The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 6: RETAILERS

The retail sector in Scotland employs roughly 10% of the workforce with a turnover in 2002 of around £19 billion. It plays a significant role within the UK economy in relation to waste prevention. There are benefits to retailers in reducing the waste associated with the products they sell and, in recent years, cost considerations have led to increased efforts on the part of retailers to recycle "back of store" packaging.

However, the cost of front-of-store waste sits with local authorities (and ultimately the tax payer), albeit that excessive use of materials in products and packaging will still lead to increased retailer costs. This situation has been recognised and is changing, with retailers working with various WRAP initiatives to tackle consumer waste. For example, there is a current commitment from retailers who have signed up to WRAP's Courtauld Commitment which is designed to tackle household packaging and food waste.

Eight organisations from the retail sector responded to the consultation. Their views, along with those of respondents from the packaging sub-group, have, where relevant, been reported alongside the responses from other respondents. There was no response from the consumer sub-group to this section of the consultation.

6.1 PROCUREMENT

Consumer demand affects the purchasing decisions made by retailers and these, in turn, affect manufacturers and distributors. Retailers, therefore, play a pivotal part in the supply chain, giving them substantial influence on product specifications and packaging design.

Question 6 of the consultation document asked "Do consultees consider that there is a need for guidance and support for retailers to build waste considerations into their procurement process? If yes, what guidance and support would be useful? It may be preferable to take this work forward at a UK, rather than Scottish, level."

Twenty-eight of the 55 respondents commenting on this question voiced agreement with the need for guidance and support, while 18 felt that the information should be easily understandable and readily accessible (this included 2 of the 4 retail organisations commenting at question 6). One public body/ publicly-funded body felt "There could be benefits if retailers were able to provide waste information about a product at its point of sale." The other 2 retailers disagreed that there was a need.

The need for waste considerations to be built into procurement processes at a UK or EU level was mentioned by 18 respondents who felt this approach would be more effective. This opinion was voiced by half (3) of the packaging sub-group commenting here.

Eight respondents felt that the support would have to be provided by experts, while 7 respondents felt that existing schemes could be built upon and that this could include work currently being done by WRAP. A suggestion that support be provided by trade bodies was voiced by 5 respondents.

Seven respondents felt that legislation - rather than guidance - was needed, with one manufacturer commenting "Guidance & support is useful; but it needs to be backed up by legislation." Five respondents suggested a non-mandatory code of practice, perhaps utilising a kitemark or other logo scheme. Two respondents asked that a grading system or other simplified information be provided to procurement teams. Examples of best practice or research from other countries were requested by 4 respondents, while 1 respondent felt that examples of bad practice would be useful.

Some responses to the consultation suggested that the practice of building waste considerations into procurement processes may already be happening with 6 respondents mentioning that some retailers are already building in waste considerations. Four respondents felt there would be more of an impact if large retailers were engaged in this process.

Educating consumers in order to change purchasing habits, perhaps through information provided at point of sale, was seen by 5 respondents as being important, while 6 respondents commented that market forces drive the procurement process.

Other comments included:

• The possibility of offering incentives (2 respondents);
• The feeling that this might not be successful with larger companies and that targeting SMEs would be more appropriate (2 respondents);
• That it should be up to the retailer to decide (2 respondents);
• The benefits of highlighting potential savings (1 respondent);
• The problems of obtaining information on products sourced outwith this country (1 respondent).

6.2 TRAINING

Staff within retail outlets provide product information to their customers and there are courses for staff on the environmental impact of waste and on waste awareness.

Question 7 of the consultation asked, "Do consultees consider that retailers and their employees could do with further training, support and guidance on waste issues? If so, what?"

Over half (39) of the 61 respondents answering this question, and 2 of the 4 retail organisations commenting, voiced agreement with the need for further training. One community council stated "Continuous training in any occupation leads to more informed staff and a better service, such training might be more wide spread and available to as many people working within retail as possible." Only 8 disagreed with this suggestion on the basis that it may not be well received. Six respondents commented that it may be hard to implement and especially that it may be hard to engage large retailers.

