To ensure that our systematic review was comprehensive and focussed, we established a strict criteria for selecting relevant literature. Our review included peer-reviewed research articles, case studies, and grey literature that discussed plastic pollution mitigation in supply chains. Exclusion criteria was studies that did not focus on supply chains, non-English language articles, and publications before 2014 The literature review included directly examining strategies for mitigating plastic pollution within GSCs and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in this context. We also examined practical applications and case studies relevant to the GSC framework and the contributions that consider policy implications and alignment with international sustainability objectives.

Our search encompassed a variety of databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, Business Source Complete, ScienceDirect, reports from the environmental organisation, GreenFILE, and grey literature databases, particularly the Open Grey System for unpublished research and policy articles. All database searches were conducted from 15 December 2023 to 05 January 2024 to ensure the inclusion of the most current research available. In addition, we conducted a general web search using Google to identify relevant unpublished literature and organisational websites that could provide supporting information. Our goal was to gather a wide range of studies to mitigate potential bias and to identify the full scope of evidence related to this topic. Furthermore, we selected various case studies in our review following a structured approach, whereby we initially applied meticulous criteria for selecting case studies that were directly relevant to plastic pollution mitigation in GSCs. Each case study was then analysed, with a focus on identifying the context, intervention strategies, outcomes, and lessons learned. This involved a detailed examination of the implementation processes, stakeholder engagement, challenges faced, and effectiveness of the mitigation strategies applied. To ensure consistency and unbiased analysis of each case study, we used a standardised template to extract and compare information. This allowed for a systematic synthesis of the knowledge gained from various contexts and interventions, providing a comprehensive view of the practical applications and real-world impacts of mitigation strategies. The findings from the case studies were then integrated with broader literature to construct a multidimensional understanding of the issue at hand.

We used a diverse array of search strategies aimed at comprehensively retrieving relevant information to achieve high levels of conceptual saturation and maximal variability. Keywords employed in the search included ‘plastic pollution’, ‘supply chain’, ‘mitigation strategies’, ‘waste management’, and ‘sustainability’. We also adapted a search string for each database’s syntax, limiting our search to the titles, abstracts, and keywords. The search string was adapted for each database’s syntax involved combining subject headings and search terms, such as ‘plastic pollution’ AND ‘global supply chains’ OR ‘global value chains’ OR ‘supply chains’, to locate studies focussed on reducing plastic pollution in GSCs. For the case studies, the search strategy involved keyword development, which was based on a search query that combined key terms related to our research question, including ‘plastic pollution’, ‘case study’, ‘mitigation strategies’, and ‘global supply chain’. The search was conducted using the Google search engine by applying advanced search parameters to filter the results by relevance and timeliness. We set parameters to prioritise authoritative sources such as governmental agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and industry publications. Thereafter, the initial search results were manually screened to identify links directed to potentially relevant case studies. We prioritised documents and reports that provided an in-depth analysis and discussion of mitigation strategies within the context of supply chains. Full-text documents or summaries of the case studies identified through Google search were retrieved for further assessment. Where necessary, we conducted follow-up searches using specific report titles or authors to locate full studies. Each retrieved case study was assessed against our predetermined inclusion criteria, which emphasised the relevance of plastic pollution mitigation in GSCs, adequacy of data, and methodological rigour.

Duplicates were removed before the two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of the relevant studies. Thereafter, an eligibility checklist was used by one of the researchers to screen all the titles and abstracts for relevance, moving each to one of the three groups created within the Zotero Library titled ‘relevant’, ‘irrelevant’, and ‘uncertain’. A second reviewer then screened 30% of the ‘irrelevant’ group citations as a check on the first reviewer’s decision-making consistency. We then obtained full text articles for each citation in the ‘relevant’ and ‘uncertain’ groups, which we independently reviewed to determine their relevance. Disagreements between the reviewers were discussed until a consensus was reached. As a result, the full texts of potentially eligible studies were assessed independently. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. To identify relevant case studies on plastic pollution mitigation in GSCs, we integrated the use of Google with our primary database searches to encompass a broader spectrum of applied research and grey literature. We prioritised documents and reports that provided an in-depth analysis and discussion of mitigation strategies within the context of supply chains. By employing this structured approach to search Google for case studies, we aimed to complement the systematic literature review with practical examples of how plastic pollution mitigation strategies have been applied in various GSC contexts. This strategy ensured a comprehensive collection of case studies to inform our review of real-world practice.

