Unilever released its 2025 Annual Report and Accounts that outlines its progress and direction on all things sustainability. With Greenpeace’s campaign on Dove, we’ve been keeping a close eye on what Unilever is and isn’t saying about its plastic packaging problem. As a €50 BILLION company with brands sold in 190 countries, it has massive global reach and influence with connections to millions of other businesses around the world. But is Unilever driving industry transformation or putting profit over people and planet? We’ve unpacked their report in these key takeaways.  

More virgin plastic reduction: Yes, please. 

Unilever has reduced its reliance on virgin plastic. But doing so mainly by lightweighting innovations (reducing packaging weight but not number of units), increasing recycled content in its plastic packaging, and swapping one type of single-use packaging for another isn’t getting at the heart of the problem. Overall plastic reduction must be the goal, not only virgin plastic. We need to see plastic packaging replaced with non-toxic, zero waste, reuse-refill based alternatives. It’s time to expedite a transition away from a plastic-dependent business model. 

Swapping throwaway plastic sachets for paper: Just more trash.

Unilever added a much anticipated additional goal on plastic sachet reduction this year, but presented it as an increased “focus on transitioning to paper-based flexible packaging.” The company aims to introduce 7.4 -13.7 kilotons of paper sachets by 2028. (note: Unilever produces hundreds of kilotons of plastic each year) But how many of the billions of plastic sachets will be swapped for paper, and where exactly will this happen? Single-use paper packaging raises many similar waste and environmental destruction red flags as plastic sachets. This isn’t a zero-waste alternative, or potentially even a zero pollution alternative. The transition roadmap needs to lead to reuse systems, not new one-time-use systems. 

Recycled plastic content: False solution.

The company achieved its goal of 25% recycled content in its plastic by 2025, touting up to 100% in some products. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a circular economy for plastics, and even 100% recycled plastic packaging isn’t as green as it sounds. And plastic packaging with recycled content still pollutes the same way if it ends up in the environment, it still could shed microplastics or chemicals into its contents, and it still could end up in landfill if mismanaged. Recycled plastic usually still requires fossil fuel, petrochemical and additive inputs. The market for post consumer plastic continues to falter, despite industry and governments continuing to prop up the plastic recycling myth. It’s time to follow the zero waste hierarchy and prioritize reduction and reuse over recycling. 

Support for reuse initiatives: Show us the money. 

The report mentions the reuse initiatives it’s engaged in sparsely throughout, not instilling confidence that this is an area of priority. A lot of cash is being poured into paper alternatives and recycling initiatives, but what piece of the pie does reuse get? Unilever is participating in multi-brand pilot projects that are city-wide and could be a game changer in reuse scaling, but we need to see more investment from the company in reuse R&D in other major markets, particularly ones dominated by sachets. 

We need more information, and less industry rhetoric.

For such a long report, it sure is short on important details. Word choice in these types of communications really matter, and Unilever is still too focused on waste instead of reduction at source, recycling instead of reuse, and alternatives instead of zero waste solutions. Its commitment to be 100% reusable, recyclable or compostable doesn’t reflect that these are not created equal in terms of their impact on the planet and communities. We want to see Unilever continue to be engaged in the Global Plastics Treaty dialogue, prioritizing reduction and reuse, and driving important industry discussions on real solutions. We have a lot of outstanding questions but above all we have a clear message – until Unilever commits to FULLY phase out sachets, double down on reuse, and create a real plan for its other billions of single-use plastic packaged products, the annual report subtext will always be: profit over people and the planet. 

Unilever’s role in the plastic crisis

Unilever has positioned Dove as a brand with an environmental and social conscience. But global plastic pollution brand audits, community accounts, and years of inaction on known harms to people and the planet make it easy to question Unilever’s true intentions. The dirtier sides of Dove’s parent company’s business. 

• Pushed a disposable business model on communities, destroying traditional low waste practices. 
• Sells tens of billions of plastic sachets each year, knowing waste management infrastructure cannot process this type of small, single-use, multilayered packaging.
• One of the world’s Top Plastic Polluters year after year, based on clean-ups and audits. 

Plastic isn’t only driving the triple planetary crisis, it’s becoming a global human health concern. Customers rub Dove products all over their bodies, they squeeze Hellman’s mayo out of a plastic bottle onto their sandwich, and they make their children soup with Knorr stock aged in plastic. The science on the potential health risks associated with plastic packaging is building, and presenting a whole new risk layer that the company is clearly not accounting for. Will 2026 shift the new CEO’s thinking and priorities? We call on Unilever to:

• Create a time-bound, phase out plan for sachets
• Transition away from all plastic packaging
• Invest in reuse and refill systems at a scale matching its plastic footprint
• Support the reduction of out of control plastic production
• Shift innovation, design, and marketing away from disposability
• Support a strong Global Plastics Treaty that prioritises reduction and reuse

Let’s end the age of plastic!

