The gaps and opportunities for non-state actors in plastics circular economy approaches

Abstract

On all levels of governance, there have been varied policy responses to the marine plastic pollution issue. These responses include the development of innovative waste management, circular economy, extended producer responsibility and product stewardship approaches. Non-state actors play important roles in these approaches across global and national levels. Regulatory bodies often experience challenges with implementing sustainable, conservation measures, demonstrating that regulatory measures alone cannot generate the required change to effectively stop marine and terrestrial plastic pollution. Effective plastic pollution governance requires participation from non-state actors in its design, development and implementation. This article examines the gaps that exist in the governance of a plastics circular economy, including the focus on recycling and end-of-pipe/down-cycling solutions and the lack of attention on the other ‘Rs’ that are required for true circularity, for example, refuse, reduce, resell, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose and recover energy. We argue that non-state actors can help fill these gaps through multi-stakeholder partnerships, community-led plastic programmes and policies and environmentally and socially responsible industry-based solutions that utilise market-based initiatives. This article explores the roles of non-state actors in plastic policymaking and the gaps and opportunities for non-state actors in the development and implementation of holistic, integrated, ‘whole of life cycle’ and circular economy policies.

Full text

The gaps and opportunities for non-state actors
in plastics circular economy approaches
Joanna Vince
1
and Kathryn A. Willis
2
1
School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia and
2
CSIRO Environment, Hobart,
Tasmania, Australia
Abstract
On all levels of governance, there have been varied policy responses to the marine plastic
pollution issue. These responses include the development of innovative waste management,
circular economy, extended producer responsibility and product stewardship approaches. Non-
state actors play important roles in these approaches across global and national levels. Regula-
tory bodies often experience challenges with implementing sustainable, conservation measures,
demonstrating that regulatory measures alone cannot generate the required change to effectively
stop marine and terrestrial plastic pollution. Effective plastic pollution governance requires
participation from non-state actors in its design, development and implementation. This article
examines the gaps that exist in the governance of a plastics circular economy, including the focus
on recycling and end-of-pipe/down-cycling solutions and the lack of attention on the other ‘Rs’
that are required for true circularity, for example, refuse, reduce, resell, reuse, repair, refurbish,
remanufacture, repurpose and recover energy. We argue that non-state actors can help fill these
gaps through multi-stakeholder partnerships, community-led plastic programmes and policies
and environmentally and socially responsible industry-based solutions that utilise market-based
initiatives. This article explores the roles of non-state actors in plastic policymaking and the gaps
and opportunities for non-state actors in the development and implementation of holistic,
integrated, ‘whole of life cycle’and circular economy policies.
Impact statement
Regulatory bodies at all levels of governance often struggle to implement sustainable conserva-
tion measures effectively, indicating that regulatory measures alone are insufficient to prevent
marine and terrestrial plastic pollution. Effective plastic pollution governance requires the active
participation of non-state actors in its design, development and implementation. Non-state
actors, such as individuals or organisations with significant political influence not allied to any
specific country or state, can play a crucial role in developing innovative waste management,
circular economy, extended producer responsibility and product stewardship approaches to
tackle plastic pollution.
This article explores the gaps in the governance of a plastics circular economy, highlighting
the current focus on recycling and end-of-pipe/down-cycling solutions while neglecting other
essential ‘Rs’required for true circularity, such as refuse, reduce, resell, reuse, repair, refurbish,
remanufacture, repurpose and recover energy. Our findings demonstrate that non-state actors
can bridge these gaps through multi-stakeholder partnerships that establish the norms, culture
and consumer practices necessary for transitioning to a circular economy. Community-based
actors can drive, support and advocate for solutions higher up the R-hierarchy, such as reuse and
repair systems. Additionally, third-party certification bodies can provide robust auditing
processes that promote industry best practices, ensuring both environmental sustainability
and public trust.
This research underscores the importance of fostering environments where non-state actors
can contribute meaningfully and equitably to policy processes. Such inclusivity can enhance the
legitimacy and social acceptance of resulting policies, ultimately driving more effective and
sustainable solutions to plastic pollution.
Introduction
The movement to a circular economy (CE) on all levels of governance has been heralded as one
way to reduce waste, especially plastics. Current approaches to waste management are linear,
where materials are used and discarded, and there is little incentive for manufacturers to consider
the impact of waste generated by this disposal. CE approaches involve a process where materials
do not become waste and prevention of waste is incorporated into the material and product
Cambridge Prisms: Plastics
www.cambridge.org/plc
Review
Cite this article: Vince J and Willis KA (2025).
The gaps and opportunities for non-state
actors in plastics circular economy
approaches. Cambridge Prisms: Plastics,3,e4,
1–9
https://doi.org/10.1017/plc.2025.3
Received: 14 July 2024
Revised: 30 December 2024
Accepted: 23 January 2025
Keywords:
non-state actors; plastic policies; plastics
circular economy; plastic pollution governance;
multi-stakeholder partnerships
Corresponding author:
Kathryn A. Willis;
Email: Kathy.Willis@csiro.au
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge
University Press. This is an Open Access article,
distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/
4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original article is properly cited.
The written permission of Cambridge University
Press must be obtained prior to any
commercial use.

design (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). For plastics to be part
of a closed-loop CE system, they need to be a market commodity
whose value is too good to throw away (ERM Sustainability Insti-
tute, 2024). However, for decades, much of the focus on plastics in
the CE has been on recycling and end-of-pipe/down-cycling solu-
tions. A fully developed CE process needs to also address the other
‘Rs’, which include refuse, reduce, resell, reuse, repair, refurbish,
remanufacture, repurpose and recover energy (Reike et al., 2018;
Morseletto, 2020). Incorporating these principles into plastic pol-
lution management policies and CE approaches could help address
some of the regulatory challenges that governments face in redu-
cing plastic pollution.
There have been varied policy responses by state actors, across
all levels of governance (local, regional, national and international),
to tackle plastic pollution by creating or transitioning to a ‘Plastics
CE’(Forrest et al., 2019; Barford and Ahmad, 2023). These
responses include inter-alia new waste management practices,
extended producer responsibility (EPR) and product stewardship
policies. These approaches do not necessarily result in circularity;
however, regulatory measures are needed to enforce compliance
within a CE. Regulatory bodies often experience challenges with
implementing sustainable, conservation measures, demonstrating
that they alone cannot generate the required change to effectively
stop marine and terrestrial plastic pollution (da Costa et al., 2020).
