Changing attitudes and behaviours with the Plastic Packaging in People's Lives project Not the enemy ISSUE 21 Lancaster University Management School | the place to be Taking the spotlight off consumer behaviour 26The customer point-of-view 10Seven steps towards sustainable packaging 18 FIFTYFOUR DEGREES
Without the Investors in Excellence fund, Alva* would have fallen through the gaps. With the help of this money, they are hoping to find their own tenancy so they can focus on their studies and don’t have to live each day wondering whether they will suffer abuse. Student Wellbeing Co-ordinator Join us in building a better future Unlock the full potential of Lancaster University Management School's students and enrich business education by becoming a LUMS Investor in Excellence. Your monthly donation can fuel a legacy of excellence, making a lasting impact. The generosity of our donors has funded emergency hardship relief, groundbreaking research, life-changing global study opportunities, and much more. Donate today, from as little as £10 per month, and be part of a community providing wider opportunities and building a brighter tomorrow. ‘‘ ’’ *name changed for anonymity LUMS INVESTORS IN EXCELLENCE FUND lancaster.ac.uk/investors-in-excellence
FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 3 The customer point-of-view Katie Gwynne and Jane Routh, from Booths, explain how their participation in PPiPL has allowed the supermarket chain to gain invaluable insights into the views and needs of their customers. 34 In this issue... 30 Taking PPiPL international Dr Lenka Brunclikova reveals how PPiPL Malaysia explores attitudes and behaviours in a different culture. 46 A(nother) recipe for succession Dr Bingbing Ge delves into family businesses to discover how actions at home can help to shape the succession process. 42 Pixels and paint: The dual faces of AI in art Mengjun Tao explains the expected and unexpected effects of AI’s rise for artists and the art community, and what might be done to ensure positive outcomes. Keeping our council on plastics Lancaster City Council's Carly Sparks and Ian McKay reveal how the PPiPL project has influenced their thinking and practices. 6 Waste not, want not Drs John Hardy and Clare Mumford investigate issues around how to process and recycle the plastics we use on a daily basis. 14 26 Seeking plastics clarity Dr Alison Stowell and Professor Maria Piacentini explain the three-year Plastics Packaging in People's Lives (PPiPL) project and its work around consumer attitudes and behaviours. 10 Sustainable packaging innovation Professor Linda Hendry outlines what manufacturers and retailers are doing and can do to improve their practices and tackle the plastic waste problem. How to improve climate change predictions If you want expert insight, ask an expert. Dr Kim Kaivanto shows how the CRUCIAL initiative is bringing together leading minds to better predict the planet's future. 38 Taking the spotlight off consumer behaviour Dr Charlotte Hadley and Professors Alex Skandalis and James Cronin discuss what can be done to help turn off the plastics tap. 18 22 AI and the SDGs Dr Sharmin Nahar delves into the impact Artificial Intelligence can have on achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 5 Foreword Subscribe online at lancaster.ac.uk/fiftyfour SUBSCRIBE A s we prepare for the party to celebrate our transition into magazine adulthood, we find ourselves facing a dilemma. No good party is complete without party food, and yet raiding the supermarket to buy endless supplies of sandwiches, cocktail sausages, cakes, and puff pastries, leaves open the very real prospect of creating a huge pile of waste come the end of the festivities. What should we do with the plastic containers? How do we recycle the soft plastic wraps? Should we have bought these items in the first place? Were there other alternatives with non-plastic packaging that would be better for the environment? Should all the plastic go in the same recycling bin? What needs to be cleaned and what should be thrown away? So many questions, it almost makes us wonder if throwing a party is worth it in the first place. Fortunately, we have the Plastic Packaging in People’s Lives (PPiPL) team to help. Long-time readers of Fifty Four Degrees may remember that a little over two-anda-half years ago, the PPiPL team took over this publication to outline the work they were just beginning to undertake on investigating consumer attitudes and behaviours around plastic packaging and recycling. Now, they have come back to tell us what they have found, and to look at what the future might hold for household recycling, packaging manufacturing and retailing, and waste management and disposal. PPiPL has assembled experts from across Lancaster University, and has brought in partners from local government, retail, manufacturing, and waste management, to gain real-life insights that can have a proper impact. You will hear from the team and their partners at Lancaster City Council and Booths supermarkets, on the difficulties of improving levels of recycling, on how consumer attitudes do not always match their behaviours, and on the actions needs from central government level on down to address the challenges in the present system. Project leaders Alison Stowell and Maria Piacentini outline PPiPL’s overall aims and outcomes, and we are then able to delve deeper into specific areas of the work, from improving practices among both consumers and manufacturers, to practical applications in supermarkets and within council recycling collections. We also see how the work has now been carried on to Malaysia, in partnership with Sunway University. PPiPL is a project that embodies our commitment to making a positive impact on not just business and organisational behaviour, but on our region as a whole. I hope that the findings and outcomes of the project can play their part in addressing what is an issue we all recognise but do not always address in our actions. Welcome to Issue 21 of Fifty Four Degrees! Professor Claire Leitch Executive Dean Lancaster University Management School
For more than three years, the Plastic Packaging in People’s Lives project has sought to examine and explain consumer attitudes and behaviour towards plastic packaging. Dr Alison Stowell and Professor Maria Piacentini outline the main findings of the work across Lancaster University and with industry partners, and show why communication is key to improving future practices. 6 | SEEKING PLASTICS CLARITY
FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 7
