29th Feb 2024


McDonald's at centre of lobbying blitz against EU packaging waste laws

  • McDonald's spoke at an event in the European Parliament at the end of February with over 80 attendees, claiming that the new EU law may 'only make the problem [of environmental breakdown] worse'
Listen to article

McDonald's is at the forefront of a campaign against new laws to reduce packaging waste in the EU, in what has been described by some insiders as the largest-scale lobbying effort they have ever witnessed in the European Parliament.

The fast food chain, alongside a number packaging producers and trade associations, wrote to European policymakers at the end of April, demanding a pause to the legislation, which would champion reusable packaging in the EU.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Get the EU news that really matters

Instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

The call follows mounting pressure from industry over the last year. Since June 2022, McDonald's and other vested industry groups have funded three studies, launched two websites, and sponsored multiple articles attacking the legislation on the grounds it would undermine Europe's net zero ambitions.

The new EU packaging law, which was published in November, aims to tackle growth in packaging waste and single-use plastic, which is expected to double in Europe and to account for almost a fifth of the global carbon budget worldwide by 2040.

Campaigners and academics accuse McDonald's and other industry members of promoting scientifically dubious, cherry-picked evidence in opposition to the legislation. McDonald's funded an 'independent' study which concluded that proposed EU targets for packaging reuse could significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions — the findings of which have been widely questioned.

Jean-Pierre Schweitzer, deputy policy manager for circular economy at the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), described the new packaging and packaging waste law as the "most lobbied on file that many people in the parliament have witnessed."

The law proposes a ban on single-use packaging in restaurants and cafes by 2030, and an increase in reusables for takeaway food to 10 percent by 2030.

Industry members held over 290 official meetings with MEPs on the topic between the beginning of 2022 and early April, compared to just 21 meetings held by NGOs.

McDonald's is responsible for over one billion kilogrammes of packaging every year — equivalent to the weight of more than 100 Eiffel Towers.

Fast food giants and packaging firms are opposed to the proposed EU law — campaigners and academics suggest — because it would likely require significant investment and infrastructure upgrades from these companies, as well as shifts in their packaging branding and marketing.

Policies encouraging reuse will require "systemic change" from these companies, Justine Maillot from the advocacy organisation Rethink Plastics Alliance told DeSmog. "The current system works really well for them, because they get to keep using single-use packaging … it's still very profitable for them," she said.

But scientists, campaigners and the UN believe that championing reuse in various forms is the best way to tackle the environmental cost of single-use packaging, which is made from fossil fuels, wood pulp, and other raw materials. Almost 10 percent of oil and gas in the EU is used to produce plastics, including for packaging, and almost half of the paper used in the EU is used for packaging.

The shift to reusables is "absolutely essential", according to Judith Hilton, a research associate on packaging reuse at the University of Portsmouth. "Crucially, the big emissions are from extraction and production," she said. "Anything that reduces this is going to make a massive difference in terms of emissions, toxicity levels, and damage to local communities."

A McDonald's spokesperson told DeSmog: "Packaging plays an important role in helping us serve hot and freshly-prepared food quickly and safely to our customers, and preventing food waste. The mandatory implementation of reusables as the only solution comes with significant operational and financial challenges for the entire industry."

They added that, "While reusable packaging may be one of many potential solutions to explore further, we are concerned about the potential negative environmental consequences."

The European Parliament is expected to vote on the law in the next 12 months.

The Lobbying Battle

McDonald's and its packaging industry allies have engaged in a concerted lobbying effort in both the public domain and behind closed doors to water down the EU's proposed legislation.

In March, McDonald's sponsored an article in Politico EU — a leading Brussels-based media outlet which attracts over 5.6 million website views in the EU every month — claiming that "reusable packaging will be counterproductive to Green Deal goals".

The firm has also paid for multiple statements to be featured in Politico's influential morning Brussels Playbook newsletter — claiming in one that, "greenhouse emissions would increase by up to 50 percent for dine-in and up to 260 percent for takeaway" if Europe switched to packaging reuse.

