Impact statement
Plastic microbeads are intentionally added particles of size less than 5 mm that end up in the environment after their intended use, polluting the environment. Even though they are used in many product categories, Personal care and cosmetic products remain a prominent source. India currently addresses microbeads through the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (2017) and Cosmetics Rules (2020) rather than utilising environmental legislation. The presence of microbeads in 45% of personal care products manufactured after 2021 indicates the non-compliance of the existing regulatory approach. The study shows that the problem is not only the absence of a direct ban but also structural weaknesses in the existing system. It includes limited product coverage, unclear definitions, non-specification of exemption categories, absence of standardised testing protocols and fragmented enforcement provisions. Both of the existing legislative measures are focused on human-health risks rather than environmental protection. The study proposed a pathway under the Environment (Protection) Act (1986), utilising sections 3, 5 and 6 would establish a direct prohibition. A phased implementation would ensure enough time for manufacturers to reformulate products under financial constraints, ensuring better market compliance. The analysis further shows that Corporate Social Responsibility can provide supplementary support for mitigation and transition activities, but its current design cannot replace enforceable regulation or address the underlying gaps in product definition, testing and compliance. The proposed approach has relevance beyond India. Its emphasis on clear definitions, verifiable compliance and coordinated enforcement addresses design issues identified in international microbead policies and is relevant to ongoing efforts to develop global controls on intentionally added microplastics by the Global Plastic Treaty. The study therefore provides policymakers, regulators, industry and consumers with a clearer basis for moving from a nominal restriction to effective microbead governance.
Introduction
Plastic microbeads are defined as solid, water-insoluble plastic particles of size ≤ 5 mm (Bayo et al., Reference Bayo, Martínez, Guillén, Olmos, Roca and Alcolea2017). They are used intentionally in a wide range of commercial products such as industrial abrasives, detergents, agricultural formulations, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, paints, inks, and controlled-release applications (Canada, 2015). However, their presence in personal care and cosmetic products has garnered significant attention from the scientific community, industry, legislature, and media since 2012 due to their potential ecological and health hazards (Alex, Reference Alex2024a).
Even though voluntary bans and legislative prohibitions started across the globe with varying degrees of enforcement effectiveness, the status in India remained dormant. Though the Indian legislation on plastic pollution has significantly evolved over the past two decades, there exists a vacuum in addressing certain categories of plastic pollutants like microplastics.
The regulatory framework on plastic waste management was initiated with the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules in 2011, focusing on post-consumer plastic waste collection, segregation and recycling. Later, in 2016, these rules underwent significant amendments under sections 6, 8 and 25 of the Environmental (Protection) Act (EPA) of 1986. This amendment incorporated Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and expanded the scope of plastic waste regulations. Later, the same regulation was amended in 2018, 2021 and 2022, progressively tightening the rules and introducing a Single-Use Plastic (SUP) Ban in 2021 (with effect from June 2022). This prohibited 19 identified SUPs with low utility and high littering potential (Hossain et al., Reference Hossain, Islam, Shanker, Khan, Locock, Ghose, Schandl, Dhodapkar and Sahajwalla2022). This SUP ban was enforced through coordination among the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs), with penalties for the defaulters under sections 3 and 5 of the EPA, which include imprisonment up to 5 years or a fine up to Rs 1 lakh or both (Environment Protection Act, 1986).
Despite having a comprehensive and periodically evolving plastic regulatory framework, coordinated and enforced by multiple authorities, microplastics, especially the intentionally added categories like microbeads in PCCPs, remain unaddressed through environmental legislation, despite considering their global market position (Statista, 2024; Alex et al., Reference Alex, Maes and Devipriya2024b). Instead, this pollutant is only considered under the human-health risk-focused regulatory mechanisms under the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and the Cosmetics Rules, creating a significant regulatory disconnect.
In India, the issue of microbeads in PCCPs gained visibility in 2017 when a Delhi-based NGO, “Toxics Links,” conducted a study on PCCPs in the Indian market and found that nearly 28% of the products in the market contain plastic microbeads (Toxics Links, 2017). Later, Ashwini Kumar, a Delhi-based lawyer, filed a petition before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) seeking a ban on plastic microbeads in PCCPs (Deccan Chronicle, 2016). The NGT directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as well as the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) to analyse PCCPs in the Indian market and address the potential environmental concerns. Later in 2017, the BIS amended the IS 4707 Part 2 Annex A list (the list of raw materials generally not recognised as safe for use in cosmetics) to include plastic microbeads (as entry 1,373) and intimated this to the NGT (Miraj et al., Reference Miraj, Parveen and Zedan2021).
