Break Free From Plastic

LONDON — Members of the Samoan and Pacific Islander community and environmental advocates protested outside Coca-Cola Europacific Partners’ (CCEP) annual general meeting Thursday, calling on the company to reduce single-use plastic and bring back reusable packaging systems. CCEP is Coca-Cola’s largest bottler by revenue. Headquartered in London, it produces, sells, and distributes the company’s products across 31 global markets, including Western Europe, Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands.

At the cultural protest, members from the London School of Hula and ‘Ori performed traditional Samoan song and dance, including "Lo ta nu’u," and presented a performance titled "O le vasa, we are the ocean," highlighting the connection between Pacific Island communities and the ocean.

Advocates delivered a symbolic "message in a bottle," which included a letter signed by Sosaiete Faasao o Samoa / Samoa Conservation Society, Samoa Recycling and Waste Management Association (SRWMA), Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN), the London School of Hula and ‘Ori, Break Free From Plastic (BFFP), and Oceana, placed inside a single-use plastic Coca-Cola bottle from Samoa. The letter, addressed to CCEP’s CEO Damian Gammell, highlights the company’s increased use of single-use plastic bottles, its effects on the oceans and Samoan communities, and how the company can help solve this problem.

In 2021, in Samoa, Coca-Cola stopped bottling its products in reusable glass bottles. Now CCEP imports large quantities of single-use plastic bottles from Fiji and New Zealand. The shift to imported plastic bottles has contributed to rising waste, much of which is littered, burned, or landfilled due to limited recycling capacity. Reportedly, imports of plastic bottles more than doubled between 2020 and 2025, and Coca-Cola products account for about one-third of beverage bottle waste in the country.

"We encourage Coca-Cola to be on the right side of history by moving back to reusable bottles, like glass, in Samoa and becoming a leader in the transition away from plastics. As one of the most recognizable global brands, we believe that Coca-Cola can be a game changer in the fight against plastics, should they choose to prioritize planet over profits, " said James Atherton of the Sosaiete Faasao o Samoa (Samoa Conservation Society).

“Given the limited capacity for plastic recycling in Samoa, most of the waste ends up being littered, illegally dumped, incinerated, or landfilled. For those of us in Samoa, we witness the consequences of your business decisions every day. On our land, across our beaches, and in our waters,” the groups wrote in the letter. 

"Plastic pollution and the climate crisis share the same fossil fuel origin, and Pacific Island communities bear a disproportionate share of both. The science is sobering: microplastics have been documented in 97% of fish species sampled across our ocean region — nearly 50% above the global average — yet CCEP's PET use in the Asia-Pacific outpaces its own global share. Reinstating refillable systems in Samoa is not a favour to the Pacific; it is the evidence-based, climate-consistent decision a company of CCEP's scale is well-positioned to make," said Rufino Varea, Director, Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN).

CCEP continues to sell single-use plastic in Samoa despite growing global concern over the plastic pollution crisis in the ocean and its likely impacts on human health. This trend is not unique to Samoa — according to an analysis by Oceana of CCEP’s reported data, between 2020 and 2025, the company’s global use of PET plastic packaging increased by over two-thirds from 198 to 335 thousand metric tons.

On the occasion of CCEP’s annual general meeting, the groups are calling on Coca-Cola and CCEP to transition back to reusable packaging, reduce single-use plastic, and invest in waste management solutions in affected communities.

“Performed in Sāmoa and London by members from across Pacific communities, this Sāmoan hymn and Sāsā reflects the pride we hold in our cultures and ways of life, our gratitude for the Earth and Oceans that sustain us, and the unity that binds us in protecting these things for generations to come,” said Krysten Resnick, Founder and Director of the London School of Hula and ‘Ori.

“Coca-Cola and CCEP have an opportunity in Samoa to right a wrong by bringing back reusable glass bottles and eliminating their plastic bottle waste. Reuse is the right choice for supporting healthy communities and protecting our oceans,” said Dr. Dana Miller, Senior Director of Strategic Initiatives for Oceana. 

“Coca-Cola has been the world's worst plastic polluter six years running, accounting for at least 11% of all branded plastic waste found in the environment. And yet, rather than scaling up the reusable glass bottle systems that reduce single-use plastic, the company is phasing them out in places like Samoa. This company has the solution and all the know-how to make it work. Instead, it is actively choosing a path that generates more pollution - to the detriment of the communities and ecosystems left to deal with its waste. Coca-Cola must bring back reusable glass, urgently and at scale,” said Emma Priestland, Global Corporate Campaigns Coordinator for #BreakFreeFromPlastic

To read the full letter to CCEP, click here. 

