Research Report Consumer attitudes to biopolymers … attitude to biopolymers... · Research Report Consumer attitudes to biopolymers Consumer research into the consumer perceptions

Research Report

Consumer attitudes to biopolymers

Consumer research into the consumer perceptions and impacts of biopolymers (biodegradable and compostable packaging).

Project code: RSI 003 003 Research date: October- December 2006 Date: September 2007

Front cover photograph: Biopolymers in use for fresh produce packaging

WRAP and Brook Lyndhurst believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing this report. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its web site: www.wrap.org.uk.

Published by Waste & Resources The Old Academy Tel: 01295 819 900 Helpline freephone Action Programme 21 Horse Fair Fax: 01295 819 911 0808 100 2040 Banbury, Oxon E-mail: [email protected] OX16 0AH

http://www.wrap.org.uk/

Contents 1.0 Introduction : Consumer attitude to biodegradable and compostable packaging .................. 4

1.1 Background and objectives.....................................................................................................4 1.2 Methodology .........................................................................................................................4 1.3 Interpreting the findings ........................................................................................................7 1.4 Report structure ....................................................................................................................7

2.0 The wider context: attitudes to recycling, composting and plastics........................................ 8 2.1 Who looks for what information? ............................................................................................8 2.2 Confusion over recycling ........................................................................................................9 2.3 Attitudes to composting .......................................................................................................11 2.4 Compostable vs recyclable ...................................................................................................11 2.5 Attitudes to GM crops ..........................................................................................................12

3.0 Terminology: understanding and expectation ....................................................................... 13 4.0 Biopolymers: initial responses ............................................................................................... 16

4.1 The type of product is crucial ...............................................................................................16 4.2 Energy use..........................................................................................................................18 4.3 Belief in biopolymers............................................................................................................18

5.0 Biopolymers: informed responses.......................................................................................... 19 5.1 The resilience of ‘compostable’ plastic...................................................................................19 5.2 Misled.................................................................................................................................19 5.3 Consumer attitudes to potential problems with biopolymers ...................................................19 5.4 Confusion............................................................................................................................21 5.5 Separating biopolymers and conventional plastic ...................................................................22

6.0 Informing the public .............................................................................................................. 23 6.1 The danger of confusion ......................................................................................................23 6.2 Providing advice does not mean it will be used......................................................................23 6.3 New research; old problem: standardisation..........................................................................24 6.4 Multifaceted campaign .........................................................................................................26 6.5 Responsibility ......................................................................................................................26 6.6 Awareness of the recycling process ......................................................................................27

7.0 Conclusions and recommendations........................................................................................ 29 7.1 How much do consumers already know?...............................................................................29 7.2 How will consumers behave as they are exposed to greater quantities of biopolymers? ...........29 7.3 What is the best way to keep the public informed about biopolymers?....................................29

Appendix 1: focus groups recruitment questionnaire........................................................................ 31 Appendix 2: discussion guide............................................................................................................. 34

Consumer attitudes to biopolymers 3

1.0 Introduction : Consumer attitude to biodegradable and compostable packaging

This report presents the findings from a programme of consumer research conducted by Brook Lyndhurst for the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). The project responds to a scarcity of information on consumer attitudes to biopolymers by investigating public responses to these relatively new materials. 1.1 Background and objectives Biodegradable plastics have been around for some time, but because of their higher cost have remained a niche material. However, the last 2-3 years have seen substantial growth in biopolymer use and with several retailers declaring their intention to use the new materials in significant volumes of packaging, the signs are that this growth will continue. Biopolymers behave in very different ways to conventional plastics – normally made from crude oil derivatives – and so conventional recycling facilities are not designed to accommodate biopolymers. Biopolymers are also not necessarily designed to be recycled, but rather to be composted and thus potentially require a new collection stream - some will be suitable for home composting, while others will not. These new complications come at a time when the UK population is still relatively new to multi-material recycling. In some parts of the country, plastics recycling in particular is still rare; in others, garden and kitchen waste is collected alongside a raft of other materials. Given these variations and the fact that many consumers are still very new to recycling at any volume, the introduction of new and potentially confusing materials raises significant risks. This research therefore attempted to address the following questions:

How much do consumers know about biodegradable and compostable plastics already?

How will they behave as the quantities of such materials increase, and how will they respond to the

complexities surrounding their disposal?

And once these questions have been answered, what is the best way for government to respond, and how

should the necessary messages be communicated to the public?

Many of these questions are general and speculative in nature and thus best suited to qualitative research methods, but this project also had a group of secondary aims and objectives that required much firmer outputs. Firstly, since it would be the first time consumer attitudes towards biopolymers had been tested, it was important to establish a benchmark against which future changes in attitude could be measured. Secondly, the results of the research were to be used not only to inform WRAP’s own communication campaigns, but also to inform businesses about what their customers expect from them in relation to biodegradable and compostable packaging. 1.2 Methodology In recognition of the need for both qualitative and quantitative approaches, this research involved a combination of focus groups and hall tests. Six focus groups were conducted in the following locations: Tuesday 24 October 2006 – Edinburgh Wednesday 25 October 2006 – York Thursday 26 October 2006 – Brighton Thursday 2 November 2006 – Bath Friday 3 November 2006 – Bristol Monday 6 November 2006 – Lambeth


The groups each lasted approximately an hour and a half and all together involved 58 participants. Each was paid £40 as an incentive for attending. Participants were recruited face-to-face and in the home by Viewpoint, according to a recruitment questionnaire designed by Brook Lyndhurst in consultation with WRAP (Appendix 1). A pause of a week was included after the first three groups to allow us to readjust the topic guide (Appendix 2), although in the event, no major alterations were required. The results of the focus groups were then used as a basis for a semi-structured questionnaire for the hall tests. This was finalised through discussion between WRAP, Brook Lyndhurst and ICM. The hall tests were held on two consecutive weekends at the end of October and beginning of November in the following locations (number of respondents show in brackets): Bristol (69) - 25/26 October York (76) – 26/26 October Brixton (69) – 2/3 November Edinburgh (84) – 2/3 November Hove (86) – 2/3 November In total, 384 respondents were interviewed. Focus group and hall test results are often a function of their ingredients and it was vitally important that due attention was given to sampling and group composition. We took the following considerations into account: Supermarkets Some supermarkets including Sainsbury’s and, more recently, Morrisons, have begun to use biopolymers for some of their products, particularly fresh (and organic) produce. We wanted to be able to identify whether differing approaches from supermarkets - and the media exposure they had received - resulted in variations in attitudes or awareness. We therefore aimed to ensure that a broad variety of retailers were represented in both the focus groups and the hall tests. Recycling habits Recycling habits were key to this research and it was therefore important for us to be able to identify any attitudinal or behavioural patterns associated with different recycling rates. In order to avoid those with different attitudes to recycling having an undue influence upon one another, they were separated for the focus groups into either 'high recyclers' (everything that can be recycled/5 or more materials), 'medium recyclers' (recycle a lot/1-4 materials) or 'low recyclers' (some materials). Composting As with recycling, awareness of and attitudes towards composting are crucial to the 'success' or 'failure' of biopolymers and to the way in which the general public treats these materials. We tried to locate one focus group in an area in which we knew there was some kerbside collection of kitchen waste (Lambeth) and required at least two people to be regular composters in all but one of the groups. The collections in each area are as follows (although hall test respondents may not always have come from within the local authority catchments in which the test took place): Lambeth Kerbside collections: Dry, organic & residual Year data related to: 2003/04 Households served: 126332 Dry materials collected: 6 - paper, card, plastic, glass, cans, textiles Organic materials collected: 2 - garden, kitchen Bath & North East Somerset Kerbside collections: Dry, organic & residual Year data related to: 2003/04 Households served: 73905 Dry materials collected: 5 - paper, plastic, glass, cans, textiles Organic materials collected: 2 - card, garden (charge for organic scheme)