Plastic microbeads in PCCPs are mentioned only in two legal provisions in India: The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and the Cosmetics Rules, 2020. However, both of these are framed around human health and safety rather than environmental protection. The overwhelming scientific evidence indicates potential environmental risks from them, such as bioaccumulation, trophic transfer and adsorption of hazardous pollutants, causing a Trojan-horse effect by making them vectors of pollutants (Teuten et al., Reference Teuten, Rowland, Galloway and Thompson2007; Miraj et al., Reference Miraj, Parveen and Zedan2021; Giustra et al., Reference Giustra, Sinesi, Spena, De Santes, Morelli, Barbieri, Garbujo, Galli, Prosperi and Colombo2024).
Therefore, this study analyses the scope for addressing India’s fragmented, health-centred regulatory approach towards plastic microbeads through utilising provisions under the Environment Protection Act (EPA) of 1986. The regulatory pathway developed in this study operationalises three sections of the EPA (sections 3, 5 and 6) with informed comparative regulatory practice beyond India. The study also discusses an approach via Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) under the section 135 of the Companies Act in 2013 to supplement the EPA pathway, as a long-term plan of action.
Methodology
The regulatory analysis adopted a doctrinal reading of the statutes, standards and rules that govern plastic microbeads in Indian PCCPs. The primary legal texts evaluated for the assessment were the Environment (Protection) Act (1986), the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and the Cosmetics Rules (2020). These documents were accessed through the official repositories of the relevant authorities. In addition, peer-reviewed journal articles, NGO reports and regulatory-tracking sources published between 2011 and 2026 were also referred to derive conclusions and propose a regulatory framework. The European Union was chosen as the principal comparator on the basis of evidence rather than convenience. It is based on a policy analysis of microbead policies across the world using the Policy Modelling Consistency Index by Kumbukattu Alex et al. (Reference Kumbukattu Alex, Sadasivan, Maes and Purushothaman Devipriya2025). In that study, the European Union’s regulation emerged as the most structurally coherent microbead policy currently in effect. The United States’ Microbead-Free Waters Act 2015 is included as a second comparator. Being a pioneer in microbead bans, it adds a different perspective in understanding the regulatory context.
Current legal landscape in India
The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS)
Regulatory framework
The Bureau of Indian Standards is a regulatory standard -prescribing body established under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act 2016, with the mandate to formulate, publish, and promote standards for goods, services, and systems. For PCCPs, BIS plays the role of defining safety specifications for raw materials and finished formulations to comply with market practices. In the case of plastic microbeads, the second amendment of IS 4707 Part 2 in 2017 defined microbeads as “plastic microbeads which are solid, water-insoluble particles of size ≤ 5 mm, used for exfoliating or cleansing purposes” in Annex A: “List of Raw Materials Generally Not Recognised as Safe for Use in Cosmetics.” This was reaffirmed in 2022 and retained in the fifth revision in 2025 (Bureau of Indian Standards, 2017; ChemLinked, 2025).
While the BIS definition does not explicitly employ the term “rinse-off”, its functional framing around exfoliating and cleansing applications aligns with how microbeads are defined and regulated internationally, where such functions are predominantly associated with rinse-off cosmetic products. This results in enforcement being effectively limited to these product categories (Xanthos and Walker, Reference Xanthos and Walker2017). Accordingly, this categorisation of plastic microbeads as unsafe for use in cosmetic formulations involving exfoliating or cleansing functions in rinse-off products is consistent with the scope adopted in microbead regulations internationally (Xanthos and Walker, Reference Xanthos and Walker2017; Dauvergne, Reference Dauvergne2018; Gündoğdu et al., Reference Gündoğdu, Bour, Köşker A, Walther, Napierska, Mihai, Syberg, Hansen and Walker2024).
Limitations of the BIS framework
Despite the listing and retention of “plastic microbeads” as an unsafe ingredient in periodic amendments, the regulatory power of BIS remains limited. It is functionally a soft law; that is, it can only set standards and is not legally binding unless made mandatory through the issuance of a Quality Control Order (QCO) by the central government. If a QCO is not issued, the provision to follow the standards by the manufacturers and importers becomes voluntary rather than mandatory. Moreover, in such cases the effectiveness depends indirectly on other sectoral laws, if such laws exist (Access India, 2025).
The major limitations lie in the lack of independent enforcement power of the BIS to inspect, penalise, or prohibit the manufacturers or importers of products containing plastic microbeads in the market, the lack of standard testing and certification protocols for the detection of plastic microbeads and the narrowed scope of its ability for market surveillance due to the vague definition and inadequate product coverage. Also, it is limited to rinse-off cosmetic products with no mention of leave-on cosmetics, oral care products or other multi-functional personal care products. In addition, “biodegradable microbeads” and “cellulose/chemically modified natural microbeads” pose additional challenges, leaving ambiguity regarding their regulatory status (Bureau of Indian Standards, 2017).
Since the focus of BIS is product standards and safety, the rationale for listing plastic microbeads as an ingredient of concern is primarily based on potential human health risks rather than environmental or ecological implications such as pollution, bioaccumulation, biomagnification, and so forth, even though that dimension is more strongly supported by scientific evidence than the former.
