A global movement of more than 2,000 organizations is working to remove the social license for single-use plastics and target companies active at every link in the polymer value chain.

Through our “Ask An Advocate Anything” blog series, we chat with influential activists and campaigners, seeking to better understand their theories of change and explore how NGOs are challenging and collaborating with companies to advance business as a force for good.

The views and statements shared in the following interview are those of the interviewee alone and do not represent the perspective of Future 500. This transcript has been edited for length and clarity. To learn more about how we approach these conversations, check out our Editorial Policy.

Break Free From Plastic is a global movement of more than 2,000 groups tackling plastic pollution across the full plastics value chain, from extraction to disposal. It focuses on “prevention rather than cure”—that is, going beyond end of life management to reduce the production and consumption of plastic products. They treat plastics as a humanitarian issue. 

Break Free From Plastic is known for pioneering an annual brand audit––a citizen-led initiative that “is taking litter cleanups a step further by documenting the brands found on plastic waste” in order to “identify the companies most responsible for plastic pollution globally.” We spoke with Shilpi Chhotray, the movement’s global communications lead, in the lead up to the release of its 2020 brand audit.

Note: See the full report “BRANDED Vol III: Demanding Corporate Accountability for Plastic Pollution” here.

Tell us about your theory of change.

We’re looking at plastic from a very holistic systems-change approach, and working with strong grassroots advocacy muscle. We pressure key corporate and government decision makers to create systems change in plastic production and consumption. We believe that reduction and prevention are key to the solution.

With your marine plastic pollution audit, you’ve adopted the “name and shame” approach to campaigning. What other avenues, tactics, and channels are you using? 

We work in a variety of ways, so we have different work streams within the movement, [including] our brand and corporate accountability work stream. So when you say “name and shame,” that’s what we call our annual brand audit. But really we don’t think of it as name and shame. We’re just exposing the actual accountability mechanism.

But the audits help create the pressure to reform corporate practices by creating public awareness around the brands that are the biggest polluters. How is that different from name and shame?

Well, it’s transparency. It’s data, and it should be available. We’re cataloging the types of plastic and the brands and the parent companies, which can be traced back to corporations headquartered in the global north, even though a lot of our brand audits took place in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia this year. This year’s report will feature a special spotlight on waste pickers. These are essential workers in the plastic pollution landscape that generally don’t get a lot of credit. 

What other work streams do you have?

We have a number of them––a Changing Policies work stream, a Shifting the Narratives work stream, where we really work on culture change. That’s where I sit, in my role as the communications lead. We’re making a big push on zero-waste cities. Not zero-waste lifestyle, but how do we create infrastructure at the municipal level to create decentralized resource management structures that can really scale up in places like the Philippines and India? It’s focused on empowering [community members] to take ownership over their communities and… educating and empowering themselves, to not allow the low-value stock to even come in in the first place.

And what about at the supply end?

“Fight Petrochemicals” is one of our newer streams. We’re working on targeting key [industry] expansion areas, particularly in the United States and Europe, on reducing access to finance and undermining the narrative that fossil fuels are here to save the day. These companies are putting a lot of money into petrochemical expansion.

What do you mean by “Shift the Narratives?”

Our narrative work stream is helping normalize a plastic-and-disposables-free future. It’s also calling out false solutions and industry greenwashing. And it’s not just demonstrating what brands are out there [as plastic waste in the oceans] but also telling the stories of the people that are collecting that data. These are community members that live by incineration sites or petrochemical facilities. I really think who tells the story, and how often, and where it lives is so critical, which is why we also have a lot of interest in what the media is doing and how they’re telling the story, as well.

You mentioned Break Free is a coalition of more than 2,000 groups…

...a movement of more than 2,000 groups.

Okay, how do you ensure that all of these groups in your movement have their values and agenda seen and heard when it’s this large conglomerate?

You can’t have 2,000 people in a meeting or on a call, but we do have core members who are able to work with each other at a peer-to-peer level. We’ve created a lot of avenues for really robust discussion and engagement, even now, without being able to meet in person. It’s a values-driven movement; we do have a charter that organizations are required to sign. They do have to be a nonprofit or university. You know, we’re very careful that a [potential] member has no corporate ties, because there’s a lot of strategic conversations we have within these groups.

What actually happens once we “break free” from plastic pollution? What does the world look like once that has occurred?

I would love to see a slowing of government and financial-sector support for petrochemicals. I’d also like to see a movement towards a global treaty on plastics, with regional single-use-plastic reduction policies. This really has become a humanitarian crisis. So that [injustice] needs to be measurably decreased. And of course, our vision of a world free of single-use plastic will have gained widespread acceptance and empowerment. You’ll go into a grocery store and not see plastic flooding the aisles. There will be a social norm around it, kind of like how we saw with the tobacco industry and smoking really became unacceptable in such a short amount of time. What we’re doing is so much more than just a lifestyle change.