Ask world leaders to support Global Plastic Treaty so that we can finally turn off the tap and end the age of plastic.

Take action

Sarah King is a Senior Campaign Strategist for the Plastic Free Future Campaign at Greenpeace Canada

Everyone likes a nice, affordable t-shirt or a baby Pikachu costume, but while fast fashion may look cheap on the price tag, a recent Greenpeace Germany investigation shows the real cost is shouldered by the workers, the environment and future generations. And it does not spare the buyers. Let’s unwrap this.

What is fast fashion?

The term ‘Fast fashion’ describes the rapid mass production of cheap, low-quality clothing that often mimics popular catwalk styles. In simpler terms, it refers to clothes that are made and sold cheaply, so that people buy new clothes often. It’s ‘fast’ in so many ways. Its production, the customer’s decision to buy it, its delivery, its usage and its disposal are all fast.

Brands most often associated with fast fashion include giants like Zara and H&M, as well as online retailers such as ASOS and Fashion Nova, which churn out huge volumes of trend-based clothing at low prices as often as one microseason a week. Newer ultra fast fashion platforms like Shein and Temu take this even further, adding thousands of new styles at rock-bottom prices every day and helping to normalise disposable clothing culture worldwide.

What are the environmental and health costs of fast fashion?

The ever-growing piles of discarded clothing reflect extreme resource use, severe pollution, microplastic contamination and exploitative working conditions. But fast fashion’s harm goes beyond the supply chain.

In fact, it’s also present in the clothes themselves. The products can contain hazardous chemicals that are linked to cancer, hormonal and immune system disruption, allergic reactions, as well as toxic effects on fish, plants and other organisms in rivers, lakes and seas. 

People in producing countries are particularly affected, as these substances are often used and disposed of with little or no oversight, contaminating waterways and soils. Because much fast fashion is made from synthetic fibres like polyester, every wash releases microplastic fibres into rivers and oceans, where they accumulate in marine food webs and even end up in our bodies.

What percentage of global carbon emissions comes from the fashion industry?

The fashion industry as a whole is responsible for up to 10 % of global carbon emissions annually. That’s more than the emissions of international flights and maritime shipping combined. The carbon emissions of fashion comes not only from fast fashion but it is worth noting that the carbon footprint of fast fashion consumption is 11 times higher than that of traditional fashion. 

But the emissions are only part of the story. Fast fashion garments often end up in the Global South. 

How does fast fashion impact the Global South?

A 2025 Unearthed and Greenpeace Africa investigation revealed that clothes discarded by UK consumers and shipped to Ghana have been found in protected wetlands, which are a critical biodiversity area. Reporters found garments from Next, George at Asda, and Marks & Spencer.

The clothes were in, or close to, two recently-established dump sites filled with used clothing inside an internationally recognised wetland an hour outside Ghana’s capital city, Accra. Locals complain that their fishing nets, waterways and beaches are clogged with synthetic fast fashion exported to Ghana from the UK and Europe.

In 2024, a report by Greenpeace Africa and Greenpeace Germany revealed the alarming scale of environmental and public health damage caused by the global second-hand clothing trade in Ghana. It exposed the devastating impact of discarded clothing from the Global North, much of it fast fashion, on the environment, communities, and ecosystems in Ghana.

The exploitation, therefore, happens at both ends of the garment’s life, the people who make it and the people who live amongst its waste after its disposal.

Fast fashion and exploitative labour practices: the human cost

Sustainability is not just about environmental impact. It is also about social justice. Fast fashion needs a skilled operator of many different machines. They are mostly women working for low wages in a punishing global system. 

Fast fashion brands exploit low-wage labour in countries with weak environmental and labour protections. Factories in Bangladesh, Vietnam, China and many other countries are notorious for unsafe working conditions, poverty wages, and pollution that devastates local communities. 

Thirteen years ago, the Rana Plaza factory building in Bangladesh collapsed in a preventable tragedy. We still remember the more than 1,100 garment workers who lost their lives and the thousands who were injured. But Rana Plaza was neither the first garment factory disaster nor will it be the last, unless we change course. 

Can fast fashion be green?

Fast fashion brands like to jump on the sustainability wagon, monetising what was once an opposition to their practices. If you have an issue with how this garment was made, maybe this ‘eco friendly’ label will reassure you and make you feel better about it. Incentivising you to buy it. 

