Negotiations for an international plastics treaty ended in failure last month, setting the stage for a new round of talks. Nevertheless, local environmental groups argue that no deal is better than a bad one or a watered-down treaty. 

An agreement could have nudged the Philippine government to finally enact a national ban on single-use plastic (SUP)—a proposal that has been pending in Congress for years. The proposed ban will be a game-changer. It will be a significant step in addressing plastic pollution even as it provides for a gradual phaseout over a few years for the different types of SUP. On the other hand, it will have economic and employment impacts on firms and workers.

The prospect of a national ban on SUP presents the jobs-versus-environment predicament. However, the just-transition framework provides a resolution to the livelihood and ecology conundrum. It is, therefore, imperative to study the employment effect of a ban.

To answer this question, the Alternative Development Program of the Center for Integrative and Development Studies of the University of the Philippines undertook a study funded by the EcoWaste Coalition. Data from the Annual Survey of Philippine Business and Industry and the Census of Philippine Business and Industry of the Philippine Statistics Authority from 2010 to 2019 was analyzed. This was the information available at the time of the study, and the pandemic would also have affected the data for the most recent years.

Managing pollution or limiting production?

The main conflict in the negotiations for an international plastics treaty is between oil-producing countries calling for the management of plastic pollution and the rest of the world demanding the limiting of plastic production altogether.

Plastic is ubiquitous in modern life. In fact, production of plastic has increased 20 times since the 1960s. In 2015, 322 million tons were manufactured. The amount is expected to double again in 20 years. Globally, 42% of plastic is used for packaging and is, therefore, single-use. No wonder half of all plastic waste is plastic packaging

Plastic waste harms the environment, health, and the economy. Microplastics and chemical additives are toxic to humans. Aside from the risks it presents as waste, plastic is already a hazard from the beginning and at every stage of its life cycle—from fossil fuel extraction to the production of resins, manufacturing of consumer products and packaging, and, finally, waste management. By 2050, one-fifth of the oil extracted will be used to make plastic, according to the United Nations Environment Programme.

The environmental degradation and health hazards created by plastic waste are well-established. The root of the problem is the huge amount of plastic produced all over the world by giant petrochemical companies. The evident solution to the hazards of plastic is to radically cut down on its production, usage, and disposal, and to transition to a circular economy.

Thus, legislative proposals, such as the gradual phaseout of SUP in the Philippines, become relevant. As of 2020, at least 316 local government units in the country had already implemented regulations or bans on plastic bags.

Most vulnerable workers 

The study found that the employment impact of a ban on SUP will be significant but manageable. Some 32,000 workers in almost 500 SUP firms will be directly affected. The most vulnerable will be 21,000 SUP production workers. Another 9,000 workers in the midstream plastic industry will be indirectly affected. The Philippines does not have an upstream sector.

Thus, a national ban on SUP would, directly and indirectly, affect more than 41,000 workers in the upstream and downstream plastic industries. This is an overestimation, given the methodology used in defining the SUP sector. 

Of the 32,462 workers employed in SUP firms in 2018, 66% were male, and 34% were female. The gender distribution of workers has generally remained unchanged over time.

Of the total number of individuals engaged in SUP firms, 74% are production workers. In 2018, the research and development personnel numbered only 43. The rest, comprising 26% of personnel, are presumably supervisors, managers, and executives. Therefore, one in four people in the SUP sector holds a supervisory or managerial position and, compared to rank-and-file workers, is less vulnerable to economic shocks such as loss of livelihood.

As of 2018, there were 486 firms engaged mainly in the manufacture of SUP products. Of the total, 369 firms make plastic articles for packing goods, 87 produce plastic household wares, and 30 create primary plastic products. This means that the overwhelming number of SUP factories manufacture plastic boxes, bags, and sacks. The number of SUP firms is increasing; likewise, the total number of employed workers is slowly rising.

The average number of workers per firm is incrementally expanding, and by 2017, it was 67 employees. This implies that SUP firms are mostly small enterprises, with a smattering of medium-sized firms. The majority of SUP firms are organized as corporations instead of family-owned establishments. The geographical concentration of SUP firms has remained constant over the years—mainly in the National Capital Region, Calabarzon (Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal and Quezon), Central Luzon, Central Visayas, and the Davao Region.

Rising revenues

Total revenues, sales to domestic markets, and sales to export markets have been generally increasing over time. Domestic sales dipped in 2016, but export revenues rose, anyway. Therefore, the total income still increased. The data suggests that existing local government bans on SUP did not impact domestic sales. The SUP sector is strong, judging by its rising revenues over time.

The average annual compensation in SUP firms in 2018 was ₱155,445, or around ₱12,000 monthly, assuming payment of the 13th-month benefit. This is even below the mandated monthly minimum wage in Metro Manila at that time: ₱14,000. It should be noted that compensation includes not just the basic wage and social security contributions but also other benefits, like separation pay, and other labor costs for the employer. Furthermore, compensation for supervisory and managerial employees would be well above that of production workers and pull the average higher. This means that production jobs in SUP firms are low-paying. This suggests that convincing SUP workers for a just transition that will improve their wages and working conditions is doable. 

Support for the tens of thousands of SUP workers to be affected is possible and feasible provided that there is political will to confront the problem of plastic. Moreover, the costs of assisting affected workers and a just transition to safe green jobs can be taken from savings in waste management and material resource consumption.

The enactment of a national ban on SUP will be timely. It will complement the Extended Product Responsibility Act of 2022, which holds big companies responsible for the recovery of a portion of their plastic packaging. The biggest challenge confronting a national ban is ensuring a just transition, especially for the workers to be affected.

Benjamin Velasco is an assistant professor at the School of Labor and Industrial Relations in UP Diliman. During the period of the study, he was also co-convenor of the Program on Alternative Development. He was assisted in the research by Micah Orlino Mangahas and Rolly Czar Joseph Castillo.