A ll of you know the problems with plastics. They have been at the forefront of environmental issues for years. But have you been told what you can do about them? And if you have, did you listen and act? With the Plastic Packaging in People’s Lives (PPiPL) project, we have been looking at why people are not acting in a way that matches their concerns over the environmental and social impacts of plastic pollution, when it comes to purchasing, recycling and disposal choices. What has stood out to us is a world of confusing messaging, of personal viewpoints conflicting with official guidance, and of businesses recognising they need to do more to communicate and engage with consumers. Plastic is the third most common packaging material in terms of tonnage, yet it is one of the least recycled. We have attempted to find out why – and to see what can be done to change that. PPiPL has involved expert researchers specialising in consumer insights, supply chain management, waste management, and material science, working with partners from across local government, manufacturing, retail, and waste disposal, and speaking to households in the north and south of the UK. We looked at how supply chain set-ups and how people make day-to-day decisions affect consumption, and the project collaborations ensured we gained the right insights from the right places and could produce practical results and implementable actions. We want to make it possible for policymakers, industry, and consumers to critically rethink the gap that exists between consumer attitudes and behaviours around plastic packaging reduction and recycling. PLANNING AHEAD The UK Plastics Pact brought together UK government, businesses, and NGOs to support the elimination of unnecessary single-use packaging and increase the reusability, recyclability, and compostability by 2025 – which is only months away as we write. The targets are for plastic packaging to be 100% reusable, recyclable or compostable, with 70% recycled or composted. Beyond the Pact, local authorities have been set a target of a 55% recycling rate by weight by 2025, and 65% by 2035; in 2022, the UK Government introduced a Plastic Packaging Tax on plastic packaging with less than 30% recycle content. This all comes as the UK has a target of reaching net zero carbon by 2050. There are many challenges for the above goals to be achieved, and while the government may set targets, it is the market that largely decides what happens. Our work has sought to identify both the obstacles and the potential solutions. AT THE HEART OF THE ISSUE Across the project, we came across five recurring themes: 1. Moralities and paradoxes of plastic Plastic pollution is central to debates about the role of plastic food packaging globally. But our household research suggests that prioritising a reduction of food waste takes precedence. Most alternatives also pose environmental challenges, and an overemphasis on plastic recycling could hinder net-zero targets. 2. Identification as a tacit and experiential activity Recycling labels and terminology can be confusing. Labels can carry conflicting information on their recyclability – we came across one case where the same product and brand featured two different labels. This leads to consumers relying on their knowledge and experience to distinguish between what can and cannot be recycled, resulting in improper disposal of plastic waste. This basic ‘knowingness’ can also be found among waste collectors and others when it comes to dealing with packaging. 3. Convenience Consumers rely on the functionality of plastic packaging. It has become embedded in their lives. Retailers may attempt to reduce this reliance and change habits, but a shift to different packaging systems can cause inconvenience. What appears convenient from a retailer’s viewpoint, such as making 8 | @Nifty Fox Creative 2024
packaging easy to return, can be inconvenient for consumers. Beyond this, waste management organisations must ensure there are not too many boxes taking up too much space in consumers’ homes, and collection cannot take too long. 4. Contamination: A recurring challenge Household-level contamination is a key issue for enhancing local council recycling rates, but organisations we worked with also emphasised the need to avoid contamination when packaging is designed, as this influences recycling quality. For the consumer, contamination concerns can lead to recyclables being discarded in general waste bins, or being placed in recycling bins unwashed, contaminating recycling streams and leading to wider issues. One director of a waste reprocessor/ converter company told us of problems they came across with a trial of explaining to consumers what to dispose of and how: “Even though they were all told… what you had to put in the bag, they still did whatever they wanted to.” 5. Extending from private to public practices Recycling practices at home are impacted by and impact on practices in workplaces and in public, where consumers are detached from household routines, and come across different regimes and regulations, adding to confusion. WHAT CAN BE DONE? Our work highlights many potential recommendations. They range from reframing targets to reconsidering package design, from washing recyclable resources at home to showcasing polymer recycling. Throughout these recommendations, runs a thread of communication. On the national level, a communications campaign to rethink the roles of plastic is needed. Public sector and voluntary organisations should work together to identify misconceptions about packaging sustainability, emphasising the benefits of waste reduction and reuse over traditional recycling, for example. At central government level, the need is to prioritise waste prevention, and make things simpler and uniform, enabling consumers to more easily recycle in the ‘correct’ way and avoid contamination. For local government, awareness campaigns can help consumers understand recyclability and contamination. Any local efforts should align with the national movement. Among companies in the plastic packaging supply chain, producers and brands need to consult with and involve consumers in their packaging decisions, as well as learn from them. Efforts to design packaging that is recognisable as recyclable, with uniform and consistent labelling, are crucial. Trust needs to be built with consumers. Companies should be transparent about the environmental and social impacts of their packaging and promote responsible plastic use and disposal. As one participant at a waste management workshop told us, “Responsibility should be spread more across the plastic value chain, and producers should take more responsibility.” Waste/resource management companies should build trust about what happen to household discards, while plastic recyclers should highlight the potential for what the materials can and cannot be used. Consumers themselves need to become more accustomed checking local authority guidance on recycling – communication is only useful if people receive the messaging. They should also communicate among themselves, sharing knowledge and best practice to enable more people to recycle more efficiently. Households are the starting point, and individuals