By contrast, the European Commission claims that its new law could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 23 million tonnes a year by 2030. A US study published in March found that if a container was reused just 20 times it would reduce global warming potential by over 50 percent compared to single-use alternatives.

McDonald's also spoke at an event in the European Parliament at the end of February with over 80 attendees, warning that the new law may "only make the problem [of environmental breakdown] worse".

The speakers at the European Parliament event included McDonalds' executive vice president and global chief impact officer Jon Banner, alongside MEPs Carlo Fidanza, Paolo de Castro, and Salvatore de Meo.

"In the last week, we've met with a lot of Members of European Parliament [MEPs], assistants and member states, and the topic of McDonald's has come up in almost every meeting," Jean-Pierre Schweitzer from EEB told DeSmog in early April.

This lobbying blitz in the European Parliament has focused on the publication of a McDonald's-funded study in February by the research consultancy Kearney. The study, which examines the environmental impact of switching to reusable packaging systems, has been criticised by campaigners and academics based on the limitations of the research and its lack of transparency.

Packaging industry members held 177 meetings with MEPs in the month following the publication of the Kearney study, compared to 112 meetings in the 12 months before.

McDonald's, Seda, Huhtumaki, and trade associations representing their interests have held almost 40 official meetings with MEPs since the start of 2022, largely surrounding the publication of the Kearney study. Companies including the chemical giant Dow and soft drink manufacturer Pepsico have also held meetings with MEPs on the topic in recent months.

'Ridiculous' assumptions

Campaigners and academics have accused Kearney of producing pessimistic assumptions, ignoring the environmental benefits of reuse, and failing to be transparent about its work.

Kearney modelled a variety of reuse scenarios in the report, but McDonald's and other trade groups have repeatedly cited its conclusions that relate to a full, 100 percent switch to reusable packaging in the next decade. By contrast, the new EU legislation proposes a 10 percent switch to reusable packaging for takeaway food and 20 percent for takeaway beverages by 2030.

The Kearney report also assumes that reusable takeaway packaging, such as plates and cutlery, will be returned just three times before being thrown away, broken or contaminated — figures that were provided by McDonald's "pilot data".

Kearney said that the figures were based on "real world" data from "several European countries" and "benchmarked against other external sources" to present "an accurate picture of the state of reuse in Europe."

However, campaigners and academics suggest that Kearney's assumptions are extremely pessimistic. For example, if all restaurants used the same packaging and customers could deposit this packaging into a local collection system, it would be likely to significantly increase return rates. Industry is trying to "show that reuse is not a solution", said Maillot from the Rethink Plastics Alliance.

Hilton, from the University of Portsmouth, affirmed this point. "One of the absolute keys in a reuse system is standardisation" of packaging, she said. "Reuse has to be like recycling. You don't sort your recycling according to where it came from. You can take it back anywhere."

Campaigners suggest that the EU's new legislation is strongly opposed by industry groups because the move towards reusable packaging could slash the profits of packaging firms and require significant investment from companies across the food chain.

The European Commission estimates that the new packaging law could reduce the costs from environmental damage by €6.4bn by 2030, and result in overall economic savings of over €45bn. However, the Kearney study warns that switching to reuse would cost between €2bn and €20bn in initial investment.

Hilton said that companies are also worried that the new law would challenge their whole business model and way of marketing. For the new rules to work, packaging would have to be standardised, she said, and "In quite a lot of cases, the companies are selling the packaging, not the contents."

However, Hilton is confident that companies will still have plenty of ways to market themselves, given that standardised packaging doesn't have to be the same colour, or even the same shape.

Calling the Kearney study "ridiculous", German MEP Malte Gallee has stated that the research did not consider any potential benefits of the new legislation.

Kearney does not appear to have considered the significant environmental gains from successful reuse systems, experts say, such as reductions in plastic pollution or deforestation. It did not respond to questions on this subject.

Experts say that the positive impacts of addressing existing environmental issues are rarely accounted for in studies of this kind, despite their importance in justifying policy reforms.