The Cosmetics Rules 2020
Regulatory framework
The pivotal legislative provision that governs the manufacturing, import, sales and quality control of cosmetics in India is the Cosmetics Rules (2020) under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It is administered by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare through the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO). Though this legislation has more mandating power than a soft law like the BIS, the major loophole lies in the way it deals with microbeads (Cosmetics Rules, 2020; ChemLinked, 2025).
There is no explicit mention of microbeads in the Cosmetics Rules, but only an indirect mention through Rule 39(2), which prohibits the manufacture, sale and import of cosmetics containing ingredients that are listed in Annex A of IS 4707 (Part 2) of BIS. Since plastic microbeads are included in this list as “not recognised as safe for use in cosmetics,” Rule 39(2) effectively functions as an implicit prohibition on the use of plastic microbeads in cosmetic formulations (Cosmetics Rules, 2020).
Limitations of Cosmetics Rules
Though there exists an indirect prohibition which is legally binding, the rules exhibit significant regulatory limitations. Primarily, the rules do not provide an independent statutory definition of plastic microbeads, relying entirely on BIS terminology. This creates legal fragility in enforcement and adjudication, as the BIS standards operate as soft law under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act 2016, wherein compliance remains voluntary unless the central government issues a Quality Control Order (QCO) under section 16 to make a standard mandatory. In the absence of such a QCO, the independent legal enforceability is limited (Access India, 2025; LAWGIST, 2025; Regulatory Trends, 2025). Therefore, dependence of the Cosmetics Rules on such a non-binding standard with definitional ambiguities and limited enforcement mechanisms weakens regulatory certainty, complicates prosecution, and undermines effective market surveillance of plastic microbeads.
In addition, the scope of the ban under the Cosmetics Rules is narrow and product-specific, as they accommodate only rinse-off cosmetics, excluding leave-on cosmetics and other product categories. Thus, limiting product coverage from regulatory scrutiny undermines the effectiveness of the prohibition (Bureau of Indian Standards, 2017).
Moreover, the rules do not mention analytical protocols for the detection of plastic microbeads in PCCPs. Thus, enforcement faces significant challenges in verifying compliance. Currently, market surveillance depends on self-declared claims by the manufacturers and importers rather than standardised product testing and verification. Research evidence shows the inadequacy of this approach. A 2017 study by the Delhi-based NGO “Toxics Links” found that 28% of the tested PCCPs in the Indian market contained microplastics (Toxics Link, 2017). Even if this study could be claimed as before the prohibition of plastic microbeads via BIS regulation, more concerning research evidence came out in 2024: a study by Alex et al. (Reference Alex, Maes and Devipriya2024b), identifying 45% of the personal care products with manufacturing dates after 2021 having plastic microbeads. This study documented extensive “greenwashing” practices, where products claimed to be “eco-friendly” or “sustainable” contained plastic microbeads. This evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of self-declaration over mandatory testing. Furthermore, a study by Prakash Ranjan et al. (Reference Prakash Ranjan, Joseph, Srivastava, Bhakta Sharma, Biswas, Goel and Kumar2024) detected microbeads in four of 10 facial-scrub samples from the Indian market, substantiating the continued market presence of plastic microbeads beyond the point of regulatory intervention.
Though defaulters of Rule 39(2) attract penalties under sections 18, 27C, 27D, 28A, and 30 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which include imprisonment (up to 3 years), fines (up to Rs 50,000), confiscation, and licence cancellation, the enforcement is weak due to the structural inconsistencies in these regulations that mention plastic microbeads. Thus, violations are mostly subsumed under the broader provisions such as misbranding, adulteration, or general deterrence.
Also, the Cosmetics Rules are intended to safeguard human health and safety rather than environmental protection. These rules operate separately and independently from the environmental laws, pollution control mechanisms and waste management frameworks. This approach further narrows down the scope of the regulation in addressing the environmental pollution potential dimension of plastic microbeads, where scientific evidence of microbeads reaching different environmental compartments from PCCPs is established (Zitko and Hanlon, Reference Zitko and Hanlon1991; Browne et al., Reference Browne, Crump, Niven, Teuten, Tonkin, Galloway and Thompson2011; Napper et al., Reference Napper, Bakir, Rowland and Thompson2015; Collivignarelli et al., Reference Collivignarelli, Carnevale Miino, Caccamo and Milanese2021; Prakash Ranjan et al., Reference Prakash Ranjan, Joseph, Srivastava, Bhakta Sharma, Biswas, Goel and Kumar2024; Alex et al., Reference Alex, Maes and Devipriya2024b; Rao, Reference Rao2025).