should be empowered in their roles regarding plastics. Over the coming pages, our project members will go into more depth on some of the issues we have outlined above. The PPiPL team’s diverse expertise has allowed us to examine broad swathes of the issues around attitudes and behaviours towards plastic packaging, and what is clear is that it will take a wide-ranging approach to address the challenges. FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 9 Dr Alison Stowell is a Senior Lecturer and Director of Engagement in the Department of Organisation, Work and Technology. Professor Maria Piacentini is the Associate Dean for Research in Lancaster University Management School, and a Professor in the Department of Marketing. They are Co-Principal Investigators on the Plastic Packaging in People’s Lives (PPiPL) project. PPiPL is a UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)-funded project involving researchers from Lancaster University specialising in consumer insights, supply chain management, waste management, and material science, working alongside 11 industrial partners: Bells of Lazonby; Biotech Services; Booths; Butlers Farmhouse Cheeses; Chartered Institute of Waste Management (CIWM); Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3); Lancaster City Council; Preston Plastics; Relic Plastic; Suez; and Waitrose. The Rethinking the AttitudeBehaviour Gap report outlines the overall findings and outputs of the project. a.stowell@lancaster.ac.uk; m.piacentini@lancaster.ac.uk
10 | SEVEN STEPS TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING INNOVATION
FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 11 Not all issues around plastics recycling are down to consumers and their behaviours. Professor Linda Hendry explains what manufacturers and retailers are doing and can do to improve their practices and tackle the problems.
A s we transition towards a circular economy of plastics, momentum continues amongst industry, government, and the wider community to conserve natural resources, reduce plastic packaging waste and pollution, and improve material resource recovery. In the political arena, we are at a key point in plastic policy, with the introduction in the UK of the Plastic Packaging Tax in April 2022, the revised Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme set to be introduced in October 2025, and the scheduled launch of a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) for drinks containers in October 2027. Beyond these policy measures, there are NGO initiatives taking place that aim to change the way companies design, produce, use, reprocess and reuse food plastic packaging (e.g. the UK Plastics Pact). These measures and approaches have spurred organisations operating within the food industry to remove, reduce and/or redesign food packaging materials with circularity in mind. Delivering innovative solutions that help prevent plastic waste and reduce the climate impact of food plastic packaging have become key priorities. But creating shifts in our food (packaging) system will take time. Plastics have many useful qualities and combinations of these qualities (e.g. lightweight, malleable, sealable and an ability to maintain optimum atmospheric conditions specifically for the food it carries) often give plastic packaging the upper hand when compared with other commonly-used packaging materials. Beyond the material qualities of food packaging, we also need to consider the environmental and social consequences associated with different packaging materials and the food it contains. These are all contentious issues. Besides this, creating shifts in our food system is not just a matter of replacing plastic packaging with another material. As part of the Plastic Packaging in People’s Lives (PPiPL) project, our primary research involved undertaking interviews with food industry representatives from across the supply chain (including packaging manufacturers, technologists, food processors, wholesalers, product suppliers, policy advisors and compliance consultants) to understand what steps they were taking to support our transition towards a more sustainable, circular packaging system. PROBLEMS THROUGH THE SUPPLY CHAIN Primarily, our team looked at the impact of the perception of supply chain actors on the attitudes and behaviours of consumers. This is known as the A-B (attitude-behaviour) gap, which assumes the consumer makes the ultimate purchase decisions and hence determines the success or otherwise of an innovation. We found that manufacturers and retailers alike perceive that consumers are increasingly requesting more sustainable packaging, yet not always choosing them when they are available. For example, whilst consumers may indicate that they expect unpackaged vegetables to be cheaper, they then do not pick wonky vegetables, leading to greater food waste (which inevitably increases prices). Despite such perceptions of an A-B gap, we found that pre-consumption supply chain actors – those businesses involved before a consumer purchases a product 12 | @Nifty Fox Creative 2024
– are seeking ways to drive change that are not hampered by this potential problem. In doing so, they are also acknowledging plastic packaging waste at various stages in the preconsumption supply chain. For example, packaging can be removed and replaced simply to change its branding long before the product reaches the final consumer. SEVEN STRATEGIES We highlight seven strategies (see infographic on previous page) being used by pre-consumption supply chain actors to tackle plastic waste. By mapping these on to the ‘Waste Hierarchy’, we suggest that reducing plastic packaging weight (with thinner and/or smaller packaging) prevents (albeit by reducing) the amount of plastic pollution, and sits at the most preferred position alongside the removal of unnecessary/avoidable packaging. These are the seven strategies. 1. Reducing the weight of plastic packaging In most cases, reducing the weight of plastic packaging, by a) using thinner plastic; and/or b) reducing the size of the packaging, fits into organisations’ existing packaging processes. This makes this idea relatively easy to adopt. Marketing departments were initially concerned with the risk that smaller/thinner packaging would lead to reduced sales. They argued that consumers associate size/thickness with quality. In the event, the organisations we interviewed said that these packaging changes did not lead to a loss of sales. 2. Redesigning and reprocessing packaging to promote recyclability To encourage recycling, food producers are looking for easier ways for consumers to separate out soiled plastic packaging from packaging that can be more readily recycled. Producers are also becoming more conscious of the need to use only one type of material. Glossy ink might look good to consumers, but colourful packaging is harder to recycle – so we may see less colour on supermarket shelves in the future. 