coca-cola named the world's most polluting brand in global audit of plastic waste
 

coca-cola named the world's most polluting brand in global audit of plastic waste

coca-cola has been named for the second year in a row as the most polluting brand in a global audit of plastic waste. conducted by the break free from plastic global movement, it found that the company was responsible for more plastic litter than the next top three polluters combined.

coca-cola named the world's most polluting brand in global audit of plastic waste

images via break free plastic
cover image © marco saroldi/wasteless auroville

 

 

the audit involved 72,000 volunteers, across 50 countries and six continents, taking part in 84 cleanup events. combing through beaches, city streets, oceans, rivers and neighborhoods, they collected a total of 476,423 pieces of plastic waste and found that coca-cola was responsible for a large majority.

coca-cola named the world's most polluting brand in global audit of plastic waste

 

 

 

11,732 branded coca-cola plastics were recorded across 37 countries, more than the next three global polluters combined. in second place, 4,846 pieces of plastic from the nestle brand was found over 31 countries; in third place, 3,362 pieces of plastic branded pepsico was recorded across 28 countries; and in fourth place, modelēz international was responsible for 1,083 pieces of plastic across 23 countries.

 

 

the study also focused in on specific continents, finding that nestle, solo cup company and starbucks were the top three polluting brands in north america. however, coca-cola was still featured in 4 out of the 6 continents recorded.

 

coca-cola responded to the audit’s findings with an emailed statement to online news publication the intercept: ‘any time our packaging ends up in our oceans — or anywhere that it doesn’t belong — is unacceptable to us. in partnership with others, we are working to address this critical global issue, both to help turn off the tap in terms of plastic waste entering our oceans and to help clean up the existing pollution.’

 

 

‘we are investing locally in every market to increase recovery of our bottles and cans and recently announced the launch in vietnam of an industry-backed packaging recovery organization, as well as a bottler-led investment of $19 million in the philippines in a new food-grade recycling facility,’ it continued.

 

‘we are also investing to accelerate key innovations that will help to reduce waste, including new enhanced recycling technologies that allow us to recycle poor quality pet plastic, often destined for incineration or landfill, back to high-quality food packaging material.’

 

coca-cola has made recent efforts to diminish plastic pollution. earlier this month, coke introduced a plastic bottle made from recycled marine plastic, and last year the company pledged to collect and recycle ‘the equivalent of every bottle or can it sells globally.’

 

 

project info

 

organization: break free from plastic
report: branded vol. II identifying the world’s top corporate plastic polluters (read here)
company mentioned: coca-cola

  • I think the tone of this article is indicative of a much worse problem we face: criticism leveled outwards rather than Self-reflection. Coca Cola is not the worlds worst polluter, consumers are, including you dear reader.

    Jason k says:
  • there is a lot of irony in this story that is not lost on the reader. Everything this magazine is about is encouraging consumerism by motivating desire. Be careful in hiding these stories under a pseudo-intellectual-caring facade. perhaps your product stories should run with an eco-warning?

    Alex says:
  • So much for root cause analysis.

    Bill says:
  • So the customers from Philip Morris ranked 9 with 2239 instances of littering is ranked lower than customers from Mars with 543 instances in place 6. Something is not clear in the methodology. Fiberglass (filters) from Philip Morris are certainly not being counted. It is also not clear how much market presence is affecting the result. Coca-Cola is in more countries than the other products, and a ranking purely based on “present in countries” gives the same result. Instances of littering per country might be a better ranking – Coke, Unilever, Nestlé, Philip Morris….

    I think it is fair that the response from Coke ist included. The company is responding; the customers not yet.

    RBuss says:
  • @Jason K, actually your comment is a huge part of the problem we face today.

    Telling consumers to “do their part” through PR and marketing campaigns doesn’t actually change behaviors. By placing the onus on consumers (including you, dear reader), corporations secure a narrative that benefits them. “[We don’t need to change because] ultimately recycling is your responsibility!”