Non-state actors such as industry, certification bodies, civil
society, researchers and community groups are integral in address-
ing the governance challenges of reducing plastic waste and increas-
ing circularity. We define non-state actors as individuals or
organisations that can influence change in the political and policy
processes but are not governments. While some international
relations researchers identify local governments, cities and muni-
cipalities as non-state actors in global governance (Bäckstrand et al.,
2017), our focus is on governance across multiple levels and, for the
purpose of this article, we define local governments, cities and
municipalities as government entities.
While governments and their administrative agencies are crucial
in establishing regulatory measures, non-state actors can be
involved in the design, development and implementation of policy
or can provide other regulatory measures such as certification
(Vellema and van Wijk, 2014; Vince, 2019; Vince and Haward,
2019). They can play an important role in the implementation of
policy decisions, including providing financial resources and
expertise. For example, in Australia, they are involved in private
industry operations in the collection and recycling of plastic mater-
ials from households (Larshans, 2023), whereas in less wealthy
countries, informal waste pickers undertake the collection and
sorting operations (Velis, 2023).
Although non-state actors cannot decide what policy will be
implemented, allowing them to meaningfully and equitably par-
ticipate in the policy process (Campbell et al., 2022) allows them to
contribute to transparent policymaking. Their participation can
also add or reinforce the legitimacy and social acceptance of the
resulting policy decisions (Cumming et al., 2022).
This review paper explores the roles of non-state actors in plastic
policymaking. We undertook a desktop review to identify key
examples of non-state actors’participation in different aspects of
the plastics CE and plastics policymaking. We utilised information
from a wide range of sources, including academic literature, policy
documents, reports and case studies. The paper addresses the gaps
and opportunities for non-state actors to contribute to the devel-
opment and implementation of holistic, integrated, ‘whole of life
cycle’and CE policies. We argue that non-state actors can help
fill regulatory gaps through multi-stakeholder partnerships,
community-led plastic programmes and policies and environ-
mentally and socially responsible industry-based solutions that
utilise market-based initiatives.
Non-state actors and gaps in plastic CE governance
Participation from non-state actors in the process of design, devel-
opment and implementation is required for effective plastic pollu-
tion governance and policymaking. Traditional hierarchical
governance and policymaking was centred on governments and
vertical decision-making (Hill and Lynn, 2004). Since the 1990s,
there has been a shift in modes of governance towards decentral-
isation, horizontal decision-making and network-, market- and
community-based approaches (Rhodes, 1997; Reddel, 2002; Kjaer,
2011). This shift has also been reflective of the broader, more
complex and challenging policy issues that governments face across
multiple levels, different policy contexts and with diverse goals and
cross-boundary and cross-sectoral issues (Howlett and Del, 2015;
Howlett et al., 2017; Maggetti and Trein, 2019; Trein et al., 2021).
For example, this can be seen in the implementation of integrated
ocean management policies in many different states (Smith et al.,
2017; Vince and Day, 2020; Winther et al., 2020; Sørdahl, 2023).
Today, governments and non-state actors are involved in vari-
ous forms of partnerships through the process of co-creation
(Ansell and Torfing, 2021), co-design or ‘design as co-creation’
(van Buuren et al., 2020) and policy integration (Cejudo and Trein,
2023). Underpinning these partnerships is trust and a perceived
legitimacy of working with other actors (Ansell and Gash, 2008;
Emerson et al., 2012; Siddiki et al., 2022). Research has outlined that
a high degree of trust can facilitate engagement between non-state
actors and governments in collaborative policy design (Ansell and
Gash, 2008; Siddiki et al., 2017; Siddiki et al., 2022). This collabor-
ation with non-state actors enables the sharing of knowledge and
can result in them becoming knowledge brokers in the plastic
policymaking process (Barford and Ahmad, 2023). In industry
settings, commercial collaboration between non-state actors can
enable circularity while misaligned collaboration can hinder circu-
lar transitions (Todeschini et al., 2017; Barford and Ahmad, 2023).
Governments form partnerships with non-state actors for a
variety of reasons and the main goal of the partnership may not
always be to achieve holistic and integrated policies, although this is
what is desired for CE policy approaches. Governments often lack
the resourcing and/or capacity required to implement and monitor
the standards that industry and communities are seeking in envir-
onmental management. Industry and communities are starting to
turn to non-state actors to address this gap (Buthe, 2004; Howlett
and Ramesh, 2016). However, the reliance on non-state actors,
particularly regarding resourcing, can also influence agenda-setting
and non-decision-making (e.g., see Dauvergne, 2018; Mah, 2021;
Vince, 2023). A risk with such partnerships is that non-state actors
are not subject to the same accountability mechanisms as govern-
ments and, as such, their legitimacy and credibility can be
dependent on their actions instead (Grabosky, 2013). There is a
possibility that regulatory capture can occur. This is where non-
state actors use partnerships with governments to impact policy
outcomes (Dal, 2006). On the other hand, regulation is not a
panacea for barriers encountered when transitioning to an effective
CE. Regulation can also be a constraint on CE policies as ‘policy can
both drive and block moves towards circularity’(Barford and
Ahmad, 2023). For example, a regulation in Italy prevents
2 Joanna Vince and Kathryn A. Willis

industrial companies from utilising another company’s scrap
materials as raw materials, thereby restricting potential economic
and environmental benefits from industrial collaborations (Taddeo
et al., 2017).
Despite the potential issues around accountability and legitim-
acy, a need for and existence of non-state actors in the plastics CE
has been recognised in plastic pollution governance literature (see,
e.g., Vince and Hardesty, 2017, Vince and Hardesty, 2018, van
Leeuwen et al., 2022, Stoll et al., 2020). Non-state actors are par-
ticularly useful in pursuing voluntary measures that can become a
useful basis for future laws and regulations (Stoll et al., 2020). Vince
and Hardesty (2018) identified non-state actors as crucial in driving
a plastic CE via economic and market-based instruments such as
shareholder influence, corporate social responsibility, certification
and public–private partnerships. Non-state actors are also key to
community-based approaches for a plastics CE through NGOs,
local community groups, citizen science and social movements
(see Figure 1). Within a holistic governance framework, non-state
actors can achieve a social licence to operate at all levels of govern-
ance (local, national and global) whether they use community- or
market-based approaches (Figure 1).