Furthermore, the Cosmetics Rules (2020) lack provisions addressing import control, e-commerce platforms, and cross-border trade specific to microbead-containing products. Although the rules mandate general import registration and compliance with safety and labelling requirements through the CDSCO under Rule 12(1), they do not impose microbead-specific restrictions, disclosure obligations, or prohibitions applicable to imported products. Also, the rules do not assign platform-level responsibilities to e-commerce intermediaries for monitoring, restricting, or delisting cosmetic products containing environmentally harmful ingredients such as plastic microbeads. In the context of India’s rapidly expanding online market and increasing reliance on international imports, this omission represents a critical enforcement gap. The absence of product-specific environmental controls and platform accountability mechanisms enables the continued market access of microbead-containing products through digital and cross-border trade channels, thereby undermining the broader regulatory intent to restrict plastic microbeads (Cosmetics Rules, 2020).
Though the Cosmetics Rules, 2020 provide a formal legal landscape for restricting plastic microbeads through BIS standards, the clarity and scope of it remain indirect, narrow, and directional towards health risk. The absence of explicit definitions, testing protocols, environmental considerations and coordinated enforcement mechanisms significantly constrains the effectiveness of regulatory frameworks.
Therefore, the Cosmetics Rules and BIS alone are insufficient to deliver a comprehensive and enforceable ban on plastic microbeads. There should be a complementary legislative provision that can also address the environmental implications caused by plastic microbeads.
Comparative assessment of Indian context with global context
The authors’ prior quantitative assessment of 20 global microbead regulations identified several recurring policy-design limitations. The mostly identified weaknesses were fragmented enforcement provisions, ambiguity in statutory definitions, narrow product coverage, limited exemption clarity, absence of standardised biodegradability testing protocols and weak monitoring provisions. Sixteen of the 20 evaluated policies fell within the “acceptable” category, whereas only the European Union (EU) regulation achieved the “perfect” category (Kumbukattu Alex et al., Reference Kumbukattu Alex, Sadasivan, Maes and Purushothaman Devipriya2025). These recurring structural characteristics provide the comparative context for evaluating India’s present regulatory framework. Also, many other recent policy evaluation studies demonstrate that policies lacking explicit mention of material-specific definitions, scope and analytical protocols were more susceptible to regulatory loopholes and greenwashing practices (Xanthos and Walker, Reference Xanthos and Walker2017; Munhoz et al., Reference Munhoz, Harkes, Beriot, Larreta and Basurko2023; Gündoğdu et al., Reference Gündoğdu, Bour, Köşker A, Walther, Napierska, Mihai, Syberg, Hansen and Walker2024).
Thus, the EU regulation on intentionally added microplastics (Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 – Restriction of microplastics intentionally added to products/the microplastics restriction) is considered the primary comparator in this study (European Commission, 2023). It came out to be the most structurally coherent and legally robust regulatory framework among existing microbead bans. Unlike many national bans that are product-specific, function-limited, or embedded within sectoral consumer protection laws, the EU regulation
adopted a material-centric and lifecycle-oriented approach. It explicitly defined microplastics based on physicochemical characteristics, established clear product coverage, an exemptions list, set well-defined product-category-specific phase -out timelines, and provided guidelines for future monitoring and mandates for standardised analytical and compliance requirements within a binding supranational legal architecture (European Commission, 2023). This comprehensive design directly addresses key policy weaknesses identified in the global assessment, particularly loopholes in policy nature, enforcement mechanisms, product coverage, and exemption clarity, which were observed across the majority of the non-EU microbead bans.
Two further comparators from the same study indicated a trade-off between speed of enactment and structural completeness. The United States’ Microbead-Free Waters Act 2015 entered into binding force considerably earlier than the EU regulation, yet was found to be weaker in structure. It has shown weaknesses principally on account of its narrow product coverage and an enforcement loophole: “Umbrella of Good Faith” provision, exempting a product from penalty on the strength of a supply-chain guarantee from a US-based actor, regardless of the product’s actual compliance status (Pallone, 2015; Kumbukattu Alex et al., Reference Kumbukattu Alex, Sadasivan, Maes and Purushothaman Devipriya2025). Similarly, Canada’s Microbeads in Toiletries Regulations 2017 also exhibited policy design loopholes in similar areas: narrow product coverage and the absence of a formal penalty-escalation or producer-responsibility mechanism (Microbeads in Toiletries, 2017; Kumbukattu Alex et al., Reference Kumbukattu Alex, Sadasivan, Maes and Purushothaman Devipriya2025). However, the Canadian regulation was made under an environmental rather than a health-focused statutory vehicle like that of the US. The federal government classified plastic microbeads as a toxin under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999 (Xanthos and Walker, Reference Xanthos and Walker2017). This is the same statutory logic underlying the pathway proposed for India. The Canadian case therefore offers a precedent, despite its otherwise modest performance, for using environmental rather than health legislation as the primary vehicle for a microbead prohibition.