Christian Hitt, a research assistant at the Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan, told DeSmog: "Stuff like deforestation and pollution, it's a little more difficult to quantify," he said — adding that studies should still be highlighting these factors.

Schweitzer added in an article for the EEB that the results of industry-backed studies are "easily skewed" in favour of certain products or policies, "notably when they do not reflect real world conditions or extrapolate results."

The Kearney study, for example, claims that "reuse models would require 1 to 4 billion litres of additional water consumption (depending on reuse targets)". However, researchers from Kearney admitted in a panel event in the European Parliament that they had not considered the reduction in water use associated with not producing as much packaging.

Speaking at the event, Wolfgang Trunk, policy officer at the European Commission, asked the Kearney authors: "Did you also factor in the reduction in packaging waste from the reuse?... [For example] the avoided water consumption from the reduced production of paper? Is this factored in?"

Anna Bexell, co-author of the report, responded: "Water use was not quantified in that sense. We discussed what the additional water use would be, as a fact nugget as opposed to a quantification."

It is "absolutely" misleading for the study to provide figures on additional water use from washing reusables without factoring in water use from the production of single use alternatives, Hilton said. "It talks about it on one side and not on the other. You just can't do that."

For many academics and campaigners, though, the biggest issue is a lack of transparency, which has left them unable to analyse many of the findings. Kearney has refused to share the data that underpins its findings, which means that external organisations have been unable to scrutinise the results or methodology in detail.

"The publication uses unclear data and assumptions to undermine the role of reusable packaging," Marco Musso, a policy officer at EEB, told DeSmog. "It's a bit disturbing that it's then presented as unquestionable science."

Kearney did not respond to questions about whether the extraction and processing of materials to produce packaging — the biggest source of emissions according to academics — were considered in its calculations.

"This is a fight over data," Maillot said.

Kearney said that "All key assumptions driving conclusions are listed in the study" but that it cannot disclose the full calculations because they contain "proprietary data" — information protected by commercial interests. It does state, however, that some of the data in the report was provided by McDonald's and from "interviews conducted with stakeholders across the value chain".

The report adds that it "was conducted independently by Kearney, which is solely responsible for all analyses and conclusions".

A slew of studies

In late April, McDonald's and 12 industry members launched the lobbying group 'Together for Sustainable Packaging', which is dedicated to opposing the proposed EU law.

The alliance includes Seda and Huhtamaki — two of McDonalds' key packaging producers — alongside the European Paper Packaging Alliance (EPPA), a trade group of which McDonald's is a member.

Its website, created by the Brussels-based PR firm Boldt, includes vivid warnings and images suggesting that policymakers should "beware the unintended consequences of well-meaning legislation".

The website further claims that "Several high-level independent studies suggest that replacing recyclable packaging from renewable sources with reusable plastic packaging actually increases emissions, water use, and plastic waste."

Indeed, it is not just the Kearney study that has been supported and promoted by industry groups.

In early April, the consultancy giant McKinsey published a similar study to the Kearney report, claiming that single-use packaging would be "more cost-effective and result in lower carbon emissions" than reusable takeaway packaging.

While McKinsey has declined to answer questions about who funded its study, five industry trade groups — representing the paper, paper packaging, cartons, and corrugated cardboard sectors — also published a report on 6 April, dated to March, with identical findings, which cited McKinsey's then-unpublished data.

These reports followed a study published by the paper packaging trade group EPPA in June last year on reusable packaging. "Making reusable containers for takeaway obligatory will undermine the EU's environmental goals," the paper packaging trade group claimed, following the publication of the report.

However, as with the Kearney study, the industry groups, EPPA, and McKinsey have been criticised by NGOs for failing to publish their full methodology and assumptions.

And, like the McDonald's-backed study, none of these reports appear to consider the broader environmental benefits to the public from a switch to reuse (for example, from reduced plastic pollution), nor the wider environmental impacts of single-use packaging, such as land use or biodiversity loss.