Third-party certification schemes and bodies are recognised as a
form of hybrid governance that includes private–social partnerships
and excludes the state (Lemos and Agrawal, 2006). These voluntary,
market-driven approaches have been successful in areas such as
fisheries and aquaculture. For example, the Marine Stewardship
Council and Aquaculture Stewardship Council (Gulbrandsen,
2009;VinceandHaward,2019;Rasaletal.,2024) are third-party
schemes operated by the fishing and aquaculture industry that certify
sustainably caught and farmed seafood with little state intervention.
Certification bodies can encourage best practices for industry and
provide legitimacy for those seeking a social licence to operate
(Vince, 2019). However, some certification bodies do not provide
clear information on the roles and responsibilities of parties involved
in the certification process and, as such, lack accountability and
transparency (Alexander et al., 2016). In the plastics pollution and
CE space, numerous certification schemes exist at all levels of gov-
ernance. Many of the schemes target recycling, the waste process and
waste collection; however, not many focus on the other ‘Rs’(Vince
et al., 2024b).
As plastic alternative materials enter the market, there is an
increasing need for certifications of these materials, such as bio-
degradable plastics. In Australia, the Australasian Bioplastics Asso-
ciation (ABA) certifies compostable and biodegradable plastics and
has a commercial and household compostable verification pro-
gramme. Although the body does provide a commercial certifica-
tion, when it comes to the organic recycling suitability of an item,
they place the onus on the industry to self-regulate, stating that
“The ABA is not responsible for determining the acceptability of an
item for organics recycling and the applicants should satisfy them-
selves of the suitability and acceptability of the item for the intended
end of life”(Australasian Bioplastics Association, 2024).
There is an increasing number and variety of certifications available
for plastic CE schemes, products and plastic alternative materials.
An audit of these certification schemes is needed, for both the
industry and consumers, to reveal commonalities and differences
between schemes, standards, labels and responsibilities of the par-
ties involved. Such an audit could be used to identify the schemes
that are considered a form of ‘greenwashing’for profit (Gale and
Haward, 2011; Miller, 2017; Nygaard, 2023) from those identified
as having a clear purpose of achieving environmental sustainability.
Industries involved in plastics CE transitions could demonstrate
their willingness to change via certification or they could be forced
to change through regulation. However, until the validity and
trustworthiness of these schemes are established, governments
and global regulatory bodies may end up driving these changes.
Decisions such as these will likely be decided through the negoti-
ations for a Global Plastics Treaty where the responsibilities and
obligations for states in developing their National Plastic Action
Plans and National Implementation Plans will be agreed upon
(Maes et al., 2023). The Global Plastics Treaty is an international
legally binding instrument under negotiation that aims to end
plastic pollution at every stage of the material life cycle, from
manufacturing to disposal (Dauvergne, 2023; Stöfen-O’Brien,
2023; Arora et al., 2024). Upon its agreement and adoption, the
LOCAL
GOVERNANCE
COMMUNITY
GLOBAL
GOVERNANCE
3rd PARTY
CERTIFICATION
SHAREHOLDER
INFLUENCE
SOCIAL
MOVEMENTS
EDUCATION/
CITIZEN SCIENCE
LOCAL
COMMUNITY
GROUPS
SHAREHOLDER
INFLUENCE
PUBLIC-PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIPS
CORPORATE
SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
NGOs
NGOs
SOCIAL
LICENSE
SOCIAL
LICENSE
SOCIAL
LICENSE
SOCIAL
LICENSE
MARKET
NATIONAL
GOVERNANCE
CORPORATE
SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
Figure 1. The role of non-state actors in a holistic governance approach to a plastics CE that reduces plastic pollution. Some key non-state actor opportunities within the system are
highlighted in green with a pink outline. Figure adapted from Vince and Hardesty (2018).
Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 3

Treaty will be delivered nationally either through stringent require-
ments, voluntary national plans or a combination of the two (March
et al., 2024, United Nations Environment Programme, 2023).
A gap in the transition to a plastics CE is the lack of focus
governments give to the role citizens and consumers have in the CE
system (Hobson et al., 2021; Hobson, 2022). For example, Hobson
et al. (2021) argue the relevance of considering ‘consumption work’
in the success of CE models. Consumption work is the forms of
labour necessary for the purchase, use, reuse and disposal of goods
and services commonly completed by consumers, such as the
cleaning and sorting of household product packaging for recycling
(Wheeler and Glucksmann, 2015), or the practice of sharing
(i.e., reusing) and repairing household appliances. Building and
mainstreaming these consumer practices are pivotal to the success
of a CE transition.
The transition to a CE to date has had a strong focus on solutions at
the material/product end-of-life stage, such as improving waste and
recycling collection systems or downcycling low-recycling-value plas-
tic into higher-value products. For example, there are companies that
have established a market for downcycling low-density polyethylene
shopping bags or nylon fishing nets into furniture or clothing, see
netplus by Bureo (bureo.co) or Replas (replas.com.au). End-of-pipe
initiatives are only one part of the solution. However, both state and
non-state actors need to shift their focus to encompass all of the ‘Rs’
including recycling, refuse, reduce, resell, reuse, repair, refurbish,
remanufacture, repurpose and recover energy (Reike et al., 2018;
Morseletto, 2020)(seeFigure 2).
This shift to all R’s is the core of achieving a true CE and in many
cases, the institutional frameworks are ill equipped to deal with
such changes. Institutional restructuring to support CE by state and
industry will take time; however, in the meanwhile, there are
opportunities for non-state actors to be innovative and to fill the
gaps where state and regulatory approaches are lagging.
Opportunities for non-state actors to fill the gaps in a
plastics CE
Non-state actors play a major role in plastic management, policy
implementation, manufacturing standards and best practices. This
can be done through multi-stakeholder partnerships, community-
led plastic programmes and policies and environmentally and
socially responsible industry-based solutions. This section presents
real-world examples where non-state actor initiatives and partner-
ships have addressed gaps in current CE upstream and downstream
approaches.
Multi-stakeholder partnerships
Multi-stakeholder collaborations between governments and non-
state actors, such as consumers, industry and civil society, are
necessary to change the governance, norms, culture and behaviours
required to transition to a CE (Vince and Hardesty, 2017). These
multi-stakeholder collaborative efforts take time and can be diffi-
cult to establish; however, when set up for the long term, they can
result in societal transformation (Eiselein et al., 2023). The rela-
tionships between stakeholders can be directive, mediative, collab-
orative and competitive. For collaboration to be successful,
interactions need to be continuous and based on joint aims and
trust (Blomberg et al., 2023). The level and type of involvement of
CORPORATE
SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
COMMUNITY-
LED
PROGRAMS
MARKET
BASED
INITIATIVES
3rd PARTY
CERTIFI-
CATION
VOLUNTARY
INDUSTRY
STANDARDS
NGO
ADVOCACY
PUBLIC-
PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIPS
REFUSE
REDUCE
RESELL
REUSE
REPAIR
RE-
FURBISH
REMANU-
FAC TU R E
RE-
PURPOSE
RECYCLE
RECOVER
ENERGY
PLASTICS
CIRCULAR
ECONOMY
Figure 2. Non-state actor roles encompass the core R’s needed to achieve a holistic plastics CE. Each concentric ring encompasses and feeds into the core target of a plastic CE.