Taken together, these cases indicate that early bindingness alone does not guarantee structural coherence. The US and Canadian bans preceded the EU regulation by years, yet both were independently assessed as structurally weaker than the EU regulation. This reinforces the choice of the EU as the long-term microbeads policy development template for India. The Indian regulatory framework exhibits several of the same structural limitations highlighted in the global analysis, including indirect legal prohibitions, reliance on non-binding standards, narrow product scope, and the absence of explicit environmental rationale. While the EU model may not be directly transplantable due to differences in institutional structure and regulatory competence, its design principles provide critical normative guidance. The EU experience illustrates that effective microbead regulation requires statutory clarity independent of voluntary standards, legally enforceable definitions, harmonised testing protocols, alignment with environmental protection objectives and market surveillance mechanisms.
India needs a regulatory framework that is structurally coherent, environmentally grounded and legally executable, rather than health-centric and fragmented. Accordingly, the Environmental (Protection) Act (1986) offers a structurally analogous and institutionally feasible pathway to execute these elements within the Indian regulatory context.
The future needs: Environmental (Protection) Act 1986 (India) as a way forward
Since microbeads are a severe environmental issue in addition to health risks, they need legal coverage in addressing environmental protection directly and comprehensively. Taking into account the history of utilisation of the EPA in managing pollutants of potential health hazards and environmental pollution, this legislation can be effectively utilised to address the issue of microbeads in PCCPs. The Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016, Single-Use Plastic Ban 2022, E-Waste Management Rules 2016 and Hazardous and Other Wastes Rules 2016 are some of the successfully implemented examples that utilised provisions of EPA(1986). The most commonly used sections under the EPA are sections 3, 5 and 6. These three sections can be utilised to develop a robust framework to address plastic microbeads in India (CPCB, 2025). Table 1 depicts the provisions in EPA that can be utilised to address the issue of microbeads in PCCPs in India.
The provisions in the EPA that can be utilised to address the issue of microbeads in PCCPs
Table 1. Long description
The table consists of six columns: E P A section, Legal provision, Regulatory function, Application to microbeads, Implementation mechanism, and Expected outcome.
Row 1: Section 3. Legal provision is Central government power. Regulatory function is Direct prohibition. Application to microbeads is Ban manufacture, import, sale. Implementation mechanism is Notification via M o E F C C. Expected outcome is Immediate regulatory control.
Row 2: Section 5. Legal provision is Binding directions. Regulatory function is Inter-agency coordination. Application to microbeads is Align B I S, C D S C O, C P C B. Implementation mechanism is Directions to authorities. Expected outcome is Improved enforcement.
Row 3: Section 6. Legal provision is Rule-making. Regulatory function is Detailed framework. Application to microbeads is Define scope, testing, E P R. Implementation mechanism is Draft rules and consultation. Expected outcome is Long-term regulatory clarity.
Section 3 of the Environmental (Protection) Act 1986
Section 3(1) of the EPA 1986 authorises the central government to “take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution” (Environment Protection Act, 1986). It includes the power to prohibit the manufacture, sale, import, and use of specific materials. This provision has already been used to implement major national bans such as the 2021 Single-Use Plastic (SUP) Ban through the amendment of Plastic Waste Management Rules in 2021, where 19 low utility items such as plastic cutlery, straws, sticks, etc., were banned through a section 3 notification and coordinated action across MoEFCC, CPCB and SPCBs (Press Information Bureau, 2011; Ban on Single-Use Plastics, 2016; India Code, 2016; Indiakanoon, 2025).
In the case of plastic microbeads, utilising this section, the central government can directly issue a notification to ban the manufacture, import, sale and use of plastic microbeads containing products starting with rinse-off PCCPs.
The prioritisation of rinse-off personal care and cosmetic products as the initial focus of enforcement is grounded in both environmental exposure pathways and regulatory feasibility. Rinse-off products are designed for immediate discharge into wastewater systems, resulting in direct environmental release with minimal opportunity for capture or treatment (Gouin et al., Reference Gouin, Avalos, Brunning, Brzuska, Graaf de, Kaumanns, Konong, Meyberg, Rettinger, Schlatter, Thomas, Welie van and Wolf2015; Akhbarizadeh et al., Reference Akhbarizadeh, Yu, Ead, Nicholls, Thibeau, Lanisa, Wakai, Marquez, Miller, Sims, Diamond and Helm2024). Empirical studies consistently identify rinse-off PCCPs as dominant sources of intentionally added microbeads entering aquatic environments, particularly due to high consumption volumes and limited removal efficiency in wastewater treatment processes (Bayo et al., Reference Bayo, Martínez, Guillén, Olmos, Roca and Alcolea2017; Sun et al., Reference Sun, Ren and Ni2020).