Photos are available here.

###

Additional Background: 

• The protest and letter come amid growing global scrutiny of Coca-Cola’s sustainability practices. A peer-reviewed study in the journal Science found that Coca-Cola was the number one polluter of branded plastic found in the environment.
• Despite its rapidly growing plastic footprint, the company abandoned its goal to increase reusable packaging in December 2024.
• In 2025, Oceana released a report that projects The Coca-Cola Company’s plastic use will exceed 9.1 billion pounds (4.1 million metric tons) per year by 2030 if the company does not change its practices. This would be nearly a 40% increase over the company’s reported plastic use in 2018 and a 20% increase over the company’s most recently reported plastic use in 2023, which was already enough plastic to circle the Earth more than 100 times.
• The report also estimates that up to 1.3 billion pounds (602,000 metric tons) of the plastic packaging that Coca-Cola uses annually by 2030 would enter the world’s waterways and oceans if the company continues on its current course. This amount of plastic could fill the stomachs of over 18 million blue whales. 
• The Oceana report also found that Coca-Cola could reduce its annual plastic use below current levels if it were to reach 26.4% reusable packaging by 2030.
• In December 2021, the Samoa Conservation Society delivered a petition to Coca-Cola South Pacific asking the company to resume glass bottling in the country.

About the Sosaiete Faasao o Samoa:

Sosaiete Faasao O Samoa / The Samoa Conservation Society is a Samoan non-governmental organisation dedicated to promoting the conservation of Samoa’s natural heritage and helping the public reduce their environmental impacts and develop greener lifestyles. We work collaboratively with communities, the Government and NGO partners to raise awareness on the state of, and threats to, Samoa’s environment and biodiversity. We also teach the public and youth groups about our natural heritage and the practical actions we can take to promote species and ecosystem conservation and to reduce our environmental footprint.

About PICAN:

The Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN) is a regional alliance of civil society organisations working on climate change in the Pacific region. Since 2013, it has brought together civil society actors across the Pacific Island countries, advocating for climate justice and environmental integrity. PICAN aims to unite civil society under a common voice to increase the influence and impact of their advocacy demands on Pacific Island governments, leading non-Pacific governments to respond with more powerful and ambitious climate change policies and action at the national and regional level.

About LSHO:

The London School of Hula and 'Ori (LSHO) is a cultural arts organisation dedicated to preserving and advancing Pacific heritage through lineage-based cultural practice, education, performance, and community engagement. LSHO provides a vital space where Pacific diaspora communities in London/UK, as well as anyone interested in Pacific cultural arts, can gather, learn, and participate, helping to create a more visible presence where Pacific arts, knowledge, and communities are valued, connected, and sustained.

About Oceana:

Oceana is the largest international organization dedicated solely to ocean conservation. Oceana is rebuilding abundant and biodiverse oceans by winning science-based policies in countries that control one-quarter of the world’s wild fish catch. With more than 350 victories that stop overfishing, habitat destruction, oil and plastic pollution, and the killing of threatened species like turtles, whales, and sharks, Oceana’s campaigns are delivering results. A restored ocean means that 1 billion people can enjoy a healthy seafood meal every day, forever. Together, we can save the oceans and help feed the world. Visit Oceana.org to learn more.

About BFFP:

#BreakFreeFromPlastic (BFFP) is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in 2016, more than 3500 member organizations and 11,000 individual supporters in 186 countries have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. BFFP member organizations and individuals share the values of environmental protection and social justice and work together through a holistic approach to bring about systemic change. This means tackling plastic pollution across the whole plastics value chain—from extraction to disposal—focusing on prevention rather than cure and providing effective solutions.

This April, in Amsterdam (the Netherlands), plastic was on the agenda at one of Europe’s biggest banks’ Annual General Meetings. Campaigners and members of the Break Free From Plastic movement took their concerns directly to the Board of ING Bank, calling out the stark discrepancies between its public sustainability commitments and its far less publicised financing decisions.

Despite the well-documented harms plastic causes to environmental and human health, plastics are missing from many banks’ environmental policies. Banks have faced little accountability for their contribution to the plastic crisis, despite playing a central role in funding the production and proliferation of plastics worldwide.

