Earlier this month, more than 2,600 international negotiators and industry delegates descended on the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, to finalise the long-awaited Global Plastics Treaty. The stakes were high: this was their sixth attempt at reaching an agreement, a process spanning almost four years. But following 10 days of intense negotiations, the treaty stalled at the final hurdle, once again.
Negotiators first put the idea of a Global Plastics Treaty on the table in March 2022, at the United Nations (UN) Environment Assembly, where representatives from 175 nations signed a resolution to develop an international legally binding agreement, addressing the full lifecycle of plastic pollution. The newly established Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) started work soon after. At the time, Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), said the eventual treaty would be “the most important international multilateral environmental deal” since the Paris Agreement in 2015.
Throughout, negotiations have been dogged by fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists. The pro-plastic lobby reached a climax of 234 in Geneva, outnumbering the combined diplomatic delegations from all European Union (EU) nations. In the run-up to Geneva, many of these actors “tried to distort scientific consensus through strategic funding, ghostwriting and aggressive lobbying”, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) warned. As a result, these lobbyists managed to sway some governments into voting against progressive clauses like a hard cap on virgin plastic production, ultimately stopping the vote from reaching a consensus and going ahead. Many global environmental campaigners said the draft treaty had been significantly watered down because of this, and resolved that no treaty is better than a bad treaty.
Attempts to hash out a deal to address plastic pollution across 175 nations are putting the industry’s relationship with fossil fuels under the spotlight.
The fashion industry had a scant presence in Geneva, which is perhaps unsurprising given it has historically failed to lobby as effectively as other industries, lacking the right industry organisation or a unified front. Yet experts say a legally binding plastics treaty could be especially monumental for fashion.
According to the 2024 Materials Market Report by global non-profit Textile Exchange, the fashion industry increased its production of fossil-based synthetics from 67 million tonnes in 2022 to 75 million tonnes a year later, with polyester accounting for 57 per cent of total global fibre production in 2023. Extracting virgin fossil fuels for products is only the beginning: throughout their lifecycles, plastic-based fashion products will shed thousands — if not millions — of microplastics, a process that continues to inflict environmental harm and affect human health long after those garments end up in landfill. That’s in addition to all of the more insidious ways plastic creeps into fashion supply chains, from packaging and hangers to stretch and performance-enhancing finishes.
Turning off the virgin plastic production tap — one of the key sticking points in negotiations — could finally force fashion brands to reckon with this reality, and invest in scaling plastic-free and recycled alternatives, as well as the circular infrastructure to make them viable at scale.
The debate will continue when negotiations resume, although no date has been set for this, and many frontline communities now say they have lost faith in the process. Since Geneva, some are even advocating for side-stepping the UN altogether, unless the process can be overhauled.
Here, sustainability experts — many of whom were on the ground in Geneva last week — share their reactions and what needs to happen to get the treaty over the line.
Graham Forbes, Greenpeace head of delegation to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations
This was a significant victory in that we stopped a bad treaty from being agreed, and we saw that the vast majority of countries understand that we must stop making so much plastic and ban toxic chemicals. Ultimately, it has been hard to reach an agreement on a strong treaty because a handful of governments, along with the fossil fuel and petrochemical industry, are determined to protect short-term profits at the expense of human and planetary health. But every delay means more plastic in our oceans, our food and even our bodies. What must change is clear: governments need to break free from petrochemical lobbying and commit to real production cuts. Moving forward, negotiations must be based on science and justice, not industry spin.
David Azoulay, head of delegation and environmental health programme director at the Centre for International Environmental Law
Make no mistake, [these negotiations have] been an abject failure. When faced with a failure of this magnitude, it’s essential to learn from it. Some countries did not come here to finalise a text, they came here to do the opposite: to block any attempt at advancing a viable treaty. It’s impossible to find a common ground between those who are interested in protecting the status quo and the majority who are looking for a functional treaty that can be strengthened over time.
While the negotiations will continue, they will fail if the process does not change. When a process is broken, as this one is, it is essential for countries to identify the necessary solutions to fix it and then do it. We need a restart, not a repeat performance. Countries that want a treaty must now leave this process and form a treaty of the willing. And that process must include options for voting that deny the tyranny of consensus we have watched play out here.