Accordingly, a phased regulatory approach, beginning with rinse-off products and progressively extending to leave-on cosmetics, household products, industrial applications, and other product categories, allows regulatory institutions to incrementally build testing capacity, enforcement experience, and stakeholder compliance while addressing higher-impact sources first (Munhoz et al., Reference Munhoz, Harkes, Beriot, Larreta and Basurko2023; Gündoğdu et al., Reference Gündoğdu, Bour, Köşker A, Walther, Napierska, Mihai, Syberg, Hansen and Walker2024).
To ensure enforcement compliance, this notification should include a clear statutory definition for plastic microbeads, well-defined scope, coverage of applicable products, compliance timelines with a phased implementation approach, standardised testing protocols, clarity on the status of biodegradable alternatives and chemically modified natural microbeads. As the EPA penalties are more stringent than those under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, violations of EPA provisions attract stricter penalties such as imprisonment up to 5 years or a fine up to Rs 1 lakh or both. Moreover, EPA enforcement benefits from established environmental governance infrastructure through CPCB and SPCBs (CPCB, 2025).
Section 6 of the Environmental (Protection) Act 1986
Section 6 of the EPA strengthens the central government by empowering the government to create detailed rules regulating the handling, manufacture, use, and import of any hazardous or polluting substance (Environment Protection Act, 1986). This has been successfully applied in major frameworks like the Plastic Waste Management (PWM) Rules 2016 for establishing a detailed framework for plastic waste segregation, collection, and recycling, along with the inclusion of Extended Producer Responsibility guidelines (MoEFCC, 2022). In addition, this section has also been used in the Hazardous and Other Wastes Rules 2016 to regulate their entire lifecycle and the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals (MSIHC) Rules 1989 to implement safety protocols (CPCB 2016).
These rules demonstrate EPA’s capacity to regulate entire material streams and specific harmful components with detailed technical specifications, compliance requirements and enforcement mechanisms. For plastic microbeads, section 6 of EPA can be utilised to establish detailed statutory definitions, product coverage, testing protocols, certification requirements, import controls, e-commerce provisions, environmental compensation and compliance timelines.
Section 5 of the Environmental (Protection) Act 1986
Section 5 of the EPA empowers the central government to issue binding directions to any person, officer, or authority, enabling coordinated enforcement across multiple government bodies and jurisdictions (Environment Protection Act, 1986). This section has been historically used to direct State Pollution Control Boards, manufacturers, and local bodies to enforce SUP bans. Also, it was utilised for PWM compliance through deploying enforcement authorities and facilities at national and state levels, which ensured coordinated inspections across manufacturing units, retail outlets and customs checkpoints.
In the case of plastic microbeads, section 5 can be used to mandate coordinated action across multiple regulatory authorities, each with specific roles. For example, the MoEFCC can issue notifications for a direct ban utilising section 3, detailed guidelines on technicalities and specifications under section 6 and coordination of all the enforcement authorities under section 5. The MoHFW and CDSCO can be directed to amend the Cosmetics Rules (2020) to align with the EPA ban. The BIS can be directed to issue the Quality Control order making the IS 4707 Part 2 standards legally mandatory. In addition, the CPCB, SPCBs and customs can be directed to establish national monitoring dashboards, state-level enforcement guidelines, penalty provisions and continuous monitoring plans for the inspection of manufacturing units, retail outlets and imports.
The coordinated approach will provide a complete legal pathway to implement a nationally enforceable, multi-sectoral ban on microbeads, with strong parallels to existing EPA-based plastic and chemical regulations.
Phased prohibition plan recommendations for India
A recommendation for the implementation of a microbead ban is given based on insights from the successfully implemented bans like the SUP Ban. The ban for microbeads could adopt a multilevel approach with phased timelines. Table 2 visually represents the phased timeline for the recommended microbead ban.
The phased timeline for the microbead ban
Table 2. Long description
The table consists of six columns: Phase, Timeline, Key actions, Responsible agencies, Policy instruments, and Expected challenges.
* Phase 1: Timeline is 0 to 6 months. Key actions include notification and definitions. Responsible agency is M o E F C C. Policy instrument is Section 3. Expected challenge is industry resistance.
* Phase 2: Timeline is 6 to 12 months. Key actions include draft rules and testing protocols. Responsible agencies are M o E F C C and B I S. Policy instrument is Section 6. Expected challenge is lack of testing capacity.
* Phase 3: Timeline is 12 to 24 months. Key actions include finalisation and enforcement. Responsible agencies are C P C B and S P C B s. Policy instrument is enforcement mechanisms. Expected challenge is compliance gaps.
* Phase 4: Timeline is long-term. Key actions include monitoring and revision. Responsible agency is C P C B. Policy instrument is monitoring systems. Expected challenge is sustainability of enforcement.
