News

Jul 01, 2025

Which Brands Top the Plastic Packaging Pollution List? | Supply Chain Magazine

Plastic pollution remains one of the most entrenched environmental issues worldwide. With global production of plastic now surpassing 400 million tonnes each year, the waste it generates is scaling

Plastic pollution remains one of the most entrenched environmental issues worldwide.

With global production of plastic now surpassing 400 million tonnes each year, the waste it generates is scaling just as rapidly.

Only around 9% of all plastic ever produced is recycled, leaving the remainder either buried in landfills, incinerated or littering ecosystems from beaches to cities.

A global study led by Win Cowger and published in 'Science Advances' sheds light on where a large share of this branded plastic pollution originates.

Drawing on five years of data collected across 84 countries, the study directly links individual companies to their contributions through brand audits—systematic counts of discarded packaging that still displays branding.

Across 1,576 audits, researchers identified nearly 1.9 million plastic items, with more than 900,000 carrying recognisable brand names.

The findings show a striking concentration. Just 13 companies are behind more than 1% each of all branded plastic waste collected, with five companies responsible for a combined 24% of the total:

These percentages reflect global proportions, not isolated regional snapshots, meaning their branded waste is consistently present across different continents, income levels and waste infrastructures.

In total, 56 companies accounted for more than half of all branded plastic pollution recorded worldwide.

The Coca-Cola Company tops the list, with more than 100,000 pieces of its packaging documented during the audits.

The company has responded with a range of sustainability initiatives, such as trialling plastic bottles without labels in the UK. These label-less designs are meant to ease recycling and reduce packaging.

“Going label-less might seem like a small step, but it is one of several ways we are exploring making recycling easier, minimising waste and minimising the impact of our packaging on the environment,” says Dusan Stojankic, VP Franchise Operations, GB&I at Coca‑Cola Great Britain.

Despite such efforts, the scale of Coca-Cola's plastic footprint raises doubts about how effective voluntary initiatives can be when not coupled with reduction in output.

“We remain committed to building long-term business resilience and earning our social license to operate through our evolved voluntary environmental goals,” adds Bea Perez, Executive Vice President and Global Chief Communications, Sustainability & Strategic Partnerships Officer at The Coca‑Cola Company.

PepsiCo follows as the second most prevalent brand in the plastic waste audit, with 5% of identified packaging. This includes products from Lay’s, Quaker and 7UP, reflecting how deeply embedded these brands are in consumer markets worldwide.

"As circumstances evolve, PepsiCo continually adapts how we source ingredients; make, move, and sell our products; and inspire people through our brands,” says Chairman and CEO Ramon Laguarta.

“Our goals must evolve with us to keep our ambition and to deliver on our long-term vision."

Nestlé, Danone and Altria make up the next tier, each contributing between 2% and 3% of branded pollution. All three operate in sectors known for fast-moving consumer goods—products often bought, used and discarded within a short span.

The study’s most compelling insight is the strong correlation between how much plastic a company produces and how often its packaging ends up polluting the environment. That link holds steady regardless of whether the waste is found in high-income nations with robust waste systems or in lower-income areas with minimal infrastructure.

In other words, production volume is a direct predictor of pollution levels. Even companies with advanced recycling or recovery schemes are statistically more likely to see their packaging wind up as litter if they produce more of it.

The takeaway is that packaging design changes, while helpful, cannot offset the environmental cost of high production alone.

This connection has particular relevance to the food and drink industry. These products are often consumed on the move, leading to high levels of single-use packaging being discarded away from bins or recycling facilities.

The Cowger study doesn’t just document the problem—it outlines structural recommendations for change.

Its proposals include:

Transparent reporting: Companies should be required to publicly report how much packaging they produce, including plastic and other materials.

Mandatory design standards: Labels and branding should be regulated to remain identifiable even after weathering.

Production caps: Simply put, the most effective way to reduce pollution is to make less plastic, especially single-use formats.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): This would oblige companies to fund the recovery and recycling of their packaging waste, shifting clean-up costs from governments to producers.

The study’s authors argue that voluntary actions are no longer sufficient. While corporate pledges make for good press, they must be tied to measurable reductions in environmental harm to carry real weight.

Explore the latest edition of Supply Chain Digital Magazine and be part of the conversation at our global conference series, Procurement & Supply Chain LIVE.

Discover all our upcoming events and secure your tickets today.

Supply Chain Digital is a BizClik brand.