Fabienne McLellan, managing director of Oceancare
Despite the disappointing outcome, these negotiations have shown both the best and worst of multilateral diplomacy. We witnessed passionate efforts from over 120 countries — including progressive leaders like Colombia, Panama, Fiji and the EU — standing firm for science-based measures against enormous pressure from the petrochemical states. The process itself resembled climate COPs more than traditional environmental agreements, with the same fierce resistance from vested interests, but also remarkable determination from the majority to push for real action. What’s encouraging is that this has built coalitions and raised global awareness about plastic pollution in ways we’ve never seen before. The foundation for stronger action has been laid, whether within this framework or through alternative pathways.
Paul Polman, co-founder of The Fashion Pact and author
This treaty outcome is not the end of the fight. Now, we must push progress where it’s possible. EU-led coalitions, national reforms like import restrictions and extended producer responsibility, and by amplifying civil society and science to keep the pressure on. Many nations made clear they want ambitious action, and they still have multiple avenues to act — through legislation, economic policy and new alliances. Capping virgin polymer production would have pushed fashion away from fossil dependence, sped up investment in safer alternatives and cut exposure to toxic additives. Crucially, it would also protect factory workers and waste pickers from exposure to hazardous chemicals. We cannot forget that this is not only an environmental challenge, but also a human rights one.
Donna Marshall, professor at University College Dublin and co-founder of Fashion’s Responsible Supply Chain Hub (FReSCH)
In future negotiations, the process needs to be less dominated by fossil fuel and petrochemical interests, and more inclusive of affected communities. It should also be framed around a just transition that supports the people and the countries most impacted. Fashion’s plastic footprint disproportionately affects communities far from the catwalk, from people working with textiles laden with harmful chemicals, to waste pickers who are the heart of circularity work across the world, to those living with plastic-choked waterways. The industry has both the responsibility and the creativity to lead on this issue, but only a strong, legally binding agreement can deliver the changes we so urgently need.
Despite the fashion industry’s huge plastic footprint, its presence at the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations was woefully lacking. The next steps should include cross-industry alliances, public advocacy for strong treaty measures and a fundamental shift in how we think about and use clothes. That means designing for durability and repair, valuing textiles as resources rather than disposable goods and breaking the destructive link between clothing and identity or status. Without this cultural and production shift, technical solutions won’t fix fashion’s plastic or waste problems.
Sian Sutherland, co-founder of A Plastic Planet
These negotiations ultimately failed because a small group of governments refused to accept a cap on plastic production. But there were important signs of progress. The second draft explicitly recognised that plastic production is ‘unsustainable’, and the negotiating room did not accept the compromises it might have done even a few years ago. Countries now recognise the risks of unchecked plastic production to human health and the environment. Refusing to sign a weak treaty, rather than locking in neglect, is an achievement in itself. Petrostates [countries whose economies are heavily reliant on oil or natural gas] are being exposed for their misleading tactics, and the old narrative of managing plastic through ‘efficient’ waste systems no longer stands up. Still, the small island states who are overwhelmed by other nation’s plastic were largely ignored, despite incredible fortitude and persistence. Indigenous communities, on the frontline of toxic plastic production, were not given nearly enough opportunity to be heard.
The treaty must enforce a commitment to phase out plastic production starting with single-use and the most toxic of plastics. Without this, the treaty risks being little more than a recycling plan. For fashion, that means creating limits on fossil fuel-derived fibres like polyester, nylon and acrylic, and incentivising regenerative and truly circular materials instead. The EU’s current Product Environmental Footprint labels are hugely misleading, as the metrics for plastic textiles do not include the externalities and impacts caused by nano-plastics, micro-fibres and the many chemicals. I would also like to see strong rules on transparency: digital product passports with full disclosure of fibre composition, supply chain and volumes produced. What I would not like to see is any reliance on false solutions, such as plastic bottles being made into textiles, chemical recycling or offsetting schemes, which allow fast fashion to continue its overproduction model under a greenwashed label.
Pinky Chandran, regional coordinator for Asia-Pacific at Break Free From Plastic
Geneva was meant to deliver history, and it did in a way. The message was loud and clear: do not trade ambition for appeasement; do not trade voluntary promises over binding action; do not serve lobbyists over the planet. Fix the process and keep your promise of delivering on the UN mandate to end plastic pollution.
Sign up to receive the Vogue Business newsletter for the latest luxury news and insights, plus exclusive membership discounts.
Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
