The United Nations as published a letter to Coca-Cola Europacific Partners, expressing concerns over the multinational bottling company’s transition from reusable glass packaging to plastic bottles in Samoa, an island country in the Pacific Ocean. According to the UN special rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights, Marcos Orellana, due to the switch, Coca-Cola’s packaging now represents one-third of plastic bottle waste in Samoa. Packaging Insights speaks to Dr Rufino Varea, a specialist in marine ecotoxicology and environmental risk assessment and director at the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN), about the consequences of Coca-Cola’s move on Samoan communities and nature. Varea also tells us about the viability of recycling in Samoa and neighbouring islands, as well as the role of local and international bodies like the UN in regulating the use of plastic. Why did Coca-Cola shift from glass to plastic bottles in Samoa? Varea: We understand that in February 2021, coinciding with Coca-Cola Amatil’s acquisition by Coca-Cola European Partners (now Coca-Cola Europacific Partners), a pivotal decision was made to abandon the long-standing, effective system of reusable glass bottles in Samoa. For decades, communities in Samoa participated in a circular system, returning glass bottles for a deposit, which ensured high reuse rates and minimized waste. The abrupt shift to importing plastic bottles, despite the continued success of glass bottle systems in other parts of the world and even Coca-Cola’s own stated global commitments to increasing reusable packaging, raises serious questions about the company’s commitment to sustainable practices in vulnerable island states like ours. This decision, taken without apparent meaningful consultation with local communities, prioritizes convenience and profit for the corporation over the environmental integrity of our islands and the well-being of our people. How is the bottle material shift impacting communities and nature in Samoa? Varea: The persistent nature of plastics means they will pollute our islands for generations, threatening biodiversity as animals ingest or become entangled in this waste. Furthermore, the toxic chemical additives in these plastics pose a significant, yet often downplayed, risk to human health as they contaminate our food chain. This decision by a multinational corporation effectively externalizes the costs of its products onto Samoan communities, exacerbating existing waste management challenges and, as the UN Special Rapporteur highlighted, jeopardizing a wide range of human rights in a nation already facing disproportionate impacts from global environmental crises. What are the current recycling practices in Samoa and other Pacific Island states? Varea: Samoa, and most Pacific Island states, are grappling with a monumental waste crisis, a significant portion of which is plastic. The narrative that recycling is a viable solution in our context is often a dangerous diversion from the real problem. While there may be small-scale collection efforts, often supported by tokenistic funding from the corporations driving the plastic crisis, these are not genuine solutions. Our nations lack the infrastructure, economies of scale, and financial resources to manage the sheer volume of plastic waste being dumped on us. The geographical remoteness of our islands makes exporting plastic waste for recycling economically and logistically prohibitive. Consequently, this plastic waste, including that generated by multinational corporations, chokes our landfills, pollutes our lands and oceans, and threatens our delicate ecosystems and the health of our communities. While we acknowledge that initiatives framed as efforts to “improve” recycling facilities exist, PICAN views many of these with deep scepticism. We see corporations that profit from single-use plastics offering small grants for “recycling awareness” or collection cages as insufficient and, frankly, a tactic to greenwash their damaging practices. These initiatives fail to address the core issue — the relentless production and promotion of single-use plastics. They are what we term “false solutions.” True improvement will not come from building a few more collection points for materials without an economically viable or environmentally sound end-of-life pathway. It requires a fundamental shift away from the throwaway culture. The UN has rightly recommended that businesses invest in genuine closed-loop systems and research into non-single-use delivery methods. This is where investment should be directed, not into the failing recycling myth. Samoa, and most Pacific Island states, are grappling with a “monumental” waste crisis. We view the push for recycling in the Pacific, without addressing the upstream production of single-use plastics, as a form of waste colonialism, where the burden of disposal is unfairly placed upon those least equipped to handle it. What role should the Samoan government and the UN play in regulating packaging circularity? Varea: The Samoan and other Pacific governments have a duty to protect our people and our environment. This includes regulating the packaging decisions of multinational corporations. Our governments must hold these corporations accountable and ensure their commercial activities do not violate international environmental laws and the fundamental human rights standards outlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. This means moving beyond voluntary measures and implementing strong, legally binding EPR schemes that force companies to bear the full lifecycle costs of their products, including collection and environmentally sound management. The UN must continue to expose and challenge corporate practices that lead to human rights abuses and environmental degradation, as the special rapporteur has done in this case. Furthermore, the UN must champion a legally binding Global Plastic Treaty that is ambitious, equitable, and addresses the full lifecycle of plastics, from production to disposal and recovery. Such a treaty must prioritize the unique vulnerabilities of SIDS (Small Island Developing States) and prevent our islands from being used as dumping grounds. It should empower nations like Samoa to reject harmful packaging and enforce regulations that protect our future. PICAN stands firmly behind the call for a treaty grounded in justice and human rights. To what extent are large corporations responsible for waste issues in the Pacific? Varea: The situation in Samoa is a microcosm of a global injustice. For too long, multinational corporations like Coca-Cola, identified repeatedly as a top global plastic polluter, have profited from a linear model of production and consumption that treats our planet, particularly vulnerable nations in the Global South, as disposable. The claim that such companies are working toward sustainability through initiatives like the “World Without Waste” platform rings hollow when contrasted with actions on the ground. This is not just inconsistent, it is deeply cynical. The plastic pollution inundating our shores is a direct result of decisions made in corporate boardrooms far from our islands and have moved beyond merely environmental issues becoming profound matters of justice, equity, and human rights. The right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a fundamental human right, and it is being actively undermined by these corporate practices. We call for genuine, systemic change — a move from false solutions like recycling PR campaigns toward true circular economies that prioritise reuse, waste prevention, and corporate accountability. The Pacific is not a dumping ground. Our voices must be heard, and our right to a healthy future must be respected and protected. PICAN will continue to advocate for this, standing for climate justice and the well-being of all Pacific peoples.