4 Joanna Vince and Kathryn A. Willis

non-state actors in multi-stakeholder partnerships vary depending
on the relationships formed and the positionality of those involved.
A recent case study of plastic pollution governance in Thailand
identified three barriers that prevent multi-stakeholder collabor-
ations: insufficient incentives to enact political change, scalar dis-
connect in waste management and inadequate civil society and
private sector ownership over plastic waste reductions (Marks et al.,
2020). Overcoming these barriers to multi-stakeholder collabor-
ations has occurred in recent years through the involvement and
strong leadership of non-state actors. For example, joint partner-
ships, international network platforms, voluntary industry stand-
ards and advocating by non-state actors have all led to successful CE
initiatives that reduce plastic pollution.
Involving multi-stakeholder knowledge enriches government
regulatory decision-making and can provide an opportunity for
the representation of stakeholders who are affected by plastic
pollution and policies. A current example of this can be seen in
the Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee (INC) meetings for
a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty. During these negotiations,
different actors offer localised perspectives to tailor the negotiations
to their unique social and environmental situations. For example,
the ‘Friends of the Action Agenda’is a government joint party,
between the United States, Norway, Chile and Samoa, which calls
for the inclusion of a sectoral approach in reducing plastic pollution
(Drewell and Garin, 2023). The joint party commented on the need
for non-state actor engagement in Treaty negotiations to facilitate
credible, accountable and transparent participation from busi-
nesses across the entire plastics value chain. This non-state actor
involvement could be in the form of ‘Stakeholder Action Reports’
where stakeholders from a given sector present the current state and
opportunity areas for plastic reduction pathways (Drewell and
Garin, 2023, Environmental Investigation Agency, 2023). Another
way meaningful participation of non-state actors facilitated in
Treaty negotiations is to follow a similar process to the Aarhus
Convention, adopted in 1998. During the negotiations, represen-
tatives of civil society organisations sat at the table as negotiators,
rather than observers, and followed the same rules as the member-
state negotiators (CIEL., n.d.). This inclusion allowed the civil
society to present its views and make proposals on equal grounds
to member-state representatives. The Scientists Coalition for an
Effective Plastics Treaty is another key organisation that provides
scientific advice and information for decision-makers and stake-
holders during INC negotiations (https://ikhapp.org/scientistscoali
tion/). It is made up of over 350 independent scientists from
60 states with a cohort of members attending each INC meeting
(Vince et al., 2024a). However, during the INC-5 negotiations in
Busan, Korea, in November 2024, stakeholders were unable to
participate as observers due to closed-door sessions and the Treaty
was not finalised (https://www.ciel.org/news/inc-5-conclusion/).
INC-5.2 session is planned to occur in 2025 but the date and
location (at the time of writing) are yet to be decided.
Community-led plastic programmes and policies
Joint partnerships in waste management commonly occur as pub-
lic–private partnerships between the government and industry
(Andonova, 2010). These partnerships are a solution to providing
effective and efficient waste management that the public sector,
commonly local governments, cannot solely provide due to a lack of
resources and/or expertise (Forsyth, 2005; Saadeh et al., 2019).
Public–private partnerships in the waste management sector are
established in developed countries, such as the United States and
the United Kingdom (Saadeh et al., 2019), and are growing in
developing countries, such as Brazil, Uganda, India, Sri Lanka
and Palestine (Talyan et al., 2008; Marconsin and Rosa, 2013;
Saadeh et al., 2019). For example, in Pune, India, the municipal
government partnered with a union of informal waste pickers to
improve the disposal, collection and recycling of household waste
(Moora and Barde, 2018), whereas in Sri Lanka, a newly imple-
mented EPR policy has led to partnerships between local govern-
ments, waste collectors and the private sector to operate and
establish a national network of material recovery facilities (Gillet
and Disselkoen, 2021). Conversely, in the Czech Republic, public–
private partnership services for local waste collection were found to
be more costly than contracting out local waste collection
(Soukopová et al., 2017). Establishing these types of state and
non-state actor partnerships could offer opportunities for building
and mainstreaming these plastic waste practices that are pivotal to
the success of a CE transition.
Other community-led or integrated approaches to incorporate
non-state actors into plastic pollution programmes are social enter-
prises. Social enterprises on a local scale reinvest profits to fulfil a
social and/or environmental mission. These enterprises “perform a
vital role in the social and systemic integration of material, envir-
onmental and social elements of the CE at the local scale. This is
even more important as they help to ‘restore community solidarity’
(p.1427) (Kim and Lim [2017])] as well as form, capitalise on and
act as conduits for social capital. Social enterprises can thus enrich
the CE concept with a social dimension, which remains under-
represented in the existing CE literature”(Pusz et al., 2023). It is
found that these social enterprises can focus on activities higher on
the waste hierarchy such as reuse, upcycling, refurbishing and
repair ‘which are often overlooked by mainstream CE policies
and require a change in consumer behaviour’(Pusz et al., 2023).
Other approaches to a plastic CE that improve the management
of plastic have been, in part, largely driven and advocated for by
non-governmental, non-for-profit and charity organisations. These
organisations often advocate for regulatory action from govern-
ments to eliminate problematic plastics, place greater responsibility
on plastic producers and provide effective infrastructure for house-
holds and businesses to discard their waste appropriately. For
example, the Chilean government worked with NGOs Oceana Chile
and Plastic Oceans Chile to implement the single-use plastic law
(Law No. 21.368), which bans single-use plastics. The law was
developed jointly between legislators and the local NGOs after the
NGOs released a report on the state of plastic pollution and current
regulations in Chile (Plastic Oceans Chile., 2021). In the United
States, Break Free From Plastic has advocated for amendments to
the Clean Water Act, and has successfully introduced a bill to
Congress, the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act 2022 (117th
Congress, USA). The organisation has also created an initiative to
help identify companies responsible for plastic pollution and hold
them accountable (Cowger et al., 2024, Break Free from Plastic,
2021). In Australia, the Boomerang Alliance has advocated for a
national container deposit legislation over the past 16 years.In March
2022, the announcement of a refund scheme in the state of Tasmania
saw the last of all Australian state and territory governments to
implement a container refund scheme (Boomerang Alliance., 2022).