3. Using more recycled content for food grade plastic packaging The use of recycled plastic packaging in the food sector has been hindered by perceived obstacles from food safety regulations. Increased clarity in food safety regulations has increased the use of recycled plastics. Recycled plastics can be more expensive though, and this is a barrier to using them. 4. Adopting reusable plastics Refill stations at supermarkets help consumers reuse packaging; and supply chain businesses are reusing plastic pallets to transport materials. This can lead to complex logistics as food contamination is a risk. A lorry delivering fresh meat cannot be used to store soiled reusable packaging until all the fresh meat has been delivered. Collecting soiled reusable packaging also increases costs for businesses. 5. Using biodegradable plastic Like other sustainability innovation ideas at the point of starting, there is divided opinion on the prospects of biodegradable plastics in food packaging. Beyond being an alternative to fossil-based plastics, the ability to decompose under certain conditions makes it more environmentally sustainable. This is another expensive option, and the infrastructure to process this waste is not yet sufficient. 6. Removing unnecessary packaging If unnecessary packaging is used, removing it is a really good option as this will also reduce costs. Having the right size of vac packs removes the need to cut them back – and then throw away the trim. Repackaging just to relabel with a different brand is also common and unnecessary – producers are actively seeking ways to prevent this practice. 7. Using alternative packaging materials Whilst using alternatives might seem the best approach, we conclude that plastic is not the enemy. Moving away from plastic can lead to poorer substitutes. More research is needed to compare different packaging types for different products. It is unlikely there will be one best solution for all foods. MORE COLLABORATION NEEDED We were saddened to hear producers apologise for taking option 1 – calling this the ‘best idea’ they had to date. All the options have risks – but option 1 is the least risky and does lead to a reduction in plastic being used. Option 6 has similar benefits. To address the scale of the plastic pollution problem, we need more collaborative transformative solutions. Options 2 and 4 need the cooperation of consumers and supply chain actors at different tiers. Options 3, 5 and 7 require government intervention to provide new waste management infrastructure; to better incentivise incremental change; and to fund more research. Watch this research space – there is much still to be done! FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 13 Linda Hendry is a Distinguished Professor of Operations Management in the Department of Management Science. Her main ongoing research interest is Sustainable Supply Chain Management. See the Sustainable Packaging Innovation: Hampered by the Consumer Attitude-Behaviour Gap? report for recommendations for government, NGOs and industrial actors; and more details on the seven strategies and how they can be implemented. l.hendry@lancaster.ac.uk
14 | Plastic presents many problems in the world – from litter on the street to unsustainable packaging. Dr John Hardy and Dr Clare Mumford explain how there is a big issue when it comes to tackling the plastics we use on a daily basis – knowing how to process and recycle it. WASTE NOT, WANT NOT
FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 15
The UK’s plastic packaging industry is a significant contributor to environmental and societal concerns, with only 44.2% of plastics recovered and recycled annually. This poses a significant challenge in waste management and reduction. The Plastic Packaging in People’s Lives waste research aimed to understand existing waste management perspectives and practices in the UK, considering attitude and behaviour gaps, disposal pathways, technologies, practices, and people, with a view to developing more effective strategies to help deliver on Government commitments to reduce waste, increase resource efficiency, and develop a circular economy for resource utilisation in order to address the climate crisis and reach net zero emissions by 2050. We engaged with 128 professionals and 65 organisations who provided insights into waste collection, handling, sorting, recycling, packaging production, food packaging use, policy and compliance. Amongst our findings, we identified two opposing scenarios for better or worse plastics recycling outcomes. The ideal scenario involves predictable waste streams, well-known materials, in easy-to-manage processes that can produce recycled content for highquality end uses, in compliance with policy aims at sustainable market prices and costs. The worst-case scenario involves uncontrolled and inconsistent waste, litter and contamination, negative impacts on the environment, in processes that are difficult to manage and sustain. From waste management workers’ perspectives, consumers are an important group impacting these ideal/worst-case scenarios primarily through: their purchase choices of packaging; their potential willingness to buy packaging that includes recycled content; how they prepare and present waste for recycling; and how they wash and separate packaging into different containers and streams for residual waste and recycling, including an understanding that there are different types of plastics and not all can be recycled (yet) in the same stream. However, consumers are only one variable – albeit an important one – between the ‘ideal’ and ‘worst-case’ scenarios. The influence of other actors in the lifecycle of plastics is important to understand. ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOUR GAPS We identified three ways in which consumer attitudes and behaviours did not correspond to each other, undermining the move to realising the ideal scenario. Attitude: Plastic is bad because it is harmful, therefore moving away from plastic packaging would create less harm. Behaviour: Consumers purchase new alternative packaging, for example packaging marketed as biodegradable, or packaging that looks (possibly wrongly) to be made only from paper or card. Gap: New materials and forms of packaging generate new problems for the waste management and polymer recycling value chain, principally in sorting and separating, which need solving if less environmental damage and greater sustainability are to be achieved. The first consumer attitude-behaviour gap appears to be driven largely by societal narratives surrounding plastics, such as the Blue Planet effect. To address this gap, there are two opportunities: initiating a wider public debate around the role of packaging, to promote a better understanding of its function for food protection, the wider environmental impacts of all types of 16 | @Nifty Fox Creative 2024