The truth is, fast fashion will never be green. Its business model is inherently incompatible with true sustainability. 

For one, it fuels and thrives on overproduction which leads to millions of garments in landfills or incinerated each year with dire environmental consequences especially in the Global South. 

Its supply chain is resource-intensive. The industry is the second-largest consumer of water worldwide, with textile production consuming vast quantities of this precious resource. As revealed by Greenpeace’s DetoxMyFashion campaign, the textiles and clothing industries are a major source of water pollution, and a significant source of hazardous chemicals and pollution of waterways in key production regions in the Global South.  

Fast fashion encourages disposable consumption. It survives by convincing consumers to buy more than they need. While brands attempt to improve their image with ‘eco-friendly’ collections, their fundamental business model remains unchanged. 

SHEIN – The epitome of what’s wrong with fast fashion

Shein ticks every fast fashion box and more. The company’s model is driven by digital, real-time monitoring of trends, stolen and AI-generated designs, and a dense network of supplier factories in China operating under intense pressure. Thousands of new products go online every day, more than 10,000 on peak days. 

A recent Greenpeace Germany investigation revealed that among other chemicals, the plasticizers phthalates and the water- and dirt-repellent “forever chemical” PFAS were detected in Shein products. These are hazardous chemicals that have been linked to various diseases, including cancer, reproductive disorders, and growth disorders in children, as well as a weakened immune system. This likely particularly affects workers and the environment in the production countries but it also reaches into consumers worldwide as they are exposed to these chemicals through skin contact, sweat, or inhaled fibres, and when garments are washed or discarded, the substances enter rivers, soil, and the food chain.

The use of hazardous chemicals in fast fashion is not a fringe mistake but a deliberate feature of the business model. They are cheaper than safer alternatives and enable rapid, high-volume production.

Is fast fashion worth it?

The simple answer is: No. While it might be tempting and accessible to many, fast fashion is harmful to consumers, workers, and the environment. Its devastating impact transcends geographical and social boundaries. Affecting people’s health and environment for the sake of more profit. 

True sustainability demands a shift away from overproduction and overconsumption, yet fast fashion brands refuse to adopt this model because it threatens their profits and instead invest in greenwashing campaigns.

Everyone wants to look good without going broke. It’s understandable. Most people who buy fast fashion do so because it’s accessible, size-inclusive, or simply because it’s what they can afford in a cost-of-living crisis. There is no shame in needing clothes but while a fast fashion garment is disposable by design, our planet and the people who make those clothes are not. 

Consider sharing, exchanging and repairing clothes. Find a local second-hand shop and the next time you see a new ‘must-have’ trend at an ‘impossible’ price, please remember that someone, somewhere, is paying the difference. 

Amsterdam – Greenpeace International has condemned threats by Donald Trump to target Iran’s electricity infrastructure, warning it could trigger a humanitarian catastrophe, trigger a blackout over a large part of the country and risk nuclear disaster escalating into a wider regional crisis.

Greenpeace warns that attacks on the grid could have a knock-on effect that increases the danger of a nuclear emergency at the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, with potential consequences across the region.[1]

“Bombing civilian electricity infrastructure is illegal under international law. The electricity grid is essential for hospitals, clean water, desalination and the operation of nuclear facilities. Cutting it off puts millions of lives at risk,” said Jan Vande Putte, senior nuclear and radiation protection expert with Greenpeace International.[2]

“A blackout could force the Bushehr nuclear facility into depending completely on backup diesel generators, causing a heightened risk of overheating, which can lead to a Fukushima-like disaster.”[3]

Iran’s grid is already under strain due to war, climate change and sanctions leading to underinvestment.[4]

“If Trump carries through with this reckless threat to knock out critical infrastructure, it could lead to cascading failures, from blackouts to nuclear danger far beyond national borders, with the potential to escalate into a wider regional crisis,” says Vande Putte.

The US, Israel and Iran have all targeted energy infrastructure, and several attacks in Iran and Israel already appear to have come close to hitting nuclear facilities. Iran is also threatening to target water and energy infrastructure in neighbouring countries.[5] Greenpeace is urging all parties to step back from escalation and pursue a diplomatic solution now, warning that further escalation will only deepen human suffering and increase global instability.

The Bushehr nuclear plant was built and is operated by Iran’s nuclear enabler, Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear corporation.

