Narrating Plastics Governance
Policy Narratives in the European Plastics Strategy
Palm, Ellen; Hasselbalch, Jacob; Holmberg, Karl; Nielsen, Tobias Dan
Document Version Final published version
Published in:
Environmental Politics
DOI:
10.1080/09644016.2021.1915020
Publication date:
2022
License CC BY-NC-ND
Citation for published version (APA):
Palm, E., Hasselbalch, J., Holmberg, K., & Nielsen, T. D. (2022). Narrating Plastics Governance: Policy Narratives in the European Plastics Strategy. Environmental Politics, 31(3), 365-385.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1915020 Link to publication in CBS Research Portal
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us (research.lib@cbs.dk) providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Download date: 04. Nov. 2022
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fenp20
Environmental Politics
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fenp20
Narrating plastics governance: policy narratives in the European plastics strategy
Ellen Palm, Jacob Hasselbalch, Karl Holmberg & Tobias Dan Nielsen
To cite this article: Ellen Palm, Jacob Hasselbalch, Karl Holmberg & Tobias Dan Nielsen (2021):
Narrating plastics governance: policy narratives in the European plastics strategy, Environmental Politics, DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2021.1915020
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1915020
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
Published online: 29 Apr 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1629
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Narrating plastics governance: policy narratives in the European plastics strategy
Ellen Palm a, Jacob Hasselbalch b,d, Karl Holmberg b and Tobias Dan Nielsen c
aDepartment of Technology and Society, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; bDepartment of Political Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; cIVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Malmö, Sweden; dDepartment of Organization, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark
ABSTRACT
The European Union (EU) aspires to be an important global agenda-setter on how to treat and regulate the growing plastics problem. We present an analysis of the plastic policy narratives shaping European plastics governance, in parti- cular through the European Commission’s Plastics Strategy. Our aim is to first uncover the policy narratives at play, and then examine how actors make use of those narratives through strategic construction. Based on interviews with key stakeholders and document analysis, we identify four narratives: fossil feedstock dependency, resource inefficiency, pollution, and toxicity. We find that the resource inefficiency and pollution narratives figure most prominently in European plastics governance, and that the circular economy is being advanced as a policy solution that cuts across the different narratives. However, surface agreement on the need for ‘circularity’ hides deeper-lying ideological divisions over what exactly the circular economy means and the different directions this implies for plastics governance.
KEYWORDS Policy narratives; plastics; circular economy; narrative policy framework; strategic construc- tion; European Commission
Introduction
Plastic has quickly become one of the most prominent environmental issues.
Plastics are a complex class of materials made in diverse ways and serving multiple functions. These range from packaging to construction, automotive, electronics, and agricultural applications (Andrady and Neal 2009). Plastics are inexpensive, lightweight, mouldable, and come in different elasticities, durabilities and colours, and they can be made impermeable to moisture, gas, light, and electricity. These properties have made plastics one of the most common basic materials in use, with an annual production of 380 million metric tons (Mt) (Geyer et al. 2017). With such high societal penetration, it is
CONTACT Jacob Hasselbalch jha.ioa@cbs.dk https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1915020
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
no surprise that many different kinds of problems have appeared in relation to plastics, including marine pollution (Vince and Hardesty 2017, Dauvergne 2018), inefficient and dysfunctional waste management and recycling sys- tems (Jambeck et al. 2015, Geyer et al. 2017), fossil feedstock dependency and climate impact (Hamilton and Feit 2019, Zheng and Suh 2019), and toxicity and human health concerns (Groh et al. 2019).
The circular economy plays an important role in European Union (EU) plastics policy. This can be seen in the Circular Economy Action Plan from 2015, where the first calls were made for a European strategy for plastics (European Commission 2015). In November 2018, the European Commission published the Plastics Strategy (formally, the European Strategy for Plastics in the Circular Economy, European Commission 2018a). The Plastics Strategy is an important milestone in the unfolding global debate about how to govern and address plastics as a policy issue. This strategy in particular, and the circular economy in general, is the foundation on which the EU will approach plastics governance in the next decade, which has been reiterated in the European Green Deal (European Commission 2020). Because of the EU’s global policy leadership on this issue (Penca 2018, Nielsen et al. 2020), it likewise could de facto define the character of a substantial portion of global plastics governance.
According to Hajer (1995, p. 15), policy-making is the art of creating ‘the sort of problems that institutions can handle and for which solutions can be found. Hence, policies are not only devised to solve problems, problems also have to be devised to be able to create policies’. Because plastics represent such a broad range of potential policy problems, it is pertinent to ask what kinds of problems the Plastics Strategy identifies. The strategy carries only the legal weight of a communication, meaning it has no binding regulatory power. Nevertheless, it very clearly displays how the European Commission thinks about plastics, and how it creates ‘the sorts of problems’ it can handle.
The strategy is the product of a policy process that unfolded over many years and involved numerous EU institutions, personnel, and external stake- holders. All these actors had different understandings of what problems plastics were causing and how to address them.
In light of this, we address the following research question: which policy narratives define the plastics governance debate in the EU, and how do policy actors use them? In order to answer this question, we take the position, common in interpretivist approaches to policy analysis (e.g., Hajer 1995, Stone 2002, Fischer 2003), that narratives provide the necessary building blocks with which actors make sense of a socially constructed reality, assign meaning, and define policy problems. Policy narratives are stories that mobilize support for a given project by framing it in a certain way (Radaelli 1999, Jabko 2006). By drawing on the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF; Jones and McBeth 2010), the first part of our analysis
aims to uncover, illuminate, and systematize the policy narratives that are at play in the area of European plastics governance. By focusing our investiga- tion on the Plastics Strategy and the actors involved in developing and influencing it, we can best capture the multiple policy narratives present in European plastics governance at a moment of heightened attention to the issue.
The first part of our analysis identifies the policy narratives currently shaping European plastics governance. The second part reflects on how the four different narratives offer opportunities for the involved policy actors to engage in ‘strategic construction’ (Jabko 2006, Eberlein and Radaelli 2010).
Strategic construction assumes that narratives do not merely reflect different belief systems, but can be used and manipulated by policy actors in pursuit of strategic goals (Hajer 1995, Stone 2002). In terms of theory, we contribute to the understanding of how an environmental policy paradigm develops through the interaction of multiple policy actors advancing and manipulat- ing competing policy narratives (Gray and Jones 2016, Jones and Radaelli 2016). In the case of plastics, this paradigm is taking the shape of the circular economy, but, beyond initial agreements on the need for ‘circularity’, much remains unknown as to what exactly a circular economy implies (Kirchherr et al. 2017, Calisto Friant et al. 2020) or who stands to gain and lose (Hobson and Lynch 2016, Hobson 2021, Mah 2021). We contribute to the scholarship that focuses on the role of narratives and discourses with respect to the development of the circular economy (Lazarevic and Valve 2017, Fitch-Roy et al. 2020, Calisto Friant et al. 2020). We also provide a much-needed empirical example of how these narratives mobilize different visions of the circular economy and why that matters for policies and implementation. The Plastics Strategy is highly significant for serving as a pilot program that can inform future policy approaches towards circular systems in other materials and sectors, such as steel, textiles, and paper and pulp (European Commission 2019). Our study therefore also speaks to the general trajectory of environmental policy in the EU, which scholars have argued adheres to principles of ecological modernisation (Machin 2019) while displaying a growing disconnect between rhetorical ambition for policy leadership and scattered implementation (Steinebach and Knill 2017, Zito et al. 2019).
Analytical approach
Our analysis of policy narratives utilises the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF; see Jones and McBeth 2010, Jones and Radaelli 2015). We use the NPF as a tool to organize our investigation and presentation of plastic policy narratives in order to uncover and systematically compare existing policy narratives on plastics. The NPF argues that a narrative contains generalisable components and is defined by four minimal qualities: (i) a setting or
a context, (ii) a plot that introduces a temporal element (beginning, middle, and end), (iii) characters who are fixers of the problem (heroes), causers of the problem (villains), or those harmed by the problem (victims), and (iv) a moral or solution to the story (Jones and McBeth 2010). In the setting or the context of the narrative, a policy problem is introduced; this problem is often (but not necessarily) defined within given geographical or institutional boundaries. The plot provides the main structuring and causal relationships between the component parts of the narrative. Characters are theorized to occupy three general roles in relationship to the problem (heroes, villains, or victims). In the moral to the story, the solution to the policy problem is presented and often policy programmes or actions are promoted.
The NPF has been refined dramatically and taken in new directions since its introduction (Jones et al. 2014, Jones and Radaelli 2015, 2016). Originally intended as a positivist approach to the study of narratives (Jones et al. 2014), it has also found a home within the interpretivist school (Jones and Radaelli 2015, 2016, Gray and Jones 2016). Jones and Radaelli (2015) argue that the NPF’s ontology and socio-theoretic choices make it highly conducive to interpretivist analysis. The value of the NPF for our purposes is that it provides a structured schematic for mapping and comparing narratives, which eases further qualitative analysis of strategic construction in the second part of the analysis.
In order to identify and map the narratives at play in European plastics governance, we approached the field of relevant policy actors with an abduc- tive logic of inquiry: language and meanings employed by actors are recov- ered and described, and higher-order categories and concepts are derived from these descriptions that serve as heuristics or ‘exemplary knowledge’
(Thomas 2010) that can cut through complexity. All four researchers parti- cipated in this iterative process of first having an ex ante idea of what the key narratives might be, based on literature review (and observations at confer- ences), then testing and refining them based on interview data and document analysis (Nielsen 2014). The iterative process continued until four narratives emerged that were mutually exclusive of each other but collectively exhaus- tive of our body of data. Individual interviewees tended to emphasize some narratives over others, but can seldom be said to only ever adhere to one of them.
The NPF provides a framework for systematizing the recovered narratives in order to best highlight their main points of variation. Approaching the NPF interpretively allows us to further uncover and reflect upon the strate- gies and motivations of involved policy actors (Gray and Jones 2016, p. 215).
This bridges the NPF with strategic constructivist research, a strand within interpretivist policy analysis which studies the way policy actors employ narratives strategically in order to frame or reframe interests for persuasive purposes (Radaelli 1999, Jabko 2006, Eberlein and Radaelli 2010). Narratives
organize social reality and give meaning to public policy, but actors are not determined by these narratives – they can manipulate social meanings by creating new policy narratives, changing existing ones, or emphasizing one available narrative over others (Jones and Radaelli 2015, p. 346).
We understand these narratives to be distinct from discourses, which Hajer (1993, p. 45) defines as the broader ‘ensemble of ideas, concepts, notions and categorizations that are produced, reproduced, and trans- formed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities’. In relation to discourses, narratives can be seen as the smaller ‘building blocks’ out of which larger discursive systems are constructed (Hajer 1995). At the same time, narratives can draw upon and indicate these larger discourses to give meaning to their component elements (Hajer 1995, p. 56). In this way, narratives connect actors, through their statements, to broader discourses (on for example circular economy), while also providing a site that reveals the elementary building blocks of discourses (Nielsen 2014, p. 274). The second part of our analysis explores the relationship between the policy narratives we identi- fied and different types of circular economy discourses (Calisto Friant et al.
2020).
Data collection
We conducted sixteen semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, using an interview manual that allowed the interviewees to speak freely about their views on plastics governance while remaining connected to the European regulatory debate. This allowed elements of each policy narrative to emerge. We identified the key actors through a combination of desk research and snowball sampling, by which important future interviewees are identified through the accrual and triangulation of references from previous interviewees (Tansey 2007, p. 770).
Six interviews took place in June 2017 and ten between November 2018 and January 2019. Four of the interviews were with EU officials and policy- makers associated with the European Commission (referred to as ‘EC#’) and the European Parliament (referred to as ‘EP#’), four with business-oriented consultants and organizations (referred to as ‘Business#’), and eight with environmental NGOs and environmental think tanks (referred to as
‘NGO#’). For an overview of the interviews conducted, see Appendix 1 (available as a separate document on the Environmental Politics website page for this article). The anonymized interviewees have all been involved in shaping the Plastics Strategy directly or indirectly. All interviews were transcribed, and statements were assessed for relevance. We also gathered and used documents, reports and statements from the European Commission and the policy actors as an additional data source to triangulate,
confirm, and inform the narratives in the analysis, which improves robust- ness (Lamont and Swidler 2014).
Policy narratives in European plastics governance
Our analysis has revealed four policy narratives shaping European plastics governance: (i) fossil feedstock dependency, (ii) resource inefficiency, (iii) pollution, and (iv) toxicity. A summary of these narratives organized accord- ing to the NPF is presented in Table 1 at the end of this section.
Fossil feedstock dependency
This narrative highlights the plastic sector’s dependence on fossil feedstock and the implications of this in terms of energy and resource security, green- house gas emissions, and a situation of ‘petrochemical lock-in’ (European Commission 2017, Zheng and Suh 2019). Over 99% of plastics are derived from fossil feedstock. In 2019 alone, the production and incineration of plastic was estimated to globally add more than 850 Mt of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. By 2050, taking the expected production increase into account, this figure is expected to rise to 2800 Mt (Hamilton and Feit 2019). According to this narrative, the high dependence on fossil feedstock is a risk for the plastics sector both in terms of dependence on insecure foreign fossil resources, and pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This narrative tends to be communicated mainly by bioplastic producers and in the Commission’s bioeconomy strategy (European Commission 2018b).
The victims in this narrative are defined in relation to the larger debate around the impact of plastics on climate change. The victims range from actors and environments at risk from current climate impacts to future generations with a potentially much reduced ability to prosper. The villains are oil, gas, and coal enterprises and the wider petrochemical industry–
companies which are currently investing enormous sums into expanding fossil fuel-based plastic production. The heroes are producers and associa- tions related to bioplastics, companies that are switching to bio- and carbon dioxide-based or recycled plastic products, and actors engaged in efforts aimed at reducing consumption of virgin feedstock and single-use plastics.
The solution, in this narrative, lies in a low-carbon transition of the plastic sector towards renewable feedstock, either bio-based or from carbon capture and utilization. This will decouple plastic production from fossil feedstock in line with the broader EU actions on climate change and bioeconomy. The narrative promotes more attention to the early stages of the plastic life cycle, rather than those further down. Advocates argue that there are multiple benefits to this solution: reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, decreased dependence on imported fossil fuels, innovation via new types of polymers
and feedstocks, and economic and employment growth within the EU (European Commission 2017). The overall type of policy instrument used to promote decarbonization is financing research and development projects (European Commission 2018a, 2018b). Among the interviewees, switching to renewable feedstock is often considered not a pressing issue, but a long- term future solution that supports a more integrated approach to sustainable plastics.
The hope is that increased circularity decreases the need for virgin material from the beginning . . . obviously in the long run we want to move to a low carbon economy and move away from fossil finite feedstock (EC2).
One of the three main aims of a ‘Roadmap’ document leading up to the Plastics Strategy was ‘Decoupling plastics production from virgin fossil feed- stock and reducing its life-cycle GHG impacts’ (European Commission 2017, p. 3). In the final version of the Plastics Strategy, however, decarbonization was marginalized (EC1, EC2). Our interviews also showed that the issues of greenhouse gas emissions and non-fossil-based plastics were downplayed in the final strategy (EC1). The European Commission assumed that circular economy initiatives would address the problem (e.g., by reducing demand for virgin feedstock). Further, the Commission feared it could lead to a repeat of the previous mistakes made with biofuel policies, which led to other negative environmental impacts in relation to climate emissions, land- use, and biomass use (EC1, NGO1).
Decarbonization was taken up by recycling and reuse, because if you are talking about changing feedstock, the main thing you need to do is to make it circular . . . Bioplastic is a niche, and we don’t want to make the same mistakes as with biofuels where we promoted biofuels with a negative CO2
balance (EC1).
Resource inefficiency
The resource inefficiency narrative views the main problem of plastics as caused by the linear ‘take-make-dispose’ economic system of plastics. This leads to a low resource efficiency with a high material and economic value loss, and a continuous need for input of virgin materials. In Europe, less than 30% of plastics are collected for recycling and the market share for recycled plastics is only 6% (European Commission 2019). In terms of economic loss there is globally an estimated 80–120 billion USD of annual material loss in the plastic packaging sector alone (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2016).
Recycling stands out as a ‘silver bullet’ in the views of a wide spectrum of actors, from EU representatives to businesses. Industry actors tend to use recycling interchangeably with the concept of a circular economy – ‘where
the value of products, materials and resources is maintained in the econ- omy for as long as possible, and the generation of waste minimized’
(European Commission 2015, p. 2). Reduce and reuse as principles are mentioned to a lesser degree, although upheld as important aspects, not least among environmental NGOs. These organizations appeal to the ‘waste hierarchy’ (Council Directive 2008/98/EC) that recognizes reduction and reuse as superior principles over recycling. Proponents of this narrative emphasise that tackling the low circularity of the plastics sector also requires a broadening of the scope of the Ecodesign Directive (Council Directive 2009/125/EC) and strengthening Extended Producer Responsibility principles (Business3, NGO6, European Commission 2018a).
I think that reduction, redesign, and better [waste] management needs to be prioritized in the order of the waste hierarchy (NGO5).
The victims of this narrative are defined as the companies and society at large incurring the costs of the current plastics economy. Moreover, this leads to overexploitation of resources, which represents a threat to the future profit- ability of companies and the prosperity of ecosystems. The villains in this narrative are companies that maintain the linear system of plastics, especially through a lack of consideration in the design stage. Consumers are also seen as villains, especially by the plastic industry, which claims that individual consumers need to improve their recycling habits and increase their knowl- edge of waste management and the consequences of littering. The heroes of this narratives are the big consumer brands or industry initiatives that set targets to increase the use of recycled plastics in their products, as well as companies that provide innovative technical solutions to plastic recycling and circular economy. On the policy side, the most important heroes are the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and the European Commission, both of which have been crucial in mainstreaming and translating the circular economy into concrete policy proposals.
The overall solution is to move from an inefficient linear economy to a more circular one. In this narrative, plastic waste is turned from a challenge to a resource and a market opportunity. This message has become dominant in the Plastics Strategy. The narrative advances an understanding of the linear economy as the root problem underlying all other plastics issues, and the circular economy as a solution that addresses problems from other policy narratives as well.
If you don’t fix the problem at the heart [resource inefficiency] whether you have fossil or biobased plastics, you still encounter the shortcomings of economic loss and in terms of environmental pollution (EC2).
The narrative promotes technical and market-oriented solutions that can provide multiple wins on waste, recycling and reuse, innovation, and jobs.
The focus on the economic loss of the existing plastic system and on technical solutions resonates with many economic actors and turns plastic problems into business opportunities. Indeed, the increasing amount of recycling initiatives at the EU level has received considerable support from the plastics industry. This is evident in the increased demand for recycled plastics and in the voluntary pledges to the Circular Plastics Alliance – both results of the Plastics Strategy. Several of our interviewees emphasized the technical and economic nature of the narrative as something that has made it popular in the EU and the plastics industry alike. Pointing to the issue of economic loss as a consequence of low recycling has created interest in the topic among non-environmentalists also.
Resources are economically important, and also, there’s an opportunity in terms of jobs and competition for EU industries. So that meant that instead of there being just people from DG [Directorate-General] Environment at the meetings on plastics, we suddenly had people from DG Research and DG Growth, and that wasn’t happening before (NGO5).
Pollution
The problem in this narrative is the negative environmental impact caused by the current plastic system. Global annual plastic production has increased from 2 Mt in 1950 to 380 Mt in 2015 (Geyer et al. 2017), and is projected to continue to grow exponentially, reaching over 1,100 Mt annually in 2050 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2016). Every year an estimated 5–13 Mt of plastics enters the oceans (Jambeck et al. 2015). If current production, consumption, and waste management trends continue, roughly 12,000 Mt of plastic waste will be in landfills or in the natural environment by 2050 (Geyer et al. 2017). Two important aspects of the problem are the sheer scale of plastic production and expectations for future growth. However, actors within this narrative tend to place more emphasis on consumption issues than on increased production. They especially focus on disposable plastics and the lifestyles and practices they facilitate.
The main victims are animals, people, and environments affected by plastic leakage. Marine animals suffer from entanglement, suffocation, and ingestion, and communities and ecosystems are negatively affected by plastic pollution. This narrative has generated striking images and videos, such as beaches covered in plastic litter. Several interviewees refer to the substantial impact of BBC’s Blue Planet II documentary, and its creator David Attenborough, for raising awareness of marine plastic pollution.
. . . a lot came for instance from David Attenborough’s documentary. Which sounds a bit absurd to think about, but for the citizens, that’s really what leads to attention to a topic, and then we are also talking about an issue which in a way is quite visible (NGO6).
The main villains in this narrative are the plastic producers, which for decades have flooded society with plastic products, creating an addiction to the unsustainable lifestyle that plastics facilitate. In particular, single-use plastics and plastic packaging have been targeted, as these are the most common items found on beaches and in marine environments. The narrative directs most blame towards the big global consumer product brands, whose names are visible on the plastic packages that litter beaches and oceans (Break Free From Plastics 2018). Other polluters, such as littering consu- mers, fisheries, and the shipping industry, are also seen as playing a part in spreading marine litter. The heroes include the growing number of social movements and organizations targeting plastic pollution, such as the Rethink Plastic Alliance, a collaboration of leading environmental NGOs active in Brussels – whose influence was widely recognized by interviewees. Zero- waste supermarkets together with initiatives and individuals that shift away from single-use disposable plastic products are also highlighted as frontrunners.
The key solutions that have been proposed to address plastic pollution are reducing consumption and banning certain types of disposable packaging.
This is done by refocusing on the waste hierarchy, advocating waste preven- tion and reduction at source, as opposed to the dominant recycling agenda.
Europe cannot recycle its way out of plastic pollution but, rather, must have a strategy to reduce plastic use by choosing reasonable alternatives (Zero Waste Europe 2017).
Other key actions include organizing beach clean-ups and switching to other materials. Policies addressing this issue include targeting specific proble- matic and ‘unnecessary’ single-use plastics items (Council Directive 2019/
904), placing bans/levies on plastic bags (Council Directive 2015/720), and banning intentionally added microplastics (ECHA 2019). The nature of the solutions proposed within this narrative range from lighter reforms that focus mainly on reducing the use of certain disposable plastic objects and increasing the recovery of waste, to more radical solutions that frame plastic as an inherently problematic material which needs to be significantly reduced at source.
We don’t have the level of saturation of plastic crap yet . . . Is there an absolute reduction in plastics anytime soon? Probably not (NGO5).
The different perspectives can be observed in the responses to the EU’s Single-Use Plastics Directive. Whereas business representatives argue that
it was rushed through without a clear assessment, and hence could have uncertain and potentially negative consequences (Business 1), environmental NGO representatives refer to it as a good start (NGO4).
Toxicity
Actors that communicate the toxicity narrative focus on the negative impact of plastics and their additives on human health. No definitive answers exist as to the physical ability of humans and other animals to thrive over the long term in ecosystems containing plastics. There is especially concern about the potential toxicity of additives such as phthalates, flame retardants, and Bisphenol-A (EP2; Halden 2010, Groh et al. 2019). Many of these are recognized as chemicals of concern and are regulated by REACH (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006). Health concerns are also being raised about the ingestion and inhalation of micro- and nano-plastic particles, about which much remains unknown (EP2). Concern about the human health impacts of plastic has not appeared out of nowhere; it derives from what we know about the widespread impact the material has on other organisms, from marine animals and seabirds to microorganisms (Vince and Hardesty 2017, Groh et al. 2019). Beyond these concerns, the many additives used to give plastics its useful properties also present a resource inefficiency challenge, since additives complicate recycling (Hahladakis et al.
2018).
. . . this whole issue around toxicity, additives, and plastics, the information asymmetries which exist between different people in the supply chain, I think it’s a big barrier to recycling at the moment! It’s difficult to see how we’re going to move forward with recycling plastics before the toxicity issues are properly addressed (NGO5).
The victims within this narrative are humans at risk of toxic contamination.
Whereas concern for ecosystems and animals tends to be communicated through the pollution narrative, the toxicity narrative emphasizes human health impacts, and to some extent the technical and economic difficulties of recycling plastics with problematic chemical compositions. Several of the environmental NGO interviewees highlight this concern that toxicity travels through the food chain before eventually reaching humans.
. . . they [plastics] act as a surface and there is a tremendous amount of surface area of plastics in the oceans that absorb chemicals . . . and then they are ingested, in various wildlife and eventually humans, so we have a hazardous chemical dimension to plastic, as well, that often is overlooked or neglected (NGO4).
The villains in this narrative are the chemical industry. This includes plastic producers and converters that utilize additives that might pose a threat, and
companies that intentionally add microbeads to their products. The heroes are the NGOs, regulators, and scientists who identify, draw attention to, and regulate the use of chemicals of concern. Heroes also include producers and developers of alternative materials and additives.
The solution to this issue, according to many of the environmental NGO representatives, lies in the application of precautionary principles and, thus, the reduced use of chemicals of concern (NGO4). The REACH regulation plays an important role in addressing health concerns related to the chemi- cals in plastics. Policies such as microbeads restrictions are currently eval- uated by the European Chemical Agency (ECHA 2019). However, several of the environmental NGOs criticize the Single-use Plastics Directive and the Plastics Strategy for not sufficiently dealing with the problem of toxicity in plastics (NGO1, NGO6).
Strategic construction in plastics policy
Having defined the shape and contents of the four policy narratives at play in EU plastics governance, the second part of our analysis considers the oppor- tunities and constraints presented by the narratives for strategic construction by policy actors (Radaelli 1999, Jabko 2006, Eberlein and Radaelli 2010). The social reality of the EU plastics debate is defined by the policy narratives that we uncovered, and policy actors seek to control and manipulate meanings within the plastics debate by playing the narratives against each other. The variation in victims, villains, and heroes from one narrative to the other, as well as the range of policy solutions on offer, provides ample opportunity for actors to pursue various kinds of strategic interests and mobilize other actors to join their coalition through creative use of the policy narratives (Hajer 1993). Our interviews with policy actors revealed a crucial underlying schism between two opposed approaches to strategic construction in the policy debate: namely, the way actors related the policy narratives to conceptions of the circular economy (Calisto Friant et al. 2020).
For the resource inefficiency narrative, there is a clear adherence to the discourse of a ‘technocentric circular economy’ (Calisto Friant et al. 2020, p. 12). This narrative assumes win-win solutions that combine economic growth with environmental benefits, realized through market ingenuity and technological ‘fixes’, such as chemical recycling (Mah 2021). According to Calisto Friant et al. (2020, p. 10), technocentric circular economy discourse is characterized by a ‘segmented’ approach that focuses exclusively on the technical and economic components of circularity. At the same time, this discourse provides an optimistic view about the prospects for technological innovation to prevent ecological collapse. Proponents assume that a completely ‘decoupled’ (achieving economic growth without environ- mental degradation) circular economy is feasible by closing material
loops and recirculating matter and energy (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2016). In line with this argument, the resource inefficiency narrative makes it clear that the task of finding solutions is best left in the hands of industry, which has the expertise to deliver on these ambitions. Simultaneously, any blame for plastic pollution is shifted from industry onto citizens (Hobson 2021, Mah 2021).
The fossil feedstock dependency narrative draws on similar assumptions, but is driven by the challenges of the strong lock-in between the plastic production system and emissions of greenhouse gases. In contrast to the central place given to climate change in other policy areas, it is remarkable that this narrative is increasingly downplayed in plastics governance. This narrative provides an optimistic portrayal of technological innovation, but rather through bioplastics and the construction of a bioeconomy as a means to reduce the emissions impact from plastics. We also identify elements of a ‘fortress circular economy’ discourse in this narrative (Calisto Friant et al.
2020, p. 12). This type of circular economy discourse is similarly segmented by focusing on the technical and economic components of circularity, but it differs from the technocentric account by taking a more defensive stance on the question of decoupling. According to this perspective, the purpose of the bioeconomy and bioplastics is to secure geostrategic access to (locally grown bio–based) feedstocks in a world that is likely to experience increasing disruption to fossil fuel supplies, flows and prices. The fossil feedstock dependency narrative thus adheres to both fortress and technocentric types of circular economy discourses.
In contrast to these positions, the policy narratives of pollution and toxicity adhere to a different tradition of ‘transformational circular society’
discourse. This discourse differs from the technocentric and fortress circular economy discourses by taking a ‘holistic’ rather than ‘segmented’ approach to integrating political, social, economic, and environmental considerations in their concept of circularity (Calisto Friant et al. 2020, p. 10-12). This type of circular society (note, not ‘circular economy’) discourse is rooted in more radical ecological thought that views circularity as an opportunity to trans- form capitalism. The pollution narrative sees pollution as a systemic issue that can only be solved by significantly reducing plastic production levels.
Similarly, the toxicity narrative is presented as emblematic of a larger human loss of control of our economic and production systems and the manufac- turing of risk. Both narratives assume a more critical stance, viewing plastic as merely one part of the machinery of escalating unsustainability marked by increased consumption, economic growth, and the persistence of unregu- lated capitalism. Unlike the win-win propositions of the technocentric cir- cular economy discourse, the transformational circular society discourse portrays economic production and consumption as fundamentally incom- patible with ecological sustainability (Hickel and Kallis 2020).
It is remarkable that ‘circularity’ as an over-arching concept is able to bridge the gap between such strongly opposed camps in EU plastics policy debates. When we understand the narratives as mobilizing very different conceptions of circularity though (technocentric circular economy versus transformational circular society), we can reveal that what looks like surface agreement on circularity hides deeper-lying and irreconcilable tensions.
Several scholars have already noted the rise of the circular economy as an environmental governance framework in the past decade, especially in the EU (Fitch-Roy et al. 2020, Hobson 2021, Mah 2021). Partly, this appeal is explained by the malleability of the concept (Kirchherr et al. 2017), which facilitates the establishment of coalitions of actors that would otherwise be opposed (Hajer 1993, 1995). Support is ensured because different policy actors invest the term with the meaning they prefer, for example lost economic opportunity versus reduce and reuse, allowing the circular econ- omy to work across the different policy narratives. In EU plastics governance, circularity has temporarily succeeded in capturing and stabilizing the pro- blems raised by not only the resource inefficiency, but also the pollution, toxicity and fossil feedstock dependency narratives.
We expect this current alignment of the narratives to be temporary. As the circular economy increasingly moves from the idealized realm of visions into the actual world of implementation, the underlying tensions between the technocentric circular economy and the transformational circular society will increasingly come to the fore. As Hobson (2021) argues, the circular economy has been invested with unattainable levels of economic and envir- onmental aspirations by the European Commission. It is very doubtful that circular economy policies will deliver on these aspirations, especially when the implementation is currently marked by incrementalism and the refa- shioning of existing policies, as noted by Fitch-Roy et al. (2020). Conceivably, the circular economy will only remain effective as a concept that ensures rhetorical commitment and alignment as opposed to actual gains outside of its narrower recycling-focused interpretation (Penca 2018). The updated Circular Economy Action Plan also leans towards the recycling side of the spectrum (European Commission 2020).
The massive level of industry support to the circular economy is fuelling skepticism regarding its actual sustainability credentials. Some critics argue that the main purpose of the circular economy is to ‘future-proof’ capitalism (Mah 2021). Mah (2021) demonstrates how corporate interests across the plastics value chain have succeeded in cooperating to ‘contain’ the circular economy policy agenda as a defensive measure to protect them against threats to public legitimacy. At the same time, this ‘future-proofing’ is creating new markets and growth opportunities in the recycling sector.
The resource inefficiency narrative is the policy narrative that represents these ‘future-proofing’ arguments in our analysis. Hobson (2021, p. 166-167)
also argues that the circular economy, at least in its technocentric guise, falls into the same trap as green growth, by paradoxically attempting ‘to deploy systems, fundamentally built for extraction and accumulation, to address the very problems they have caused’.
Should these considerations lead us to denounce the circular economy as a credible governance framework for addressing environmental and sustainability challenges in general? Although circular economy policy and implementation currently trends towards incrementalism (Fitch-Roy et al. 2020), ‘future-proofing’ of capitalism (Mah 2021), and may be viewed as a continuation of ecological modernization in the EU (Machin 2019, Zito et al. 2019), we concur with Hobson (2021, p. 173-174) that critiquing the circular economy merely as ‘weak sustainability’ is too simplistic. The wide range of environmental thought that can be reframed and commu- nicated through circular economy discourses provides an opening for scholars and policy actors to challenge the current technocentric consen- sus even while staying within the boundaries of the circular economy.
While the deep divide between transformational and technocentric visions may seem insurmountable, it is notable that not one of the policy narra- tives we identified in plastics governance directly speaks to the ‘reformist circular society’ vision (Calisto Friant et al. 2020, p. 11). The reformist vision assumes that a reformed version of capitalism is compatible with sustainability goals, and that both behavioural and technological change is necessary to ensure prosperity and well-being within biophysical boundaries.
The reformist interpretation of circularity finds common ground with both technocentrism and transformation – it is ‘holistic’ in including social and political considerations, and it is optimistic about the capacity of a deeply reformed capitalism to provide both economic and environmental benefits (Calisto Friant et al. 2020). It differs from technocentrism by allowing social and political considerations to play a much larger role in bringing about a circular society, instead of merely a circular economy. And it differs from transformation by being optimistic about the prospects of eventually attaining ecological-economic decoupling. As such, there is a potential for the surface agreement on circularity within plastics govern- ance to also translate into deeper ideological and political commitments along the lines of the reformist circular society. This might also avoid the coming backlash against circular economy policies when they will almost certainly fail to live up to current (sometimes conflicting) expectations.
Practically, this would entail dismantling the current technocratic control of circular systems in plastics governance (Mah 2021), opening these up to inclusive social and political participation, and putting much more empha- sis on socio-cultural change and ambitious regulation as key vectors of reform.
Table 1. Summary of the four EU plastics governance policy narratives. Setting & PlotCharactersMoral ProblemVictimsVillainsHeroesSolution Fossilfeedstock dependencyFossil feedstock lock-in Climate change impacts Resource and energy security People and societies negatively affected by climate change Fossil fuel and petrochemical industries Bio-plastic, renewable feedstock and recycling industries Renewable niche start- ups and challengers
Bioeconomy and industrial decarbonisation realised via plastics from bio- or CO2-based-feedstock Discursive foundation: technocentric circular economy, fortress circular economy Resource inefficiencyResource inefficiency and economic value loss Overexploitation of resources Linear system
Companies losing the opportunity to profit on circular business models Companies maintaining the linear economy Consumers lacking recycling habits Plastics industry and brand owners that advance circular business models Consumers with recycling habits
Massive increase in recycling (mechanical and chemical) via eco-design, extended producer responsibility, and circular business models ●Business/Commission (dominant view): realizing the economic potential in plastic waste ●NGOs (non-dominant view): realizing the waste hierarchy, starting with reduce and reuse Discursive foundation: technocentric circular economy PollutionMarine plastic pollution Disposable plastics Increasing scale of plastic production
(Marine) animals, ecosystems and natural habitats People and societies negatively affected by pollution Plastic industry and consumer brandsEnvironmental NGOs Civil society engaged in plastic clean-ups
Plastic-free environment ●NGOs (dominant view): systemic issue, reduce use and production, zero waste and reuse ●Business/Commission (non-dominant view): col- lection, recovery of packaging waste, education of consumers, hinder littering Discursive foundation: transformational circular society ToxicityHuman health Safety concerns Additives Anthropogenic unnatural material
Humans at risk of toxic contamination Recycling industry Companies using problematic additives or adding microbeads Alternative material producers and users Producers avoiding chemicals of concern NGOs, regulators, and scientists Toxic-free environment: simplifying the plastics system, fewer additives, eliminating chemicals of concern Discursive foundation: transformational circular society
Conclusion
We find that the European plastics policy debate is shaped by the interaction of four policy narratives: (i) fossil feedstock dependency, (ii) resource ineffi- ciency, (iii) pollution, and (iv) toxicity. The plastics industry and the European Commission have succeeded in stabilizing the policy problems raised in the pollution and fossil feedstock dependency narratives by advan- cing the policy solution of a circular economy through the resource ineffi- ciency narrative. Actors differ in which understanding of circular economy they promote, ranging from a technocentric circular economy to a transformational circular society. The current consensus on ‘circularity’
as the catch-all solution is potentially fragile, as it is built on a wide range of expectations that cannot all be fulfilled at the same time. In this struggle of expectations, the technocentrist discourse is currently enjoying support from the most powerful actors, the European Commission and the plastics indus- try. This discourse implies minimal adjustment to the business models of the plastics industry and even facilitates further expansion of the sector (Mah 2021). However, continued growth in fossil-based plastic production is a factor that will aggravate the underlying problems of all narratives.
Policy narratives and their connection to circular economy discourses define the social reality of plastics governance, and hence, the opportunity space of imagined policies. In the contestation between the technocentrist- leaning policy narratives (resource inefficiency and fossil feedstock depen- dency) and transformative-leaning policy narratives (pollution and toxicity), there is a missed opportunity in exploring potential common ground within reformist circular society discourses. We need further research to draw stronger connections between policy actors and policy narratives, in the EU and elsewhere, and to trace changes in these narratives over time. We also need a clearer understanding of how and why some actors and narratives dominate over others at different points in time. By answering the call for more sector-specific case study research on the circular economy (Calisto Friant et al. 2020, Hobson 2021), we demonstrate the wide range of under- standings and expectations that European plastic policy narratives attach to the circular economy. With the circular economy ascending to the position of the default environmental governance framework, there is too much at stake to leave the current technocentric consensus unchallenged.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the researchers at the Environmental and System Studies and Environmental Politics Research Groups at Lund University for their comments and input on earlier versions. Additionally, we would like to thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers of Environmental Politics.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This research was made possible with financial support from the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra) as part of the Sustainable Plastics and Transition Pathways (STEPS) research programme. Support from the EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme Realising Innovation in Transitions for Decarbonisation (REINVENT) (Grant Number [730053]) is also gratefully acknowledged.
ORCID
Ellen Palm http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1467-9897 Jacob Hasselbalch http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5491-7023 Karl Holmberg http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8444-4466 Tobias Dan Nielsen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8860-7330
References
Andrady, A.L. and Neal, M.A., 2009. Applications and societal benefits of plastics.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364 (1526), 1973–1976.
doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0304
Break Free From Plastics, 2018. BRANDED: in search of the world’s top corporate plastic polluters. Volume 1. Washington D.C.: Greenpeace USA.
Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W.J.V., and Salomone, R., 2020. A typology of circular economy discourses: navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 161, 104917. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2020.104917
Council Directive 2008/98/EC on waste and repealing certain Directives. Official Journal, L312. 3–30. European Union.
Council Directive 2009/125/EC on establishing a framework for the setting of ecode- sign requirements for energy-related products. Official Journal, L285. 10–35.
European Union.
Council Directive 2015/720 amending Directive 94/62/EC as regards reducing the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags. Official Journal, L115. 11–15.
European Union.
Council Directive 2019/904 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. Official Journal, L155. 1–19. European Union.
Dauvergne, P., 2018. Why is the global governance of plastic failing the oceans?
Global Environmental Change, 51, 22–31. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.002 Eberlein, B. and Radaelli, C.M., 2010. Mechanisms of conflict management in EU
regulatory policy. Public Administration, 88 (3), 782–799. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9299.2010.01844.x
ECHA, 2019. Annex XV restriction report: proposal for a restriction of intentionally added microplastics. Helsinki: European Chemicals Agency Available from:
https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/05bd96e3-b969-0a7c-c6d0 -441182893720 [Accessed December 12 2019.]
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016. The new plastics economy: rethinking the future of plastics. Cowes, UK: Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
European Commission. 2015. COM(2015) 614 final. Closing the loop– an EU action plan for the circular economy. 2 December.
European Commission, 2017. Roadmap: strategy on plastics in a circular economy.
Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/plan_
2016_39_plastic_strategy_en.pdf [Accessed February 3 2021].
European Commission. 2018a. COM(2018) 28 final. A European strategy for plastics in a circular economy. 16 January.
European Commission. 2018b. COM(2018) 673 final. A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe: strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment. 11 November.
European Commission, 2019. A circular economy for plastics: insights from research and innovation to inform policy and funding decisions. Brussels: Directorate- General for Research and Innovation.
European Commission. 2020. COM(2020) 98 final. A new circular economy action plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe. 11 March.
Fischer, F., 2003. Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fitch-Roy, O., Benson, D., and Monciardini, D., 2020. Going around in circles?
Conceptual recycling, patching and policy layering in the EU circular economy package. Environmental Politics, 29 (6), 983–1003. doi:10.1080/
09644016.2019.1673996
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., and Law, K.L., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3, e1700782. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1700782
Gray, G. and Jones, M.D., 2016. A qualitative narrative policy framework? Examining the policy narratives of US campaign finance regulatory reform. Public Policy and Administration, 31 (3), 193–220. doi:10.1177/0952076715623356
Groh, K.J., et al., 2019. Overview of known plastic packaging-associated chemicals and their hazards. Science of the Total Environment, 651, 3253–3268. doi:10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.10.015
Hahladakis, J.N., et al., 2018. An overview of chemical additives present in plastics:
migration, release, fate and environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 344, 179–199. doi:10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2017.10.014
Hajer, M.A., 1993. Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: the case of acid rain in Britain. In: F. Fischer and J. Forester, eds.. The argumentative turn. Durham: Duke University Press, 43–76.
Hajer, M.A., 1995. The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy process. New York: Oxford University Press.