    Consumers will still buy products because they’re human — they’re not thinking about the environmental impact of buying diapers or a bottle of Gatorade. If you ask them about it, they may regret their choice, but it’s not top of mind all the time. How could it be? Most of the time, environmentally-friendly and convenient alternatives don’t even exist on store shelves.

    Now, if you make it illegal to manufacture disposable plastic bottles, then you’ve made a huge change over night. You’re not leaving it to the whims of the masses. You’re making an impact where it matters most — at its point of origin. You force corporations to innovate around alternative packaging. Consumers will continue to consume, but now their consumption isn’t as harmful to the environment.

    Let’s use a dramatic analogy: what’s the most efficient way to get people to stop smoking? Telling 100 hundred people to stop smoking or removing cigarettes from the market?

    Expecting billions of people to organically adjust their own behaviors is naive and frankly pretty classist if you’re expecting people in third world countries to such self-reflection when these places are more focused on fulfilling basic needs.

    Kevin says:
  • @Kevin so your saying its okay for the masses to litter? just as long as it not plastic????

    Sure, Coke could make more “eco-friendly” packaging, however without addressing the true problem of human behavior we will still have trash laying on the side of the street, floating in the ocean, or stuck inside helpless animals. Human behavior can and must be changed.

    C says:
  • Expecting 7+ billion consumers to just stop littering is about as naive as Nancy Reagan expecting everyone to “Just Say No.” People litter. Always have, always will. And no, it’s not Okay. But as Kevin suggests, changing the product at the point of origin changes what litter is, and thus what it does to the environment.

    Case in point: plastic microbeads were once a ubiquitous ingredient in facial washes and scrubs. Instead of asking consumers to filter their shower drains to collect all the microbeads and then recycle them, the U.S., Canada and a handful of other countries have banned their use entirely. So in these countries at least, no departure from the norm was ever required. Instead the source of the pollution has been corrected to greatly reduce their negative impact on the environment. Betcha never even noticed.

    BK says:
  • If it degrades naturally, it’s trash. If it doesn’t, it’s a time capsule. Big difference.

    Jim K says:

have something to add? share your thoughts in our comments section below.
all comments are reviewed for the purposes of moderation before publishing.

comments policy
LOG IN
designboom's comment policy guidelines
generally speaking, if we publish something, it's because we're genuinely interested in the subject. we hope you'll share this interest and if you know even more about it, please share! our goal in the discussion threads is to have good conversation and we prefer constructive opinions. we and our readers have fun with entertaining ones. designboom welcomes alerts about typos, incorrect names, and the like.
the correction is at the discretion of the post editor and may not happen immediately.

what if you disagree with what we or another commenter has to say?
let's hear it! but please understand that offensive, inappropriate, or just plain annoying comments may be deleted or shortened.

- please do not make racist, sexist, anti-semitic, homophobic or otherwise offensive comments.
- please don't personally insult the writers or your fellow commenters.
- please avoid using offensive words, replacing a few letters with asterisks is not a valid workaround.
- please don't include your website or e-mail address in your comments for the purpose of self-promotion.
- please respect jury verdicts and do not discuss offensively on the competition results
(there is only one fist prize, and designboom usually asks renown professionals to help us to promote talent.
in addition to the awarded designs, we do feel that almost all deserve our attention, that is why we publish
the best 100-200 entries too.)

a link is allowed in comments as long as they add value in the form of information, images, humor, etc. (links to the front page of your personal blog or website are not okay). unwelcome links (to commercial products or services of others, offensive material etc. ) will be redacted. and, ... yes, spam gets banned. no, we do not post fake comments.

PRODUCT LIBRARY

a diverse digital database that acts as a valuable guide in gaining insight and information about a product directly from the manufacturer, and serves as a rich reference point in developing a project or scheme.

design news

×
keep up with our daily and weekly stories
492,930 subscribers
- see sample
- see sample