News

When regulations become an ally: Wy Nestlé, Unilever, and PepsiCo are now calling for stricter rules on plastic

What happened?

In August this year, the world witnessed the collapse of negotiations for the UN Global Plastics Treaty in Geneva. Expectations were high for a historic agreement to combat plastic pollution. Instead, talks completely fell apart due to opposition from oil-producing countries and the petrochemical industry—an alliance that refused to accept any limits on virgin plastic production.

This deadlock created a dangerous vacuum: without clear global rules, regulatory fragmentation (different laws in different countries) has become an operational nightmare for international companies. And that’s precisely what pushed major players like Nestlé, PepsiCo, and Unilever to shift their stance.

The Pivot: from regulated to pro-regulation

For years, these corporations were pressured by governments and NGOs to reduce their environmental impact. Now, in a surprising reversal, they are demanding tougher government rules—especially on recycling and packaging design.

This isn’t philanthropy. It’s a strategy.

Why?

1. Voluntary goals have failed. Between 2018 and 2025, the companies themselves failed to meet their targets for plastic reduction and reuse.

2. Lack of recycled raw material. There isn’t enough high-quality rPET (recycled plastic) available to meet global demand.

3. Competitive disadvantage. Companies that invested in sustainability are losing ground to competitors still using cheaper virgin plastic.

Using regulation as a competitive edge

The focus of these corporations now centers on three main areas:

• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): requiring manufacturers to finance plastic waste management.

• Harmonized packaging design: standardizing what is considered recyclable worldwide.

• Elimination of problematic products: banning single-use and non-recyclable plastics.

Interestingly, most of these companies theoretically support limits on virgin plastic production—but they’re not putting real political weight behind that idea. Why? They still depend on plastics to sustain their business models. What they really want is recyclable plastic, with the cost of recycling distributed through regulation.

Is regulation the next step toward real sustainability?

This shift among global giants reveals an uncomfortable truth: without regulation, there’s no scale.

Voluntary action, however well-intentioned, runs into structural barriers—especially when it comes to recycling infrastructure and supply chain capacity.

The end of voluntary sustainability and the rise of strategic regulation

The changing posture of the consumer giants marks a turning point in the global plastics debate: the era of voluntary sustainability is giving way to a deliberate pursuit of mandatory regulation. Not out of environmental awareness—but economic survival.

Companies like Nestlé, PepsiCo, and Unilever have realized that without clear rules, they lose predictability, recycled materials, and competitiveness. That’s why they’re now leading the charge for global standards that, ironically, will force them to deliver what they couldn’t achieve voluntarily.

This shift represents more than a change in messaging—it’s a restructuring of the political and economic alliances surrounding plastics. And it carries an important lesson: in markets where infrastructure and regulation fail, even the largest players end up calling for state intervention.

Beyond the packaging sector, this same logic applies to construction and any industry seeking to grow responsibly. Regulation—once seen as a barrier—can (and should) become a tool for scale, fair competition, and sustainable innovation.

UGREEN

Applied Sustainability in Practice — Live with UGREEN

Sustainable architecture can—and should—go beyond the discourse!

That’s why on November 13th, at 1 P.M. (UTC), UGREEN will open its methods to the public for free in a live online Q&A session.

A direct and technical meeting designed for professionals who want to integrate sustainability without compromising aesthetics or cost—whether in residential, corporate, or high-end projects.

During the session, we’ll demonstrate how to combine performance, comfort, and value in every design decision, using the same strategies applied in certified and award-winning projects across Brazil and abroad.

📅 Date: November 13th, 1 P.M. (UTC)

🎥 Format: Free live online session

🔗 Registration: ugreen.io/live

No promises, no sales—just practical, technical content straight from those who build sustainability every day.

Secure your spot!

Designing better starts with understanding what truly creates value!

News

Climate Finance: When the Money Fails to Reach Those Who Need It Most

A new report by ActionAid has revealed that less than 3% of mitigation financing from major global climate funds goes to projects that meet the criteria for a just transition.

In plain terms: only US$630 million over more than a decade — less than the cost of a single luxury yacht.

This figure exposes an uncomfortable truth: we’re financing technology, infrastructure, and carbon—but ignoring people. And that may be undermining the entire global effort to tackle the climate crisis.

What’s Going Wrong?

The analysis reviewed nearly 650 projects funded by the two largest multilateral mechanisms:

• Green Climate Fund (GCF) — under the UN.

• Climate Investment Funds (CIF) — managed by the World Bank.

Findings:

• Only 5.6% of GCF projects meet social justice criteria.

• CIF’s record is almost nonexistent: just 0.4%.

Worse still, many of these projects have caused real harm to local communities — including job losses, poverty, and social conflict — all in the name of a “green transition.”

Real-World Case Studies Reveal the Human Cost

• Bangladesh: landless farmers lost their jobs after a “green” project shifted rice cultivation to mango farming without consulting local communities.

• South Africa: energy transition partnerships (JETPs), hailed as global models, have been widely criticized as symbolic and lacking real participation.

• Uganda: communities formally complained to the GCF about a project that threatened their food security.

The Problem Isn’t Policy — It’s Practice

Both funds have frameworks on equity, gender, and participation. Yet, as the report notes, these have become mere façades — policies on paper without real enforcement.

This systemic failure has a name: “just-washing.” Like greenwashing, but for social justice.

A Full Restructuring as a Path Forward

ActionAid proposes three key actions ahead of COP30, to be held in Belém, at the heart of the Amazon:

1. Shut down the CIF, whose governance, dominated by multilateral banks, has failed to deliver social justice.

2. Reform and recapitalize the GCF, making social safeguards mandatory and ensuring direct access for local communities.

3. Create the Belém Action Mechanism (BAM): a new global structure to ensure every climate project puts people—not just carbon targets—at its core.

Climate Justice Isn’t “Extra.” It’s Essential.

ActionAid’s message is clear: there can be no successful climate transition without genuine social justice.

If we continue funding systems that prioritize speed and return over participation and fairness, we’ll not only waste billions — we’ll fuel resistance to climate action itself.

COP30 will be the ultimate test: will we keep pretending justice is optional, or finally place it at the heart of global climate policy?