Are plastic credits greenwashing? What critics get right

Whether plastic credits are greenwashing is a fair question, and it deserves a straight answer: yes, plastic credits can be greenwashing. They can also fund collection that would not happen otherwise. Which one you get depends on the credit and on what the buyer says about it.

Much of what the main critiques say is fair, and I would rather face it openly than pretend it does not exist. If you are new to the subject, What is a plastic credit? covers the basics.

What the critics say

Break Free From Plastic and GAIA, "Smoke and Mirrors" (November 2023). Two campaign networks examined projects under Verra and the Plastic Credit Exchange (PCX). They reported that only 14% of PCX's credit-generating projects were recycling, that 22% of projects in Verra's pipeline would earn credits from burning plastic, and that eight projects applying for 1.1 million credits had been running for seven years or more. Their conclusion: credits for burning swap one kind of pollution for another, and old projects raise doubts about additionality. PCX replied that co-processing with proper safeguards beats landfill and open burning for plastic nobody can recycle. Verra replied that new and scaled-up projects can earn credits after assessment.

Eunomia for Fauna & Flora (November 2024). The consultancy found that credit prices follow supply and demand rather than the real cost of managing waste, so credits do not give projects a reliable income. It argued that credit schemes cannot do the job of well-designed extended producer responsibility (EPR) systems, and that terms like "plastic offset" and "plastic neutrality" mislead consumers.

Moon and colleagues, One Earth (2025). This academic study argues that treating one tonne collected as cancelling one tonne used ignores the very different harms of different plastics. It warns that plastic credits repeat carbon's weaknesses on additionality and permanence, and that folding credits into EPR laws could weaken them.

WWF (position revised 2025). WWF sees credits as a possible, temporary addition to a company's own reduction work, never the main strategy. It accepts them only with a strong standard, real additionality, social and environmental safeguards and transparent reporting of the buyer's plastic footprint. It does not support "plastic neutral", "plastic neutrality" or "net zero plastic" claims.

Play video: Are Plastic Credits Greenwashing? What Critics Get Right3 min

Where the critics are right

Buying credits instead of cutting plastic. A company that funds collection while its own packaging stays the same invites fair criticism. No standard can fix that on the buyer's behalf, because the problem sits in the buyer's own business. I set out the same concern in What is a plastic credit?.

"Plastic neutral" does not hold up. Funding the collection of one tonne somewhere does not cancel the tonne your product puts into the world. Different plastics, in different places, cause different harm. I do not use the term. I describe what was collected, where and by whom.

Additionality is hard. A project that has collected plastic for years and only now sells credits has to show what the money changes. Some have not.

The destination matters. Burning plastic in a cement kiln keeps it out of rivers but releases emissions. It is not recycling, and a credit should say plainly which one it funded. What happens to collected plastic explains the options.

There is no common rulebook. Units, baselines and accepted destinations differ between schemes. Buyers who do not read the detail can end up comparing very different things.

Where I think they go too far

Some critics conclude that plastic credits should be abandoned. I understand the frustration. Weak claims exist, but judging every project by them leaves real work unfunded. Low-value plastic such as sachets and films still needs collecting today, because nobody pays to pick it up, and the collectors need an income. When a project can show its evidence, the money reaches those people and the plastic stays out of waterways.

Credits are also not the only tool. They sit alongside reduction, better design, reuse and EPR laws, not instead of them. Where a country has a working EPR system, credits should not undermine it. Where it does not, credits can fund collection in the meantime.

What a credible plastic credit looks like

The critiques point to the same tests. A credit is credible when:

1. It funds additional work. The project shows its baseline and what the credit money changes.

2. An independent auditor verified it under a named standard, and it sits on a public registry. See how plastic credits are verified.

3. It names the destination. Recycled, co-processed or landfilled, per tonne.

4. It protects people. Collectors' pay and safety are described and checked.

5. It is retired in the buyer's name, so nobody else can claim the same tonne.

6. The buyer reduces first and reports its own plastic footprint honestly.

7. The claim matches the evidence. "We funded the collection of 50 tonnes of flexible plastic in Vietnam in 2026" is checkable. "We are plastic neutral" is not.

Verra's own guidance for companies puts credits after action inside the business's value chain, which matches what WWF asks for.

How to buy credits without greenwashing

• Cut your own plastic first and publish what you cut.
• Choose collection or recycling on purpose, and say which.
• Ask to see the project, the audit and the registry entry.
• Never say "neutral", "offset" or "zero impact" about your plastic.
• Keep claims in proportion to the work, and link to the evidence.

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority can now fine companies up to 10% of global turnover for misleading green claims. Our guide to buying plastic credits responsibly covers wording in detail.

The honest answer

Plastic credits are a tool, and a tool can be misused. You need to look beyond the certificate and understand the project, the people and the outcome. When a project delivers, there is a positive story to tell, and we build trust by being specific about those results. My rule: a claim should never be bigger than the work.

Frequently asked questions

Published by Reclaimed Earth Limited (Companies House 17392812), which works with plastic recovery projects in India, Indonesia and the Philippines and has a commercial interest in plastic credits. Edited with the Reclaimed Earth editorial team. Last updated 20 October 2026.