Phase 1 should focus on immediate actions that can be achieved within 6 months. This includes drafting a notification by the MoEFCC, utilising section 3, which prohibits the manufacture, import, sale and use of plastic microbeads, starting with rinse-off PCCPs with clear statutory definitions independent of the existing BIS definition. Also, issuance of directions to the BIS, MoHFW, CPCB, Customs and SPCBs under section 5 can be done to establish detailed multilevel guidelines and sectoral amendments. All the refinements in technicalities and specifications should be developed only after multi-stakeholder consultations to ensure clarity and coherence.
Phase 2 can be deemed a short-term action plan with a timeline of 6–12 months. This timeline should focus on publishing a draft “Plastic Microbeads (Prohibition) Rules” under section 6 for public consultation, incorporation of testing protocols, certification requirements, import controls, e-commerce provisions and future monitoring protocols. During this timeline, clarity regarding the testing protocols and enforcement mechanisms should be attained. Initiation of awareness-building and support to industries for a transition to sustainable alternatives should be prioritised during this phase.
Phase 3 should focus on medium-term actions, spanning over 12–24 months. This period includes the finalisation and notification of “Plastic Microbeads (Prohibition) Rules,” after incorporating the feedback from the public and stakeholders. This period must lay down provisions for effective enforcement at the grassroots level and phase-out period guidelines for the industries to tackle the financial constraints associated with reformulation and existing products.
The last phase of the roadmap should focus on long-term action plans, which include implementation of the complete ban with systematic market surveillance, environmental monitoring plans, impact assessments, lifecycle assessments, monitoring of industries and periodic review and timely amendments of the rules based on future prospects.
Enforcement challenges in India
Effective enforcement of environmental regulation requires strategic planning, institutional capacity and regulatory clarity. The analysis of microbead-mentioning policies from India in this study, as well as the comparative assessment of microbead bans from across the world by Kumbukattu Alex et al. (Reference Kumbukattu Alex, Sadasivan, Maes and Purushothaman Devipriya2025) points to similar enforcement challenges. These challenges arise from structural loopholes in these policies like inadequate transition periods, lack of clarity in scope, absence of standardised testing protocols, difficulty in regulating e-commerce trade, inter-agency coordination challenges and regulatory ambiguity regarding biodegradable alternatives. These could potentially lead to supply chain disruptions, inventory losses and product reformulation constraints.
In addition, the lack of consumer awareness in India further accelerates the enforcement challenges by reducing the effectiveness of market-based compliance mechanisms (Alex et al., Reference Alex, Aboobaker and Devipriya2025; Varun, Reference Varun2026). This shows the need to spread awareness through tailored strategies to empower consumers to distinguish misleading environmental claims as part of marketing to make informed purchasing decisions.
The limits of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
When India’s mandatory CSR framework under section 135 of the Companies Act (2013) is analysed as a potential supplementary pathway, it is identified that plastic microbeads currently fall outside Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) obligations under the Plastic Waste Management Rules. The EPR obligates producers, importers, and brand owners for the plastic packaging they place on the market, and it does not extend to plastic used as a formulation ingredient within a manufactured product (Companies Act, 2013; Corporate Social Responsibility, 2014; Hossain et al., Reference Hossain, Islam, Shanker, Khan, Locock, Ghose, Schandl, Dhodapkar and Sahajwalla2022). Microbeads, added as an ingredient, thus fall outside the scope of EPR.
Moreover, the CSR spending works on a different logic. Section 135 requires companies to spend at least 2% of average net profit on CSR activities, with Schedule VII listing environmental sustainability among eligible categories. A study by Anantharaman et al. (Reference Anantharaman, Manchiraju and Misra2026) found genuine improvements in emissions and resource-use outcomes only among Indian firms that substantially increased spending and set up CSR committees with independent, expert members. Firms complying in form only have shown no comparable gain. It also identified a major limitation: Schedule VII gives firms wide discretion over the allocation of their CSR funds. Thus, firms can meet their obligations without addressing the environmental impact of their own products, if needed. The findings by Sahu and Pradhan (2024) further endorse this symbolic rather than substantive compliance by identifying no relationship between CSR spending and energy intensity among Indian manufacturing firms over 2015–2022. Similarly, Dhar and Imran (Reference Dhar and Imran2026) documented a similar pattern at the state level, where CSR funds earmarked for environmental categories have financed projects such as ornamental “eco-parks” that coexist with, rather than remediate, the pollution generated by the funding company;s own operations.
This evidence suggests that CSR spending, as currently structured, is not adequate to address upstream pollutants like microbeads. The regulation’s discretionary and enterprise-level design does not cover a firm’s own product or waste stream. Therefore, an effective utilisation of CSR to meaningfully address microbeads needs amendments. For example, a clarification on testing-infrastructure investment or phase-out compliance costs by personal care and cosmetics manufacturers as qualifying Schedule VII spending tied to their own product category by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Thus, utilising the provisions of CSR remains a future possibility that can complement the proposed EPA pathway.