To ensure a precise evaluation of the risk of bias in the selected studies in our review of plastic pollution mitigation strategies, we followed the Cochrane Handbook’s recommendations for comprehensive searches to mitigate publication and selection bias. We adopted a meticulous approach that included a comprehensive and systematic search strategy that entailed individual researchers conducting independent, comprehensive database searches with predetermined search terms across all the included databases and grey literature (Cumpston et al. 2019). In addition, titles and abstracts were screened and studies were selected based on the defined inclusion criteria. We also employed a cross-referencing technique in which we juxtaposed the reported results and data of each study against supplementary data sources, such as datasets from reputable environmental organisations and official statistics, to verify the accuracy of the extracted data (Ryan et al. 2021). Furthermore, we performed a comparative analysis of reported outcomes with analogous studies in the field (Kumar et al. 2022). This process encompasses examining the consistency of results and methodologies across different research works to validate our findings and ensure the reliable integration of data.

In our systematic literature review, we employed thematic synthesis, a method used to identify, analyse, and report patterns (themes) within the data. This qualitative analytical approach is structured to distil complex information into overarching themes that succinctly capture core issues and insights from literature (Compernolle et al. 2020). Using this method, we sought to effectively present and summarise the results and provide a clear narrative of the findings related to plastic pollution mitigation strategies. This approach was chosen for several reasons. Firstly, we projected having to synthesise many studies, and the thematic synthesis was judged to be more appropriate for that goal than the other methods (Damarell et al. 2020; Thomas & Harden 2008). Secondly, this thematic synthesis approach extends beyond mere quantification of concepts by employing a process of pattern recognition across diverse studies (Shahi et al. 2020). Thirdly, thematic synthesis provides a systematic and transparent approach to conducting and reporting the review through its three clearly delineated stages, which involve line-by-line inductive coding of findings within the primary studies, organising any related ‘codes’ into descriptive ‘themes’, and creating more abstract ‘analytic themes’ (Damarell et al. 2020). The findings were categorised into recurrent themes and subthemes that describe various facets of mitigating plastic pollution in GSCs. Additionally, a detailed discussion section was included, where the implications of the synthesised data on the effectiveness of the identified strategies were interpreted, along with confidence in these estimates and the need for further research. The synthesis method ensured a structured, systematic, and transparent process for collating and presenting the findings, which allowed us to draw clear conclusions regarding strategies that are effective in mitigating plastic pollution within GSCs.

Our electronic database and grey literature, along with reference list checks, resulted in 7044 citations. After accounting for duplicates, we obtained 2147 citations. After scanning titles and abstracts against the inclusion criteria, 108 citations remained, requiring further review of full-text articles. After a more thorough full-text analysis, we ended up with 42 articles for the final synthesis. This process is outlined in Figure 1 as a PRISMA flow diagram (Page et al. 2021).

The discussion surrounding the economics of single-use plastic production is dominated by studies that emphasise the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of plastic manufacturing as key factors that contribute to its widespread use (Nikiema & Asiedu 2022). According to Chen et al. (2021), single-use plastics are primarily derived from fossil fuels, making them inexpensive to produce and economically attractive to manufacturers in GSCs. The choice of materials often prioritises cost efficiency over environmental impact, leading to a preference for disposable items. Moreover, single-use plastics illustrate market externalities, where environmental costs are not borne by producers or consumers, but by society (Matheson 2022). Without mechanisms to internalise these externalities, supply chains continue to exploit the economic benefits of single-use plastics. Several studies (Chen et al. 2021; Vimal et al. 2020) have found that low material and production costs create a comparative economic advantage for single-use plastics, resulting in an increased production volume. However, Matheson (2022) pointed out a critical disconnect in pricing structures that fails to account for the environmental externalities of single-use plastics, thereby perpetuating their unchecked flow in GSCs.

The literature underscores the significant role of marketing strategies in bolstering demand for single-use plastics. Vimal et al. (2020) shed light on how leaps in packaging technology not only enhance the appeal and prolong the shelf life of products but also anchor the use of single-use plastics in the retail sector. Walker et al. (2021) alluded that, in many cases, such innovative packaging has outpaced environmental concerns, thus reinforcing single-use plastics. In the consumer goods industry, the allure of packaging is not merely aesthetic but it also serves critical functions, such as product protection and convenience, making it integral to modern marketing tactics (Dominic 2021). Other studies (Diana et al. 2022; Hawkins & Madden 2023) have found that single-use plastics are favoured by many companies because of their cost-effectiveness, durability, and flexibility, which makes them ubiquitous in product packaging. However, this also entails a significant increase in plastic waste because these materials are designed to be discarded after only single use. The studies taken together depict a marketing landscape finely tuned to a plastic-dependent model in which sustainability and the exploration of eco-friendly substitutes have often been secondary considerations. The emphasis on short-term functionality in packaging over long-term environmental impacts underscores the need to recalibrate marketing priorities for sustainable practices.