ENDS

Notes:

[1] Trump Threatens to ‘Obliterate’ Iran’s Power Plants If Strait of Hormuz Stays Closed and Attacks on Ukraine’s Energy Infrastructure: Harm to the Civilian Population

[2] Cascading Failures in Power Grids 

[3] Risk of unprecedented nuclear disaster if Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s electricity system continue 

[4] Strikes on Iranian electricity infrastructure could trigger a water catastrophe

[5] Iran threatens to cripple Gulf water, energy systems after Trump ultimatum

Contact: 

Jan Vande Putte, senior nuclear and radiation protection expert, Greenpeace International: +32 496161584, jan.vande.putte@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace International Press Desk, +31 (0)20 718 2470 (available 24 hours), pressdesk.int@greenpeace.org

Amsterdam, Netherlands – Leading environmental groups Greenpeace International and Mighty Earth have issued an open letter to McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski, urging the fast-food giant to intervene as major soy traders abandon the Amazon Soy Moratorium.

The letter calls on McDonald’s to use its significant market influence to secure a renewed pledge from key traders – including Cargill, Bunge, ADM, and Louis Dreyfus Company – to remain committed to the criteria of the landmark zero-deforestation pact. It further demands that McDonald’s makes it “unequivocally clear” that the company will cut ties with any suppliers that withdraw from or fail to uphold zero deforestation commitments. 

Lis Cunha, Campaigner at Greenpeace International said: 

“The world’s largest soy traders pulling out of the Amazon Soy Moratorium is not merely a policy shift; it is a retreat from a mechanism that has been a primary bulwark against ecological collapse. As one of the world’s most recognisable brands and a founding member of the pact, McDonald’s has a moral responsibility to do all it can to prevent its partners from turning their backs on zero deforestation.”

The letter notes in particular McDonald’s over 45 year corporate partnership with Cargill, who is among a number of the world’s biggest soy traders now reportedly backing away from the Amazon Soy Moratorium.[1] Signatories warn that Cargill and other major suppliers abandoning the Moratorium render it “functionally impossible” for McDonald’s to guarantee its soy supply chains are not linked to new deforestation of the Amazon, violating McDonald’s global commitment to halting deforestation.[2]

McDonald’s played a pivotal role in establishing the Moratorium 20 years ago after Greenpeace International’s Eating Up the Amazon report exposed how soy grown on deforested land was entering the company’s poultry supply chain. In response to global pressure and activist “chicken” protests at its restaurants, McDonald’s led a coalition of retailers to demand that commodity traders halt the expansion of soy into newly deforested areas.[3] Since its adoption, the Moratorium helped reduce the share of soy grown on newly deforested land in the Amazon from 30% to less than 4% as of July 2025.

Boris Patentreger, forests and nature lead at Mighty Earth said: 

“McDonalds can be a saboteur or a saviour of the Soy Moratorium zero deforestation goal. The fast-food giant must choose to fight for a mechanism that has spared huge swathes of the Amazon rainforest from being destroyed over the last twenty years. That means holding the big soy traders to their commitments and cutting ties with suppliers abandoning the ASM. Or sourcing only from those who comply with the moratorium criteria and continue to implement their DCF policies, without rolling back. There cannot be a soy-free-for-all that will push the Amazon ever closer to collapse.”

On 5 January 2026, the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (ABIOVE), which represents the largest companies involved in Brazil’s soy industry, announced plans to withdraw from the Soy Moratorium, following new legislation in Mato Grosso that strips tax benefits from companies participating in voluntary environmental pacts. If the Moratorium collapses, estimates suggest deforestation in the Amazon could surge by as much as 30% by 2045 as producers revert to weaker legal standards that allow for the clearing of primary rainforest. ABIOVE and many of its members completed their withdrawal on 16 February.

ENDS

Notes to editors:

• The full letter is available here.
• The letter comes days after Brazil’s government warned of the threat posed to the country’s agriculture sector by the US-Israeli war on Iran, with Iran’s closure of the Straits of Hormuz threatening global fertiliser supplies [4]

[1] Reuters, ‘Major Brazilian grain traders quit Amazon conservation pact’, 5 January 2026

[2] McDonald’s, ‘Nature, Forests and Water’, 2025 

[3] The Guardian, ‘The Odd Couple’, 2 August 2006 

[4] Reuters. Brazil sounds alarm as fertilizers price spike spurs cheaper alternatives, 18 March 2026 

Contacts:

Joe Evans, Global Comms Lead at Greenpeace UK, +44 7890 595387, joe.evans@greenpeace.org.

Carole Mitchell, Global Director of Communications at Mighty Earth, +44 7917 105000, carole@mightyearth.org.

Greenpeace International Press Desk, +31 (0)20 718 2470 (available 24 hours), pressdesk.int@greenpeace.org.