Together for Sustainable Packaging said that "while the EU Commission conducted an initial impact study, it lacked depth." The group added that, "real world data shows significant challenges with retaining reusables in restaurants, impacting reuse rates and worsening environmental risk … It is normal for companies or associations to want to see legislation drafted and enacted on the basis of the best available facts."

The Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) responded on behalf of the five trade groups, claiming that its study hoped to "remedy" a "lack of scientific evidence on the impact of fossil-based reusable packaging." It also stated that "nobody wants to have a failed environmental model on their hands."

But Hitt, of the University of Michigan said that a lack of data transparency is causing these industry-funded studies to fail. Scientists should be sharing findings, critiquing and peer-reviewing each other's work, in order to create "a greater understanding of the system," he said.

McDonald's is saying "trust us", he said, while "producing something that can't be fact checked."

This article was amended on 9 May to clarify that McDonald's spoke at the European Parliament event, rather than hosting it.

Author bio

Clare Carlile is a researcher and reporter at DeSmog, focusing on the agri-business sector.

This story was originally published by DeSmog.


The story of the EU's plastic packaging conflict of interests

Recycling packaging-waste is largely in the hands of the industry itself, via 'Green Dot' organisations. This creates a conflict of interest - because the industry benefits from the sale of as many individual bottles, wrappers, cans and trays as possible.


EU can afford to be tough on plastic straws

The EU commission wants to ban plastic straws and cutlery. Most of these are not made in the EU, making the proposal more likely to succeed.


EU lobbying clean-up — what happened to that?

Six months after Qatargate, as institutional inertia and parliamentary privileges weigh in, the sense of gravity and collective resolve have all but disappeared. MEPs show little enthusiasm for reform of the rules that today allow them significant outside paid activities.


EU innovation funds prop up the throw-away market

A funding body established and governed jointly by the European Commission and an industry group awarded numerous grants to research and develop packaging products that lack proper disposal options in the common market.


For Ukraine's sake, pass the EU due diligence directive

The EU Commission's 2022 CSDDD proposal did not include provisions incorporating "conflict due diligence", they were added, after the Russian invasion, by the European Parliament and Council into the final directive text — for Ukraine's sake, vote for it.


EU plan to let 17-year olds drive trucks is crazy

It's an astonishing proposition rooted in political interest rather than facts, with potentially dire consequences for all road users — especially for people who walk and cycle, warns the European Cycling Federation.

Latest News

  1. Podcast: Hyperlocal meets supranational
  2. Von der Leyen appeals for 'new EU defence mindset'
  3. EU supply chain law fails, with 14 states failing to back it
  4. Joined-up EU defence procurement on the horizon?
  5. Macron on Western boots in Ukraine: What he really meant
  6. Amazon lobbyists banned from EU Parliament
  7. MEPs adopt new transparency rules for political ads
  8. EU nature restoration law approved after massive backlash

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersJoin the Nordic Food Systems Takeover at COP28
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersHow women and men are affected differently by climate policy
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersArtist Jessie Kleemann at Nordic pavilion during UN climate summit COP28
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersCOP28: Gathering Nordic and global experts to put food and health on the agenda
  5. Friedrich Naumann FoundationPoems of Liberty – Call for Submission “Human Rights in Inhume War”: 250€ honorary fee for selected poems
  6. World BankWorld Bank report: How to create a future where the rewards of technology benefit all levels of society?

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Georgia Ministry of Foreign AffairsThis autumn Europalia arts festival is all about GEORGIA!
  2. UNOPSFostering health system resilience in fragile and conflict-affected countries
  3. European Citizen's InitiativeThe European Commission launches the ‘ImagineEU’ competition for secondary school students in the EU.
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersThe Nordic Region is stepping up its efforts to reduce food waste
  5. UNOPSUNOPS begins works under EU-funded project to repair schools in Ukraine
  6. Georgia Ministry of Foreign AffairsGeorgia effectively prevents sanctions evasion against Russia – confirm EU, UK, USA

Join EUobserver

EU news that matters

Join us