"A text would have the merit of harmonizing these efforts. But in its absence, national, regional and financial dynamics must not slow down. The business world simply no longer has the luxury of waiting," say Sarah Perreard and Julien Boucher, co-directors of Earth Action.
The international conference on plastic pollution, which was held in Geneva from August 5 to 14, was supposed to mark a decisive step toward a global treaty. It concluded without a consolidated text, only with a "note for reflection" from the co-presidents, leaving significant uncertainty over the next steps of the negotiations.
For many, this failure sounds like a status quo. But the absence of a treaty does not mean the momentum stops: the risks related to plastic continue to grow — and with them, the pressure on companies, investors and governments.
Comparing plastic to the climate may at first seem natural: two planetary, urgent and interconnected crises. Yet their dynamics differ profoundly.
Carbon is fungible: a tonne of CO₂ is worth any other, regardless of its point of emission. Plastic, however, is never the same. Each product leaves a distinct footprint: textiles release microfibers into rivers, tires deposit dust on roads, packaging accumulates in landfills or escapes into the oceans.
Beyond traceability, the impacts vary widely. Some polymers contain particularly harmful additives. Microplastics, invisible to the naked eye, have a disproportionate impact compared with macroplastics. And the consequences differ depending on the environment where the pollution occurs. This diversity makes responsibility more direct and costs easier to attribute to specific companies, products or sectors.
For finance, the message is clear: those who measure, disclose and reduce their plastic footprint will benefit from more affordable capital and increased investor confidence.
Even without an international treaty, legal and financial liability is becoming increasingly unavoidable. Lawsuits are multiplying: Danone was sued in France under the duty of vigilance, while in the United States, Coca‑Cola and ExxonMobil face complaints for deceptive practices. Early estimates already mention tens of billions of dollars of potential liabilities for companies by 2030.
At the same time, national and regional regulations are advancing, sometimes faster than multilateral negotiations. The European Union imposes recyclability and reduction targets via the PPWR (Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation), while new taxes and fees scaled according to materials are becoming widespread.
Investors are also organizing: more than 160 financial institutions, representing $15 trillion in assets, have signed a call to action against plastic pollution. In other words, the financial risk related to plastic is already integrated into strategies — even in the absence of an international treaty.
This evolution is not only a threat. Companies that anticipate can reduce their compliance costs, protect their reputation and capture new markets. Reuse models, material substitution or the integration of recycled content are no longer marginal: they are becoming levers of differentiation and competitiveness.
For finance, the message is clear: those who measure, disclose and reduce their plastic footprint will benefit from more affordable capital and increased investor confidence.
By hosting the INC in Geneva, Switzerland helped put plastic pollution on the global agenda. But it cannot be content with being the host of the negotiations and must also strengthen its own policies.
By hosting the INC in Geneva, Switzerland contributed to putting plastic pollution on the global agenda. But it cannot content itself with being the host of the negotiations: it must also strengthen its own policies, support circular innovation and encourage its financial sector to integrate plastic risk into its assessments.
Switzerland has unique assets: a strong financial ecosystem, a tradition of industrial innovation, and recognized diplomatic credibility. These are levers to transform Geneva's momentary failure into momentum for concrete solutions.
Geneva's failure must not above all serve as an alibi for inaction. The costs of plastic pollution are already accumulating in our health systems, our ecosystems and our economies. The responsibility of companies is to measure and reduce their impacts; that of investors, to condition access to capital on credible and transparent practices; that of governments, to set a clear and coherent framework.
A global treaty would have the merit of harmonizing these efforts. But in its absence, national, regional and financial dynamics must not slow down. The business world simply no longer has the luxury of waiting.
This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.
"If the Federal Council is now considering abolishing the program — or at least withdrawing the federal contribution — it is mainly because of the windfall effects it generates," explains Philippe Thalmann, professor of environmental economics at EPFL.
"Today, 70% of our results come from abroad, while 70% of our investments are made in our historic service territory in Switzerland," says Cédric Christmann, Chief Executive Officer of Primeo Energie.
Interview with Philip Mäder, head of media relations at BKW.
At this stage, the investigations reveal an overvoltage problem that led to the failure, but do not yet allow its root cause to be identified.