COP27 in Egypt under scrutiny over Coca-Cola sponsorship
COP27, the climate conference scheduled in Egypt from November 6 to 18, is stirring debate. On one side, there is admiration for Egypt’s formal commitments to human rights, which has drawn both praise and criticism from international organizations and some delegations. On the other side, a new concern has emerged: Coca-Cola, historically cited as a leading producer of plastic waste worldwide, is listed among the sponsors of this pivotal climate summit.
Approximately 99 percent of the world’s plastic is derived from fossil fuels, making the reduction of fossil energy in production a central target for climate action. When the United Nations disclosed this sponsorship, critics quickly voiced objections and called for clarity about the sponsor’s role in a conference focused on cutting pollution and advancing sustainability.
In 2021, a Brand Audit conducted by Break Free From Plastic named Coca-Cola as the top contributor to global plastic waste for four consecutive years. The organization estimates that Coca-Cola distributes hundreds of billions of disposable bottles annually, a substantial amount of plastic waste entering ecosystems and landscapes around the world, including North America. This level of consumption highlights the broader energy footprint linked to plastic production and disposal, even as consumer behavior shifts toward reuse and recycling as part of broader circular economy efforts.
Recent years have seen continued growth in Coca-Cola’s waste footprint, according to assessments by advocacy groups. The organization reported millions of plastic components attributed to Coca-Cola in the most recent year available, underscoring ongoing concerns about packaging and waste management within a global market dependent on bottled beverages.
Observers note the irony of a company with deep ties to the fossil fuel and plastics supply chains appearing as a sponsor for a conference aimed at addressing climate goals. Critics describe the sponsorship as a form of greenwashing that undermines the credibility of climate negotiations and the sector-wide shift away from plastic dependence, especially given the scale of global plastic pollution.
Canadian journalist and author Naomi Klein has commented on the sponsorship, suggesting that hosting a climate summit in a context perceived as restrictive, while backed by a major plastics producer, raises questions about the integrity of the process. Her remarks reflect a broader concern about governance and transparency in international climate diplomacy.
John Hocevar, director of Greenpeace Oceans, expressed unease about the decision, arguing that Coca-Cola has yet to demonstrate how its strategies will curb plastic use while continuing to rely on packaging that contributes to waste. He warned that sponsoring the conference could dilute the event’s mission if commitments to reduce plastic and emissions are not clearly explained and backed by action.
Advocates emphasize a straightforward message: to truly address the plastic and climate crises, large producers must reduce plastic production and advance systemic reuse and recycling programs. Some campaign organizers have begun petitions calling for Coca-Cola to reconsider its sponsorship, arguing that the company should align its business model with ambitious climate and waste-reduction targets.
Coca-Cola’s position and response
The Coca-Cola Company has defended its involvement by outlining its commitment to an ambitious waste reduction agenda and its role in raising awareness about plastic pollution. The firm points to its broader corporate goals to contribute to a cleaner planet and to the efforts underway in various regions to improve bottle and can recycling rates.
The company asserts that it supports a circular economy and highlights ongoing programs designed to capture and recycle a bottle or can for every one it sells by 2030, regardless of origin. This pledge emphasizes the importance of widespread participation in recycling systems and the need for supportive public and private sector collaboration to achieve meaningful results.
In keeping with international climate strategies, Coca-Cola notes that it signed a joint statement urging United Nations member states to pursue a global agreement that treats plastic waste through a holistic circular economy lens. The firm points to its participation in COP27, its science-based target to reduce absolute carbon emissions by 25 percent by 2030, and its goal to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 as part of its broader climate roadmap.
The public discourse around sponsorship remains lively and nuanced, reflecting the tension between corporate responsibility and the urgency of climate action. Critics continue to press for clearer accountability and faster progress on reducing plastic use and emissions, while supporters acknowledge the practical challenges of systemic change that involves many actors along the plastics value chain.
There is a broader call for transparency and accountability in how major sponsors contribute to climate dialogue. Activists argue that the credibility of the conference hinges on demonstrable progress from the largest producers of plastic and fossil fuels, alongside meaningful reforms in packaging, waste collection, and consumer behavior. The discussion underscores the need for robust, verifiable actions that align sponsorship with concrete environmental outcomes.
For those tracking the North American perspective, the debate resonates with regional efforts to address plastic waste and emissions. Public awareness campaigns, government initiatives, and corporate responsibility programs in Canada and the United States share the objective of reducing plastic leakage and accelerating the transition to a circular economy. Stakeholders emphasize that sponsorship decisions should reflect a genuine commitment to reducing plastic dependency while advancing climate resilience.
As the COP27 timeline unfolds, observers will be watching for tangible commitments, measurable milestones, and transparent reporting that demonstrate progress toward substantial reductions in plastic pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The conversation continues to center on whether industry sponsorship truly supports, or inadvertently hinders, the climate agenda.