Three years since countries agreed to develop a legally binding Treaty to end plastic pollution, the UN’s plastics treaty talks collapsed once more – not due to lack of need, but because vested fossil-fuel interests continue to stall progress. It’s painful but predictable: we’ve been here before.
The latest round of negotiations, which concluded on August 15, 2025, in Geneva, saw delegates from 179 countries alongside over 1,900 participants from 618 observer organisations leave empty-handed after 10 days of intensive talks. This marked the second major failure in less than a year, following the collapse of what was originally meant to be the final round of negotiations in December 2024 in South Korea.
For those tracking the process, the fault lines were clear: progressive nations demanding binding production limits versus holdout countries pushing voluntary, waste-management approaches. With consensus blocked, the talks ended without agreement, leaving one of the world’s most pressing environmental and health challenges unresolved.
Yet this setback need not determine our path forward. If multilateralism fails to deliver, then coalitions of ambition, science-led advocacy, and unilateral action must pave the way toward a sustainable future.
Why this collapse was unavoidable
The breakdown in Geneva reflects structural weaknesses that make such failures almost certain.
- A fragile consensus process. The UN’s consensus model requires that every country has to agree, meaning even one strong dissent makes progress vulnerable to political and industrial interests. Proposals to shift to majority voting were blocked, raising alarms that the process was doomed to fail from the outset. This structural flaw becomes particularly pronounced when dealing with issues that threaten lucrative industries.
- Different visions of the problem. Some nations sought to tackle plastic at the source, while others resisted production limits and pushed recycling as the main solution. Petrostates, backed by the United States, once again prioritised short-term industrial complacency over the planet’s long-term well-being. Environmentalists and the so-called ‘High Ambition Coalition’ of countries were, quite rightly, not going to accept a treaty that didn’t tackle the full lifecycle of plastics, with an impasse that became unbridgeable.
- The overwhelming power of industry lobbying: Behind the scenes, powerful industry lobbyists exerted pressure to water down language and undermine progress. A record-breaking 234 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists outnumbered national delegations and scientists.
- Science outpacing political will. Evidence of microplastics in placentas, oceans, and food chains continues to mount, but has yet to translate into shared political ambition. The urgency of the science remains divorced from the glacial pace of diplomatic consensus-building.
The failure to reach agreement comes at a critical juncture. New analysis from The Lancet reveals that the environmental and human health effects of plastic pollution are estimated to cost over $1.5 trillion annually – a figure that will only grow as plastic production continues to surge.
Signals for business
While the outcome is frustrating, it provides important signals for companies navigating the plastics agenda:
- Policy divergence will accelerate. With no global framework in place, expect a patchwork of regional and national rules, from EU Extended Producer Responsibility schemes to country-level single-use plastic bans. This regulatory fragmentation creates both compliance challenges and competitive advantages for companies that can navigate multiple frameworks effectively.
- Stakeholder pressure will intensify. Civil society, investors, and consumers are unlikely to wait for global diplomacy to catch up with science. Scrutiny of packaging decisions, product design choices, and waste management practices will become more sophisticated and demanding.
- The licence to operate is shifting. Companies that continue to lean on weak voluntary commitments and incremental improvements risk being seen as part of the problem. Those that demonstrate leadership through bold redesign initiatives, breakthrough innovations, and active policy advocacy will increasingly shape market dynamics and consumer preferences.
A way forward: leadership in the absence of consensus
Geneva's outcome may disappoint, but there were encouraging signs with the alignment among over 100 companies on key elements – including phase-outs, product design and Extended Producer Responsibility frameworks. This represents genuine progress and momentum that can be built upon outside formal treaty negotiations.
For business, the direction remains clear: reduced dependence on virgin plastics, increased investment in circular solutions, and greater accountability throughout value chains. The collapse of formal negotiations doesn’t change these fundamentals – if anything, it makes every action more valuable.
Organisations that act decisively now – building coalitions, driving innovation, and shaping policy – will not only stay ahead of eventual regulation but help fill the leadership vacuum created by multilateral gridlock. The treaty may have failed, but the transition continues.
The question for business leaders is not whether this transformation will happen, but whether they will lead it or be swept along by forces beyond their control.