Bristol City Council Kerbside collections: Dry, organic & residual Year data related to: 2003/04 Households served: 169144 Dry materials collected: 3 - paper, glass, cans Organic materials collected: 2 - card, garden Edinburgh City Council Kerbside collections: Dry, organic & residual Year data related to: 2003/04 Households served: 219000 Dry materials collected: 4 - paper, card, cans, textiles Organic materials collected: 1 - garden Brighton & Hove Kerbside collections: Dry & residual Year data related to: 2003/04 Households served: 119569 Dry materials collected: 6 - paper, card, plastic, glass, cans, textiles York City Council Kerbside collections: Dry & Residual Year data related to: 2003/04 Households served: 80277 Dry materials collected: 4 - paper, plastic, glass, cans

SOURCE: www.wrap.org.uk/local_authorities/online_recycling_information_system_oris/mapping.html Plastics collection As mentioned above, access to kerbside plastics collections of any variety is by no means consistent across the UK. We wanted to be able to identify whether or not having access to this sort of service influenced respondents' decisions on how they would dispose of compostable or biodegradable plastic. Socio-demographics There was a chance that attitudes to new materials might differ considerably by age group, so separate focus groups were run for either the young (18-39) or the old (40+). For monitoring purposes, we tested the number of people in each household for the focus groups. In the hall tests, we asked about housing type in order to identify whether or not issues such as the amount of storage space available influenced people's attitudes towards biopolymers and their disposal. In terms of gender and socio-economic banding, we tried to ensure that respondents were representative of the wider UK population, though locating the hall tests in urban areas - necessary to gain access to a large enough sample - did slant the sample profile slightly towards younger, more affluent groups. When reading the following findings it should be born in mind that relatively little difference was found in attitudes between shoppers using different supermarkets, people with different recycling and composting habits, plastics collections, age or gender. Behaviour did differ according to the facilities available, but again, otherwise there was relatively little variation. Where differences did occur, these are noted in the text below. Both the focus groups and the hall tests made use of props to illustrate the types of plastic being discussed. Whilst the original intention in the focus groups had been to demonstrate the range of plastics available in their different forms (trays, films, carrier bags, bottles, etc), it quickly became apparent that this was too confusing. It is worth noting a subtle distinction here. Whilst exposing groups to a large volume of different options would in theory have given us a greater grasp on their levels of confusion, it became apparent that the confusion was as much to do with 'information overload' during the groups as it was a response to the plastics themselves.


http://www.wrap.org.uk/local_authorities/online_recycling_information_system_oris/mapping.html

That they should get confused is hardly surprising, but equally it is hardly a reflection of how they would feel when exposed to both these choices and the information needed to support them over a longer period as they encountered them in 'real life'. We therefore decided after the first group to introduce only one example of each type of plastic:

Plastic that cannot be readily recycled by local councils – a standard carrier bag Recyclable plastic – a PET plastic Coke bottle Recycled plastic – Marks & Spencer fruit juice PET bottle (30% rPET content) Degradable plastic – Somerfield Oxy-degradable carrier bag Industrially Compostable plastic – ‘belu’ PLA water bottle (called ‘biodegradable’ for the purpose of the

consumer research) Home Compostable plastic - film wrap from Sainsbury’s organic sweetcorn (called ‘compostable’ for the

purpose of the consumer research) –

Following focus group feedback and for simplicity each hall test ultimately used just two props - one example of industrially compostable (termed ‘biodegradable’) plastic and one example of home compostable (termed ‘compostable’) plastic. The compostable plastic always remained the same (a film wrap from Sainsbury’s organic tomatoes), but we used two different types of container for the ‘biodegradable’ plastic. Respondents in Edinburgh and Bristol were shown a PLA tray or carton; those in York, Brixton and Hove were shown a 'Belu' biodegradable PLA bottle. This was because many of those who do recycle plastics may feel far more comfortable handling bottles than they do trays or films. If this proved to be the case, their responses to the different forms of the same plastic (biodegradable vs. conventional) could be telling. 1.3 Interpreting the findings Qualitative research is an interactive proess between researcher and participants: its strength is in allowing respondents' attitudes and opinions to be explored in detail, providing an insight into the key reasons underlying their views. However, discussion group results are based only on a small cross section of the public. They have been used here to inform and add texture and 'colour' to the results of the quantitative research and to probe some issues in more depth. It is not therefore appropriate to report on the two phases of work separately, since the results are intertwined and mutually support one another. Please note that when more than one respondent is quoted from a focus group, an ‘M’ is used to denote a male respondent; an ‘f’ a female respondent. 1.4 Report structure The remainder of this report looks first at the wider context for the research, examining attitudes to recycling, composting and plastics that have an enormous bearing on the way in which people will respond to biopolymers. We then look at the general public’s understanding of the terminology associated with biopolymers, and particularly the words ‘biodegradable’ and ‘compostable’ in order to identify what is expected of such words. The following two sections go hand in hand and attempt to unpick the detail of consumer attitudes and expectations. We first of all wanted to establish how consumers are likely to react to biopolymers if they were to encounter them in large quantities today, with no additional explanation or advice. The first of these two sections therefore looks at initial responses to biopolymers, while the second investigates informed responses - the way in which behaviour and attitudes might change in light of greater information on the new materials. In the final main section of the report, we look at ways of keeping the public informed on how to dispose of biopolymers, examining their preferred methods of communication and who they believe should be responsible for keeping them up to date. We conclude with some brief conclusions and a short section summarising useful messages that do not necessarily relate directly to biopolymers.


2.0 The wider context: attitudes to recycling, composting and plastics Whilst the main focus of this research is on responses to biodegradable and compostable plastics, these cannot be properly understood without first looking at the wider context. How much do our respondents recycle? How many people from our sample are regular composters? Do they see composting as a form of recycling? Who looks for what information on packaging? How well do they understand what they can and can't recycle currently, and how confident to they feel about recycling (particularly plastics)? The following section answers these questions. 2.1 Who looks for what information? Packaging labelling is currently the subject of much debate, whether this surrounds labelling of GM, organic or fair trade produce or warnings about fat, salt and sugar content and possible allergens. In amongst all these emotive and politically charged subjects, information about packaging - what it is made from and how to dispose of it - has a relatively low profile. Yet understanding whether and how the general public makes use of this information is crucial to ensuring they are kept informed about biodegradable and compostable plastics in the most effective way. Recycling labelling was the subject of an earlier WRAP/Brook Lyndhurst project, completed in May of this year. That project differed from this research in that it was purely qualitative and thus did not produce any figures relating to public use of labelling information. During the groups respondents were asked to shout out the types of information they looked for on labels. This resulted in a reasonably long list, suggesting that the public makes good use of labelling as a source of information on the products they buy. Whilst this latest research provides some support for this for some types of information - more than two thirds of hall test respondents look for figures on fat and salt content from time to time - overall, the picture is far less certain. Even for fat and salt content - one of the highest profile forms of labelling - this still leaves 31 per cent ‘never’ looking for this sort of information. This figure rises to 38 per cent for statements about organic produce, 51 per cent for GM crops and 60 per cent for allergens. The figures for advice on packaging manufacture and disposal are similar. Only one in 10 people claim they always look for advice on how to dispose of packaging, whilst more than half - 55 per cent - never do. The story is much the same for those looking for information on whether or not packaging is made from recycled plastic - 40 per cent never look for this on packaging, while only 11 per cent claim they always do. Both anecdotal evidence from this research and more robust qualitative findings from previous work conducted for Wrap suggest that one reason for the low numbers seeking out this type of information is confusion over what information is available on which products in what format. It may well be that a unified, common and universal disposal labelling scheme would improve this.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Statementsabout

allergens

Advice onhow to

dispose ofpackaging

Statementsabout GM

crops

Statementsabout

recycledmaterial

Statementsabout

organicproduce

Fat andsalt

content

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

see

king

info

rmat

ion

Looked for at leastoccasionally

Never looked for

Figure 1: Use of packaging information Whilst high recyclers are predictably more likely to seek out this sort of information (26 per cent of high recyclers regularly look for advice on disposal, compared with 18 per cent of medium recyclers and 12 per cent of low recyclers), these figures are still very low. This is even more surprising when you consider the level of confusion that already surrounds the disposal of some types of packaging. The implications for anyone bringing new forms of packaging onto the market that require different approaches to disposal (such as biopolymers), may be very great indeed – consumers are unlikely to seek advice on this independently it seems.