Environmentally and socially responsible industry-based
solutions
Voluntary industry standards have led to improvements in plastic
recycling and manufacturing without government regulatory
Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 5

action. This voluntary action has been driven by growth in the
recycling economy, voluntary investment from producers and
manufacturers and the industry pre-empting possible government
regulatory action and wanting to implement more effective, sus-
tainable, lower cost solutions than the government-imposed regu-
lations (Godfrey and Oelofse, 2017). For example, in South Africa, a
private entity of PET recyclers and producers co-finance the price
of recycled PET to ensure the market price remains competitive
with virgin PET. Since the establishment of the private entity, post-
consumer PET bottle recycling has increased from 16% in 2005 to
55% in 2016 (Godfrey and Oelofse, 2017). In Australia, the
Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation collaborates with
the national government to improve the management and per-
formance of packaging (Burritt et al., 2005) and meet national
packaging targets by 2025 (Hardesty et al., 2022). These targets
include all members of the covenant using 100% reusable, recyc-
lable or compostable packaging by 2025 with 86% of the target
being met by members in 2019–2020 (APCO., 2022). Most recently,
the Coca-Cola Company announced from 1 August 2022, a switch
from their coloured plastic bottles, such as the Sprite green bottle, to
clear plastic bottles to increase the recycling likelihood and value of
the material (The Coca-Cola Company, 2022).
Reuse initiatives are placed high on the waste hierarchy and
considered a higher priority and more desired system to achieve a
CE (Potting et al., 2016; Kirchherr et al., 2017); however, currently,
only 4% of investment capital is directed to reuse solutions (Mah,
2021; Wang et al., 2023). Reuse systems extend the lifespan of a
product and materials with minor adaptations or restoration
(Vermeulen et al., 2019). Reuse models can be distinguished into
two categories: exclusive reuse where the reusable packaging is
owned by the customer, who controls when the product is reused
but is often limited to where they can reuse the product, and
sequential reuse where the reusable packaging is owned by a
company and access to the product is offered to customers
(Muranko et al., 2021). A recent sequential reuse initiative has led
to significant reductions in the amount of single-use plastic bottles
the dairy-milk industry generates. The Udder Way (theudderway.
com), established by an Australian owner and operator of three
cafes, replaces single-use plastic milk bottles with reusable, refillable
18 L food-grade plastic keg systems for milk dispensing, storage and
transport. Each keg has an expected 8–10 years lifespan and can be
used up to 800 times. This lifespan equates to preventing the
generation of 302 kg of single-use plastic or ~ 7,000 plastic bottles.
Each keg fits the dimensions of an Australian standard milk crate to
ensure the kegs can be transported using pre-existing systems. Kegs
are returned to milk producers for cleaning, sanitation and refilling.
Exclusive reuse systems implemented by private industry are
reusable coffee cups. This reuse system commonly relies on both
cafes and consumers to opt-in to the system, with consumers
purchasingandprovidingthereusablecuptothecafeandthe
cafe accepting reusable cups. Whereas exclusive reuse systems
such as water refill stations that enable consumers to commonly
have free access to water to refill their drink containers have been a
joint partnership between local government, NGOs and private
industry. For example, refill stations installed along the Brisbane
River, Australia (Willis et al., 2019), or installed across London
(refill.org.uk/refill-london) were the joint partnership between a
company providing the refill station unit and the municipality
allowing the station to be tapped into the local water supply
facilities. Reuse systems, particularly for fast-moving consumer
goods packaging, are growing (Coelho et al., 2020;Longetal.,
2020;Murankoetal.,2021) and it is estimated that 20% of plastic
packaging could be replaced by reusable systems (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2019).
In all three categories –multi-stakeholder partnerships,
community-led plastic programmes and policies and environ-
mentally and socially responsible industry-based solutions –the
examples demonstrate that non-state actors have been instrumen-
tal in filling governance gaps and providing solutions where other
actors have not. These actors have played a key role in advancing
the transition to a CE for plastics, as outlined in Section 2. How-
ever, the success of each example depends on a range of factors,
including the specific nature of the problem being addressed, the
political and legal environments and the levels of trust and collab-
oration between stakeholders and governments. As such, the poten-
tial for non-state actors to contribute meaningfully to the
implementation of the Plastics Treaty will be closely linked to the
final provisions of the Treaty, the national plans developed by
individual countries and the degree of political will to engage these
actors in a collaborative governance framework (Vince et al., 2024a).
The diversity of non-state actors’roles across different contexts, and
their interactions with governmental structures, underscores the
need for flexibility in how they are integrated into governance
systems. While the precise nature of their involvement will depend
on the Treaty’s final form and national priorities, the examples
presented here highlight the existing potential for non-state actors
to play a significant role in advancing the goals of a plastics CE.
Conclusion
This article explored the pivotal roles, identified the significant gaps
and highlighted promising opportunities for non-state actors to
contribute to the development and implementation of holistic and
integrated CE policies for plastic. Gaps that exist in the current
governance of a plastics CE include a focus on end-of-pipe/down-
cycling solutions and a lack of attention on the other ‘Rs’that are
required for true circularity. There are opportunities where non-
state actors can do more to advance the transition to a plastics
CE. Collaborations between industry and science could drive
innovative research that prioritises solutions further up the R
hierarchy (i.e., before recycling), such as reuse and refill systems,
and designing-out waste strategies. Involving community-based
actors, such NGOs and local groups, could drive and support a
repair culture and advocate for government regulatory action that
encourages reuse and repair systems. Effective multi-stakeholder
partnerships could enrich government regulatory decision-making,
ensuring plastic CE policies reflect diverse stakeholder interests.
These collaborations are often necessary to build and mainstream
the norms, culture and consumer practices required to transition to
a plastics CE. In the absence of comprehensive government regu-
latory intervention, there is a pressing need for robust auditing
processes by third-party certification bodies to promote best prac-
tices for industry that provide both environmental sustainability
and public trust. As more plastic-alternative materials enter the
market, there is a growing demand for this in biodegradable plastics
certification. Moving forward, it is essential to foster environments
where non-state actors can contribute meaningfully and equitably
to policy processes, thereby enhancing the legitimacy and societal
acceptance of resultant policies. By addressing these considerations,
we can foster a transition towards a plastics CE that is both
environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive.