A recurring theme in contemporary society literature is the prominence of consumer culture, which places a premium on convenience. This cultural tendency has been deeply ingrained by the prevalence of single-use plastics, as highlighted by Walker et al. (2021), who underscored how these materials cater to the immediate needs of consumers but at a significant long-term cost to the environment. Morseletto et al. (2023) highlighted that the rise of fast-paced lifestyles has further entrenched a disposable mindset, with individuals increasingly opting for products that offer time savings and ease of use, thus reinforcing a robust market for single-use items. Consequently, single-use plastics have proliferated in the form of food packaging, shopping bags, and beverage containers, a trend identified by Sun and He (2023) that contributes to the growing waste management crisis and environmental problems. This shift towards disposability reflects broader societal values, suggesting that substantial shifts in both individual behaviours and systemic practices are necessary to counter the environmental impacts of this consumption pattern.

The escalating plastic pollution problem in GSCs is further aggravated by insufficient recycling systems, a theme echoed by Kibria et al. (2023), who pointed out that the capacity to manage large quantities of waste is unavailable in many regions. Other scholars (Li et al.2022) found this challenge to be compounded by a narrow focus on recycling predominantly marketable plastics, leaving a surplus of non-recyclable plastics that contaminate the environment. In addition, as highlighted by Mihai et al. (2021), the practice of exporting plastic waste across international lines adds layers of complexity, exacerbated by the varying recycling capabilities and legislative frameworks among nations. In the economic sphere, studies (Gothár & Schanz 2024) have emphasised the competition faced by recycled plastics, which struggle to match the affordability of virgin plastics, thereby deterring investments in recycling innovation. This confluence of issues necessitates a comprehensive, research-informed strategy that promotes technological innovations in recycling, stimulates a market for recycled goods, and aligns with global policies to reduce the prevalence of single-use plastics and their adverse environmental impact.

The literature on policy and regulation regarding single-use plastic pollution is bifurcated, presenting a complex picture of both the challenges and progress. On one side of the spectrum, researchers, such as Gentile et al. (2023), have drawn attention to the inconsistent and often ineffective nature of policies intended to regulate single-use plastics. These policies vary widely across jurisdictions, leading to piecemeal adoption and enforcement, limiting their overall effectiveness. Such measures may include bans or taxes on specific single-use items; however, without a global consensus or enforcement mechanism, their impact on pollution reduction remains largely localised. In contrast, literature shows that robust policies have led to substantial reductions in single-use plastic consumption (Borg et al. 2022; Rabiu & Jaeger-Erben 2024; Singh & Biswas 2023). Indeed, a comparative policy study by Marino and Pariso (2020) is foundational to understanding how different regulatory frameworks adapt to the complexities of international trade, as well as the propensities of individual nations participating in GSCs to attempt to mitigate or exacerbate the challenges of plastic pollution.

Literature (Al-Shihabi & Barghash 2023; Bor 2020; Liu et al. 2022) describes the mixed role of GSCs in the context of single-use plastic pollution. Global supply chains require durable, lightweight materials to minimise costs and maintain product integrity during transportation, consequently leading to increased usage of single-use plastics. However, they also have the potential to implement measures to mitigate the pollution. Faced with environmental regulations and consumer expectations, companies within GSCs are increasingly exploring sustainable alternatives, promoting reuse and recycling, and aiming to establish circular economies (Despoudi 2020; Xu, Liao & Sun et al. 2023). Additionally, as Sinkovics, Sinkovics and Archie-Acheampong (2021) highlight, powerful multinationals within these chains can enforce environmental standards at the supplier level, thereby expanding their sustainability initiatives. Thus, our systematic review reveals that GSCs stand at a juncture, serving both as conduits for single-use plastic pollution and channels for widespread sustainable practices.

There is a growing awareness of the environmental impacts of single-use plastics, yet education and public engagement efforts vary significantly. Limited awareness and education about the detrimental effects of single-use plastics are accorded significant culpability for fuelling the prevalence of plastic pollution and associated environmental issues across the globe (Senturk & Dumludag 2022). Without a broad understanding of the impact, consumers may not recognise the importance of reducing plastic use, leading to a continued high demand for convenient, disposable plastic products, as observed by Kittu, Aruljothi and Chellamuthu (2023). Furthermore, limited education on the topic means that many individuals may not know how to properly recycle or may be unaware of the recycling options available, as Borg et al. (2022) elaborated, resulting in higher volumes of plastic waste in landfills and the natural environment. This knowledge gap can also hinder consumers’ demand for sustainable products. Efforts to inform consumers about sustainable alternatives and the importance of reducing plastic use are critical to changing usage patterns (Borg et al. 2022).