Figure 2: Sainsbury’s compostable film 2.2 Confusion over recycling Similarly, current understanding of how to recycle existing materials – and particularly plastics – could have a serious bearing on how consumers react to biopolymers.


We asked the hall test respondents how sure or unsure they were about whether or not a range of materials could be recycled. For the more established materials such as paper and glass, the responses where very positive - 93 per cent claimed they were always sure about paper and only two per cent either expressed significant uncertainty or said they couldn't or didn't recycle paper at all. Even for plastic bottles, this figure remained relatively high - 87 per cent claiming they were sure most of the time. However, these figures dropped dramatically for other forms of plastic and for multi-material packaging: It is incredibly difficult for the public to try and understand, not the concept of recycling, but exactly what they will and will not take. Bath, female For plastic film, 52 per cent were sure most of the time; for plastic trays and pots, this fell further to 47 per cent; for 'other sorts of plastic', 49 per cent were sure; and for 'packaging made from more than one material', this figure fell to only 34 per cent. Figure 3: Percentage of respondents claiming they are sure about whether materials can be recycled some or all of the time

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Pack

agin

g m

ade

from

mor

e th

anon

e m

ater

ial

Plas

tic tr

ays/

pots

Oth

er s

orts

of p

last

ic

Plas

tic fi

lm/b

ags

Food

was

te

Gar

den

was

te

Plas

tic b

ottle

s

Gla

ss

Tins

and

can

s

Car

dboa

rd

Pape

r

So, if there is this level of confusion surrounding whether or not common items can or cannot be recycled, why are so few people looking for guidance on the packaging itself? We can only make an educated guess based upon responses in the focus groups and our previous work for WRAP, but we suggest the following factors may play a part: 1. Habit Once unable to find guidance on packaging, many people will simply not bother checking again and this habit can be hard to break. 2. Lack of awareness Consumers may be unaware that some packaging carries guidance on disposal. 3. 'Pay off' Some consumers may feel less concerned/guilty about discarding of more confusing packaging because they recycle other materials.


2.3 Attitudes to composting Attitudes to composting are likely to shape consumer responses to biopolymers in much the same way that attitudes to recycling existing materials will, particularly in terms of compostable packaging. A quarter of respondents claimed some of their household waste was composted on a regular basis (and 36 per cent, or 139 people, said their waste was composted at least sometimes), while 58 per cent said their waste was never composted. Of those 139 that do compost, 65 per cent use a domestic bin or heap for garden waste and 49 per cent for food waste. Lower, but still not insignificant numbers of people make use of kerbside collections - 21 per cent (29 people) for garden waste; 31 per cent (43 people) for food waste. It should be noted that these figures are unlikely to be representative of the whole UK population because of our decision to locate the hall tests in areas where respondents were likely to have access to organic kerbside collections. Interestingly, this bias towards domestic composting over collection is reversed for paper and cardboard - 89 people - 64 per cent of those who compost some of their household waste - claim they have paper collected for composting by the council. Only 17 per cent of composters, however, put paper into their domestic compost, falling to 15 per cent for cardboard. Whilst we must be careful not to draw too much from these figures - only 139 respondents compost at all, so the base is fairly small - they do nonetheless point to a marked difference in the way the public views domestic composting against services provided by the council. These figures suggest (as did the focus groups), that the public differentiate between what they see as 'organic' waste (i.e. fruit and vegetables, grass cuttings) and 'manufactured' waste (i.e. plastic, paper and cardboard). Whilst they do not necessarily question whether or not manufactured materials will actually break down, they seem less comfortable with the idea of them breaking down in their own back garden and would rather have them collected by the council and processed elsewhere: Facilitator: Does anyone here compost paper or card at home? F1: I didn’t know you could. F2: Doesn’t it have chemicals in it? I wouldn’t want that… in my garden. Bath 2.4 Compostable vs recyclable The hall tests questionnaire listed some of the problems that some biopolymers can cause if mixed with conventional plastics recycling streams. Consumer responses suggested a 'best of both worlds' attitude, with almost three quarters saying they were inclined to agree that all packaging should be made from compostable plastic. But 93 per cent said they tended to agree that all plastic should be recycled. Consumers appeared to have failed to take onboard the problems that compostable plastics can cause for conventional recycling. It may be that further research could be conducted on this point, but we should be wary, in light of these results, of presenting consumers with an ‘either/or’ choice. These results, and the anecdotal evidence from the focus groups, suggest that consumers simply want their packaging to be as ‘good’ for the environment as possible. Since they see composting as ‘good’ and recycling as ‘good’, they want both and forcing them to choose between them may not therefore be a particularly meaningful exercise.


2.5 Attitudes to GM crops The hall tests suggested that the potential use of genetically modified crops to produce biopolymers was a relatively minor concern for the public. Only 20 per cent rated the possible use of GM crops as one of their top concerns from a list of six. There was a similar story in the focus groups. Most respondents were ambivalent about the use of GM crops, though there were examples of stronger views in both directions: Facilitator: Would the use of GM crops affect how you viewed this packaging? F1: I wouldn’t go near that. Facilitator: Why is that? F1: I don’t want too. My husband has incredibly bad allergies and it often has to do with food and more children have got asthma and things like that. Facilitator: Would the rest of you be bothered? M1: I wouldn’t mind. M2: I am a big GM fan. Anything that can increase the amount of food in the world… As long as it is tested properly and independently, not by any old someone, but by independent government scientists. Brighton


3.0 Terminology: understanding and expectation We were keen to find out exactly what people think the words 'biodegradable' and 'compostable' mean, not simply to better understand their responses to biopolymers, but also to help inform retailers. One of the reasons for the major supermarkets embracing biodegradable and compostable plastics at a time when most are still more expensive than conventional polymers is an expectation that consumers will value such packaging as more 'ethical' and 'environmentally friendly'. Some of the questions in the hall tests were geared towards establishing whether or not this is the case, and whether or not such concerns are sufficient to motivate shoppers in their buying decisions. While we focused upon biodegradable and compostable plastic in the hall tests, the focus groups also enabled us to test understanding of a third phrase - 'degradable'. Degradable plastics are not that common, but some supermarkets have used them for carrier bags. Testing understanding of the word 'degradable' first, then progressing through 'biodegradable' and 'compostable' it became apparent that there was significant confusion about the difference between all three: F1: What is the difference between degradable and biodegradable? Facilitator: I'm not telling you yet, but please feel free to discuss it amongst yourselves. F1: Okay, someone tell me what degradable means. M1: Uranium is degradable, but I wouldn’t want to walk around carrying a piece of uranium in my pocket. Degradable is if you bury it for long enough, you hope it disappears. F1: And biodegradable? F2: Biodegradable is when they naturally break down. M2: Like compost. Bath

Figure 4: A Somerfield ‘100% degradable’ carrier bag Participants in the focus groups usually interpreted 'degradable' to mean 'breaks down' and extended this through assumption to 'break down in the ground' - i.e. naturally. In a few cases one or two respondents in a group would relate their definition of 'degradable' to 'biodegradable', but even when this happened, they often struggled to pinpoint the exact difference between the two words. This confusion worsened when the concept of 'compostable' was introduced. Having established that degradable plastic 'will break down', probably in the ground and that biodegradable plastic will break down 'naturally', they were uncertain what would differentiate these from something which was 'compostable'.


The open ended questions asked in the hall tests about the meaning of 'biodegradable' and 'compostable' highlighted this. Some people assumed that if something was 'biodegradable' it would break down 'naturally' (15 per cent), 'in the ground' (10 per cent), 'by itself' (9 per cent) or through a 'natural process' (6 per cent). Others believed that 'biodegradable' denoted a clear environmental benefit: 'goes back into the environment' (9 per cent), 'safe/not harmful for the environment' (8 per cent). All of these responses seem to pick up on the 'bio' prefix, associating it with something 'natural' and therefore, in all likelihood, 'good'. The largest group - 44 per cent of respondents - defined 'biodegradable' simply as something that 'breaks down', though it is unclear from this response whether or not a 'natural' element is implied. Figure 5: Unprompted answers to the question, “what do you understand by the word ‘biodegradable’?”