Alignment with global plastic treaty negotiations
The upcoming negotiations of the Global Plastic Treaty (GPT) by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) formed under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) will potentially influence future policies on microplastics. The current draft texts, including the INC Chair’s most recent text, have included “intentionally added microplastics” as a category for phase-out or restriction. Current drafts also emphasise harmonised definitions and science-based risk assessment as open priorities for the eventual instrument (UNEP, 2025).
The proposed EPA-based pathway aligns with these emerging themes. Its focus on prohibiting the manufacture and distribution of microbeads aligns with the treaty’s proposed upstream scope. Provisions for monitoring via concerned authorities and tracking of non-compliance address the treaty’s requirement for national action plans and transparency. Also, the planned government support for alternatives and mention of industry accountability are consistent with the treaty’s ongoing discussions on EPR. While the treaty’s final text and adoption timeline remain uncertain, a domestic pathway built along these lines would position India’s microbead regulation to align with the instrument’s future direction.
Conclusion
This study proposes a three-pronged pathway, utilising the sections 3, 5 and 6 of the EPA to deliver a microbead prohibition. This pathway considers environmental aspects along with human health, which neither the BIS standards nor the Cosmetics Rules (2020) could provide. As India currently lacks standardised testing protocols, market-surveillance capacity, and inter-agency coordination, a phased approach is needed. An initial notification under section 3 of the EPA, scoped to rinse-off products and then extended to other categories, following a phased timeline.
Corporate Social Responsibility spending has been proposed as a future pathway that complements the proposed pathway. CSR’s discretionary design gives firms no obligation to link spending to pollution generated by their own products. A genuine CSR contribution to microbead mitigation would require its own regulatory change, recognising product-specific compliance costs as qualifying expenditure under Schedule VII of the Companies Act. The feasibility of such an amendment remains a question for future research, although voluntary spending cannot substitute for enforceable producer responsibility.
The policymakers should propose a MoEFCC-commissioned feasibility assessment of domestic testing capacity ahead of drafting the EPA section 6 rules. Researchers should examine whether Schedule VII can be amended to tie CSR spending to a firm’s own product category. Taking this phased route would also keep India’s approach broadly consistent with global plastics treaty negotiations, which already treat intentionally added microplastics as a candidate for restriction. Until both steps are taken, India can prohibit plastic microbeads on paper, but it cannot enforce it.
Open peer review
To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/plc.2026.10069.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the School of Environmental Studies, Cochin University of Science and Technology for all the support and research facilities.
AI statement
During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI) for language and grammar enhancement, including improvements in clarity, sentence structure, and readability. I have also used Google Gemini Pro, specifically its image generation feature (Nano Banana), to create the graphical abstract. The graphical abstract is generated by providing the underlying results and conceptual information to the tool for illustrative rendering. All AI-assisted content was used solely in a supportive capacity under direct supervision. All content was critically reviewed, revised, and approved by the authors, who take full responsibility for the originality, accuracy, and integrity of the work.
Author contributions
Conceptualisation: R.K.A.; Data Analysis: R.K.A.; Investigation: R.K.A.; Methodology: R.K.A.; Supervision: S.P.D.; Validation: S.P.D.; Writing – original draft: R.K.A.; Writing – review and editing: P.S., S.P.D. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Data availability statement
Data will be made available on reasonable request.
Ethics and approvals
Not applicable.
Funding statement
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Open access
Comments
Dear Editor,
We would like to submit our manuscript, “Plastic Microbeads in India: Regulatory Gaps, Enforcement Challenges and Legislative Pathways to Solutions” authored by Riya Kumbukattu Alex, Preetha Sadasivan and Suja Purushothaman Devipriya to the Cambridge Prisms Plastics journal. As the journal focuses on interdisciplinary research and policy dimensions, we believe that this research falls within its scope and offers informative details on a critical but under-researched policy dimension.
Novelty of the Manuscript
This study offers the first legally integrated assessment of India’s microbead governance, demonstrating how indirect, health-centric controls under Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and the Cosmetics Rules 2020 fail to deliver effective environmental protection. By linking empirical market evidence with a global PMC Index evaluation (earlier published with DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-025-09597-2) and a focused European Union comparison, the study identifies structural regulatory gaps and advances an Environmental Protection Act 1986 based legislative pathway for a comprehensive microbead ban in India.
Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the manuscript preparation process.
During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI) solely for language editing, grammar correction, and improving clarity and readability of the text. The tool was not used to generate scientific content, data, analyses, interpretations, or conclusions. All content was critically reviewed, revised, and approved by the authors, who take full responsibility for the originality, accuracy, and integrity of the work.
We look forward to the opportunity to contribute to the journal Prism Plastics.
We would like to mention that as per the communication with Dr Jessica Jones (senior publisher and executive editor of Cambridge Prism) via email, we are not able to pay APC and agreed a 100% APC waiver if the article get accepted for publication in Prisms Plastics.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Dr Suja P. Devipriya