The non-profit’s report warns that downstream consumer sectors such as personal care, household products and soft drinks – the biggest contributors to plastic pollution – face rising scrutiny from regulators and the public. However, most companies in these sectors still have no measurable packaging commitments.
The findings come as efforts to curb plastic pollution continue to falter. The latest round of negotiations for a global plastics treaty, held in August, ended without agreement on key measures to cap plastic production or regulate harmful chemicals. Despite support from more than 100 countries for tougher, binding rules, the draft text lacked mandatory provisions.
“With no global consensus in sight, the burden of accountability is shifting to investors and national regulators,” the report said. “Companies that delay aligning with emerging standards are facing growing financial and legal risks.”
In July, 88 institutional investors representing US$7.5 trillion in assets issued a joint statement demanding clearer targets and stronger transparency from plastics and petrochemical companies.
Weak targets, high risk
Planet Tracker’s analysis of companies listed on the MSCI ACWI index, a global equity index that measures the equity performance in developed and emerging markets, reveals that more than half of packaged food and restaurant companies have no packaging-related targets.
In the packaged foods and meats sector, 103 out of 189 companies reported no goals; in restaurants, 56 of 78 firms lacked commitments; and in personal care, nearly half had not set any measurable objectives.
Even among companies that do set targets, many commitments are narrow – limited to specific product lines, materials, or markets. Such selective pledges, the report warns, undermine credibility and could amount to greenwashing if not embedded in a broader corporate strategy.
A handful of companies are demonstrating leadership. Coca-Cola HBC AG, a bottler that operates in Europe, Africa, and Asia, discloses its full packaging material mix, implements waste reduction programmes across operations, and reports measurable improvements in design and recovery. PepsiCo has introduced consumer waste-reduction schemes in some markets. However, both PepsiCo and Coca-Cola have a track record of missing or shifting targets, a phenomenon known as greenrinsing. Coca-Cola is routinely name the world’s largest plastic polluter in beach litter audits.
Over half of Asia Pacific companies analysed (56.2 per cent) lack any recycling content targets, with a particularly big gap among restaurants (75.8 per cent), packaged food companies (60 per cent), and personal care product manufacturers (54.5 per cent).
Only 5.4 per cent of Asia Pacific firms have comprehensive strategies for reducing packaging environmental impacts.
“The absence of clear targets represents not merely a sustainability shortcoming but a material business risk, as regulatory frameworks across Asia increasingly mandate packaging reduction, recycled content minimums, and extended producer responsibility (EPR),” Thalia Bofiliou, senior investment analyst for Planet Tracker, told Eco-Business.
Jurisdictions including the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia have introduced or plan to implement EPR schemes that mandate producers to recover and recycle their products after use.
Financial, legal and health risks
The financial implications of weak plastic governance are already visible, the study finds. Over a 12-year analysis, firms in the bottom quintile for plastic risk management were more than twice as likely as top performers to suffer share price declines of 70 per cent or more. Companies with stronger plastic strategies, by contrast, showed steadier revenues and cash flow.
“These results indicate a clear association between weak plastic strategies and elevated downside risk,” the report said.
Legal exposure is also climbing. Companies are being sued for pollution, misleading recyclability claims and non-disclosure of environmental risks. PepsiCo, for instance, is facing a lawsuit from Los Angeles County for allegedly misrepresenting the recyclability of its packaging. Nestlé has also been accused of violating EPR laws in California. Litigation costs across the sector could exceed US$20 billion by 2030, with potential liabilities surpassing US$100 billion in extreme cases.
The report draws on recent scientific evidence linking microplastics to serious health risks. Studies published by the World Health Organization and scientific journal Nature have connected plastic particles to cardiovascular disease, hormonal disruption, and developmental toxicity. Globally, the economic burden of plastic pollution is estimated at US$1.5 trillion annually, while plastic-related health costs in the United States alone exceed US$250 billion a year.
A separate study from Planet Tracker and Safer Chemistry Impact Fund also found that chemicals in almost half (45 per cent) of plastic additive products cannot be identified. Some 25 per cent of the additives identified scored in the most hazardous category, including bisphenols and PFAS, while 11 per cent of products contained chemicals for which there is no data on their potential harms.
This evidence, Planet Tracker warns, strengthens the case for litigation, stricter regulation and investor action. “The convergence of scientific proof, regulatory tightening, and consumer awareness makes plastic risk financially material in a way it wasn’t just a few years ago,” the report says.
The report’s authors urge investors to take a more proactive role in addressing plastic-related risks by reviewing their portfolios for exposure to microplastic pollution, pressing companies to set ambitious packaging and recycled-content goals, and integrating microplastic risks into environmental, social and governance assessments.