Breaks Down 44%

Happens over a period of time 18%

Breaks down naturally 15%

Rots 10%

Happens in the ground 10%

Happens by itself 9%

Goes back into the environment 9%

Safe / Not harmful to the environment 8%

Natural Process 6%

Disappears / Nothing left 5%

Can Recycle 4%

Can re-use again / Use again 3%

Results go back into the soil 3%

Will turn into compost 3%

Biological Process 2%

Organic matter 2%

Happens Quickly 2%

Respondent definitions of 'compostable' tended, perhaps understandably, to centre on compost, particularly garden compost, though a quarter opted simply for 'breaks down' again.


Figure 6: Unprompted answers to the question, “what do you understand by the word ‘compostable’?” Breaks Down 24%

Will turn into compost 17%

Can go on a compost heap 16%

Can use in the garden 13%

Food waste 12%

Makes fertiliser / enriches the soil 12%

Organic matter 10%

Can re-use / Use again 10%

Rots 9%

Garden waste / weeds / plants 8%

Results go back in to the soil 7%

Breaks down naturally 5%

Natural process 2%

Happens over a period of time 2%

Happens quickly 2%

Can recycle 2%

Happens in the ground 2%

When asked specifically about plastics, 52 per cent of respondents in the hall tests had heard of biodegradable plastic, but this dropped to only 15 per cent for compostable plastic. This was also reflected in the focus groups, when few people were aware of compostable plastic, even if they had bought produce wrapped in the material and marked as such. It’s worth noting briefly here that participants in the hall tests did not voluntarily differentiate between compost collections and home composting in responding to this question.


4.0 Biopolymers: initial responses As described above, only half of the hall test respondents had heard of biodegradable plastic and evidence from the focus groups suggests that even these people are unlikely to be aware of having come into contact with it. The focus groups provided the opportunity to explore responses to biopolymers in depth. To initiate this discussion, we asked the groups to state where, on a line from ‘good for the environment’ to ‘bad for the environment’, various types of plastic fell. Initially participants were asked to make these decisions with no additional information, forcing them to explore their assumptions openly. Then, after they had learned more about each type of plastic, the groups were asked to repeat the exercise, recording the way in which their attitudes had changed. In terms of the initial responses, the most consistent views were that non-recyclable plastic was very bad and compostable plastic was very good. Attitudes to biodegradable plastic were less consistent, however. High recyclers took the view that plastic rotting away simply necessitated the manufacture of more and so rated it less highly than recycled plastic: F1: It [biodegradable plastic] would be a bit worse than the bag I guess. M1: It biodegrades anyway. F1: But that’s more plastic. Bristol Interestingly, compostable plastic, which would theoretically have the same downside, was not treated the same way. It was as though the word ‘compostable’ had such resonance that participants were blinded to potential downsides, even when they had been consciously thinking about these issues only moments before. Views on degradable plastic also varied, but on the whole, this tended to be treated in a similar way to biodegradable plastic. This might not have been the same had biodegradable plastic been discussed before degradable. At this point, not one person in the focus groups expressed any kind of uncertainty about how to dispose of biodegradable or compostable plastic; that is to say, there seemed to be an assumption that they would be able to treat them as they would any other type of plastic: Facilitator: And how would you dispose of it [the biodegradable bottle]? F1: Crush it and put it in the orange [recycling] bag. M1: Yeah, crush it. Lambeth 4.1 The type of product is crucial The use of two different forms of biodegradable plastic in the hall tests proved informative. Asked how they would dispose of the biodegradable bottle, 52 per cent of respondents in York, Brixton and Hove said they would recycle it, while 22 per cent would send it to landfill. But in Edinburgh and Bristol, where respondents were shown a biodegradable tray instead of the bottle, this pattern was reversed, with only 35 per cent willing to recycle the tray and 52 per cent choosing to send it to landfill. This question was asked without presenting respondents with a range of options and only allowing 'don't know' responses as a last resort. The aim was to recreate as realistically as possible the moment at which a consumer would be faced with a decision on how to dispose of compostable or biodegradable plastic.


Feedback from the focus groups and previous projects for WRAP suggests that in the face of uncertainty, most consumers opt for residual waste as the 'safe' option. Given that, as noted above, the hall test results suggest that consumers are far less sure about recycling any sort of plastic packaging other than bottles, it seems likely that this uncertainty extends to plastic trays, resulting in the preference for landfill in Bristol and Edinburgh. This also supports the idea that, without receiving more information to give them a reason to do otherwise, most consumers will treat biodegradable plastic in the same way they would conventional plastic: That one [the Belu bottle] just looks like a normal water bottle and I wouldn’t really think twice about it and would just be chucking it in with the normal ones. Lambeth, female

Figure 7: A ‘belu’ biodegradable bottle There was, however, a notable minority who said they would either place the biodegradable plastic in their compost heap (8 per cent) or include it with kitchen or garden waste for collection by their council (4 per cent and 2 per cent respectively). These figures might seem low, but, given that 58 per cent of respondents believe that none of their waste is composted, the fact that 14 per cent said, independently and with no prompting, they would compost biodegradable plastic in some way is noteworthy. Only around 8 per cent of all respondents have their garden waste collected by their council, rising to 11 per cent for food waste1. The implication is that, of these people, a third of those with kitchen collections and a quarter of those with garden collections would opt to dispose of biodegradable plastic in this way. Although we need to be wary of placing too much emphasis on these findings, given the relatively small sample sizes involved, they are noteworthy nonetheless. The upshot is that even when kitchen or garden waste collections are available, the majority would still opt for an alternative method of disposal. Overall then, we have a picture in which most consumers will treat biodegradable plastic in the same way they would any other type of plastic, but in which a minority with access to such facilities would at least consider a composting option. It seems safe to assume that as the number of households with compost heaps or kitchen or garden waste collections rises, the number of people who might chose this option will also increase. When it comes to compostable plastic it is therefore bearing in mind that respondents were presented with a film wrap as an example. Consumers seem uncertain about whether or not film, like plastic trays, can be recycled and so the number of people (26 per cent) who claimed they would attempt to dispose of the compostable plastic in this way was relatively low. The number of people saying they would attempt to compost the film - either in a domestic bin or heap or through a kitchen or garden waste collection – in much higher at 30 per cent (19 per cent compost bin/heap; 5 per cent kitchen waste collection; 6 per cent garden waste collection). Again, given the low numbers who claim to regularly compost their waste, these figures are significant.

1 In choosing the locations for the hall tests and focus groups we were mindful of the need to find areas in which some respondents would have some experience of food/garden waste collections, so the overall figures for participation in these services should not be considered indicative of the broader UK picture.


