A UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and Trucost study put the natural-capital cost of plastic used by the consumer-goods sector at US$75 billion a year, and found companies already save US$4 billion a year through good plastic management.
- Authors / organisation
- UN Environment Programme (UNEP), Trucost and Plastic Disclosure Project
- Year
- 2014
- Journal or publisher
- UN Environment Programme (report)
- Study type
- Institutional report
- Evidence strength
- Evidence: Medium
- Sample / scope
- Natural-capital valuation of plastic used by 16 consumer-goods sectors
- Key finding
- The natural-capital cost of plastic use in the consumer-goods sector is US$75 billion a year; companies save US$4 billion a year through good plastic management.
- Headline number
- US$75 billion yearly natural-capital cost
- Caveats / how it is misquoted
- 2014 data and valuation choices by Trucost. A money value on environmental damage, not a cash cost today. An industry-commissioned 2016 study found material substitution could cost more.
- Open access
- Yes
- Verified on
- 23 September 2026
Valuing Plastic, by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), Trucost and the Plastic Disclosure Project, put a money value on the environmental damage caused by the plastic that consumer-goods companies use: from greenhouse gases in production to pollution of the ocean. It came to US$75 billion a year.
This is not a cost companies pay today. It is a measure of risk: as governments put a price on plastic through taxes and producer fees, part of it moves onto company balance sheets. The same study found that consumer-goods companies were already saving US$4 billion a year through good management of plastic.
A 2016 follow-up, commissioned from Trucost by the American Chemistry Council, a chemical and plastics industry trade body, found that swapping plastic for other materials could cost the environment more. That is why the business case here is for using less and reusing, not simply switching materials.
