Being surrounded and yelled at about “misrepresenting reality” is not how serious United Nations-hosted negotiations are meant to proceed. But that is what happened to Prof Bethanie Carney Almroth during talks about a global treaty to slash plastic pollution in Ottawa, Canada. The employees of a large US chemicals company “formed a ring” around her, she says.
At another event in Ottawa, Carney Almroth was “harassed and intimidated” by a plastic packaging representative, who barged into the room and shouted that she was fearmongering and pushing misinformation. That meeting was an official event organised by the UN. “So I filed the harassment reports with the UN,” said Carney Almroth. “The guy had to apologise, and then he left the meeting. He was at the next meeting.”
“That was one example when I filed an official report,” said Carney Almroth, an ecotoxicologist from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. “But I’ve been harassed and intimidated lots of other times, in lots of other contexts, at off-site meetings, at side events, also at scientific conferences, via email and so on.”
She has also had to take measures to avoid surveillance at the meetings. “I have a privacy screen protector on my phone, because they will walk behind us and try to film what’s on our screens and see what notes we’re taking, or who we’re chatting with. I would never open my computer in the middle of a room without knowing who is behind me. It’s a high-vigilance, high-stress environment.”
These are examples of what numerous sources say is a “total infiltration” of the plastics treaty negotiations by vested industrial interests and corporate lobbyists. The core concern of six insiders who spoke to the Guardian was that the polluters are exerting too much power, not just within the negotiations but also within the UN Environment Programme (Unep), which oversees the negotiations. One source said they were “horrified” by the industry’s influence on policy and the sidelining of real solutions to plastic pollution, calling it “corporate capture”.
‘Distorting knowledge’
The plastics treaty negotiations resume in August in Geneva, Switzerland, having failed to reach agreement at the fifth round of talks in December. At stake is whether the torrent of toxic plastic pollution pouring into the environment can be stemmed. Doing so is not only vital to protect people and the planet but also to curb the climate crisis and the massive global losses of wildlife.
But a flood of industry lobbyists and organisations have joined the talks, far outnumbering national delegations and scientists. They assist a group of petrostates, led by Saudi Arabia, in blocking the progress that many nations want, and are part of a wider “petrochemical bloc” that a recent study says “is driving up plastics production, externalising the costs of pollution, distorting scientific knowledge, and lobbying to derail negotiations”.
The scale of the plastic problem is staggering. About 450m tonnes of new plastic is produced every year and production is set to triple by 2060 under current growth rates, damaging every aspect of a safe environment.
Almost all plastic is made from fossil oil and gas, and emissions from its production drive the climate crisis. Plastic and the toxic chemicals it contains also damage soils, ecosystems and human health, having pervaded the entire world from the top of Mount Everest to the deepest part of the ocean, from human brains to human breast milk.
The plastics treaty is being negotiated between the world’s nations, under the auspices of Unep. The negotiations began in 2022, and the talks in Geneva next month will be its sixth major meeting. But since the beginning, the talks have been dogged by a fundamental disagreement.
More than 100 nations, backed by more than 1,100 scientists, say a cap on the soaring production of plastic is essential to reduce all the harms they cause. Petrostates and plastic manufacturers reject this and say the focus should be on better managing and recycling of waste. Global climate action to cut carbon emissions is also putting fossil fuel states under pressure to increase other uses for their oil and gas.
“The amount of plastic that we’re already producing today is entirely unmanageable,” said David Azoulay, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel), who has attended the negotiations. “There’s no way, technically or policy wise, that we can manage it. But the companies’ objective is to produce more and miraculously somehow reduce the overall impact.” The expensive recycling technologies proposed by producers are “magical thinking”, he said. Only 9% of plastic is recycled, according to a 2022 OECD report.
Azoulay said fossil fuel states and industry do have to be part of the negotiations, but that the process fails to take account of their vested interests. “The fact that there is a major group of business and industry is not problematic, as they are stakeholders. But the fact they’re given, at a minimum, equal standing and equal access to the processes as those of victims of the problem that they’re creating, that is a problem.”
He added: “There is a problematic underlying approach in how Unep operates, which is to consider that the people who created the problems, benefited from the problem, have lied about the problem and their responsibility about it for years and decades, are trustworthy partners to solve those problems.”
‘Not an intelligent conversation’
While the negotiating countries will decide the outcome of the treaty talks, Unep is the host and its executive director, Inger Andersen, has a critical and influential guiding role. She has not been spared from criticism.
Andersen was accused of an “inappropriate absence of ambition” by more than 100 environmental organisations in April 2023. They also expressed concern about a “lack of transparency regarding who is advising [her] work and the [treaty] secretariat”, which is the group of Unep officials who manage the talks.
