The Global Plastics Policy Centre is an independent knowledge broker on plastics policy. Our work supports effective plastics policy-making in both government and the private sector. Specifically, our policy evaluation research provides a critical evidence base at the interface of government, businesses, citizens, and researchers, including supporting the process to develop and operationalise a Global Plastics Treaty to end plastic pollution.
In our work, a plastics policy is defined as:
any action taken by government, private businesses, charitable organisations, and interest groups in efforts to govern any aspect of the plastic life cycle or to address the plastic pollution crisis
We use diverse tools and approaches to assess and inform policy, including:
-
To address the urgent lack of evidence regarding policy effectiveness, we developed the first standardised policy evaluation framework specifically for plastics policy.
Policies are evaluated on their effectiveness at meeting their intended objectives and reducing plastic pollution. The framework focuses on elements specific to managing flows of plastic across the plastic life cycle.
The framework is built to cover three main areas:
A) Policy design and enabling environment
Some of the reference statements in this section include:
-
Is the scope of materials or items clearly defined?
-
What was the process taken to design the policy?
-
Which stakeholders were involved in the design of this policy?
-
Is there a designated authority responsible for enforcement? Which is it?
-
Are there procedures for enforcing the policy, such as inspections and audits?
-
Are there clear penalties for non-compliance, such as fines and other sanctions?
-
Is there a designated authority responsible for monitoring? Which is it?
-
Is there a clear set of indicators to monitor the effects of the policy’s ability to meet its objectives? What are they?
B) Implementation of the policy
Some of the reference statements in this section include:
-
Have there been any cases of major conflicts associated with this policy?
-
Has this policy been consistently and continually monitored and evaluated throughout its implementation?
-
What has been the economic cost to those affected by the policy (e.g. consumers or producers)?
-
What has been the degree of social burden (non-economic) on those affected by the policy?
-
To what extent were/are the alternatives accessible (financially, fit-for-purpose, or physically accessible) and available to those affected by the policy’s requirements?
-
To what extent have investments been made into improving infrastructure for the objectives of the policy?
C) Effects and impact of the policy
Some of the reference statements here include:
-
To what extent has this policy been effective at reducing the amount of plastic used in production, distribution or consumption?
-
For any non-plastic items substituted, was there impact assessment or life cycle analysis (or similar) on determining the materials used for reusables to replace single use plastic products?
-
How has this policy impacted the informal waste sector?
-
To what extent has this policy been effective at increasing the rate or improving the systems for recycling?
-
To what extent has this policy been effective at improving managed disposal mechanisms of plastics (i.e. landfill, waste collection, incineration etc.)?
-
To what extent has this policy been effective at improving consumer awareness about reuse and how to participate?
-
To what extent has the policy supported or promoted innovation at any stage of the plastics lifecycle?
-
To what extent has this policy contributed to minimising the import and export of plastic waste?
-
Have there been any unintended consequences as a result of this policy? (e.g. impact on livelihoods, unsustainable alternatives adopted etc.)
The framework has been refined, validated, and approved in consultation with 30 practitioners, including industry leaders, academics, plastic researchers, and policy specialists. We conduct regular revisions of the framework to ensure it delivers accurate and realistic results in the ever-evolving policy landscape.
To view the policy evaluation framework or enquire about using the framework in your own research, please contact us.
Methodology
Our standard methodology follows a series of steps to collect data for applying the framework:
- We conduct a time-limited search for evidence, which includes government websites, scientific publications, government white papers, grey literature, industry reports, and news available open-access.
- Collated evidence is supplemented by expert, government or industry interviews in the event of evidence gaps.
- Once we have collected all relevant evidence, we score the strength of the available evidence to provide a confidence level in our evaluations.
Strength of Evidence Definition What it means Very Strong High quality body of evidence, large in size, consistent and contextually relevant.
We are very confident that the intervention does or does not have the effect anticipated. The body of evidence is very diverse and highly credible, with convincing and stable findings. Strong High quality body of evidence, medium to large in size, moderately to highly consistent and contextually relevant.
We are confident that the intervention does or does not have the effect anticipated. The body of evidence is diverse and credible, with the findings convincing and stable. Moderate Moderate quality studies on this policy, medium sized evidence body, moderate level of consistency. Studies may or may not be contextually relevant.
We believe that the intervention may or may not have the effect anticipated. The body of evidence displays some significant shortcomings. There are reasons to think that contextual differences may unpredictably and substantially affect intervention outcomes. Limited Moderate - to- low quality studies, medium - to- small sized evidence body, low levels of consistency, studies may or may not be contextually relevant.
We believe that the intervention may or may not have the effect anticipated. The body of evidence displays very significant shortcomings. There are multiple reasons to think that contextual differences may substantially affect intervention outcomes. No Evidence No/too few studies exist
There is insufficient plausible evidence to evaluate this policy against the framework -either due to the policy being too recently implemented, or due to insufficient reviews of its progress. -
-
We thoroughly analyse the policy landscape to examine how plastic policies interact with other national or regional policies. It is important to consider the entirety of plastics-related policies and how they intersect, in order to understand their scope, strengths, and limitations.
By mapping out the current policies, we identify areas where there are gaps or inconsistencies, and assess where new policy interventions are necessary. This includes evaluating how well policies cover the full plastics life cycle, facilitate circularity, ensure integrated governance, and create synergies with related policy areas like climate change, health, and biodiversity conservation.
This landscape-level analysis, combined with our policy evaluation framework, allows for a deeper understanding of how policies function together as a whole. It provides insights into whether existing measures are coherent, effectively implemented, and capable of addressing the full spectrum of plastics-related challenges, including their environmental and economic impacts.
-
Our team conducts interviews with governments, academia, financiers, industry, community groups and experts in the sector to supplement the findings of our policy evaluations.
We also organise in-country workshops, focus groups, and roundtables to bring together relevant stakeholders to fill gaps in evidence, bring to light specific challenges associated with policy interventions, and discuss the most applicable policy approaches for the local context.
-
Assessing the design of policies involves content analysis, which examines the language, structure, and specific provisions within a policy. This process helps uncover patterns or common features in successful policies, such as clear objectives, well-defined implementation steps, and adaptability to different contexts. By identifying these elements, future policies can be crafted with a greater likelihood of achieving their intended outcomes.
Content analysis is most commonly conducted for comparing a set of similar policies. For example looking at plastic bag bans, reuse policies, or extended producer responsibility (EPR) regulations for a set of different countries.
This can be combined with our policy evaluation framework to conduct comparative analyses between the contents of policy documents that have been effective in contrast with those that have demonstrated less success.
-
We conduct deep dives into specific topics, assessing the effectiveness of relevant policies in different contexts.
For example, we have undertaken a deep dive into plastics circularity, examining how we define the concept and its application in policy-making. This has been critical in shaping more robust policies aimed at achieving true circularity in the plastics economy.
We also analysed what drives effective national action plans for plastics, with the goal of informing the Global Plastics Treaty process. By evaluating action plans across various countries, we can identify the key drivers of success and the contextual factors that influence their outcomes. This provides valuable insights for the development of international policy frameworks.
Currently, we are focusing on a comprehensive assessment of reuse policies —evaluating their effectiveness and conducting content analysis to determine the elements that contribute to their success or failure. The insights will support the development of well-informed, impactful reuse policies in the future.
Our deep dives provide a granular understanding of the specific factors that influence the success or failure of policies within a given policy area. Evidence from these analyses gives policymakers the knowledge needed to ensure that future policies are grounded in real-world successes and challenges, making them more likely to deliver their intended results of reducing plastic pollution.