packaging, and what aspects of packaging to look out for in terms of sustainability; and encouraging other actors in the plastic packaging value chain – food producers, packaging producers, recyclers, etc. – to engage with each other to reconcile tensions and incompatibilities. Attitude: Recycling is positive and should be increased to prevent waste. Behaviour: In their enthusiasm to prevent waste, consumers recycle materials that are not on the local authority list of accepted materials, thereby adding materials into inappropriate collection streams. Gap: This behaviour makes recycling outputs more difficult to achieve, and ironically is more likely to generate waste, because it requires more sorting and separating of mixed recycling to reorganise the volume into separate material streams that can be passed on to the numerous individual sites that can reprocess and convert a particular material into something new. If a recycling container is too contaminated, it may not be worth the time to re-sort and will simply be diverted into residual waste. This second consumer attitudebehaviour gap is largely driven by messages about the environmental problems of waste, which shape consumer attitudes towards the benefits of recycling. A key opportunity lies in finding ways to help consumers understand the importance of different streams for waste and the concept of ‘contamination’. The idea of ‘recyclability’ is a latent one that needs to be operationalised through a particular material being put in a container that goes into a particular recycling stream to a particular reprocessing site that has the equipment, technology and market connections to make something new from that plastic resource. This is particularly important as materials are increasingly valued for their end use potential as feedstock to replace virgin fossil fuel plastic. Another opportunity lies in helping consumers understand the reasons why recycling collections and practices change as new technological breakthroughs and market demands affect the desirability of particular types of plastic or other material. Moreover, reducing the amount of material that needs handling, notably by reducing our waste overall and moving to reuse systems rather than single-use packaging, would help to relieve pressure on the system, free up time, space and labour resources for more effective recycling. The third of our findings is a reverse of the other two, where attitudes arise from a behaviour. Behaviour: Consumers recycle (as they consider it is positive). Attitude: Nevertheless, consumers do not fully trust that companies are doing the right thing with the materials. Gap: Consumers request simple reassurance that ‘something positive’ is being done with the material rather than caring about the details of what it is actually, or what it could be, used for. This gap arises from consumers’ mistrust of companies doing the right thing with their packaging materials. This mistrust has emerged due to news stories exposing past failures in the waste management and recycling industry. The mistrust hangs in tension with consumer hopes that something better will be done with their materials than would happen if it were added to a residual waste collection. However, the challenge of ‘upcycling’ plastic packaging is huge from a practical, economic and technological perspective. A key opportunity may lie in being more open across the value chain, revealing and educating about the hard work and the costs involved in reusing plastic packaging in new products, and the complexities of achieving ‘food grade’ recycled packaging; demonstrating the complexity and fragility of recycling systems and value chains as a whole; and showing the current benefits, particularly connected to convenience, that are accruing to consumers. AN IDEAL FUTURE? Despite ongoing concerns and uncertainties about national capacities and future material flows and changes, more recycling and fewer exports continue to be achieved in the UK, albeit with different polymer materials still being at different levels of reprocessing (PET and HDPE are already circular, for example, being reincorporated into food packaging, while soft plastics solutions lag further behind). There is a sense of cautious optimism expressed by waste management and recycling stakeholders that that the ideal scenario for managing plastics can be realised. It will require us as consumers to do our bit, recognise the complexities involved, and care about the end results of reprocessing as new products, and not just about throwing away our used stuff. FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 17 Dr John G Hardy is a Senior Lecturer in Materials Chemistry in the Lancaster University Faculty of Science and Technology. Dr Clare Mumford is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Organisation, Work and Technology. The Plastic Packaging in People’s Lives: Waste Matters report details the full findings for Work Package 4 on waste management and recycling. j.g.hardy@lancaster.ac.uk; c.i.mumford@lancaster.ac.uk
18 | What can be done to help turn off the plastics tap? Dr Charlotte Hadley and Professors Alex Skandalis and James Cronin highlight details that require careful consideration when thinking about household recycling and plastic packaging circularity. Taking the spotlight off consumer behaviour
FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 19
Plastic waste can be found everywhere on Earth – and consumers are increasingly aware of the problem. But changing our consumption practices at the scale required to have a significant impact remains challenging. Plastic waste has steadily been accumulating across inland waterways, urban and rural landscapes, and along the shorelines of even the most faraway places, such as the Galapagos archipelago – an irreplaceable and protected ecosystem. A stark reminder of plastic’s sticky embeddedness in our natural environment is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a monstrous flotilla of marine debris – mostly plastic waste – estimated to be three times the size of France. Plastics are even turning up in the melting glaciers of Everest. Beyond the dramatic invasion of plastics throughout our natural environment, microscopic plastics have been found in different mammals. In Kenya, large numbers of donkeys were found dead with stomachs full of plastic waste, while researchers have previously highlighted similar issues with seabirds, seals, dolphins, whales, and farm animals. Most recently, plastic particles have been found within human lung tissue, placentas, and testicles, raising concerns about the increased health risks of our reliance on such a stubborn substance. Despite these realisations, the global production of plastics, calculated to be more than 400 million tons in 2022, is expected to increase at staggering rates. The latest figures