She was criticised in particular for a statement perceived to undermine the importance of a cap on plastic production, made in September 2024: “We have to have a more refined conversation than just cap [or] no cap, because it’s not an intelligent conversation.” A reduction in production should focus on raw polymer for single use, short-lived products, not “car parts and plane wings”, she said. Critics said her statement contradicted scientific evidence that the environmental impact of plastics begins with extraction and production, not just their use.
The environmental organisations complained to Andersen’s boss, the UN’s secretary general, António Guterres, in October 2024, saying they had “deep concerns” that her public statements would “narrow the scope” of the treaty and that she had exceeded her role as convener of the negotiations. They did not receive a reply.
It was also alleged at the most recent negotiating round, in Busan, South Korea, in December, that Andersen had put pressure on high-ambition countries to give way on their demands for a strong treaty with a cap on plastic production. Andersen responded at the time, saying: “I will meet with everyone at every stage of the way and I will obviously meet the member states and hear them out, from [across] the entire spectrum of the 193 [countries].”
Plastics ‘ringleader’
In her convening role, Andersen can do only so much to encourage nations to reach a deal. All the countries have to reach a consensus, but one nation in particular stands out as a block to an effective plastics treaty: Saudi Arabia, the world’s second biggest oil producer. Via its oil company Saudi Aramco, it owns Sabic, one of the world’s biggest producers of plastic.
The country has played an increasing role in the plastics treaty negotiations and was described by Politico as the “ringleader” of a small group of oil-rich countries, including Russia and Iran, that blocked proposals for production caps in December.
It has also developed a close relationship with Unep in recent years. Andersen made an official visit to Saudi Arabia in January 2024, met Saudi ministers at the UN summit on desertification which was hosted in Riyadh in December 2024 and sought a further ministerial meeting at Davos in 2025 to discuss “strengthening of cooperation”. She was in Riyadh again on 29 June, signing a cooperation agreement on emissions reductions.
The country paid Unep $1m to host World Environment Day in 2024, a similar sum paid by previous host nations, and gave the UN agency donations of more than $20m between 2020 and 2024. Some of that was contributions to Unep’s environment fund and covered arrears dating back to 2021. Many countries give money to Unep, which relies on these voluntary contributions for 95% of its income.
Most of the rest was instalments from a $25m deal struck in 2019 for Unep to provide expertise in strengthening Saudi Arabia’s environmental protections. After the deal, the head of Unep’s Saudi Arabia office wrote a report which the Guardian has been told expressed concerns about the governance of the money. Unep refused to share the report with the Guardian, saying it was a standard handover report by an official leaving his post and was confidential.
In response to the criticisms of Andersen and the plastic treaty talks, a Unep spokesperson told the Guardian: “Unep’s sole focus is on supporting all countries to deliver an impactful treaty that will finally end plastic pollution. Unep continues to facilitate the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the process so we can end plastic pollution for everyone, everywhere.”
Inside the plastics treaty negotiations, an official from Saudi Arabia’s ministry of energy was elected in November 2024 to the 10-person bureau of national representatives that run the treaty talks.
Azoulay said Saudi Arabia and its allies were undermining the plastics treaty talks. “We’re seeing complete bad faith negotiation.
The obstruction [by Saudi Arabia] takes many forms, using their 35 years of experience in derailing climate negotiations, using every procedural tool to prevent progress, and using their vast financial resources to strong-arm and try to influence other countries,” he said. The Saudi government did not respond to a request for comment.
‘Overwhelming’ lobbying
While the petrostate delegations are power players in the meeting rooms and corridors of the treaty negotiations, one group outnumbers every nation: plastic industry lobbyists. At the December talks in Busan there were a record 220 corporate lobbyists in attendance.
That was far more than even the host nation’s delegation of 140 and was three times the number of independent scientists. Dow and ExxonMobil sent nine lobbyists between them, according to an analysis by the environmental law group Ciel. Some lobbyists were included in country delegations, rather than with observer organisations, giving them access to sensitive member-state-only sessions, Ciel said.
“The overwhelming presence of industry lobbyists skews the treaty’s direction,” a document being circulated among concerned treaty observers and sent to the Guardian says. “This imbalance sidelines scientific evidence in favour of corporate agendas, undermining the treaty’s potential effectiveness.”
This warning is not new. Another letter from environmental organisations to Andersen in April 2024 said the lack of a conflict of interest policy enabled industry access to decision-makers. “The participation of businesses from the oil, gas and petrochemical sectors poses a severe threat to the objectives of the treaty,” the letter said.
A Unep spokesperson said it was for the negotiating countries themselves to establish a conflict of interest policy, but they had chosen not to do so. In reference to the harassment of Prof Carney Almroth in Ottawa, the spokesperson said a UN code of conduct to prevent such behaviour strictly applied to all plastics treaty meetings.
Another lever of influence being pulled by corporate interests is via the system through which Unep gives full access to the negotiations to civil society sectors including women, farmers, Indigenous peoples, children and scientists.
The membership of one group has soared recently: business and industry. More than 30 plastic and chemical industry lobby organisations have joined the negotiations since the start of 2023, almost doubling the total number.