4.2 Energy use It is worth noting at this point that the initial responses to the biopolymers in the focus groups - particularly those involving 'high' recyclers - included questions over the energy required to make them. This was particularly the case when attendees were asked to make judgements about the relative importance (and value) of biodegradable plastics This is both a sign that some consumers are fairly advanced in their understanding of the issues surrounding waste and packaging and an indication of the level of information that some may require. 4.3 Belief in biopolymers We also wanted to examine whether or not the general public will 'buy into' compostable packaging - whether they will be able to overcome their normal expectation that plastic will not rot away for hundreds of years and instead throw it into the home compost bins. Some respondents in the focus groups did prove sceptical about the biodegradable plastic’s credentials, though this was by no means a uniform pattern and others were very trusting of the concept: F1: My gardening magazine bags are made from compostable plastic. Facilitator: Is that a plastic wrapper? F1: It is plastic, but it is compostable. Facilitator: So you can put it in your compost bin? Do you feel comfortable doing that? I mean when it first arrived and it said it was compostable did you just accept that? F1: Yeah I thought, "this is amazing". Brighton


5.0 Biopolymers: informed responses Initial responses to biopolymers suggested that consumers will treat them the same way they treat other plastics, unless given a reason to behave differently. Given the difficulties that will result from biopolymers entering the recycling stream in significant quantities, this is not necessarily a desirable outcome. What, then, happened when consumers were provided with more detail on these new plastics? In the focus groups, the issues were discussed in some depth, but particular attention was given to two points: the problems biopolymers could cause for conventional plastics recycling; and the fact that biodegradable plastics will not break down easily in domestic compost bins. 5.1 The resilience of ‘home compostable’ plastic We noted earlier that consumers initially held home compostable plastic in high regard, failing to apply to it the same levels of cynicism they did to ‘biodegradable’ (industrially compostable) plastic. This trend endured when consumers found out more. While the fact that biodegradable plastic would not break down easily in compost heaps and could not be recycled saw it shifted down the scale from good to bad, dropping below either recyclable or recycled plastic in all six groups, ‘compostable’ plastic remained the favoured option. Consumers seem to feel their options are too narrow in the case of biodegradable plastic, which they can neither recycle (using the current facilities), nor compost in their home compost bin. The latter point seems at first to be the defining factor, since this is essentially the only thing separating biodegradable and compostable plastic. However, it is worth noting that this issue did not receive a great deal of attention in the focus groups and that those who regularly made use of household composting were in a minority in the groups. It may therefore be the case that it is the word ‘compostable’ itself, and the sentiments it conjures up, that are causing this trend, rather than the ‘real’ properties of biodegradable plastic. 5.2 Misled Many respondents in the focus groups felt misled by the claims on degradable, biodegradable and compostable packaging:

“There is no symbol on there saying that [biodegradable plastic cannot be recycled with conventional plastic]… They should be telling you these things.” Bristol

This may be a product of the focus group environment forcing consumers to think about things in a way they would not normally, giving consideration to things that might normally go unnoticed. Even so, it does emphasise the need for careful management of consumer expectations of and attitudes towards biopolymers. 5.3 Consumer attitudes to potential problems with biopolymers In the hall tests, we presented respondents with a range of 'negative' impacts of biopolymers and ask them select the two which they felt were most significant. Interestingly, the potential impact of the gases biopolymers release when breaking down in landfill was a huge cause for concern among consumers, with 47 per cent selecting this as one of their two choices for biodegradable plastic and 58 per cent for compostable plastic. The fact that biodegradable plastic does not break down easily in a domestic compost bin was also considered a significant problem (48 per cent), as was the potential contamination of conventional plastics recycling (42 per cent for biodegradable, 53 per cent for compostable). These concerns are primarily to do with the idea that something that initially seems 'good' for the environment may not be as beneficial as initially thought. This type of worry was considered far more significant than any of the others, for either compostable plastics (cost - 35 per cent; impact on landfill targets if people throw it away - 29 per cent; possible use of GM crops - 20 per cent) or biodegradable plastics (cost - 29 per cent; impact on landfill targets if people throw it away - 21 per cent; possible use of GM crops - 10 per cent). Figure 8: Potential negative aspects of biodegradable plastics selected as one of two most significant problems by hall test respondents


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Wou

ld n

ot b

reak

dow

n in

ado

mes

tic c

ompo

st b

in

Rel

ease

gas

es th

at c

an b

eha

rmfu

l to

the

envi

ronm

ent i

nla

ndfill

Con

tam

inat

e no

rmal

pla

stic

sre

cycl

ing

Cur

rent

ly m

ore

expe

nsiv

e th

anco

nven

tiona

l pla

stic

If th

row

n aw

ay, w

ill m

ake

it m

ore

diffi

cult

for c

ounc

ils to

mee

t the

irla

ndfill

targ

ets

Cou

ld b

e m

ade

usin

g G

M c

rops

Don

’t kn

ow

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

Figure 9: Potential negative aspects of compostable plastics selected as one of two most significant problems by hall test respondents

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Rel

ease

gas

es th

at c

an b

e ha

rmfu

l to

the

envi

ronm

ent i

n la

ndfill

Con

tam

inat

e no

rmal

pla

stic

s re

cycl

ing

Cur

rent

ly m

ore

expe

nsiv

e th

anco

nven

tiona

l pla

stic

If th

row

n aw

ay, w

ill m

ake

it m

ore

diffi

cult

for c

ounc

ils to

mee

t the

irla

ndfill

targ

ets

Cou

ld b

e m

ade

usin

g G

M c

rops

Don

’t kn

ow

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

It is interesting that the environmental impact of the gases released when biopolymers break down in landfill should have been such a concern to those interviewed in the hall tests, since this was a problem that was paid little attention during the focus groups and that had been similarly downplayed in WRAP's original specification for the project. It may well be the prominence of global warming as a current issue that generated such concern, but either way, it is interesting that consumers are sensitive to such issues ahead of, say, cost.


5.4 Confusion In light of consumers' concern over the possible impact of biopolymers on conventional plastics recycling, we might have expected a shift to other methods of disposal among those who had originally stated they would recycle biodegradable or compostable plastic. We might also have expected a drop in those who said they would compost biodegradable plastic, since they had learned in only the previous question that some biodegradable packaging will not break down readily in a domestic compost bin/heap. In the event, however, the picture that emerged was one of general confusion. For biodegradable plastic, the number who would recycle dropped very slightly from 45 per cent to 43 per cent, while 26 per cent said they would throw it away, down from 34 per cent. The number who said they would put it in their compost bin, however, actually rose from eight to 13 per cent, as it did for those who would put it out for collection with their kitchen waste (from four to seven per cent) or garden waste (from two to five per cent). Figure 10: Likely method of disposal: ‘uninformed’ vs ‘informed’ responses

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Thro

w it

in y

our n

orm

al w

aste

bin

(to

land

fill)

Rec

ycle

it

Put i

t in

your

hom

e co

mpo

st b

in/h

eap

Incl

ude

in g

arde

n w

aste

for c

olle

ctio

nby

cou

ncil

Incl

ude

it in

kitc

hen

was

te fo

rco

llect

ion

by c

ounc

il

Cou

ncil c

olle

cts

Re-

use

it

Oth

er

Don

’t kn

ow

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

"Uninformed"response -biodegradable"Informed" response- biodegradable

"Uninformed"response -compostable"Informed" response- compostable

Stranger still, the number of people who would recycle compostable plastic actually rose dramatically, from 26 per cent to 38 per cent. The rise was accounted for by a drop in the number of people who claimed they would send compostable plastic to landfill, which fell from 44 per cent to 23 per cent. Only small increases were seen for composting this sort of plastic, whether in domestic facilities (from 19 to 22 per cent) or garden and kitchen waste collections (from six per cent to nine per cent and from five per cent to six per cent respectively). So what can we take away from this? First of all, those who would compost compostable plastics seem to have decided this from the beginning and the additional information did not make a great deal of difference. Any further upwards movement in the number of people claiming they would compost this sort of plastic may have been prevented by an extension of concerns about the release of gases in landfill to worries that the same thing would happen in a compost bin. Limited access to composting facilities of all sorts will also have restricted growth in these areas.


Fears about the release of environmentally damaging gases may also have explained the drop in the number of respondents claiming they would send compostable and biodegradable plastic to landfill. However, fear about this issue was roughly on a par with concern about the impact of biopolymers on conventional recycling and worries about biodegradable plastic not being suitable for home composts. That such worries did not have a significant impact on choices of disposal methods suggests that any shifts may have had as much to do with consumers' sense of bewilderment at how to weigh up the different messages and warnings. There was also considerable confusion expressed in the focus groups too:

“I am still a bit confused about what we are supposed to do with it [the Belu biodegradable bottle]. If I bought that in the shop and I had finished with the bottle, what do I do with it? Do I put it in the normal bin because you are saying it can’t go in with the plastics? …I am really worried what I am going to do.” Bristol

It is worth noting here that with regards to compostable plastic, the potentially problematic shift from landfill to recycling was most pronounced in high recyclers. Figure 11: Change in preferred disposal method – ‘uninformed’ to ‘informed’

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Landfill Recycle Compost(home)

CouncilCollection

Perc

enta

ge c

hang

e fro

m u

ninf

orm

ed to

in

form

ed HighMedLow

This may be because higher recyclers were more environmentally aware and thus more sensitive to the idea of gases being released in landfill, but this is not born out by the answers to the question regarding the significance of potential problems relating to compostable plastic – 57 per cent of high recyclers listed this as one of their two major concerns against 61 per cent of medium recyclers and 54 per cent of low recyclers. 5.5 Separating biopolymers and conventional plastic The focus groups were split over whether or not separating different sorts of plastic would be something they were either able or willing to do and this was reflected in the hall tests too. Half of respondents agreed that separating plastics would be too confusing, while 37 per cent disagreed. In the focus groups, this was not an issue that particularly excited anyone other than people concerned about having sufficient storage capacity for so many different materials. Instead, as is described in more detail in the next section, they expressed a desire for clear and easy to follow instructions on disposal.


