Authored by Jacob Robinson, Senior Account Manager, Higginson Strategy
As diplomats prepare for the final round of UN Global Plastics Treaty negotiations in Geneva, the biggest question mark hovering over the talks is what position America will actually take. The US approach to plastic pollution has shifted dramatically throughout the negotiation process, leaving businesses, environmental groups, and international partners guessing about where the world’s largest economy will ultimately land.
The uncertainty stems from America’s evolving stance over the past two years. Initially, US negotiators focused almost exclusively on waste management and recycling solutions, avoiding production limits. Then, in a surprising 2024 pivot, the Biden administration embraced restrictions on plastic production—only to later scrap this position. There were even rumors circulating that the US delegation may not even attend negotiations, whilst unlikely, deep pessimism surrounding their potential contribution remains.
This uncertainty is reflected Trump’s track record: withdrawing from the Paris Accords and recent pro-plastic positions suggest neither multilateral climate agreements nor plastic regulations are favored policy tools for this administration.
However, the case for action on plastic pollution isn’t just environmental—American businesses are caught in a regulatory crossfire created by growing piecemeal legislation worldwide. The business community has suffered whiplash, with industry groups initially organizing opposition to production limits only to scramble when US policy changed direction. Global uncertainty is taking a visible toll: recent departures from the US Plastics Pact by major brands including Mondelēz, Mars, Nestlé, L’Oréal USA, and Walmart highlight how regulatory unpredictability fractures collaborative sustainability efforts. Coca-Cola have pushed back its plastic reduction goals, while Unilever postponed its virgin plastic timeline.
The case for supporting strong international standards is fundamentally economic. Corporate inaction on plastic pollution poses significant profit risks, with plastic liabilities likely exceeding $20bn globally by 2030. A recent survey found over a third of US and Canadian respondents decided against purchases due to unsustainable packaging concerns. There’s clear risk to corporate inaction, but the path to compliance is muddied by inconsistent policy signals and global regulation.
Without clear, consistent rules, American companies face complex patchworks of conflicting national regulations. A manufacturer operating globally might need to comply with strict European chemical restrictions, moderate Asian recycling requirements, and voluntary US guidelines—all for the same product line. This regulatory fragmentation drives up costs, complicates supply chains, and puts American businesses at competitive disadvantage compared to companies under unified standards.
Forward-thinking businesses increasingly recognize that plastic regulation is inevitable. The question is whether rules will be predictable, science-based, and globally coordinated, or emerge as an inconsistent jumble making compliance expensive and planning nearly impossible. Recent upheaval in voluntary initiatives demonstrates what happens when businesses lack clear policy direction. A strong international treaty could provide regulatory clarity enabling long-term investment in alternatives while giving companies stable frameworks to maintain commitments.
The stakes extend beyond regulatory clarity. Health implications of the plastic crisis represent another critical economic drain, with endocrine-disrupting chemicals in plastics costing the US an estimated $250 billion in increased healthcare costs in 2018. So, if the Trump administration wants to “Make America Healthy Again,” backing an ambitious UN Plastics Treaty would be a good starting point.
Yet the US position remains opaque. Will America support binding measures on production targets or chemical safety assessments that could drive innovation in safer alternatives? Or will it retreat into the big oil camp, alongside Saudi Arabia, that have long disrupted the process to safeguard petrochemical exports?
Despite the majority of nations now backing an ambitious Treaty that includes a cap on plastic production, mechanisms for enforcement or addressing chemicals of concern, where America lands will largely determine whether the treaty emerges as a meaningful global framework or watered-down compromise. This is why many in Europe and elsewhere are watching closely what the US brings to the table.
A weak treaty would perpetuate current regulatory fragmentation, forcing companies to navigate dozens of different national approaches. A strong treaty with binding targets would create certainty and level the playing field. American leadership could ensure international standards align with US technological capabilities and business interests. With the EU and more pushing ahead on plastic legislation, abdication of leadership would likely mean the de facto acceptance of standards designed by others.
As Geneva approaches, the central question isn’t whether plastic pollution requires global action—the science and economics make that case clearly. The question is whether the US will help craft a framework providing certainty businesses need while protecting human and planetary health or resist the majority and push for a watered-down treaty achieving little.
The answer will shape not just global plastic policy, but America’s role in addressing the next generation of environmental challenges.
This article was originally published in Dieline.