To become a Vogue Business Member and receive the Sustainability Edit newsletter, click here.
The world has been inching towards a deal to tackle plastic pollution, and the release of a rough draft of the Global Plastics Treaty by the United Nations Environmental Assembly and the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) on Monday marked the latest step toward that goal. Under a resolution agreed last year, 175 nations will sign a legally binding deal by the end of 2024.
The treaty has the potential to be groundbreaking, environmental experts say, if the more ambitious options, such as limiting total plastic production, win out in the final text. If they don’t, it could turn into yet another agreement that promises a lot in theory but is meaningless in practice. The focus on recycled plastic content, waste management and vague references to extended producer responsibility, for example, leave advocates worried that the treaty will emphasise recycling and other waste management measures at the expense of upstream solutions that would target the plastic problem at its root.
“If we do not cap and reduce plastic production, so much of the rest of this will fail,” says Graham Forbes, global plastics project lead for Greenpeace USA, who headed the organisation’s Paris delegation advocating for a draft that mandates reductions in global plastic production.
The draft addresses plastic pollution across different stages of the lifecycle, from what products are made out of — with a section on “primary plastic polymers”, for instance, and intentionally added microplastics — to how they are managed when they become waste, including transboundary movement of plastic waste and extended producer responsibility schemes. However, it’s still a draft: there are multiple and wide-ranging options for how to tackle each issue, as well as many placeholders in sections where text has yet to be written at all. It puts options on the table for negotiators to come back to in November, when the third session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) will be held at the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) headquarters in Nairobi.
The treaty could have significant implications for fashion, which uses plastic in some form or another not only in packaging but in the production of fibres — synthetics such as polyester and nylon are made from petroleum — as well as in manufacturing, whether it’s dyes or finishing chemicals or polybags to protect garments as they’re moved from one facility to another.
The industry is largely absent, however, from the entire treaty negotiation process. The fact that the draft does not mention fibres at all, arguably fashion’s primary use of plastic, is the latest reminder of the disconnect between policymakers eyeing environmental initiatives and the realities of the fashion industry’s impacts.
“The fashion industry gets a pass in a lot of ways, and that is disturbing because it's so ubiquitous,” says Greenpeace’s Forbes. “While they are very far from perfect and have their own disastrous business models, [other consumer goods sectors] are advocating for things that are going to be important. We’d like to see the fashion industry show up with a similar ethos.”
Others say that while companies should be paying attention to the treaty and the talks leading up to it, they should not be involved in the negotiations. It’s a conflict of interest, says Alejandra Warren, co-founder and executive director of California-based non-profit Plastic Free Future, who is also part of an environmental justice delegation that Break Free from Plastic, a global coalition, organised for the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations.
Still, the fact that fashion doesn’t seem to even be paying attention is problematic in its own right. “They don't want to see themselves as part of the problem,” she says.
The industry’s absenteeism could also leave fashion companies vulnerable and unprepared to comply with the rules of the treaty once it starts to take effect. “If they don’t get involved and start advocating for the things that matter and having a say in how those rules are created, they’re going to be left scrambling trying to figure out how to comply with those regulations down the road,” says Greenpeace’s Forbes.
Changing the economics
If the treaty is ultimately effective, it will be written in such a way that it won’t target specific uses of plastic (such as polyester), so much as it would alter the economics of the entire plastics economy. That would have ripple effects not only on material choices, but on how brands operate their full supply chains. “They’re going to have to prioritise natural fibres, which is going to be more expensive. So, they’re going to have to think about, where are we going to compromise that revenue? Who’s going to make less money? Because it’s going to have to happen,” says Plastic Free Future’s Warren. “Hopefully, that change to non-plastic substitutes [can] create opportunity for farmers, for workers, for women to have a just transition. To me, that is the biggest opportunity that we have with this treaty, not only for the fashion industry, but for so many industries — it’s a chance to rethink the way we do things.”
Advocates have applauded INC negotiators for addressing the need for a just transition in the draft treaty, but they’ll be watching closely to see how it’s written into the final version. They also lament the lack of recognition in the draft of Indigenous knowledge and the leadership role that Indigenous communities can play in advancing every component of the treaty, as it’s “currently only mentioned in the context of knowledge sharing and capacity building”, according to a statement from Break Free from Plastic.
That’s a key area Warren will stay focused on moving forward — and where she sees hope that the treaty can deliver real solutions for the world to tackle what has become a systemic problem. For fashion, she says the first step is to acknowledge the amount of plastic it uses and the toxic impacts it has on the planet.
“So much of it right now is just supply and demand — it’s so cheap to use fossil fuels, the subsidies and the abundance make this stuff so cheap to the point where it’s less expensive to buy a new shirt than to wash it. I think the treaty has the potential to shift the balance there,” says Greenpeace’s Forbes.
That’s why fashion also needs to get involved — because it can be part of the conversations, and also start to adapt to the direction in which those conversations move. If it sits idly by, it does neither — missing a chance to help shape a more sustainable future for both the planet, and for itself.
“I think the fashion industry is not paying enough attention to these negotiations, and needs to start. They have a chance to set the industry on a better trajectory right now,” says Forbes. “I don’t think they want to be aligned with the fossil fuel industry, because we all know where that ends — it ends in an unlivable planet. And I’m sure that that’s incompatible with their growth projections.”
Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
More from this author:
Ecofeminism and plants as inspiration: The end-of-summer sustainable fashion reading list