Open peer review. To view the open peer review materials for this article,
please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/plc.2025.3.
6 Joanna Vince and Kathryn A. Willis

Data availability statement. Data availability is not applicable to this article
as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Acknowledgements. The authors thank Judith Van Leeuwen and Valeriya
Komakova for their constructive comments at the initial stages of this manu-
script.
Author Contribution. Joanna Vince: Conceptualisation, Investigation, Meth-
odology, Project Administration, Writing-original draft, Writing –review &
editing, Visualisation. Kathryn A. Willis: Conceptualisation, Investigation,
Methodology, Project Administration, Writing-original draft, Writing –review
& editing, Visualisation.
Financial support. This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interest. The authors declare no competing interests exist.
References
Alexander SM,Andrachuk M and Armitage D (2016) Navigating governance
networks for community-based conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 14, 155–164.
Andonova LB (2010) Public-Private Partnerships for the Earth: Politics and
Patterns of Hybrid Authority in the Multilateral System. Global Environ-
mental Politics,10,25–53. DOI: 10.1162/glep.2010.10.2.25
Ansell C and Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18, 543–571.
Ansell C and Torfing J (2021)Public Governance as Co-creation: A Strategy for
Revitalizing the Public Sector and Rejuvenating Democracy. Cambridge
University Press.
APCO (2022) Australia’s 2025 National Packaging Targets [Online]. Australia.
Available at https://apco.org.au/national-packaging-targets (accessed 19 July
2022).
Arora H,March A,Nieminen L,Shejuti S-M and Walker TR (2024) Defining
an effective “plastics treaty”through national perspectives and visions during
early negotiations. Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 2, e18.
Australasian Bioplastics Association (2024) Commercial Compostable Verifi-
cation Programme: The Seedling Logo [Online]. Available at https://bioplas
tics.org.au/certification/the-seedling-logo/.
Bäckstrand K,Kuyper JW,Linnér B-O and Lövbrand E (2017) Non-state
Actors in Global Climate Governance: From Copenhagen to Paris and Beyond.
Taylor & Francis.
Barford A and Ahmad SR (2023) Levers for a corporate transition to a plastics
circular economy. Business Strategy and the Environment 32, 1203–1217.
Blomberg A,Kujala J and Heikkinen A (2023) Multi-stakeholder networks in a
circular economy transition: A typology of stakeholder relationships. In
Stakeholder Engagement in a Sustainable Circular Economy: Theoretical
and Practical Perspectives. Springer International Publishing Cham.
Boomerang Alliance (2022) Cash for Containers [Online]. Australia: Boomerang
Alliance. Available at https://www.boomerangalliance.org.au/cash_for_containers
(accessed 19 July 2022).
Break Free from Plastic (2021) Branded. Brand Audit Report. USA.
Burritt RL,Lewis H and James K (2005) Analysing the effectiveness of an
environmental voluntary agreement: The case of the Australian national
packaging covenant. In The Handbook of Environmental Voluntary Agree-
ments. Springer.
Buthe T (2004) Governance through private authority: Non-state actors in
world politics. Journal of International Affairs 58, 281–291.
Campbell LM,Fail R,Horan R,Acton L,Blackwatters JE,Garcia Lozano A,
Gill D,Gray N,Gruby R,Melvin E,Murray G and Wiehe E (2022)
Architecture and agency for equity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Earth System Governance 13, 100144.
Cejudo GM and Trein P (2023) Pathways to policy integration: A subsystem
approach. Policy Sciences 56,9–27.
CIEL. n.d. Towards a global treaty to end plastic pollution: Ensuring meaningful
and effective stakeholder involvement in the intergovernmental
environmental negotiations. Policy Briefing. Washington D.C., Geneva,
Switzerland: Center for Interntional Environmental Law.
Coelho PM,Corona B,Ten Klooster R and Worrell E (2020) Sustainability of
reusable packaging–Current situation and trends. Resources, Conservation &
Recycling: X 6, 100037.
Cowger W,Willis KA,Bullock S,Conlon K,Emmanuel J,Erdle LM,Eriksen
M,Farrelly TA,Hardesty BD,Kerge K,Li N,Li Y,Laaiebman A,Tangri N,
Thiel M,Villarrubia-Gómez P,Walker TR and Wang M (2024) Global
producer responsibility for plastic pollution. Science Advances 10, eadj8275.
Cumming G,Campbell L,Norwood C,Ranger S,Richardson P and Sanghera
A(2022) Putting stakeholder engagement in its place: How situating public
participation in community improves natural resource management out-
comes. GeoJournal 87, 209–221.
Da Costa JP,Mouneyrac C,Costa M., Duarte AC and Rocha-Santos T (2020)
The role of legislation, regulatory initiatives and guidelines on the control of
plastic pollution. Frontiers in Environmental Science 8.
Dal Bó E (2006) Regulatory capture: A review. Oxford Review of Economic Policy
22, 203–225.
Dauvergne P (2018) The power of environmental norms: Marine plastic
pollution and the politics of microbeads. Environmental Politics 27, 579–597.
Dauvergne P (2023) The necessity of justice for a fair, legitimate, and effective
treaty on plastic pollution. Marine Policy 155, 105785.
Drewell Q and Garin D (2023) Ending Plastic Pollution: How a Corporate
Performance and Accontability Framework Will Unlock Action [Online].
Geneva, Switzerland: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Available at https://www.wbcsd.org/Overview/News-Insights/WBCSD-insights/
Ending-plastic-pollution-How-a-corporate-performance-and-accountability-
framework-will-unlock-action (accessed 2 May 2024).
Eiselein P,Keygnaert W and Brabant K (2023) Developing sustainable part-
nerships for circular economies: A literature review. In Kujala J, Heikkinen A
and Blomberg A (eds.), Stakeholder Engagement in a Sustainable Circular
Economy. online: Palgrave Macmillan Cham.
Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2013) Towards the circular economy, economic
and business rationale for an accelerated transition. Ellen MacArthur Foun-
dation: Cowes, UK,21–34.
Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2019) Reuse—Rethinking Packaging. Isle of
Wight, U.K.
Emerson K,Nabatchi T and Balogh S (2012) An integrative framework for
collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 22,1–29.
Environmental Investigation Agency (2023) Plastic pollution: Different sec-
tors, different solutions. Dedicated Programmes of Work. U.K.: EIA U.K.