show that we produce approximately 2.5 million tons of plastic packaging waste in the UK each year. Alarmingly, less than 50% is recycled. Against this backdrop, we are now facing one of the most significant global environmental and societal challenges. TURNING OFF THE PLASTICS TAP Understanding how we can ‘turn off the plastics tap’ requires that significant attention is given to the ways we produce, design, consume and dispose of plastics. Overturning the standard linear take-make-waste model of plastics production and consumption in favour of a circular pattern of reuse, recycle, or compost has become a key focus for governments, NGOs, packaging manufacturers, retailers, waste management organisations, and consumers. The everyday choices and behaviours of consumers are recognised as playing a pronounced role in the move towards circularity. Often, we hear about attempts to educate the public by telling them about the environmental consequences of plastic waste, or about the types of plastic packaging that can be recycled via their local council recycling bin and the types of plastic packaging that cannot. Other strategies involve attempts to persuade people or gently nudge their behaviour to encourage the making of ‘better choices’. What these strategies have in common is that they assume that people’s behaviours are driven by attitudes which can be shaped, and that fundamentally consumers choose to do one thing or another based upon these malleable attitudes, thus establishing consumer choice – and the larger idea of consumer sovereignty – as the main cause and solution for plastic waste. But what if consumers’ abilities to act on their attitudes and make sovereign choices are limited? Current nudge strategies not only ignore the significant elements that shape the availability and affordability of choices, but also undermine the many 20 |
complex contextual constraints at home that individuals may not have control over, or even be aware of. Considering the likelihood that any widescale transition towards circularity is an issue that far exceeds the knowledge, conscious choices, actions, and material capabilities of the average British consumer requires us to think much more critically and imaginatively about the idea of consumer sovereignty. OUR INSIGHTS Working as part of the multidisciplinary Plastic Packaging in People’s Lives project, we challenge the sovereignty of the individual consumer to reveal the social, cultural, material and institutional conditions that shape and are shaped by people’s relationships with plastic packaging in everyday life. Insights from our research highlight details that require careful consideration when thinking about supporting society’s transition towards a more circular economy. We draw attention to one of these details here. THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIO-DOMESTIC CONCERNS An important condition for ensuring domestic recycling is each consumer’s subjective and sometimes unconscious concerns for their home. Within our research, we found that while households are aware of local council guidance to rinse any soiled plastic food packaging prior to placing it in indoor recycling bins, their willingness to do so is constrained by patterns of ensuring comfort, cleanliness, and harmony within their living environment. Rinsing out plastic meat trays, and so on, is rarely undertaken just to meet the formal requirements of local council and waste management services. It is bound up in rhythms of maintaining hygiene and order of the home, such as preventing unwelcome food odours from the build-up of recycling bin contents. In some cases, preventing disorder in the home dissuades households from rinsing out and recycling their packaging. A fleeting fear of spreading harmful residue (e.g. food bacteria, salmonella, E. Coli) is reason enough to disavow any felt pressure to recycle, meaning many containers used for raw meat products – such as poultry and minced meat – are left unwashed and discarded amongst kitchen waste in regular rubbish bins. For some households, the inconvenience of washing greasy substances down their drains and hesitation based on concern for their kitchen pipes are enough to disqualify any attempt to wash plastic containers with stubborn oily contents. Soiled plastic containers are either disposed of in the general waste bin – and thus lost to recycling efforts – or are placed into the local council recycling bin unwashed, which can contaminate entire recycling truck loads. Household efforts to maintain order in the home have impact on both the quality and quantity of kerbside recycling collections. Consequently, improving household recycling rates is partly about challenging deep-seated conventions and practices. BEYOND RECYCLING Whilst addressing recycling issues is important for society’s transition towards plastic packaging circularity, we need to remind ourselves that recycling will not work as a standalone strategy to manage the scale of the plastic waste problem. At best, recycling processes and practices support the circulation of plastic packaging that has already met supermarket shelves. At worst, we are in danger of allowing the reproduction and persistence of current food production, consumption and disposal practices. In other words, it suggests we are off the environmental hook and can continue to practice ‘business as usual’ without tending to the roots of the problem. Our transition towards a more circular packaging system requires much more than efforts to persuade consumers to change their behaviours and should be directed towards shaking up existing household routines, and the ways in which people purchase, store and preserve food at home, amongst others. Policymakers, producers, retailers, and local authorities need to work in tandem to implement change towards plastic packaging circularity and meaningful recycling practices. FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 21 Dr Charlotte Hadley is a Research Associate in the Marketing Department. James Cronin is a Professor in Marketing and Consumer Culture Studies. Alex Skandalis is a Professor in Consumer Culture and Head of the Marketing Department. The white paper report Household Recycling: Managing Plastics at the Home & Hearth draws upon findings from the Consumer Insights work package of the Plastic Packing in People’s Lives project, centred on the factors that influence households’ consumption and disposal of plastic packaging. c.hadley2@lancaster.ac.uk; j.cronin@lancaster.ac.uk; a.skandalis@lancaster.ac.uk
22 | KEEPING OUR COUNCIL ON PLASTICS Lancaster City Council are responsible for kerbside plastic recycling and waste collection across a district of around 140,000 people. Carly Sparks and Ian McKay explain how the Plastic Packaging in People’s Lives (PPiPL) project has influenced their thinking and practices around shaping public attitudes and behaviours.
FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 23
In January 2019, Lancaster City Council declared a state of climate emergency. It is a decision that reflects the situation the whole world finds itself in, but also the importance of action at a local level. Our Climate Local Plan was released a year later, where we set out our intention to mitigate the negative impact of climate change on our communities and the environment. Within the plan, we outlined how we wanted to minimise waste generation, promote recycling, and prevent the effects of air, water, and land pollution. So, when the opportunity to join the Plastic Packaging in People’s Lives (PPiPL) project, working alongside experts at Lancaster University, manufacturers and retailers arose, it was the perfect chance for us to expand our knowledge of local attitudes and behaviours around recycling, and discover what we could do to improve them. As the waste collection authority, we carry out the kerbside collections on behalf of Lancashire County Council. We are governed by their directives in terms of what they expect us to do, and by mandate from central government as part of the waste management strategy. We are always looking at where we can improve our service delivery, looking at efficiencies, trying to support some bigger projects which may add value to the council and our service delivery, and through PPiPL we saw an opportunity to do just that. SEEKING INSIGHTS We went into PPiPL hoping that all parties – ourselves included – would come out understanding the many different facets that are involved with 24 |
plastics and recycling, the impact that consumers and residents have, and how we can address some of that. As a council, we want to assist all our residents to be part of the process of change. Whether it is behavioural change or attitude change, whether it is through more public engagement, or pilot projects, we want to be able to drive change. We have linked in with Alison Stowell and Maria Piacentini through PPiPL, and for more than two years we have attended workshops where we had producers, suppliers, consumers, and processors involved. We have gathered a lot of insightful information. Getting the different perspectives from consumer groups, the suppliers and retailers in terms of what they might want to see has been useful. It has also given us a better understanding of our limitations, because we are not the waste disposal authority. We are governed by the county council in terms of how we operate and what services we can provide. We are carrying out kerbside collections, which then go on to processing plants, and there are limitations with that, with regards to what plastics we can collect and what materials we can collect. Sharing that information is key to how we move forward and make some improvements in terms of our service. We have been able to share information regarding our internal processes and how things work from a local authority perspective, particularly with those kerbside collections, recycling, and the public engagement work we do, and see where we can build the education of residents to assist them and encourage them to recycle more and more appropriately. NEW CONVERSATIONS A lot of residents would say that looking on our website, it says we can collect bottles marked two, three and five. What does that mean to people? That ambiguity is still there for a lot of people. This is why we need to give clearer messages, so that residents do understand. We need to give tangible examples – ‘that is a shampoo bottle’, for instance. It is about being clear, but a lot of the messaging is still quite confusing for people. There has always been an awareness of that, but PPiPL has magnified it for us, and ultimately shone a spotlight on where we can make valuable improvements to our communications with residents. Our involvement with PPiPL has generated conversations about how we could have more innovative approaches. Whether they are achievable and feasible is a different matter, but it is about looking at how we adapt some of our engagement opportunities and having more visibility to residents to support them. We cannot do it without them. We ran a trial on Windermere Park, in Heysham, where we rolled out new, bigger wheelie bins. We currently use recycling boxes, but a lot of the other county regions use wheelie bins. We were trialling 240-litre bins with 1,000 residents. The major result from that was because of the improved capacity, we could change the collection profile from a fortnightly collection of recycling to a monthly collection. We held workshops with the University where residents could come along and talk about recycling, and how the trial was going. It was a success, but budgetary constraints mean we have been unable to expand the project. We are actively encouraging people to purchase these wheelie bins where they can – paying the administration and delivery fees – and a number of local residents have done that and have seen a real benefit. POSITIVE OUTCOMES PPiPL has been invaluable for us. We cannot obtain some of the levels of data we have had access to without working with partners like the University. The researchers get into the minutiae and have time to study the behaviour-attitude gap. We see national reports on recycling and waste disposal behaviours, but working with PPiPL really helps us look at the local area and what is happening for us. It shows us we are not any different from other local authorities. Being involved with the project makes you think about how we can maybe improve things. We have been working with PPiPL for a couple of years now. It has been great taking the time to go through the reports that were generated. There have been some invaluable nuggets that we can take away and utilise. We hope there will be future benefits in terms of improvements not only for our operational delivery of services, but also being influential in changing people’s behaviour and perception around the importance of the use disposal of single-use plastics in their daily lives. FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 25 Carly Sparks is the Public Realm Improvement Lead at Lancaster City Council. Ian McKay is Operations Manager with Lancaster City Council. Lancaster City Council are partners on the Plastic Packaging in People’s Lives (PPiPL) project. The council encompasses the city of Lancaster, as well as areas of Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth, providing services to around 140,000 people.