So are you seeking to remove the social license that companies have to produce single-use plastic products and single-use products? You’re essentially trying to stigmatize single-use plastics?

Yeah, that’s accurate. I mean, I wouldn’t use the words “stigmatize corporations.” But yes, it’s a value shift. And if that goes into undermining their credibility, then so be it. These companies have straight up lied in terms of what is a real solution. There’s so much greenwashing. They’re still pushing recycling; it’s just so dated. We all know it’s not working. So, yeah, a lot of what we do, even in my role on narrative, is exposing these tactics and making sure people know that this is simply not truthful.

I’m curious, bottled water has become a bit of a poster child for single-use plastic. When you talk about the circular economy models that you’re working towards, does bottled water exist?

We don’t like bottled water, it’s maybe a bit of a poster child in North America, but water bottles are usually a #1 or #2 plastic, which is getting recycled in certain recycling streams. We’re more concerned about low-value, single-use plastic packaging, like sachets.

What is a sachet?

A sachet is a multi-layer single-use plastic package similar to the small take-out ketchup packets that we have in the United States, but for everything.

So, little single-use plastic pouches for shampoo, toothpaste, mouthwash, detergent….?

Yes. They are flooding markets in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. And they are created by companies headquartered in the global north. There is no value to them for waste pickers. It is multi-layer low-value packaging, and there’s no reason for anybody to collect it and pick it up.

I came across a report that was really startling, it said that the global sachet market is expected to grow by $1.3 billion over the next four years. That’s just really, really scary. So while the bottle of water is iconic, the plastic straw in the Great Lakes––obviously they are a big problem––but there’s just so much of a bigger concern [with low-value plastics].

Are large manufacturers positioning sachets as an equitable product because it’s a more affordable form of packaging?

Yes, they’re coming in like they’re saving the day. Talk to community members that own these markets [where sachets are sold], they're like, screw this, it’s making such a mess. They usually live right by their little market set up or their stall. And it creates so much nuisance. Nobody asked them if this was what they wanted.

What are the opportunities in the new circular economy for multinational corporations with global supply chains? 

We’re pushing for refill and reuse. If [packaging] cannot be reused, it shouldn’t be created—unless it’s an emergency situation. Of course we will need plastic water bottles for catastrophes. But do we need that to be our everyday norm? No. So these re-use models are the kinds of models we want to see scale, but also in an accessible way. 

Like Loop?

Loop is great, but it’s only been pioneered in various affluent cities. I want to see that kind of model in Manila. And until we have a way to reach this level of accessibility, it’s not a scalable solution. I was looking into the Loop model, and even for someone like me and my family, it would be an investment. And we’re doing pretty well. So there’s this question of accessibility that I think we need to keep being reminded of. Sure, we can celebrate these kinds of wins, but have an element of scrutiny.

Would a Loop model work in Manila?

Well, that’s what they had there before [single use plastics]. I mean, it wasn’t branded or sexy, but people would bring their own container [when they needed to purchase goods]. It would be filled, and weighed, and they would be on with their day. It was kind of like the milkman model. I mean, I don’t like the word “milkman,” but you know what I mean. It’s localized.

So should Procter & Gamble set up a milkman, or milkperson, model?

Some companies are doing that. I’ve been really impressed in areas like Oakland, where there are a lot of lower-income neighborhoods. This is the way people have operated for years, they’re still doing the bulk-foods system, because it’s much cheaper for them. So that’s the kind of model we want to go back to. It doesn’t have to be Procter & Gamble, or Johnson & Johnson. It could be at the very local level as well.

Do the big players have something valuable to bring in terms of their economies of scale?

We haven’t seen anything that we would be excited about at this point. All we hear is false solutions and a lot of greenwashing that sounds really good to people that might not know a lot about the issue. But it can be very harmful to making real change and when the announcements get a lot of media attention, the shareholders are happy. They get an increase in stock market value. And it’s like, at the end of the day, what has this accomplished? Not much.

A number of packaged-goods brands say they are pivoting to circular models. Are they? 

They can be doing so much more. They know there is a serious brand reputation risk if they don’t change. So of course, they’re going to come up with these fancy marketing campaigns to make it sound like they are trying to change. But the type of projects and products and packaging we’re seeing are not anything to be excited about. If anything, it’s more harmful because it’s confusing the public. Especially with things like compostable plastic and bioplastics, where it’s still the same chemical composition of regular plastic, right? It has to go to a specific industrial facility to have any real decomposition.

What about upcycling?

