CAPEX/OPEX of the reuse system vs. purchase of disposables.
- Commercial: value proposition (premium, compliance, reputation, consumer preference)
Minimum metrics:
- kg of plastic per unit of product / per invoice % reuse (container rotations)
- % verified recycled content effective return
- Rate
- destinations (actual recycling vs. disposal)
- estimation of a
- voided emissions (with transparent assumptions)
Why this matters now: The world is building new rules
The regulatory and political landscape is evolving. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee’s
(INC) process for a legally binding international instrument on plastic pollution remains active,
with recent sessions and continued presence on the global agenda.
Beyond the final text, the direction is clear: from now on it will be more difficult to compete by
maintaining linear models based on single-use plastics, because they increase regulatory risk,
market scrutiny and pressure from consumers and investors.
Eliminating plastic is leadership (and a concrete way to mitigate)
Removing plastic from a company is not a symbolic gesture. It is a technical and cultural strategy
that:
- Reduces emissions associated with fossil fuels,
- Decreases operational and regulatory risks,
- Promotes efficiency and process modernization,
- Connects the company with local solutions
(recyclers, recyclers, local innovation), - and contributes to the transformation that the planet needs.
The key is to stop asking ourselves “what plastic can I replace it with?” and start with a more
powerful question: What part of this system can I eliminate, reuse, or redesign so that plastic is no
longer the automatic answer?”
Reference
https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2023
https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/fromcrm/Turning%20Off%20the%20Tap.p
df
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/plastics
https://www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution