Getting material choices right: a responsible approach to alternatives to plastic
Q&A with Erin Simon - Part 1
Erin Simon is Vice President and Head of Plastic Waste and Business at World Wildlife Fund, where she leads WWF's No Plastic in Nature initiative and works with companies across industries to drive systems-level change on plastic pollution. WWF recently released a new Vision Statement on the Responsible Use of Alternative Materials to Address Plastic Pollution. We sat down with Erin to explore what the vision means for business — and why getting the economics right is just as important as getting the science right.
© Courtesy Erin Simon
Erin Simon
Vice President and Head of Plastic Waste and Business at World Wildlife Fund
WWF just released a new vision statement on the responsible use of alternative materials to address plastic pollution. Why now?
The conversations around alternative materials for plastic is rapidly accelerating. Against the backdrop of the Global Treaty to End Plastic Pollution, and as Pew’s Breaking the Plastic Wave 2025 shines a new spotlight on both the potential and limits of embracing alternative materials, WWF thought the time was right to provide clear guidance that businesses and policymakers could reference when making important decisions about materials use.
The vision statement is our way of saying: here are the principles that should guide material decisions right now, so that the investments we're all making build toward the system we actually need — not just a cleaner-looking version of the one we have.
The vision emphasizes a hierarchy — reduce and reuse first, then substitute. Why is that order so important?
Because substitution without reduction is just rearranging the problem. If we swap out a single-use plastic cup for a single-use paper cup but don't question whether that cup needs to exist in the first place, we haven't fundamentally changed anything. Material substitution may simply shift the burden – to land use, water, carbon, or human health – without solving the core issue of a linear, take-make-dispose system.
So far, the majority of commitments and investments have focused on downstream solutions such as collection and recycling. More effort is needed on upstream solutions such as reduction, reuse, redesign, and substitution. The hierarchy in our vision statement reflects that. Reduction eliminates the problem at the source. Reuse extends material value and keeps it in the system longer. Substitution — when done well, with the right evidence — can be part of the toolkit, but only after those first two questions have been genuinely addressed.
Let's talk economics. What are the risks and opportunities for taking this more rigorous approach to material choices?
The business case runs in both directions, to both risk and opportunity, and it's more compelling than many companies realize.
On the risk side, we've seen companies invest in alternative materials only to face scrutiny when those materials couldn't actually be recovered or composted in real-world conditions. Compostable plastic may be appropriate for specific uses but will only be advantageous if collection and processing is sufficient to recover the material. That conditionality isn't just an environmental principle — it's a business principle. The economics only pencil out if the whole system works.
On the opportunity side, a responsible approach to material choices can be a real engine for innovation. It pushes companies to design solutions that do more with less while meeting performance needs and aligning with the evolving infrastructure and regulatory landscape. When substitution is done right, it can build trust with users and deliver measurable benefits for people and nature, not unintended harm shifted to another part of the system.
© Thippakone Thammavongsa / WWF-Laos