6.0 Informing the public If the public's response to biopolymers is going to be confusion, two questions arise. First of all, what should consumers be told to do with the new types of plastic; secondly, how should they be told and by whom? The answer to the first question will depend partly on government policy (at local and regional levels), partly on the facilities available to separate and/or process bioplastics and partly on the speed with which these forms of plastic reach the shelves and consequently, people's homes. However, this research has allowed us to make some broader, more general points on the sorts of messages that should reach consumers. It is worth noting at this point that almost all of our findings in this section were consistent with our research on recycling labelling conducted for WRAP in May 2006. 6.1 The danger of confusion Some respondents during the focus groups expressed frustration that, at a time when they have only just got used to recycling, they would be faced with added complications, more complex collections and, potentially, be unable to recycle some materials they have got used to recycling. There is a danger that, were advice on how to dispose of biodegradable and compostable plastics to be too little, too late or too confusing, it could actually have a negative impact on recycling rates in an area (plastics) where, as seen earlier in this report, there is already significant confusion. 6.2 Providing advice does not mean it will be used Respondents in the hall tests were asked how they would like to be informed about how to dispose of biopolymers. Those taking part were asked to select the two sources of information they would prefer from a list of options (Figure 12). Almost half (49 per cent), said standard logos should be used on packaging, while leaflets from Councils were the second most popular choice, selected by 40 per cent of respondents. However, as already noted, very few respondents say they look for information on disposal on packaging and there is evidence to suggest that missives from local authorities are also often ignored or poorly read. In one exchange during the Bristol focus group (which was probably the best informed on recycling issues of any of the groups), one participant suggested that councils were reducing the frequency of bin collections not to save money, as was normally believed to be the case, but to meet their obligations to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. Another participant asked how he knew this, to which he replied that he had read it in the leaflet circulated by the Council to explain the change of policy. Few other people in the room had read the leaflet and no-one else remembered this particular piece of information. The work we have conducted before for WRAP on recycling labelling demonstrated that consumers are creatures of habit, making one-off decisions about the disposal of particular products or materials and then repeating that action with relatively little thought. That original single decisive moment (usually when a consumer first comes into contact with an item they perceive as different to those they are used to) is therefore clearly of vital importance if behaviour is to be influenced, guided or altered.


Figure 12: Hall test respondents selecting particular communication methods as one of two preferred options

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Stan

dard

logo

s on

pac

kagi

ng

Leaf

lets

from

you

r cou

ncil

Sign

s in

maj

or s

uper

mar

kets

Mor

e de

taile

d in

form

atio

n on

pac

kagi

ngla

bellin

g

Stan

dard

col

ourin

g on

pac

kagi

ng

Leaf

lets

in m

ajor

sup

erm

arke

ts

Web

links

to a

dvic

e

TV

A na

tiona

l hel

p lin

e

Pres

s

Oth

er (p

leas

e st

ate)

Perc

enta

ge o

f hal

l tes

t res

pond

ents

That consumers should see a material as markedly different to the products they already encounter is particularly important for biopolymers given the tendency identified earlier in this report for respondents to treat these plastics as they would any other, even if, as they were in the hall tests, they have been told that the plastic is different. The inference here is that the general public makes judgements about disposal based as much upon form as upon material. A plastic bottle is, to them, a plastic bottle, irrespective of the type of plastic. As a result, they are unlikely to be prompted into a ‘decisive moment’ simply through being aware that a particular product uses biodegradable or compostable plastic. In order to force a reassessment of the chosen method of disposal, therefore, it seems it may be necessary to tell people explicitly that biopolymers have to be treated differently to standard plastics. Or, to put this another way, you have to tell people what they can (and equally can’t do with a pack). 6.3 New research; old problem: standardisation The difficulty in any communications campaign is always going to be matching the information provided to the services on the ground. This is particularly a problem with conventional materials, where different councils have different approaches to different forms of packaging. If a plastic bottle can be collected in one location but not in another, what instructions should be provided on a pack? The solution favoured in our earlier research and supported by feedback from the focus groups this time around was for a ‘jigsaw’ system, whereby a standard set of markings could be matched to local collections. Thus a member of the public in Brixton encountering a piece of packaging marked in a particular way would be able to match that marking up with instructions provided by Lambeth on disposal.


It may be that the relatively small size of the biopolymers market currently presents a rare opportunity to implement such a system, since appropriate logos could be incorporated into packaging at an early stage, rather than having to be accommodated into thousands of existing labels, as would be the case with more established materials. However, in an ideal world, in order to minimise the potential backlash in terms of all sorts of recycling and to reduce the number of times consumers were asked to familiarise themselves with a different system, a standardised system of labelling would be rolled out across the board: The only way to educate people is to mark it on the bottle so that there is a symbol that means you can do this or that. York, female Producing such a system of labelling is obviously time consuming and requires the buy-in of the major retailers. Some progress has been made in terms of labelling for fat and salt, suggesting that this is not out of the question, but we can also learn from this parallel experience. There have been disputes about the exact form this labelling has taken and different retailers have taken different approaches. The result, in fact, is not a standardised system at all, but one in which consumers are constantly bombarded with different ways of conveying the same information. This could easily happen with disposal advice on packaging – indeed, there are some signs it is happening already. Some of the examples we used in the focus groups featured disposal advice, but this was by no means consistent and, in some cases we understand, incorrect.

Figure 13: Incorrect advice on a film wrap. Film is not recycable. We would, therefore, suggest that there is an urgent need to produce and implement a standardised system of materials labelling as soon as possible. In doing so, and as covered in our previous research for WRAP, the following aspects should be considered: Colouring Although retailers may be concerned about the impact of coloured symbols on the aesthetics of their packaging, there is considerable support for colour coding from consumers: It would be easier if it was colour-coordinated. Lambeth, female Facilitator: How would you expect them to be marked? F1: Clearly. F2: On the label. F1: Different colour logos and you would know which colour meant which. F2: Yeah. M1: Like the bins that we have - the black and the green. Brighton


However, if a comprehensive all-materials system is to be created, the number of colours required may be too great and the distinctions between them too subtle to work effectively. We would, therefore, urge caution in this regard. Logos, letters and numbers This was the most popular choice among consumers in the hall tests, though again, there is a danger that the range of materials and thus symbols that would be required is too large to have immediate resonance with consumers. It is not realistic to expect consumers to repeatedly consult a chart on how to dispose of packaging marked with a particular logo – they need to check once, and then remember that on future occasions. Focus group participants in both this latest research and our former work for WRAP also suggested the use of letters or numbers to denote different materials. A few were familiar with the current system of plastics numbering, though these were in a clear minority and rarely knew what each number meant, even if they were aware of the system itself. A composite system The answer may well be a two-tiered system that makes use of two or more of these methods. If, for instance, all plastic packaging were marked with a ‘p’, with different logos for compostable, biodegradable, degradable and conventional, then consumers could mentally subdivide the logos, making it easier to digest for each type of plastic. Nonetheless, this sort of system would inevitably be complex and there would consequently be significant issues in terms of embedding it in the consumer conscience. Although strong iconography and a comprehensive media campaign could help (explaining, for instance, the implication of single logos), what is ultimately required by consumers is a label on every pack that simply says, “do this”. 6.4 Multifaceted campaign Initial responses in the focus groups tended to focus on packaging labelling, matching the results of the hall tests. However, after discussing these options for several minutes, a number of groups supported the idea of a national campaign – particularly using television advertising – to support packaging labelling and advice from local government: I guess maybe they [the public] are not going to read something that comes through the door but they might see it on TV and take notice of it. Bristol, female This chimes with the idea of creating a ‘decisive moment’, a national television campaign could tell the public to check their plastic packaging to find out how to dispose of it. Again, there may even be an opportunity to create benefits across the board here rather than focusing purely on biopolymers. A television campaign highlighting the existence of on-pack advice on disposal for all materials could encourage people to break ‘bad habits’ in other areas, not just bioplastics. 6.5 Responsibility In terms of who should be telling the public how to dispose of biopolymers, there is a slight mismatch between the preferred method of presenting information (on-pack labelling) and who is seen as being responsible. In the hall tests, respondents were asked firstly to name all those groups that they felt should be responsible for keeping them informed on biodegradable and compostable plastic.