In summary, this review points to a complex interplay between economic incentives, cultural practices, market mechanisms, infrastructural limitations, and policy landscapes that sustain the flow of single-use plastics in GSCs. Each of these dimensions influences the extent of single-use plastic pollution and highlights the interconnectedness of the actions needed to mitigate this issue from material innovation and design to waste management and consumer education. Addressing single-use plastic pollution requires a multifaceted approach that acknowledges these dimensions and incorporates stakeholders across the entire life cycle of the plastic products.

The literature reveals the important role of sustainable alternatives in minimising the negative impact of plastics on GSCs. Driven by environmental concerns and regulatory demands, these alternatives aim to reduce reliance on traditional plastics through eco-friendly replacement and circular economic practices. Notable innovations in the literature include bio-based materials, reuse and refill systems, and recycling technologies that are shaping the transition towards a more sustainable global supply chain (Costa et al. 2023; Versino et al. 2023). In view of this, we also examined how the economic feasibility, market acceptance, and logistical considerations of these alternatives, as well as the challenges and opportunities they present in replacing single-use plastics are presented in the extant literature.

Our systematic literature review reveals the widespread adoption of circular economy practices within GSCs, highlighting the urgent need for a transition towards more sustainable and regenerative models. Circular economy practices aim to replace the conventional linear ‘take-make-dispose’ approach with a sustainable closed-loop system that enhances resource efficiency and minimises waste (Bandh et al. 2023; Goyal, Esposito & Kapoor 2018). Such an approach can emphasise incorporating essential circular principles within GSCs encompassing closed-loop systems, design for recycling, and waste-to-energy solutions.

Extended producer responsibility (EPR), a policy approach that shifts the responsibility for waste management and recycling upstream to the producers for the entire life cycle of products, has emerged as a crucial strategy for enhancing sustainability in GSCs (Hou et al. 2020; Leclerc & Badami 2020; Liu et al. 2022; Tumu, Vorst & Curtzwiler 2023). This approach encourages eco-friendly materials, recycling processes, and responsible product disposal, thereby contributing to a circular economy and reducing the environmental footprint. Despite its benefits, Leclerc and Badami (2020) observed that challenges persist in its widespread implementation as fairness is questioned across the supply chain. Furthermore, studies indicate that the harmonisation of regulations across diverse regions and industries, ensuring effective enforcement, managing compliance costs, and fostering public awareness are critical hurdles (Abdel Kader & Qutb 2023; Bening, Pruess & Blum 2021; Walker et al. 2021). It is clearly evident from the systematic review that collaborative efforts between governments, businesses, and consumers are essential to ensure transparent and standardised frameworks, increase stakeholder engagement, and enhance accountability throughout the supply chain, which are intrinsic to the realisation of the full potential of EPR in transforming GSCs towards more responsible and sustainable practices.

After exploring various solutions to plastic pollution that encompass sustainable alternatives, circular economy practices, and EPR solutions within the complex dynamics of GSCs, we conducted an analysis of their real-world applications through a review of pertinent case studies (see Table 1). By examining specific instances where the strategies were implemented, our aim was to draw valuable insights into the success, challenges, and overall effectiveness of sustainability strategies. These case studies serve as practical illustrations and provide tangible examples of how these solutions can be integrated into a complex web of GSCs. Through this examination, we sought to enhance our understanding of the practical implications and potential refinements necessary for the successful implementation of these solutions to combat plastic pollution.

These case studies reinforce the assertion that mitigating plastic pollution in GSCs is a multifaceted task that involves both success and challenges across various strategies. Biodegradable materials and recycling have proven to be sustainable alternatives that can effectively reduce single-use plastic wastes.

Nonetheless, the adoption of sustainable materials still faces challenges including higher costs and the need for broader implementation. Circular economy practices, such as reusable packaging in Loop UK and efficient waste management in Green Africa Recycling, have also demonstrated success in reducing single-use plastics and pollution. However, these practices encounter initial high costs, require consumer behaviour change, and require an expansion of waste management infrastructure. Navigating diverse industries, regulations, and socioeconomic contexts on a global scale remains challenging. Extended producer responsibility initiatives have successfully shifted responsibility to producers, but consistent enforcement, compliance, and cost management, including sourcing enough recycled materials and balancing cost-effectiveness, remain significant challenges. In addition, consumer awareness and participation remain crucial, emphasising the importance of engagement in circular practices. Finally, technological and logistics challenges underscore the need to overcome resistance and manage complexities in the collection and recycling processes. In essence, addressing plastic pollution requires a comprehensive and collaborative approach to navigate the multifaceted issues inherent in GSCs.