There appears to be a pitched battle raging across the country, with national and state-level missions, action plans, and task forces conducting raids, confiscating banned goods and imposing penalties. Maharashtra alone raided more than 15,000 shops from June 2024 to January 2025, recovering more than Rs 26 lakh as penalties.
The contraband — single use plastics (SUP); the clarion call — delivered by the prime minister; the targets — small retailers, such as street vendors and kirana stores. And the results — either largely ineffective or a complete fiasco. These moves amount to nothing more than knee-jerk reactions emanating from a deeply fractured, unequal, and flawed policy landscape.
Sadly, India’s SUP ban in 2022, though glorified, only banned 19 items amounting to just 2-3% of the total plastic waste generated in the country. Plastic sachets used for storing, packing or selling gutka, tobacco and pan masala were banned. But sachets for everything else — ketchup, shampoo, creams, detergents, biscuits, chips, chocolates — continue unabated. MNCs were given years to “voluntarily” shift to “sustainable” alternatives, but the crackdown on small retailers and street vendors was immediate.
The ban vilified street vendors and small players. But it conveniently missed the real villains: the producers and users of plastic – petrochemicals companies, plastic producers, and FMCG companies – who choose to make plastic polymers and use plastic packaging.
Quick commerce & FDI only mean more plastic
Witnessing the contradictions of our avowed aims and our policy prescriptions can be frustrating. Our prime minister spoke of countering “mindless and wasteful consumption” through individual behaviour change. Yet, packaging is India’s fifth major economic sector, and the e-commerce market grew by over 300% from 2020 to 2024.
Online shopping generates nearly five times more packaging waste than offline shopping. What was transported in bulk to the retailer is now shipped individually to each customer with secondary and tertiary packaging. Split shipments, delivery-on-demand, micro-delivery, and purchase returns or exchanges all add to packaging. In the EU, e-commerce likely added 11,400-17,600 tonnes of plastic packaging just during the pandemic from March to September 2020.
E-commerce giants with venture capital ready to fill their deep pockets are able to play the long game. They underpay gig-workers, give deep discounts to customers, and run on losses for years just to weed out competition. This threatens not only 11 million kirana stores and small retailers, but also street vendors who as per the Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation are a vital part of the economy contributing to 50% of our savings.
“Street vendors are essential to the 15-minute city concept, offering convenient access to services by foot, bike, or public transit. They provide livelihoods for millions and generate an impressive `15 lakh crore (USD 180 billion) annually. However, demonetisation, the lockdown, cheap internet, and the push for digital payments have given e-commerce companies an unfair advantage. This reflects a clear industry-government alliance aiming to monopolise the retail sector,” said Macenzy Dabre, Deputy General Secretary of the National Hawkers Federation.
A recent report by ICAR acknowledges that the vendors “make the product available in every nook and corner of the city which would otherwise cost dearly both in terms of money and time to get by many.”
The hyperlocal nature of small retail in India reduces travel, making it more sustainable. Unlike the vast supermarket chains commanding monopolies in the west or the e-commerce giants that promote hyper-consumerism, these small retailers use much less plastic for packaging and are less capital intensive as establishments. However, their survival may be challenged by quick commerce and more liberalised FDI in retail.
Double standards
More than a decade ago, experts had warned that FDI in retail would harm small retailers and the environment, increasing energy use and plastic waste. Yet, FDI in multi-brand retail was allowed in 2012 with a 51% cap. The BJP, once opposed to it, now considers 100% FDI, worsening the plastic waste situation.
Again, there are few regulations for major players, who prioritise profit over sustainability. The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) guidelines were meant to provide businesses with the impetus to reduce waste. However, a look at the centralised EPR portal reveals that “the biggest plastic polluters have some of the lowest enrolment in the system”. Only 17% of those enrolled are producers and brand owners who together account for 91% of the plastic in the market. Additionally, fake recycling certificates have been uncovered, with 7,00,000 forged documents found.
Let’s not miss the villains for the vendors
Street vendors have demonstrated significant awareness about the plastic problem and are also keen to address it. A survey of 3,000 street vendors in six cities in India revealed that 67% of them are aware of the health risks involved in plastic usage; 65% accept that plastic is bad for the environment, and 63% wish to move away from plastic.
Affordable and accessible alternatives are the major impediment in a transition away from SUPs. Yet, governments have responded with policing and penalties, while at the same time showering subsidies and tax exemptions on the petrochemical industries. So, the next time you read about civic bodies taking new year pledges to go after the street vendors in their supposed battle against plastic, ask if we are losing the war.
(The writer is a researcher and writes on public policy and socioeconomic issues)