These include the US Plastics Industry Association, Plastics Europe and national plastic industry groups from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Brazil, Colombia, Malaysia and Korea. The group is co-chaired by a Saudi official.
The problem, say critics, is that industry players have deep pockets and clear financial interests. “Lobbying should be called lobbying. It shouldn’t be called ‘society observers’,” said one source close to the negotiations.
A report by InfluenceMap in November 2024 found that plastic and fossil fuel industry groups, including ExxonMobil, Sabic, PlasticsEurope and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, “strongly advocated to weaken the ambition of the plastics treaty”.
In contrast, the report said: “The consumer goods and retail sectors have strongly supported an ambitious, science-aligned treaty, but [the plastic and fossil fuel sector] at present seems to have the upper hand.”
Hotel and flight costs make the treaty negotiations expensive to attend, which is why rich industrial interests can flood the talks with lobbyists while smaller countries, scientists and NGOs struggle to find the funds, said Carney Almroth.
“The lobbyists have much more power and much more access,” she said. “They have the economic power to get into rooms I can’t get into. They can speak directly to ministers in ways that I cannot.”
Carney Almroth says she is fortunate to be in position to speak out, with a permanent post at a supportive university in Sweden, a safe country where intimidatory lawsuits that have targeted some scientists are difficult for companies to pursue. Many other plastics researchers are afraid to let their voices be heard, she said, fearing legal challenges, loss of funding or career damage. “It’s the tobacco playbook: challenge the science, challenge the messenger, try to silence people, try to undermine people’s credibility.”
One business group is particularly influential: the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, whose members include significant plastic, chemical and fossil fuel companies such as Sabic, BASF, BP, Chevron, DuPont, Dow, LyondellBasell and Shell. WBCSD has provided successive co-chairs to the business and industry group.
In a statement, the WBCSD said it followed UN rules of procedure, saying: “We support the global ambition to reduce plastic production and use [and] we believe stakeholder participation – including businesses, civil society, academia, and others – is critical to achieving a durable and effective agreement.
“Representing companies across industries and throughout the plastics value chain – from raw material producers through to consumer brands and waste management – we engaged as an organization well positioned to share a wealth of private sector knowledge, and expertise and support the process into practical action.”
Misunderstandings and misinformation
Scientific experts, also keen to share their wealth of knowledge, say they have struggled to keep up with correcting wrong or misleading statements made by industry groups during the talks.
There is no official scientific advisory panel for the treaty. Instead, the self-organised Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty (Scept) has attempted to fill the gap. It has 450 members, none funded by industry, and advises the smaller nations plagued by plastic who cannot afford to send scores of delegates to the negotiations.
However, in February 2025, Scept wrote to the bureau running the talks and Unep’s Andersen to complain about a lack of access to meetings during the December negotiating round.
“Consequently, our ability to follow the negotiations was severely limited,” the scientists said. “We were unable to identify the knowledge gaps, misunderstandings or misinformation that require clarification, often spread by actors with conflicts of interest.”
Scientists also said their criticisms of a significant 2023 Unep report on “how the world can end plastic pollution” were ignored. The scientists said the report failed to reflect the whole range of health and environmental impacts of plastic pollution and was over-optimistic about technical solutions to deal with waste plastic.
Scept experts had been invited to participate before the report’s publication and provided more than 300 comments. Unep said a “technical issue” meant an email containing Scept’s comments was not received in time for publication. It said it had taken feedback from other experts and denied the report underplayed the impacts of plastic.
‘Threatening our children’s future’
Some countries are gearing up for a fight at the next round of negotiations in Geneva in August. Ninety-five nations issued a “wakeup call for an ambitious plastics treaty” on 10 June at the UN Ocean Conference.
“Mountains of plastic [are] suffocating our ecosystem, poisoning food chains and threatening our children’s future,” said France’s environment minister. “This is a pivotal moment. We will not give up.”
But Carney Almroth is uncertain about success. “Who knows? We’re planning and strategising for our scientists now and how we’re going to communicate our messages. But I think we can expect chaos and fireworks.”
She recalled another incident of harassment at one of the plastics negotiations. A man from the plastics industry, who was not on the guest list, started harassing and shouting at students who were checking people in. “He was leaning over them, angry – it was bad, bad behaviour.”
“Everyone I’ve ever been yelled at by is a white man from the global north – every single time. It’s a power dynamic,” she said. “But I don’t cower. I don’t shrink away. And I don’t raise my voice. I respond with references and facts and numbers. I’m also quite tall and when I go to the meetings, I wear heels and I’m taller than most of them. It’s petty, but it’s a game.
“I like to think that we are impacting in a positive way, to bring more evidence-based decision making in ways that can help us find solutions that are truly more protective of people and the environment.”
You can contact Damian Carrington via email, Signal (dpcarrington.35) or securely via this link.
