“Net-zero plastic” sounds like the ultimate eco badge—a way to have our packaging and conscience, too.
From big beverage brands to multinational cosmetics companies, the phrase now appears on bottles, wrappers, and corporate sustainability pages. But what does it really mean?
In theory, it suggests a balance: for every pound of plastic a company produces, it removes or offsets an equal amount elsewhere. It sounds scientific. Reassuring. Almost ethical.
But dig deeper, and the phrase begins to unravel.
The Myth of Plastic Neutrality
At the heart of net-zero plastic is an assumption borrowed from carbon accounting: that the environmental damage of producing plastic can be erased by collecting or recycling plastic elsewhere.
But plastic is not a gas. It doesn’t dissolve into the atmosphere. It persists—in oceans, soils, airways, placentas. So when a company claims “net-zero plastic,” the question becomes: Where exactly is the offset happening—and what kind of plastic are we talking about?
Often, the “offset” involves funding waste collection in low-income countries—where unregulated labor systems remove discarded plastics, often without proper recycling infrastructure. The plastic may be collected, but it is rarely recycled. Much of it is incinerated or landfilled.
That’s not an offset. That’s outsourcing.
Creative Accounting Meets Plastic Waste
Net-zero plastic relies heavily on systems of credit generation. Companies can purchase “plastic credits” or invest in projects that claim to remove plastic from the environment. These may include beach cleanups, river barriers, or ocean-bound waste collection programs.
While these efforts may have short-term benefits, they rarely address the upstream production of plastic. Worse, they can allow companies to increase their plastic output while appearing more sustainable on paper.
It’s a familiar strategy: create a market for redemption without altering the behavior causing the harm. We’ve seen it before in carbon offsets—now the same logic is being applied to physical waste.
The Problem with “Mass Balance”
Some net-zero plastic claims rely on a technique known as mass balance. In essence, it allows manufacturers to blend bio-based or recycled feedstocks with fossil-based plastics—and then assign the “green” portion to selected products.
So while only a fraction of the material is bioplastic or recycled, the entire product may be marketed as “made with sustainable content.”
This kind of bookkeeping trickery doesn’t change what ends up in the environment. It changes what ends up on the label.
The Illusion of Progress
Net-zero plastic is a narrative, not a solution. It maintains the illusion of action while protecting the status quo of production.
By focusing on offsets rather than reduction, companies avoid the hard choices: redesigning packaging, rethinking distribution, eliminating single-use systems. Meanwhile, the public is reassured, and regulators are pacified.
But the plastic doesn’t disappear. It just shows up somewhere else.
The Bottom Line
True sustainability isn’t about balancing a ledger—it’s about changing the system. A plastic-neutral world isn’t one where we keep using the same materials and hope someone else picks up the trash.
It’s a world where we use less, design better, and stop confusing convenience with inevitability.
If we want to stop drowning in plastic, we need to stop calling it neutral when it’s not.
Explore the Plastic Truths Mini-Series
This article is part of the Plastic Truths series. To explore all articles and dig deeper into the myths that sustain the plastic age, visit our Plastic Truths overview page.
We don’t publish to praise complexity—we publish to question the kind of eco-language that makes fossil-based plastic sound plant-based. We publish to unmask it.
We don’t write to greenwash the truth. We write to strip the spin and expose the logic behind the label.
Further Reading
If net-zero plastic sounds too good to be true, you’re not alone. These articles and books go deeper into the fine print, greenwashing tactics, and why real sustainability demands more than corporate storytelling.
Inside Big Plastic’s Faltering $1.5 Billion Global Cleanup Effort – Bloomberg
This in-depth investigation reveals how the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, backed by major petrochemical companies, has made minimal progress in its global cleanup efforts, raising concerns about greenwashing and the effectiveness of such initiatives.
EU microplastics ban set to make a growing problem worse – EEB
This article examines how industry lobbying has led to loopholes in the EU’s microplastics ban, potentially undermining efforts to reduce plastic pollution.
How EU policy can tackle microplastic pollution – EEB
This brochure presents recommendations to EU policymakers developed by the EEB and partner organizations, focusing on preventing microplastic contamination and minimizing its impacts.
Books:
The following books are linked to Amazon.com for your convenience. If you decide to purchase through these links, we may earn a small commission — at no extra cost to you.
Plastic Unlimited: How Corporations Are Fuelling the Ecological Crisis and What We Can Do About It [amazon.com]
By Alice Mah
Unpacks how corporations have shifted plastic narratives to maintain profit under the guise of green innovation.
Plastic: A Toxic Love Story [amazon.com]
By Susan Freinkel
A compelling history of plastic’s rise—and the health, environmental, and ethical problems it left in its wake.
Critical thinking starts when we ask: What’s being sold—and what’s being hidden?
Image acknowledgment
The featured image on this page was created using Canva.com.
