| dc.description.abstract | The significant carbon footprint of the plastic lifecycle, rate of emissions of plastic pollutants, and proliferation of single-use plastic packaging for consumer-packaged goods threaten human health and essential Earth system processes. The consumer-packaged goods (CPG) industry is both a user and producer of plastic packaging and therefore has significant decision-making power over plastic packaging use. This study evaluated the effects of implementing product stewardship efforts for plastic packaging in the United States, where funding take-back and recycling programs, deposit and return schemes, and reusable and refillable packaging is, at present, voluntary. Fifty-four consumer packaged goods firms were included in this study and categorized as engaging in product stewardship or not engaging in product stewardship for their plastic packaging in the United States. A dataset was built from sustainability reports, dashboards, disclosures, corporate websites, and publicly accessible financial performance data. Twenty-seven matched pairs of CPG firms were created from the sample to conduct the comparative analysis. Both a paired t-test and a Wilcoxon signed ranks test were used to comparatively assess the impacts of funding product stewardship on firms’ plastic footprints and corporate financial performance and determine the correlation between product stewardship funding and circularity governance. Contrary to my prediction, the comparative analysis revealed that firms funding product stewardship for plastic packaging in the United States did not demonstrate a reduced total weight of plastic packaging or a greater share in reusable, recyclable, and/or compostable packaging compared to firms that do not fund product stewardship. Similarly surprising, a comparison of accounting rates of return indicated there were no significant financial trade-offs in voluntarily engaging in these forms of product stewardship. Voluntary product stewardship funding, in fact, correlated with better corporate financial performance. Matched pair t-tests revealed significant differences in return-on-equity (ROE) (p = 0.014), return-on-assets (ROA) (p = 0.015), and number of global circular economy (CE) alliances supported (p = 0.024); these results were corroborated by Wilcoxon signed rank tests. This research underscored the need to incentivize high recycling rates and develop policy interventions to encourage circular design in addition to product stewardship funding. It reinforced that a cap on global plastic production is necessary. The findings also demonstrated the need for greater participation by CPG firms in global circular economy alliances and partnerships and greater plastic packaging transparency in the sector overall. | |