Photo credit: Milieudefensie/Edo Landwehr, 2026

Financing is the oxygen that keeps plastic production alive and that is precisely why bank policies matter. When a bank establishes a plastics policy, it sets clear boundaries on what it will and will not fund, sending a powerful market signal that the most harmful parts of the plastic value chain carry real financial and reputational risk. Without such policies, there are no limitations, and capital flows freely to plastic producers, enabling the industry to expand unchecked. Beyond plastic production itself, banks also finance companies driving demand for single-use plastics and support downstream technological approaches that many campaigners and researchers argue risk delaying the transition to reduction, reuse and refill systems.

Policies also create accountability: once a bank makes a public commitment, it can be held to it by campaigners, shareholders, and regulators. Given that building and scaling plastic production is extremely capital-intensive, restricting access to that financing is one of the most direct levers available for reducing plastic production at its source. 

Photo credit: Fair Resource Foundation, 2026

ING, like many banks, currently lacks a plastics financing policy with clear criteria for limiting or excluding financing for plastics production. ING publicly acknowledges that plastic waste and pollution are a “downside”. It also points out that plastic waste is set to triple by 2060, with half still landfilled and less than a fifth recycled. ING states that it finances clients across the plastic value chain, “from upstream production to midstream users of plastic and downstream collection, sorting and recycling.”

Taken together, this raises questions about how ING’s recognition of plastic pollution translates into its financing decisions, particularly in the absence of clear criteria to limit continued expansion of virgin plastic production.

Annual General Meetings are spaces where executive leadership reports to a company's shareholders and provides an opportunity to expose the gaps between sustainability commitments and corporate behaviour. Through shareholder activism, civil society organisations have gradually gained access to AGMs using small amounts of shares to pressure  corporate decision-making from the inside. It is a tactic long used by climate groups, and one that is proving just as powerful in the fight against plastic pollution. 

Executives can ignore emails, campaigns and press releases, but they cannot ignore a formal question asked on the record in front of their major investors. By stepping into this space, we gained direct access to the bank’s leadership and had the opportunity to ask a question directly to the board and hold ING publicly accountable. 

Campaigners and activists from across the climate movement attended this year’s ING AGM, bringing attention to the investments ING has in oil, gas and coal. (pictures of protest). Inside, shareholders from these groups and organisations confronted the bank on  a range of policies, demonstrating that civil society is united to show up where decisions are actually made.

Photo credit: Fair Resource Foundation, 2026

At the AGM, ING was asked directly: how, while acknowledging plastic pollution as a material risk, does it justify continuing to finance companies expanding virgin plastic production, including INEOS' Project ONE, the ethane cracker currently being built in Antwerp? The bank was also pressed to provide a clear timeline for client requirements across the plastic value chain, including plastic footprint disclosure, time-bound reduction targets, and a prioritisation of reuse and refill models over downstream and technological fixes.

Their answer was deeply disappointing. ING deflected to the United Nations and the need for a Global Plastics Treaty, effectively arguing that it cannot act until international frameworks are in place. 

Attending ING’s AGM was just the first step in asking the bank to take meaningful action to address its role in the plastic crisis. This week, the Break Free From Plastic movement, together with members Fair Resource Foundation, Plastic Soup Foundation, Women Engage for a Common Future, and Fair Finance Guide Germany have sent a follow-up letter to ING bank with a series of questions. These include questions about how ING assesses clients involved in plastic production or users of plastic packaging, its policies on financing chemical recycling given its well-documented ineffectiveness, its engagement with ESG rating agencies to improve plastic-related metrics, its plans to reduce financing for fossil polymer production, and its timeline for developing a strategy that supports the investment and scaling up of reuse and refill models.

ING’s response at their 2026 AGM reflects a pattern seen before: acknowledge the problem, defer the solution and continue business as usual. The formal letter sent this week is an opportunity for ING to move beyond deflection and demonstrate that its sustainability commitments amount to more than rhetoric. Financial institutions, as the enablers of the plastic and climate crises, have the power and responsibility to develop meaningful plastics policies that shift capital away from plastic production and toward real solutions. Until then, the scrutiny will continue.

On 30th April, The Guardian published an article ‘Germany was largest exporter of plastic waste in 2025, sending 810,000 tonnes overseas, analysis finds’ based on a deep dive by Leana Hosea, of Watershed Investigations. It spotlights work by BFFP members, Basel Action Network and Jan Dell of The Last Beach Cleanup.

The headline is stark: Germany was the world’s largest exporter of plastic waste in 2025, shipping over 810,000 tonnes abroad, with the UK close behind at more than 675,000 tonnes. Much of this waste continues to flow to countries like Türkiye, Malaysia and Indonesia, where repeated investigations, like those conducted by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), link imports to environmental harm, illegal dumping and burning and wider social impacts.