Upcycling is another thing I get really annoyed about. Okay, now we’re creating this product out of recycled plastic. It’s like, great, so what does the end of life look like? It’s still the same end of life concerns we have. It’s going to end up landfilled, burned, shipped overseas, or start creating a problem of microplastics. Okay, you’re going to turn this into a park bench, great. How many park benches are we going to have at this point? So we really need to look at system change and get to the root cause of the issue. And that is tied to the fossil fuel industry as well.

So it sounds like the ultimate litmus test for you, the ultimate way to determine success, is where does it end up?

It’s both where is it coming from and where is it ending up. And, you know, it’s not something we have figured out as a society yet. Our job at Break Free from Plastic is about continuing to grow our global movement, making sure we’re sufficient enough to affect change, and to make sure corporations are constantly thinking ahead to make sure our future isn’t continuing this inundation of single-use plastic. We’re drowning in it. We might not see it in our backyard. We’re very privileged in the United States, but this is the reality in so many places in the world.

Do plastics belong in a circular model, where it’s maybe not just creating a park bench, but maybe a whole bunch of other things? Or is that basically an interim strategy? 

The circular economy would be a dream if it actually worked. The reality is there are too many products and too much packaging that escape that circularity system. It needs to be source reduction coupled with a circular economy. There is just too much plastic in the system, any sort of circularity at this point isn’t going to capture it all.

A lot of brands, retailers, and chemical companies are banking on chemical recycling. Is that something you could ever support?

Chemical recycling is such a joke! It is so chemically intensive and still doesn’t address the root cause of the issue, while continuing to pollute communities with the emissions that come out as coal ash, and they get into the soil and the water.

I can’t even tell you how many people I have met within these areas where they’re promoting waste-to-energy and now chemical recycling. It’s easy for companies because they don’t suffer through the consequences of what it actually looks like to live near a facility of that sort. And it’s also why you don’t see a lot of incinerators in wealthier nations. They fund and build them in areas like India, or the Philippines. This is the same approach they want to take with chemical recycling and we’re very concerned. 

The federal Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act would have put a moratorium on chemical recycling facilities, among many other things. How did it come about?

That legislation was introduced by U.S. Senator Udall (D-NM) [S. 3263] and Representative Lowenthal (D-CA) [H.R. 5845] this past February. As you can tell by the name, they worked very closely with us on developing the initial proposed legislation. It was a counter to the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act [H. R. 3969 and S.1982] which is [about] not wanting to do anything. That was just a useless piece of legislation.

How So?

The Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act takes a more systemic and holistic approach. It’s really the first piece of legislation of its type that looks at reduction versus end of life. It’s about keeping a domestic approach to recycling and low-value products, so we’re not shipping them overseas. I’ve mentioned the petrochemical piece. That’s pretty progressive, to have a fossil fuel angle built into a proposed plastics law.

The bill died almost immediately in the Republican-held senate. Now what?

It’s going to be reintroduced again, since we have a new President-Elect, in February or March. This past year when we introduced it, we didn’t think it was going to go very far, but the fact that we were able to introduce it at all was huge.

The documentary “The Story of Plastic” ends with the message saying it will really take strong policy to address single-use plastics and plastic pollution. So lobbying must be a big part of your work. At which level of government are you most active?

Break Free from Plastic is not a legal entity; I’m actually housed out of the Story of Stuff Project. So we do not lobby directly, but our members do—for example, Earthworks, the Center for International Environmental Law, Greenpeace, and the Plastic Pollution Coalition. It’s happening at the local, state, and federal level, and also through multinational entities. A lot of work is happening at the United Nations. We were very active with the Basel Convention on Waste Trade, which took place last spring. And so lobbying is happening at all levels of society—which is what’s necessary.

How has the movement for Black lives shifted your movement’s priorities and approaches to campaigning?

We’ve always been people of color driven. For us, it was very natural to support the Black Lives Matter movement and put it at the forefront of all our organizing. But we're now exploring new ways to work alongside Black-led organizations to hone in on the connections between plastic and racism. When you look at where incineration or petrochemical facilities are actually going in, they are not going into white neighborhoods. These are always Black, Latinx communities—people that are already subjugated to so much vulnerability.

Where does your funding come from? Do foundations fund Break Free directly, or are you supported by member organizations? 

We don’t take private donations and we don’t take corporate donations. The Plastics Solutions Fund is very involved in our work, from a funding perspective and a strategy perspective. And they are very much in sync with our theory of change.

Note: Nicky Davies, Plastics Solution Fund’s Program Director (and a Break Free From Plastic steering committee member) will share insights on the Fund’s strategy for the coming three years with Future 500’s Corporate Affinity Network (CAN) members in a private meeting in early 2021. To learn more about CAN, or request a courtesy invitation to this meeting, reach out to Erik Wohlgemuth.

Blog posts by James: