A Line in the Sand for Ocean Based Plastics

Americans (👋 we see you!) love to turn a brand into a verb.
They Xerox, Hoover and Google things more than anyone else on the planet.

They used to Tweet things too, but honestly, the less said about that, the better.

Australians are generally allergic to the idea. But, from time to time, and only for very good reasons, we make a brand into a category defining noun:

Band-Aid - great for puns when you need a concert to solve systemic global issues
Esky - less frat-boy than a ‘cooler’ 🇺🇸 but less fun to say than a ‘chilly-bin’ 🇳🇿 
Glad-Wrap - because cling-film is the creepiest word combo in the English language

The last of these, has a special place in the Australian story.

Invented in Rhodes, not the Greek island made famous for its eponymous Colossus of Rhodes, but the Sydney suburb made famous for its Colossus of Ikea; Glad-Wrap has been in Australian kitchens since dollars and cents have been in our wallets.

So the news yesterday was like a dagger to the heart.

A (Glad) Wrap on the Wrists

Yesterday, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) successfully sued Clorox Australia, the manufacturer of GLAD products, for making false claims about the use of ocean plastics in their products.

As a result, Clorox has been hit with an $8.25 million fine.

But, how did we get here? Let’s dive in.

How Far is Too Far?

When you think of Ocean Plastic, I’m guessing you’re thinking of something like this:

What if you found a GLAD Bag drifting around Mount Druitt? Is that Ocean Plastic?

Or, was it at least ocean-bound plastic; always destined to make its way back to the sea like an inner-city lawyer escaping a bad relationship? (Yes, that is a 30-year-old SeaChange reference.)

The ACCC investigation found that 2.2 million products from Clorox's GLAD to be GREEN '50% Ocean Plastic Recycled' range were in fact made from about 50% plastic waste from communities in Indonesia situated up to 50km away from the shore, and just 2km away from a bogan in a Bintang singlet.

That’s as far as Mt Druitt is from Bondi.

But according to the packaging industry, that passed the sniff test.

A Brief History of Inventing ‘Ocean Plastic’

The packaging industry loosely defines Ocean Bound Plastic as plastic within 50km of the shoreline in areas with poor waste management infrastructure.

That distance seems to come from a foundational 2015 research project modelling how population density and economic development contribute to marine plastics - and was somewhat arbitrarily and inexplicably adopted by industry.

Add onto that a lack of regulation and certification in plastic recovery markets, which makes the whole ‘ocean-boundness’ fraught with risk for consumers and brands; even when it’s collected from the shoreline.

Captain Kieran Kelly, commercial fisherman turned ocean campaigner for Ocean Integrity has seen organisations ‘rescuing’ plastics from the bins of seaside resorts, selling them on for USD $3k a tonne. Making our Return and Earn Scheme look like pocket change!

Where is all this heading?

In December 2022, the Environmental Defenders Office acting for the Tangoroa Blue Foundation, issued a complaint to the ACCC about misusing Ocean Plastic labelling in consumer products. 

It outlines how some of the brands you love to buy, and that have probably given you that little buzz of moral superiority - like ZeroCo, LoBros, MOO Yoghurts - have knowingly or unknowingly, misled you.

Subsequently, in November of 2023, MOO Yoghurts admitted that their ‘100% Ocean Plastic’ claim was incorrect. The packaging was changed to read ‘100% Ocean Bound Plastic’ - but unlike me, they resisted the temptation to reference either Sigrid Thornton, or SeaChange.

Yesterday’s decision against Clorox takes this a step further.

According to the Concise Statement of the complaint against Clorox, the ACCC took issue with both the phrases ‘Ocean Plastic’ and ‘Ocean Bound Plastic’ with both falling foul in misleading consumers.

There are now 8 million reasons why brands making fuzzy, feel-good claims about how well their particular type of recycled plastic could swim might need to pay attention.

Right Now

In March 2023, the ACCC released a report that is the closest thing to ‘exciting’ that a national regulator can get. They announced a greenwashing sweep of 247 business, across 8 consumer facing industries; finding that 57% made concerning environmental claims.

MOO Yoghurts, Glad-Wrap and whoever comes next are examples of two concurrent and competing truths:

1. The business world knows that consumers are increasingly motivated to choose products that offer impact, offering new opportunities for brand exposure and growth.
   

   The ACCC even told us, Commissioner Liza Carver said; 'It is important that environmental and sustainability claims by businesses are correct as they are a key influence on consumer choices and what people spend their money on.’
   

2. The capability inside businesses to deliver impact that is robust and meaningful is severely undercooked and exposing them to ever increasing reputational and financial risk.
   
   Not all greenwashing is intentional, often its accidental. Take a read of MOO Yoghurts co-founder, Mick Sanders sharing why they decided to pursue ocean plastic packaging in the first place and imagine the issues his team, the industry and the consumer would have avoided if they had’ve had the right impact-muscle in the room.

So, back yourself.

Stay informed. Speak up. And remember that just like ocean plastics, impact doesn’t float around on the surface, you have to dive in.

Cheers,

Tim

PS: In May, I will be doing a 3 part series interviewing some great people about the current state and future trends of the E, S and G of ESG. Stay tuned!