This is exactly why sustained, evidence-based advocacy matters. It is encouraging to see the foundations laid by years of campaigning beginning to translate into policy shifts, particularly with tighter controls in Europe.

But the story doesn’t end with an export ban to non-OECD countries slated for  November 2026.

As export restrictions evolve, there is a very real risk of displacement rather than reduction. The EIA is already watching this closely in Türkiye, the UK and across eastern European countries, where capacity constraints and enforcement gaps could once again concentrate harm. The reality in Türkiye, despite its claim to be a "zero waste" champion and government-led greenwashing, is that many regions are overwhelmed by huge amounts of waste that far exceed recycling capacity, with shocking imagery and harm, and citizens bearing the brunt of this pollution.

At the same time, it is genuinely encouraging to see the proactive energy emerging from European enforcement authorities as they work collaboratively across borders to address illegal waste trade and strengthen oversight. That momentum will be critical in the transition away from exports.

Because ultimately, this is not just a waste management issue. It is a systemic failure in how we produce, use and externalise the costs of plastic. And it is one we can no longer afford to export.

Yet every time such a media story appears on the international plastic waste trade, a familiar pattern follows. A highly presentable, data-heavy, modelling-oriented academic voice appears and says, in essence: “Actually, this is not quite correct, because our calculations show something else.” Then comes the usual lecture: we need “accurate information”, we need to be “consistent”, we need to “look at the data properly”.

Of course, accuracy matters. Data matters. Consistency matters.

But there is a serious problem when this type of intervention systematically ignores the most important part of the story: the environmental harm, the human cost, the occupational deaths, the illegal practices, the invisible pollution, and the fact that plastic waste trade is not merely a technical trade-flow issue.

We saw this pattern again after The Guardian article. Our views were included in that article, specifically on the environmental pollution dimension. And that is exactly where we think the discussion must remain focused. Because this is not simply a matter of whether one database, model, or trade-flow estimate is more elegant than another.

The data landscape itself is already deeply problematic: Comtrade, Eurostat and WTO-related datasets do not always capture the full picture. 

In fact, in a recent presentation by officials from the Turkish Ministry of Trade, we saw figures indicating that Türkiye imported around 1.3 million tonnes of plastic waste from the EU in 2024. You cannot find these figures anywhere else, they are very unlikely to be fabricated. So when there are such major discrepancies between different datasets, it is not intellectually serious to dismiss investigative journalism by simply saying: “Your data are incomplete; our model is better.”

That is not scientific rigour. That is selective framing. And selective framing becomes especially problematic when it repeatedly comes from people who are very comfortable defending industry collaboration, while directing most of their criticism toward civil society, investigative journalists, and environmental advocates.

The plastic waste trade is not just an economic transaction. It is a pollution issue, a human rights issue and also a colonial issue.

Imported plastic waste washes up on beaches, thick as snowdrifts. Yet unlike snow, they break down into harmful microplastics and leach toxic chemicals into the water and soil. Image credits: Vedat Örüç.

Therefore, any commentary on this issue that reduces the debate to a technical dispute over datasets, while ignoring the environmental and human consequences, should be treated with caution. Science is not a decorative shield for political convenience. And “data” should not be used as a smoke screen to obscure pollution, injustice, and accountability. The real question is not only how many tonnes were traded. The real question is: who pays the environmental and human price for this trade?

These thoughts were originally shared as posts on LinkedIn.

Authors:

Amy Youngman (International Environmental Attorney, Environmental Investigation Agency)

Sedat Gündoğdu (Professor at Cukurova University | Head of Microplastic Research Group | Marine Pollution Researcher | Researcher at Istanbul Policy Center/Sabancı University)

BRUSSELS — A leaked letter signed by more than 100 food and beverage company CEOs, including Coca-Cola, Heineken, McDonald’s, Kraft Heinz and Mondelez, is calling on European Union institutions to delay and reopen key provisions of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), just months before implementation is set to begin in August 2026.

On 29 April, CEOs requested EU institutions to delay key implementation timelines and revise provisions. If acted upon, requests could weaken restrictions on harmful PFAS chemicals in food packaging, and expand exemptions to keep large volumes of single-use packaging on the market, undermining the EU’s objective to reduce packaging waste at a time when waste levels remain high. Notably, a number of signatories and active sponsors of this initiative are headquartered outside the EU, raising questions about the extent to which corporate interests beyond Europe are seeking to undermine democratically agreed EU law.

A broad alliance of over 160 Break Free From Plastic members and allies, communities impacted by plastic and PFAS pollution, universities, consumer rights organisations and businesses committed to reuse, have sent a letter in response urging EU leaders to reject this lobbying push and uphold the Regulation as agreed by the European Parliament, Council and Commission.

They have warned that reopening agreed legislation at this stage risks weakening environmental protections, undermines regulatory certainty for companies already investing in compliance, and sets a precedent for corporate influence over environmental law after adoption. 

The PPWR, one of the most heavily lobbied EU files, was adopted through the full legislative procedure, following extensive public and industry consultation. Companies have had both regulatory clarity and guidance to adapt their business models and supply chains.

Environmental and health groups argue that reopening agreed provisions would erode trust in the legislative process and deflect responsibility for democratically agreed environmental commitments back onto EU institutions. 

There is a contradiction between the voluntary sustainability commitments made by major brands and their behind-the-scenes policy positions. Several signatory companies have presented themselves as climate and circular economy leaders, yet are now seeking to weaken packaging reduction rules, delay chemical safety measures, and limit implementation of reuse systems. However, the PPWR mandatory reuse targets exist precisely because recycling alone cannot deliver the structural shift Europe needs to reduce packaging waste.

The lobbying push is creating collateral damage for businesses,  including major market players, that are genuinely committed to the success of the regulation and are already investing in the transition. Companies that have already started to adapt their supply chains around PPWR compliance are now facing unnecessary regulatory uncertainty, putting planned investments and innovation at risk. 

The outcome of this lobbying effort will be closely watched across Europe and beyond as governments around the world consider similar packaging and plastics policies. If corporate lobbying succeeds in reopening a regulation weeks before it applies, it risks signalling that even landmark environmental law remains vulnerable to last-minute, covert lobbying pressure, regardless of democratic process. 

Marco Musso, Deputy Policy Manager for Circular Economy at the European Environmental Bureau, said: 

''It is disappointing to witness yet another attempt to delay and dilute a legislation designed to protect citizens and to stop the uncontrolled growth of packaging waste. Fortunately, the usual suspects behind the CEO letter do not speak for the majority of the packaging value chain. Across Europe a multitude of businesses, including major players, remain genuinely supportive of the regulation and are already investing to prepare for it. We stand with the EU institutions to preserve the integrity of the regulation and ensure effective implementation.”

Emma Priestland, Corporate Campaigns Coordinator for the Break Free From Plastic movement, said: 

“The letter sent by some of the world’s biggest users and polluters of plastic is a shocking example of corporations trying to override the democratic will of 27 countries. Their last minute attempt to derail this vital piece of legislation shows a frankly appalling disregard for the wishes, safety and wellbeing of their own customers. Companies should be focusing on ending their reliance on single-use packaging rather than influencing the law of an entire region.”

Sam Pearse, Campaigns Director from Story of Stuff, said: 

“The PPWR is a direct response to decades of fast-moving consumer goods companies shifting to disposable packaging—shedding microplastics and harmful chemicals while pushing their costs onto society. Now, some of those same companies, including U.S.-based corporations like McDonald’s, claim to support the law’s intent after pouring resources into weakening it and carving out exemptions. Their complaints ring hollow. The PPWR sets a critical global benchmark for moving away from throwaway packaging. EU leaders must hold the line — the world is watching.”

Catia De Cao, from Italian civil society network Rete Zero PFAS Italia, said: 

"I am deeply concerned about PFAS, having grown up in a region of Italy’s Veneto that has been severely affected by ‘forever chemical’ contamination. Years of exposure have left many people in my community with dangerously high levels of PFAS in their blood, increasing the risk of a multitude of serious health issues. But regardless of whether people live in pollution hotspots or not, we are all exposed to PFAS on a daily basis, as it is commonly used in food and beverage packaging. To protect people’s health - and especially the health of the youngest generations - the European Commission must go ahead with the ban of PFAS in food packaging.”

Notes to the editor

• Read the Break Free From Plastic and allies’ response letter here
• Read the leaked CEO letter here
• The EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation text and implementation timeline: 2025/40 

Press Contacts: 

• Bethany Spendlove Keeley, European Communications Manager Break Free From Plastic | Bethany@breakfreefromplastic.org | +49 (0)176 595 87 941
• Caroline Will, Communications Coordinator Rethink Plastic alliance | caroline@rethinkplasticalliance.org | +32 456 56 07 05