26 | The customer The Plastic Packaging in People’s Lives (PPiPL) project goes well beyond theory, and intends to make an impact on business and consumers. Katie Gwynne and Jane Routh, from Booths, explain how their participation in PPiPL has allowed the supermarket chain to gain invaluable insights into the views and needs of their customers, and how it has already shaped their own actions.
FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 27 point-of-view
At Booths, we have been operating since 1847, and responsible business practices are at the heart of much of our activities. From using Prevented Ocean Plastic on our own fish packaging since 2020, to using smaller tray sizes where we can, and allowing our customers to bring their own clean, lidded containers when purchasing from our counters, we have taken a serious approach to sustainability and packaging. We are committed to ensuring that we manage our business in the most sustainable way. Ensuring that we can support our communities and that we can offer fantastic products in sustainable packaging is paramount. This meant that when we were contacted by the Plastic Packaging in People’s Lives (PPiPL) team at Lancaster University to provide a small amount of support for their work, it fitted in nicely. What we could not foresee was that this initial help in providing information on our products, our ranges and how we sell different products with and without plastic packaging would grow into something so much more. AN EVOLVING PICTURE We know that packaging is an everchanging landscape and have been clear that this needs to be an area of focus for us as a business. Before the PPiPL team approached us, we had done some work ourselves to try and reduce the amount of virgin plastic within our own ranges – such as the examples listed above. However, we also up against challenges. We knew that some support and insight into customer views on plastic and packaging would help us to develop a more sustainable offer. As was initially planned, we have supported the project with information in relation to our offer and the packaging we use. But it has gone beyond that. We have also completed a successful pilot project with the team whereby they have completed research with our customers into how people feel and perceive recycled plastic packaging for our own-brand products. This kind of information and insight is so useful, as it is in an area that we know the food retail sector need to improve upon. The pilot focused on food items packaged with recycled material and comparing them with similar products in virgin plastic packaging, this pilot initiative set out to explore consumers’ perceptions, risks, and concerns regarding recyclate in food plastic packaging. 28 | Through PPiPL, our teams have also had the opportunity to meet with likeminded businesses to share best practices and experiences, which is such a valuable exercise for all involved. Working on the project has been, and continues to be, so rewarding in terms of finding ways to improve for our business, customers, and our communities. ʻʻ ʼʼ
The PPiPL team spoke to 240 customers across two of our sites, and it became clear from their findings that consumers prefer packaging with recycled content, and the environmental impact and recyclability of packaging are major concerns to them. The results also highlighted where customers feel they need more information – on the effectiveness and potential downsides of recycling and plastic packaging, and on concerns over the potential health risks associated with the recycling process. Through the results we understand where to focus our attention in terms of the information that customers want when making decisions about the packaging on products they buy. We are keen to take this work further and ensure that we can educate our customers on the benefits of packaging recycling and that we work together with local authorities to ensure we harness the most sustainable habits for both our business and our customers. Through PPiPL, our teams have also had the opportunity to meet with likeminded businesses to share best practices and experiences, which is such a valuable exercise for all involved. Working on the project has been, and continues to be, so rewarding in terms of finding ways to improve for our business, customers, and our communities. HOW WE CAN CHANGE PPiPL has shown us that there is clear requirement for further support and information for customers about recycling. We now appreciate the importance of working with local authorities to ensure we have a joinedup approach on informing our customers to help them make clear choices around packaging recycling. There is a joint responsibility, from retailers, local authorities, and the government to help educate customers about the balance between food waste, convenience, and plastic pollution, as well as the effects continued extensive use of plastic is having on our environment. We need to simplify how customers can recycle their packaging, through standardisation. This project has been so interesting and rewarding, with clear benefits of being able to connect with important key stakeholders on the matter of plastic recycling, both from a supply chain point-of-view and from a customer perspective. It has given real insight into where to focus our attention on such an important subject. We hope that in future we will be able to offer more information to customers of the type they have told us through PPiPL they need. Our work with local authorities has already been positive, and we hope to influence changes at that level going forward. Most importantly, through our actions we aim to help change behaviours among consumers and our partners when it comes to recycled plastic use, recycling, and reuse. FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 29 Katie Gwynne is Head of Business Risk and Compliance, and Jane Routh is Safety and Environment Manager at Booths. Booths is a family-owned Northern supermarket with one simple aim: “to sell the best goods available, in attractive stores, with excellent assistants.” They have 26 stores spread across Lancashire, Cumbria, Cheshire, and North and West Yorkshire. The company was established in 1847. @Nifty Fox Creative 2024
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTI5NzM=