Figure 14: Group respondents felt should be most responsible for keeping the public informed

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Cou

ncils

The

com

pani

es th

at m

ake

the

prod

ucts

Cen

tral g

over

nmen

t

Supe

rmar

kets

TV /

Med

ia

Don

’t kn

ow

Scho

ols

Oth

er (p

leas

e st

ate)

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y

Pres

sure

gro

ups

/ cha

ritie

s

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

More than two thirds – 70 per cent – mentioned councils, with only 37 per cent mentioning supermarkets and a similar number mentioning the companies who make the products (i.e. brand owners). We allowed interviews to multicode these answers in order to capture all responses, but then asked respondents to name the group they thought should be most responsible. Still, councils were the preferred group, with 43 per cent of respondents saying they felt local authorities bore greatest responsibility. Only 16 per cent opted for supermarkets and 20 per cent for the companies that make the products. There was no noticeable pattern in these responses when broken down according to the supermarket frequented by individual shoppers. National government, too, was seen as being responsible – chiming with consumer’s demand for a national, standardised system (and media campaign). A third or respondents said central government was at least partly responsible for keeping the public informed, while around a fifth (18 per cent) said central government was most responsible. Taken together, the figures for local authorities and central government suggest that the public expects government to be ensuring they are properly informed, even if this is partly through the medium on on-pack information and advice. 6.6 Awareness of the recycling process It became apparent during the focus groups that knowledge of what happens to waste after it leaves the home is very poor. One woman in Bath was convinced that ‘recycling’ and ‘biodegrading’ were the same thing. Another in Lambeth misheard ‘landfill’ and spent part of the session under the misapprehension that all of the waste in the UK was sent to the unfortunate town of ‘Landfield’. These are extreme examples, but representative of a general confusion about what is happening to waste and why.


Helping consumers to envisage what happens to their plastic once it has been collected, whether from a bringsite or the kerbside, would, in our opinion:

Improve consumers’ faith in the process of recycling, confirming that waste is processed, rather than simply being dumped into a hole in the ground (whether in Landfield or not) or shipped off to China.

Help consumers make sense of any standard system of labelling, connecting particular logos with particular methods of processing and disposal.

Improve awareness of the challenges faced by local authorities in dealing with waste, the pressures upon them and the reasons for dealing with waste the way they do.

Quite how to convey this information is a difficult question, but there was evidence in the groups that many people are genuinely interested in what happens to their waste, so there may be scope for some creative thinking here. Documentaries or even short ‘fact ads’ might be worth considering.


7.0 Conclusions and recommendations We started off with three key questions on biopolymers:

How much do consumers already know? How will they behave as they are exposed to greater quantities of these new plastics?

What is the best way for the government to keep the public informed about these plastics?

Here, we take each of these questions in turn and draw some broad conclusions from our findings as outlined above. 7.1 How much do consumers already know? In the plainest terms, the answer to this question is “not much”. Only around half of the respondents to the hall tests had even heard of biodegradable plastic and only 15 per cent had heard of compostable plastics. Very few participants in the focus groups were aware of having come into contact with either biodegradable or compostable plastics and understanding of these terms was very low. 7.2 How will consumers behave as they are exposed to greater quantities of biopolymers? To answer this question, three things most be born in mind. First of all, as stated above, consumers are not generally aware that they may already be buying biodegradable and compostable plastics. Secondly, consumers do not, in general, look for information on how to dispose of packaging on the packaging itself. And lastly, even when told that they are using biodegradable or compostable plastic, most consumers will dispose of it as they would a similar product made from conventional plastic. This assumes, of course, that there is nothing that prompts consumers to rethink their normal methods of disposal. If this happens, then the response is likely to depend entirely on what information is available. If, for instance, the reason for the rethink in disposal methods is an instruction to behave in a different, but specific way, then the public may well respond accordingly. If, however, the public face these decisive moments after being told (and possibly because they are told) that, on the one hand biopolymers can’t be recycled, on the other that some are not fully compostable, or that they should be reducing the amount of waste that goes to landfill, the likely response, as reflected in our survey findings, is likely to be one of confusion. And if that happens, consumers are likely to behave according to the facilities they have available and the methods of disposal with which they feel most comfortable. 7.3 What is the best way to keep the public informed about biopolymers? It may sound like spin, but the key here will be information management. The number of retailers using biopolymers and the number of products they are using them on is increasingly rapidly and as it does so, media attention is likely to increase accordingly. It may only be a matter of time before the “misleading” aspects of these materials are highlighted in the mainstream media. In addition, if consumers continue to behave as they have in the past, this will mean the quantities of biopolymers entering the recycling stream become large enough to cause serious problems for the plastics recycling industry. Under these circumstances, two things are urgently required, one dependent upon the other. First of all, a clear policy is needed on how consumers should be dealing with the new plastics. It will not be sufficient to leave them to work this out for themselves, since at the very least this will mean problems for conventional plastics recycling; at worst, confusion that could impact upon recycling in other areas. It is not within the remit of this research to answer these fundamental policy questions – this is something that will require the input of retailers, the recycling industry, local authorities and central government. What we can say from this research though, is that policy will need to be clear and simple. If there is a choice between an ideal complex solution and a simpler, more basic solution that allows some materials to fall between the gaps (i.e. with all biodegradable plastic, do this), then from a consumer understanding point of view, the latter will always be preferable.


Secondly, this policy needs to be communicated simply and succinctly to consumers. There probably isn’t, in fact, a great deal of choice in how best to do this – on-pack information is a logical and popular choice, if consumers can be made to read it. Local authority guidance not only has a great deal of public support, but will be crucial if national messages are to be subjected to local interpretation (and facilities). And a national media campaign of some sort, whether that is through billboard posters, TV and radio advertising or other means, will be essential to boost awareness and induce changes in behaviour towards common packaging. This research did not probe consumer’s views on who should pay for this and we would hesitate before over-interpreting opinions on responsibility for keeping the public informed. For instance, while many people may see the councils who collect their waste as being responsible for telling them how to sort and dispose of it, they are unlikely, as tax payers, to embrace the idea of paying for this. We can only speculate, but focus group participants’ sense of having been duped to some degree by retailers may infer that they should contribute to the costs of providing guidance on disposal, if not actually being best placed to provide that guidance. There is little sense in repeating here the detailed findings of our earlier research on recycling labelling: our conclusions do not differ to any significant degree. The issue of standardisation in this area is a huge barrier, but a system of strong, consistent, nationally recognised iconography would at least provide those consumers minded to take it in with guidance. Finally, it is worth reiterating the point made earlier about knowledge of waste processing beyond the front gate. Though we cannot say so definitively, since this was not an issue tested in great depth during the research, consumer understanding of waste processing seems low. Improving this situation might well bring serious benefits, both in terms of dealing with the new challenges thrown up by biopolymers, and generally in driving up recycling participation rates and reducing contamination.


