Plastic production and subsequent pollution continues to increase despite evidence that plastics at every point of their life cycle contribute to global health concerns (FPF reported, also here and here). Clear communication with consumers, which may also lead to behavior change, is a key component when finding solutions. Two recent peer-reviewed publications analyzed current shortcomings in that regard and provide intervention recommendations to curb plastic pollution.
In an article published on February 24, 2022, in the journal Environmental Science and Policy, Stephen D. Burrows from the University of Exeter, UK, and 16 co-authors from the University of Queensland, Australia, and the University of Bath, UK, discuss issues connected with plastic labeling and how it must change to communicate with consumers in a way that encourages sustainable use. Burrows and co-authors focus on three topics: petroleum-based plastics and their recycling, bioplastics and other “sustainable alternatives,” and plastic additives.
Concerning the first topic, the scientists emphasized that the complexity and diversity of plastic materials, including additives and coatings, is “the primary difficulty associated with the recycling of these [petroleum-based] polymers.” They also address the challenges to effective recycling rates for each plastic type individually. While consumer behavior is frequently outlined as the main factor to influencing recycling rates (FPF reported), the authors clarify that technological limitations influence recycling efficiency and broad-scale implementation. Thus, “the recyclability of plastics is geographically dependent, and should be considered in a regional, rather than a national or global perspective.” California began addressing this issue in September 2021, when it overhauled its packaging recyclability labeling to only allow a “recyclable” label on packaging if > 60% of the state’s population has access to suitable recycling facilities (FPF reported).
In addition, Burrows et al. highlighted that focusing on recyclability alone is not enough to solve the plastic problem. A more sustainable plastics system needs to be developed which includes better labeling for sustainability e.g., via a sustainability index. With regard to bioplastics and other plastic alternatives, the researchers uncover current confusion about terms associated with bioplastics (e.g., the difference between “bio-based” and “biodegradable”) and their proper disposal route. They reported that bioplastics may complicate current recycling schemes and recommend effective labeling to clearly communicate the most “sustainable” disposal method. The Food Packaging Forum (FPF) published a fact sheet addressing common questions and mix-ups around bioplastics, including some of the concerns raised by Burrows et al. (FPF reported).
Looking at plastic additives, Burrows and co-authors outlined that plastics are a mixture of many known and unknown chemicals whose combined risk is poorly understood (FPF reported, also here). They think that additive composition should be accessible to consumers and that “plastic manufacturers should be held more accountable for the composition of their products.”
The authors conclude with three recommendations on plastic labeling:
- “An accurate and clear ‘sustainability scale’ to empower consumers to make decisions informed by environmental and human health implications,
- Directions for appropriate disposal action in the region of purchase,
- A comprehensive list of plastic composition, including additives.”
With their short lifespan, single-use plastics are especially resource-intensive and prone to be littered. In recent years, different measures have been developed to attempt to address this problem, such as the EU Directive on single-use plastics (FPF reported). In a review article published on February 23, 2022, in the Journal of Cleaner Production, Kim Borg from Monash University, Australia, and co-authors analyzed the type and effectiveness of behavioral interventions to reduce the use of single-use plastics by analyzing the situation in Australia. The study targeted plastic items considered avoidable, often littered, and of risk to contaminate recycling such as coffee cups and lids, cotton buds, drink stirrers, and polystyrene food containers and cups. Burg and co-authors searched Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Proquest Environmental Science, and Google Scholar for relevant literature published before March 2021. They identified 15 articles meeting their inclusion criteria and performed semi-structured interviews with six Australian stakeholders from government and non-government organizations.
The scientists reported that regulatory measures had short-term effectiveness, but they are often poorly monitored and evaluated. Techniques aiming for voluntary behavioral change were found to be overall effective, “but findings were mixed and modest.” The authors further reported that consumer behavior also depends on the type of single-use item and that knowledge on how to prevent consumption of single-use plastics is higher for some plastics.
Burg et al. also list techniques that can increase the success of political or regulatory interventions to reduce single-use plastic consumption:
- “Keep it simple and make it easy” by e.g. tackling one plastic item at a time,
- Avoid the offering of single-use plastics by default and improve the framing of price-based incentives (e.g., “charge” for single-use instead of offering a “discount” for reusables), and
- Set the right time-point for the implementation of behavior change programs, e.g., when consumers are receptible.
Moreover, the authors highlighted that “the design of such initiatives should consider the bigger picture (i.e. what formal and informal systems exist which enable or constrict the desired behaviors), engage a variety of stakeholders (including consumers, businesses, manufacturers, industry groups, local and State governments), and utilize a combination of techniques which target different audiences within the system.”
Dominco De Fano and colleagues from LUM University, Casamassima, Italy, also researched consumer behavior but how social media can influence the intention to recycle plastics. To this aim, they performed two analyses with 400 and 67 Americans, respectively. In the article published on March 11, 2022, in journal Resources, Conservation & Recycling, De Fano and co-authors reported that an individual’s attitude, followed by perceived situational control, and peer influence, “positively impact consumers’ intentions to recycle plastic.” The study results suggest that it is especially intentions that determine recycling behavior. Concerning social media, the scientists found that it generally does not affect the consumer’s intention to recycle plastic. However, when consumers were “exposed to plastic recycling-themed content on their social media feeds,” this positively and significantly influenced consumers’ intention. For instance, “the influence of social media on the intention to recycle plastic is stronger in women” compared to men. Besides, “the baby boomer generation” is influenced more by their peers compared to other generations.
On March 2, 2022, the UN Environmental Assembly (UNEA) agreed that an international, legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution should be created by 2024 (FPF reported).
References
Borg, K. et al. (2022). “Curbing plastic consumption: A review of single-use plastic behaviour change interventions.” Journal of Cleaner Production. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131077
Burrows, S. D. et al. (2022). “The message on the bottle: Rethinking plastic labelling to better encourage sustainable use.” Environmental Science and Policy. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.02.0152
De Fano, D. et al. (2022). “Empowering plastic recycling: Empirical investigation on the influence of social media on consumer behavior.” Resources, Conservation & Recycling. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106269