Halden, R.U., 2010. Plastics and health risks. Annual Review of Public Health, 31, 179–194. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103714
Hamilton, L.A. and Feit, S., 2019. Plastic & climate: the hidden costs of a plastic planet.
Washington D.C.: Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
Hickel, J. and Kallis, G., 2020. Is green growth possible? New Political Economy, 25 (4), 469–486. doi:10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964
Hobson, K., 2021. The limits of the loops: critical environmental politics and the circular economy. Environmental Politics, 30 (1–2), 161–179. doi:10.1080/
09644016.2020.1816052
Hobson, K. and Lynch, N., 2016. Diversifying and de-growing the circular economy:
radical social transformation in a resource-scarce world. Futures, 82, 15–25.
doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.012
Jabko, N., 2006. Playing the market: a political strategy for uniting Europe, 1985–2005.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Jambeck, J.R., et al., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347 (6223), 768–771. doi:10.1126/science.1260352
Jones, M.D. and McBeth, M.K., 2010. A narrative policy framework: clear enough to be wrong? Policy Studies Journal, 38 (2), 329–353. doi:10.1111/j.1541- 0072.2010.00364.x
Jones, M.D. and Radaelli, C.M., 2015. The narrative policy framework: child or monster? Critical Policy Studies, 9 (3), 339–355. doi:10.1080/
19460171.2015.1053959
Jones, M.D. and Radaelli, C.M., 2016. The narrative policy framework’s call for interpretivists. Critical Policy Studies, 10 (1), 117–120. doi:10.1080/
19460171.2015.1111156
Jones, M.D., Shanahan, E.A., and McBeth, M.K. eds. 2014. The science of stories:
applications of the narrative policy framework in public policy analysis. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., and Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular econ- omy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221–232. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
Lamont, M. and Swidler, A., 2014. Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology, 37 (2), 153–171. doi:10.1007/s11133- 014-9274-z
Lazarevic, D. and Valve, H., 2017. Narrating expectations for the circular economy:
towards a common and contested European transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 31, 60–69. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.006
Machin, A., 2019. Changing the story? The discourse of ecological modernisation in the European Union. Environmental Politics, 28 (2), 208–227. doi:10.1080/
09644016.2019.1549780
Mah, A., 2021. Future-proofing capitalism: the paradox of the circular economy for plastics. Global Environmental Politics, 21 (2), 1–22. doi:10.1162/
glep_a_00594
Nielsen, T.D., 2014. The role of discourses in governing forests to combat climate change. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 14 (3), 265–280. doi:10.1007/s10784-013-9223-4
Nielsen, T.D., et al., 2020. Politics and the plastic crisis: a review throughout the plastic life cycle. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 9 (1), 1–18.
Penca, J., 2018. European plastics strategy: what promise for global marine litter?
Marine Policy, 97, 197–201. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2018.06.004
Radaelli, C.M., 1999. Harmful tax competition in the EU: policy narratives and advocacy coalitions. Journal of Common Market Studies, 37 (4), 661–682.
doi:10.1111/1468-5965.00201
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, evaluation, authorisa- tion and restriction of chemicals (REACH). Official Journal, L396. 1–520.
European Union.
Steinebach, Y. and Knill, C., 2017. Still an entrepreneur? The changing role of the European Commission in EU environmental policy-making. Journal of European Public Policy, 24 (3), 429–446. doi:10.1080/13501763.2016.1149207
Stone, D., 2002. Policy paradox: the art of political decision making. 3rd ed. New York:
W.W. Norton & Co.
Tansey, O., 2007. Process tracing and elite interviewing: a case for non-probability sampling. PS: Political Science and Politics, 40 (4), 765–772.
Thomas, G., 2010. Doing case study: abduction not induction, phronesis not theory.
Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (7), 575–582. doi:10.1177/1077800410372601
Vince, J. and Hardesty, B.D., 2017. Plastic pollution challenges in marine and coastal environments: from local to global governance. Restoration Ecology, 25 (1), 123–128. doi:10.1111/rec.12388
Zero Waste Europe. 2017. Seizing the opportunity: using plastic only where it makes sense. Brussels: Zero Waste Europe and Rethink Plastic Alliance.
Zheng, J. and Suh, S., 2019. Strategies to reduce the global carbon footprint of plastics. Nature Climate Change, 9 (5), 374–378. doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0459-z Zito, A.R., Burns, C., and Lenschow, A., 2019. Is the trajectory of European Union
environmental policy less certain? Environmental Politics, 2 (2), 187–207.
doi:10.1080/09644016.2019.1549779
Appendix 1 Table of interviewees
Interviewee
code Rank and organisation
Dates interviewed
EC1 Policy Officer, DG Environment, European Commission 26.11.2018
EC2 Policy Officer, DG Research and Innovation, European Commission 26.11.2018
EP1 Policy Advisor, Greens/EFA group, European Parliament 21.06.2017
EP2 Elected Representative, European People’s Party, European Parliament 21.06.2017
Business1 Account Manager & Head of Chemical and Energy unit, public affairs
consultancy (anonymous)
09.11.2018 &
26.11.2018
Business2 Director of unit, plastics manufacturers association (PlasticsEurope) 20.06.2017
Business3 Manager of unit, EPR companies association (EXPRA) 20.06.2017
NGO1 Director & Campaigner, ENGO (Zero Waste Europe & Rethink Plastic
Alliance)
19.06.2017 &
28.01.2019
NGO2 Policy Coordinator, ENGO (Friends of the Earth Europe & Rethink Plastic
Alliance)
27.11.2018
NGO3 European Affairs Officer, ENGO (Surfrider Foundation Europe & Rethink
Plastic Alliance)
27.11.2018
NGO4 Director of unit, ENGO (Greenpeace Europe & Rethink Plastic Alliance) 04.12.2018
NGO5 Policy Officer, ENGO (The European Environmental Bureau & Rethink
Plastic Alliance)
06.12.2018
NGO6 Policy Analyst, Environmental think tank (Institute for European
Environmental Policy)
04.12.2018
NGO7 Project Manager, Environmental think tank (Ellen MacArthur
Foundation)
20.06.2017