ERM Sustainability Institute (2024) https://www.sustainability.com/thinking/
creating-a-circular-economy-for-plastics/#:~:text=This%20means%20mater
ials%20constantly%20flow,leakage%20into%20the%20natural%20environ
ment.
Forrest A,Giacovazzi L,Dunlop S,Reisser J,Tickler D,Jamieson A and
Meeuwig JJ (2019) Eliminating plastic pollution: How a voluntary contri-
bution from industry will drive the circular plastics economy. Frontiers in
Marine Science 6.
Forsyth T (2005) Building delierative public-private partnerships for waste
managmenet in Asia. Geoforum 35, 429–439.
Gale F and Haward M (2011) Global Commodity Governance: State Responses
to Sustainable Forest and Fisheries Certification. Palgrave Macmillan.
Gillet MC and Disselkoen H (2021) Extended producer responsibility: Lessons
learned from Sri Lanka. In Development Innovations Group (ed.), Bethesda,
MD: Municipal Waste Recycling Program, United States Agency for Inter-
national Development (USAID).
Godfrey L and Oelofse S (2017) Historical review of waste management and
recycling in South Africa. Resources 6, 57.
Grabosky P (2013) Beyond responsive regulation: The expanding role of non-
state actors in the regulatory process. Regulation & Governance 7, 114–123.
Gulbrandsen LH (2009) The emergence and effectiveness of the Marine Stew-
ardship Council. Marine Policy 33, 654–660.
Hardesty BD,Willis K and Vince J (2022) An imperative to focus the plastic
pollution problem on place-based solutions. Frontiers in Sustainability,
provisionally accepted.
Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 7

Hill CJ and Lynn LE (2004) Is hierarchical governance in decline? Evidence
from empirical research. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 15, 173–195.
Hobson K (2022) The limits of the loops: Critical environmental politics and the
circular economy. Trajectories in Environmental Politics. Routledge.
Hobson K,Holmes H,Welch D,Wheeler K and Wieser H (2021) Consump-
tion Work in the circular economy: A research agenda. Journal of Cleaner
Production 321, 128969.
Howlett M and Del Rio P (2015) The parameters of policy portfolios: Verti-
cality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy
mix formulation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 33,
1233–1245.
Howlett M and Ramesh M (2016) Achilles’heels of governance: Critical
capacity deficits and their role in governance failures. Regulation & Govern-
ance 10, 301–313.
Howlett M,Vince J and Del Rio P (2017) Policy integration and multi-level
governance: Dealing with the vertical dimension of policy mix designs.
Politics and Governance 5,69–78.
Kim D and Lim U (2017) Social enterprise as a catalyst for sustainable local and
regional development. Sustainability 9, 1427.
Kirchherr J,Reike D and Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular
economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recyc-
ling 127, 221–232.
Kjaer AM (2011) Rhodes’contribution to governance theory: Praise, criticism
and the future governance debate. Public Administration 89, 101–113.
Larshans P (2023) Embracing Circularity: Ragn-Sells’Commitment to Sustain-
able Plastic Waste Management [Online]. Available at https://climatecham
pions.unfccc.int/embracing-circularity-ragn-sells-commitment-to-sustain
able-plastic-waste-management/.
Lemos MC and Agrawal A (2006) Environmental governance. Annual Review
of Environment and Resources 31, 297.
Long Y,Ceschin F,Mansour N and Harrison D (2020) Product–service
systems applied to reusable packaging systems: A strategic design tool. Design
Management Journal 15,15–32.
Maes T,Wienrich N,Weiand L and Cowan E (2023) A little less conversation:
How existing governance can strengthen the future global plastics treaty.
Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 1, e22.
Maggetti M and Trein P (2019) Multi-level governance and problem-solving:
Towards a dynamic theory of multi-levelpolicymaking?Public Administration.
Mah A (2021) Future-proofing capitalism: The paradox of the circular economy
for plastics. Global Environmental Politics 21, 121–142.
March A,Tsouza A,Nieminen L,Winton S,Arora H,Shejuti S-M,Walker TR
and Fletcher S (2024) National action plans: Effectiveness and requirements
for the global plastics treaty. Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 2, e11.
Marconsin AF and Rosa DDS (2013) A comparison of two models for dealing
with urban solid waste: Management by contract and management by public–
private partnership. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 74,115–123.
Marks D,Miller MA and Vassanadumrongdee S (2020) The geopolitical
economy of Thailand’s marine plastic pollution crisis. Asia Pacific Viewpoint
61, 266–282.
Miller T (2017)Greenwashing Culture. London, Routledge.
Moora H and Barde H (2018) Closing the loop: Innovative partnerships with
informal workers to recover plastic waste, in an inclusive circular economy
approach. Pune, India case study. In Le Doze S, Harms N, Siddique OS,
Vougioukas A, Archer D, Johnson O and Gadgil M (eds.), United Nations
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP).
Morseletto P (2020) Targets for a circular economy. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 153, 104553.
Muranko Ż,Tassell C,Zeeuw Van Der Laan A and Aurisicchio M (2021)
Characterisation and environmental value proposition of reuse models for
fast-moving consumer goods: Reusable packaging and products. Sustainabil-
ity 13, 2609.
Nygaard A (2023) Is sustainable certification’s ability to combat greenwashing
trustworthy? Frontiers in Sustainability 4, 1188069.
Plastic Oceans Chile (2021) Chile passes law that regulates single-use plastics.
Available at https://plasticoceans.org/chile-passes-law-that-regulates-single-
use-plastics/ (accessed 20 May 2022].
Potting J,Hekkert M,Worrell E and AH (2016) Circular Economy: Measuring
Innovation in Product Chains. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency.
Pusz M,Jonas AE and Deutz P (2023) Knitting circular ties: Empowering
networks for the social enterprise-led local development of an integrative
circular economy. Circular Economy and Sustainability,1–32.
Rasal J,Melnychuk MC,Lejbowicz A,Montero-Castaño C,Ferber S and
Longo C (2024) Drivers of success, speed and performance in fisheries
moving towards Marine Stewardship Council certification. Fish and Fisheries
25, 235–250.
Reddel T (2002) Beyond participation, hierarchies, management and markets:
‘New’governance and place policies. Australian Journal of Public Adminis-
tration 61,50–63.
Reike D,Vermeulen WJ and Witjes S (2018) The circular economy: New or
refurbished as CE 3.0?—Exploring controversies in the conceptualization of
the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention
options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 135, 246–264.
Rhodes RA (1997) From marketization to diplomacy: It’s the mix that matters.
Public Policy and Administration 12,31–50.