Appendix 1: focus groups recruitment questionnaire 1 Can you tell me if you, or any of your close friends or family members work in any of these professions?

Marketing If yes, thank and close

Market research If yes, thank and close

Journalism If yes, thank and close

Design If yes, thank and close

Advertising If yes, thank and close

Public Relations If yes, thank and close

2 (a) Have you taken part in a market research group or in depth interview in the past?

Yes, within the last six months Thank and close

Yes, over six months ago Go to question 2 (b)

No Go to question 3

2 (b) How many market research groups or in depth interviews have you taken part in during the last five years?

1-3 Continue

4 or more Thank and close

3 Which, if any, of the following stores have you shopped at within the last four weeks?

Asda

Sainsbury

Tesco

Morrisons

Co-op

Waitrose

Shoppers from a minimum of three stores must be represented in each group.


4 Which of the following statements comes closest to how much you recycle?

I regularly recycle everything that can be recycled – more than 5 materials

High*

I regularly recycle everything that can be recycled – between 0 and 4 materials

Medium*

I recycle a lot but not everything that can be recycled Medium*

I recycle some materials Low*

I do not recycle Thank and close

I don’t know Thank and close

* Groups should be as follows: Edinburgh low York medium Brighton low Bath medium Bristol high Lambeth high 5 Please indicate which age bracket you belong to:

18-39 Young*

40+ Old*

* Groups should be as follows: Edinburgh Old York Young Brighton Old Bath Old Bristol Young Lambeth Young 6 Please state your gender

Male Maximum of six per group

Female Maximum of six per group

7 Do you compost kitchen or garden waste, either using a home compost bin or through a kerbside collection?

Yes, at home 1*

Yes, through a collection 2*

No 3*

*Groups should be as follows: Edinburgh No constraint York No constraint Brighton At least two people coded 1 or 2 Bath At least two people coded 1 or 2 Bristol At least three people coded 1 or 2 Lambeth At least three people coded 1 or 2


8 Does your home have a kerbside plastics recycling collection?

Yes 1*

No 2*

*Groups should be as follows: Edinburgh All participants coded 2 York All participants coded 1 Brighton All participants coded 1 Bath All participants coded 1 Bristol All participants coded 2 Lambeth All participants coded 1

9 How many people live in your household? Please note this question is for monitoring purposes only

One adult

Two adults

One adult and one or more children

Two adults and one or more children

More than two adults

More than two adults and one or more children


Appendix 2: discussion guide

Discussion Guide WRAP: Consumer attitudes to biopolymers

Time elapsed (mins) Facilitator notes

5

Introduction – 5 minutes

Introduce Brook Lyndhurst and WRAP

Explain the need for honesty

One person to talk at once

Healthy debate – no answer is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’

Confidential, but recorded – get permission

Purpose of group – to talk about the way some sorts of

packaging are changing and what it means for consumers

Participants introduce themselves, their household and where

they shop

10

General attitudes to recycling and packaging – 5 minutes

Do you recycle and if so, what?

Do you compost food or garden waste?

Who is responsible for choosing what packaging should go in

which bin in your home?

Do you think of composting as a form of recycling?

Is recycling a good thing and if so, why?

Do you feel you know what materials can be recycled and what

can’t?

Do you think we in Britain are doing enough recycling?

Do you think some types of packaging are worse for the

environment than others?

Explore for plastic bottles, plastic bags and

food trays in particular

Explore plastics in particular

25

General knowledge of plastic packaging / biopolymers – 15

minutes

Name some types of plastic packaging (prompt – cling film,

polystyrene, etc.)

Do you know the difference between different kinds of plastic

packaging?

What do you know about how we in the UK currently dispose of

plastic packaging?

I’m going to show you examples of different kinds of plastic

packaging [made from recycled plastic; degradable;

biodegradable; fully compostable] and I’d like you to say where

on this line, from good for the environment to bad for the

environment, they belong.

Prompt – do they know the difference between

plastic used in a ready meal tray and plastic

used in a water bottle?

Get one participant to draw on behalf of the

rest of the group. Encourage discussion of why

each position is chosen but do not provide any

additional information at this point.


Do you know which supermarkets use which of these types of

plastic and on what products?

35

Suppositions about biopolymers – 10 minutes

Some of these types of plastic are known as biopolymers. What

do you think this means?

Why do you think these sorts of plastics are emerging? Who

benefits?

Biopolymers can be composted. If you don’t have access to

either home composting or a compost collection, how does that

make you feel?

Test briefly for attitudes towards GM crops but

do not dwell on this

Prompt to find out what they would do with the

packaging instead

45

Degradable polymers – 10 minutes

[Introduce examples of degradable packaging and use the term

‘degradable’ to describe them. Explain that these are not

biopolymers because they are made from crude oil, not plant-based

oils]

How would you expect to be able to dispose of degradable

packaging?

How do you feel about the fact that degradable packaging is

made from crude oil and will only break down under certain

circumstances?

How do you feel about the fact that this type of packaging

cannot easily be recycled?

Knowing what you now know about where and how these

products would break down, how would you dispose of them?

Degradable packaging is like conventional

plastic but breaks down into tiny particles when

exposed to heat or light for long periods. This

does not happen in landfill or compost facilities.

If large volumes of degradable plastics get into

the recycling stream they can cause problems

because they weaken the structural properties of

conventional plastics. It is used mostly for carrier

bags and bin liners.

55

PLA (biodegradable packaging) – 10 minutes

[Introduce examples of PLA packaging and use the term

‘biodegradable’ to describe them]

[If not already covered] What do you understand by the term

‘biodegradable’ and how would you expect to be able to dispose

of biodegradable packaging?

How do you feel about the fact that this sort of packaging

would not break down in your domestic compost bin?

Would you feel comfortable throwing this in your kitchen waste

or plastics collections [if you have/had one]?

How do you feel about the fact that this sort of packaging

cannot be easily recycled?


products would break down, if you came across them

tomorrow, how would you dispose of them?

Even if respondents do not have domestic food

waste collections, ask them to think how they

would feel if such a system were introduced in

their area.

65

Fully compostable polymers – 10 minutes

[Introduce examples of the packaging and use the term ‘fully



compostable’ to describe it, explaining that it is also a biopolymer

and biodegradable]

This packaging can be composted at home. Would you feel

comfortable throwing it into your domestic compost bin [if

applicable]?

In what other ways would you expect to be able to dispose of

this sort of packaging?

How would you feel about the fact that this sort of packaging

cannot be easily recycled and could contaminate normal plastics

recycling?


products would break down, how would you dispose of them?

Would you feel comfortable sending it to landfill with your

conventional rubbish?

Test in particular respondents feelings about

the possible impact on quality of the compost

Prompt on where they would store if it were

collected as part of a domestic food waste

collection

90

All of the packaging together – 25 minutes

It would be possible for you to come across all of this

packaging in a single day. Would you feel comfortable in how

you should dispose of it?

Knowing what you now know, I’d like you to repeat the

exercise we did earlier, indicating where you feel each type of

plastic would fit on the spectrum from ‘good for the

environment’ to ‘bad for the environment’.

If you could choose how to dispose of your packaging, what

would you choose?

Who do you think should be responsible for telling you how to

dispose of all this packaging?

What method of conveying this information would you prefer?

Probe the idea that some products look

identical – how would they distinguish between

them?

Get one participant to draw on behalf of the

rest of the group. Encourage discussion of why

each position is chosen

If necessary, prompt for logos, labelling,

leaflets, in store information, TV commercials,

websites, etc.

95

Thank and close – 5 minutes

Ask for additional comments

Reaffirm confidentiality

Pay + signatures

Written by: Jon Fletcher Brook Lyndhurst

Published by Waste & Resources The Old Academy Tel: 01295 819 900 Helpline freephone Action Programme 21 Horse Fair Fax: 01295 819 911 0808 100 2040 Banbury, Oxon E-mail: [email protected] OX16 0AH www.wrap.org.uk

Documents

Research Report Consumer attitudes to biopolymers … attitude to biopolymers... · Research Report Consumer attitudes to biopolymers Consumer research into the consumer perceptions