Treaty or no treaty, the world can no longer escape its plastics reckoning

Big businesses cannot use the most recent collapse of global plastics treaty negotiations as a reason to stall their own commitments to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Instead, the moment calls for bolder strategies and genuine innovation. The ambition behind the United Nations’ Global Plastics Treaty has always been enormous. By 2040, the framework aimed to end plastic pollution worldwide. It was never going to be an easy road, but after three years of talks, many hoped that the latest round of negotiations in Geneva would deliver progress. It did not.

Petrostates such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran, which hold significant power, blocked attempts at an ambitious agreement. Other countries, unwilling to accept a watered-down compromise, refused to sign off on anything less than meaningful action. And so, another round of talks concluded with no progress. For the environmentally conscious, the outcome was frustrating but hardly surprising. Without binding agreements, the world’s largest plastic producers will not prioritize planetary health or the $1.5 trillion in global health-related losses over petrochemical profits.

There is, however, a silver lining. More than one hundred nations agree that no treaty at all is better than a weak one. With talks stalling, the pathway forward could involve new negotiating rounds or a coalition of willing nations striking their own deal outside the current framework. Whatever happens, a binding set of rules on plastic production and waste management is not arriving as quickly as businesses had hoped.

That uncertainty leaves companies with a choice. Do they sit back and wait, or do they act? Waiting would be a mistake. Competitors are moving ahead with their own solutions, and those who hold out for perfect multilateral alignment will find themselves left behind. Investors and consumers are demanding action now. Businesses that delay risk damaging their reputations and resilience when a global framework eventually takes shape.

There are countless ways to take meaningful action. Bioplastics often grab headlines. These materials, derived from renewable biomass, can sometimes break down more easily than traditional plastics based on fossil fuels.

But they are not a cure-all. Production costs remain high, and fossil plastics are still cheaper; scaling new bioplastics requires massive infrastructure and time. Replacing all virgin plastics with bio-based alternatives may reduce harm, but it would do nothing to address the billions of tons of plastic waste already polluting the planet. Bioplastics have a role to play, especially in industries such as packaging and medical textiles; however, relying on them alone distracts from systemic change.

The better solution is often the simplest: reduce plastic use altogether. Removing layers of unnecessary packaging or designing products that last longer can make a significant impact. Startups are showing what this looks like in practice. Open Funk, a German company, has developed a kitchen mixer entirely from modular components, allowing parts to be repaired or upgraded instead of being discarded. In the UK, Zig and Star have designed children’s shoes that grow with the wearer, helping families keep shoes longer and reduce waste.

Reuse and refill systems also hold promise. Deposit return schemes for food and drink packaging are gaining traction, although the inconvenience of using apps and locating return points can be a barrier. Companies like Borro are solving this with seamless, app-free technology that automatically refunds deposits when reusable cups are returned. Others, like HOPE Hydration, are working to eliminate single-use water bottles by building a free refill network that generates revenue through advertising rather than bottle sales.

Recycling, while further down the waste hierarchy, remains vital. Robotics and artificial intelligence are making recycling faster, safer, and more efficient, as demonstrated by Danu Robotics’ automated sorting systems. Scientists are also pushing boundaries. In Japan, researchers have developed methods to utilize enzymes to break down PET plastics with reduced energy consumption, thereby transforming previously difficult-to-recycle waste streams into usable materials once again.

The collapse of treaty negotiations feels like a setback, but it is not the end of the movement. National regulations continue to evolve, such as the UK’s Extended Producer Responsibility scheme. Meanwhile, innovators worldwide are developing solutions that reduce dependence on plastic and integrate circularity into their business models.

For companies, the lesson is clear. Circularity is no longer just a sustainability slogan; it is a fundamental principle. It is a competitive advantage and a shield against future resource volatility. Businesses that build it into the core of their operations will thrive as consumer expectations harden and regulations tighten. Those who hesitate will eventually scramble to catch up.