The plastic packaging industry is deceiving consumers with false sustainability claims, according to experts. But here's the shocking truth: Europe's shelves are filled with products boasting eco-friendly packaging, yet the reality is far from sustainable.
The Problem with Plastic Packaging
Many popular brands, like Kraft's Heinz Beanz and Mondelēz's Philadelphia, use plastic packaging materials sourced from Saudi Aramco, the oil giant's plastic manufacturing arm. Despite their green marketing, these brands are contributing to a major environmental issue. Aramco, a state-owned company, is the world's largest corporate greenhouse gas emitter, releasing over 70 million tonnes of emissions up to 2023. And they oppose production cuts under the UN plastic treaty, making the situation even more concerning.
The Greenwashing Scheme
Aramco's petrochemical subsidiary, Sabic, has found a way to rebrand their harmful practices as environmentally friendly. They label plastic as 'circular' and climate-friendly, but in reality, it's mostly fossil-based, worsening global warming and the plastic pollution crisis. And the worst part? Europe is about to legalize this greenwashing, with lax EU rules starting in 2026 and similar UK regulations in 2027.
The Pyrolysis Ploy
To promote 'sustainable' plastic, the industry pushes pyrolysis, a highly energy-intensive process that converts plastic waste into recycled feedstock, known as pyrolysis oil. But here's the catch: this oil can only make up 5% of the total feedstock and must be mixed with 95% virgin naphtha, a petroleum derivative, to prevent damage to steam-cracking plants. This means that for every step forward in recycling, there's a significant step back in fossil fuel use.
Controversial Accounting Tricks
The industry uses two controversial accounting methods to present appealing recycling rates and emissions figures. 'Mass-balance bookkeeping' allows them to label products as '100% recycled' even if they contain no actual recycled material. And the 'avoided emissions' approach creates the illusion of savings by comparing emissions to hypothetical incineration scenarios. These tricks are legal but highly misleading.
Questionable Certifications
The International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC), an industry-led platform, issues recycling labels based on mass balance. However, public records suggest that Sabic's recycled material or pyrolysis oil may represent less than 5% of their total feedstock, with a massive amount of naphtha used in their European plants. Sabic's carbon footprint calculation, or life cycle assessment (LCA), admits that the process emits more than producing plastic from fossil fuels. The only way they show net benefits is by counting avoided incineration emissions, which are purely hypothetical.
Impartiality Concerns
Sabic claims their LCA undergoes a rigorous review by experts, including their main feedstock supplier, Plastic Energy. But the close business ties between reviewers and Sabic raise doubts about the review's impartiality. Sabic and Plastic Energy have declined to provide full LCAs or answer questions, further fueling suspicions.
The Real Climate Impact
Research shows that LCAs can be selectively framed to mask the true climate footprint. When recycled feedstock replaces only a small fraction of fossil-based plastic, carbon savings can disappear. This means that consumer brands' sustainability claims may be unreliable and potentially misleading, as the overestimated savings are passed down the value chain.
Lobbying and the Future of Plastic
Petrochemical companies have been lobbying EU institutions to ensure upcoming laws favor mass balance, while also securing deals with pyrolysis oil suppliers. Despite brands' promises, mandatory recycled content targets may be met even as big oil companies expand virgin plastic production. As fossil fuel demand declines, plastic could become a significant profit driver for oil majors, according to the International Energy Agency.
This investigation, supported by IJ4EU and coordinated by Ludovica Jona, reveals a complex web of greenwashing and misleading practices in the plastic packaging industry. It raises important questions about the integrity of sustainability claims and the future of plastic production. Are we being duped by clever marketing, or is there a genuine commitment to sustainability? The debate is open, and your voice matters.