Saadeh D,Al-Khatib IA and Kontogianni S (2019) Public–private partnership
in solid waste management sector in the West Bank of Palestine. Environ-
mental Monitoring and Assessment 191, 243.
Siddiki S,Beagles JE and Oesterling N (2022) Collaboration as a policy tool in
the policy process. In Howlett M (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Policy
Tools. Taylor and Francis.
Siddiki S,Kim J and Leach WD (2017) Diversity, trust, and social learning in
collaborative governance. Public Administration Review 77, 863–874.
Smith DC,Fulton EA,Apfel P,Cresswell ID,Gillanders BM,Haward M,
Sainsbury K,Smith A,Vince J and Ward TM (2017) Implementing marine
ecosystem-based management: Lessons from Australia. ICES Journal of
Marine Science 74, 1990–2003.
Sørdahl PB (2023) What do we talk about when we talk about integration:
Towards a differentiated view on integration and fragmentation in coastal
and marine spatial planning. Maritime Studies 22,5.
Soukopová J,Vaceková G and Klimovský D (2017) Local waste management
in the Czech Republic: Limits and merits of public-private partnership and
contracting out. Utilities Policy 48, 201–209.
Stöfen-O’Brien A (2023) The second session of the intergovernmental negoti-
ating committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on
plastic pollution, including the marine environment. The International Jour-
nal of Marine and Coastal Law 38, 821–832.
Stoll T,Stoett P,Vince J and Hardesty BD (2020) Governance and measures
for the prevention of marine debris. In: Rocha-Santos T, Costa M and
Mouneyrac C (eds.), Handbook of Microplastics in the Environment. Cham:
Springer International Publishing.
Taddeo R,Simboli A,Morgante A and Erkman S (2017) The development of
industrial symbiosis in existing contexts. experiences from three italian
clusters. Ecological Economics 139,55–67.
Talyan V,Dahiya RP and Sreekrishnan TR (2008) State of municipal solid
waste management in Delhi, the capital of India. Waste Management 28,
1276–1287.
The Coca-Cola Company (2022) DASANI and Sprite boost sustainability pack-
aging credentials in North America [Online]. The Coca-Cola Company,. Available
at https://www.coca-colacompany.com/news/dasani-sprite-boost-sustainability
(accessed 08 January 2022].
Todeschini BV,Cortimiglia MN,Callegaro-de-Menezes D and Ghezzi A
(2017) Innovative and sustainable business models in the fashion industry:
Entrepreneurial drivers, opportunities, and challenges. Business Horizons 60,
759–770.
Trein P,Biesbroek R,Bolognesi T,Cejudo GM,Duffy R,Hustedt T and
Meyer I (2021) Policy coordination and integration: A research agenda.
Public Administration Review 81, 973–977.
United Nations Environment Programme (2023) Potential Options for Elem-
ents Towards an International Legally Binding Instrument, based on a Com-
prehensive Approach that Addresses the Full Life Cycle of Plastics as Called for
by United Nations Environment Assembly resolution 5/14. Paris: United
Nations Environment Programme.
8 Joanna Vince and Kathryn A. Willis

Van Buuren A,Laaaewis JM,Guy Peters B and Voorberg W (2020) Improving
public policy and administration: Exploring the potential of design. Policy &
Politics 48,3–19.
Van Leeuwen J,Walker TR and Vince J (2022) Plastic pollution: The challenges
of uncertainty and multiplicity in global marine governance. In Routledge Hand-
book of Marine Governance and Global Environmental Change.Routledge.
Velis CA (2023) Waste pickers: Keeping after-use plastics circular, but at a high
personal cost. In Willis K, Hardesty BD, Wilcox C and Barrett J (eds.), Ending
Plastic Waste: Community Actions Around the World. CSIRO Publishing.
Vellema S and Van Wijk J (2014) Partnerships intervening in global food
chains: The emergence of co-creation in standard-setting and certification.
Journal of Cleaner Production.
Vermeulen WJV,Reike D and Witjes S (2019) Circular Economy 3.0. Renew-
able Matter. Milan, Italy: RM Editori S.R.L. - Benefit Company.
Vince J (2023) A creeping crisis when an urgent crisis arises: The reprioritiza-
tion of plastic pollution issues during COVID-19. Politics & Policy 51,26–40.
Vince J,Carney Almroth B,De Miranda Grilli N,Dwivedi V,Stöfen-O’Brien
A and Beyer J (2024a) The Zero Draft Plastics Treaty: Gaps and challenges.
Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 2, e24.
Vince J and Day JC (2020) Effective integration and integrative capacity in
marine spatial planning. Maritime Studies 19, 317–332.
Vince J and Hardesty BD (2017) Plastic pollution challenges in marine and
coastal environments: From local to global governance. Restoration Ecology
25, 123–128.
Vince J and Hardesty BD (2018) Governance Solutions to the Tragedy of the
Commons That Marine Plastics Have Become. Frontiers in Marine Science 5.
Vince J and Haward M (2019) Hybrid governance in aquaculture: Certification
schemes and third party accreditation. Aquaculture 507, 322–328.
Vince J,Walker TR,Willis KA,Stoett PJ,Komyakova V,Hardesty BD,
Schofield J,Van Leeuwen J and Townsend KA (2024b) 6.24 - Governance
and socio-ecological aspects of plastics pollution in coastal and
marine environments. In Baird D. and Elliott M (eds.), Treatise on
Estuarine and Coastal Science (Second Edition). Oxford: Academic Press,
765–799.
Vince JZ (2019) Certification: Implementation challenges in private-social
partnerships. In A Kekez MH and Ramesh M (eds.), Collaboration in Public
Service Delivery Promise and Pitfalls. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wang M,Bauer F,Syberg K and Gammage T (2023) Finance plastics reuse,
redesign, and reduction. Science 382, 526–526.
Wheeler K and Glucksmann M (2015) Household Recycling and Consumption
Work, England, Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/9781137440440. ISBN:
978-1-349-56288-6 and 978-1-137-44044-0
Willis K,Hardesty BD,Vince J and Wilcox C (2019) The success of water refill
stations reducing single-use plastic bottle litter. Sustainability 11.
Winther J-G,Dai M,Rist T,Hoel AH,Li Y,Trice A,Morrissey K,Juinio-
Meñez MA,Fernandes L,Unger S,Scarano FR,Halpin P and Whitehouse S
(2020) Integrated ocean management for a sustainable ocean economy.
Nature Ecology & Evolution 4, 1451–1458.
Cambridge Prisms: Plastics 9