Four respondents felt that the training should be provided by employers. Two respondents thought large companies should have staff responsible for delivering training and one commented that major retailers already provide training to their staff. Two respondents felt the training should be aimed at staff in SMEs.

Generic training was not seen as being of particular use and 9 respondents felt it would need to be product or sector specific. One manufacturer commented "However, the training, support and guidance needs to be tailored to suit the audience (not a generic campaign to cover all)."EU legislation was mentioned by 5 respondents who felt new regulations, or updates to existing legislation, would increase the need for training.

The question of who should provide the training was raised by 9 respondents who felt it should be delivered through existing courses or by existing bodies; one local authority mentioned "Such training could, perhaps, be delivered by existing providers (eg EnviroWise)." There was a suggestion that courses could lead to a basic standard or certificate and 7 respondents commented specifically on the need for some sort of standard or charter mark. Six respondents voiced the opinion that sources of advice are already available and that these should be assessed and promoted.

Retailers already provide product information to customers and 9 respondents felt that this should be extended to providing information on waste or recycling.

Training for sales staff was not seen as necessary by 3 respondents. The need to include voluntary staff, however, was mentioned by 2 respondents and 3 respondents noted that staff may need incentives to participate in training.

Including manufacturers in any training programmes was seen as important by 3 respondents.

A range of issues were seen as possible subjects for training and these included:

• Sustainability and waste awareness (5 respondents);
• Training on all aspects of waste (4 respondents);
• Health and safety training - including storage and handling (3 respondents);
• Waste segregation (1 respondent).

6.3 FOOD WASTE

6.3.1 Labelling

There are a variety of different dates printed on food labels. Some dates are important for consumers in relation to food safety while others provide information to retail staff. The consultation asked "Do consultees consider that food labelling requirements cause any conflicts with waste prevention? Is so, what are these conflicts and what can be done to reduce them?"

Fifty respondents commented at question 8. Of these, 15 felt that there were no conflicts.

Fifteen respondents stressed that, whatever action was taken on this issue, health and hygiene issues should be paramount. Three of the 4 respondents from the packaging sub-group voiced this opinion. As one local authority noted "The Council view is that while there is merit in minimising food labelling, in any situation where there is a conflict between food labelling and waste prevention, the former must take priority in terms of public health protection."

There was acknowledgement, from 13 respondents, that there is confusion over the various dates that can be printed on labels and some suggestions were made as to how this could be remedied:

• Consistent use of "use by", "use within" dates (4 respondents);
• More consistent use of "best before" dates (3 respondents);
• Use a code or other non-date identification of shelf-life for staff (3 respondents);
• Use food indicator labels (1 respondent).

"The food labels (sell by/ use by/best before) can be quite confusing for members of the public and undoubtedly leads to food wastage in both the retail outlets and in the home. Consideration should be given to the use of 'hidden coding to avoid unnecessary food wastage."
Service Industry

Three respondents felt there were excessive information requirements and saw merit in simplifying or reducing these, with 1 respondent noting that more information requires more packaging. However, 2 respondents saw the need for environmental impact information to be provided on labels.

The possibility of information being provided in-store rather than on labelling was raised by 6 respondents and 2 others felt this should include advice on safe storage or refrigeration.

While 3 respondents felt that retailers use labelling to manage food waste, 3 respondents felt that "sell by" dates are, or may be, set early to increase the amount of product sold.

6.3.2 Surplus food - retailers

Retailers can be left with a surplus of food products near or at the end of their shelf-life. FareShare collects quality surplus food from wholesalers, retailers and caterers and distributes this to projects helping the homeless or disadvantaged that are registered. Question 9 of the consultation asked, "Do consultees consider that more could be done to collect and use surplus food from wholesalers, retailers, caterers and other outlets? If so, what?"

Almost half (21) of the 45 respondents commenting on question 9 voiced agreement that more could be done. Only 1 respondent, a community council, disagreed.

Fifteen respondents wanted to see useable food collected and distributed through charities or voluntary organisations and a further 12 respondents wanted to see FareShare or other similar schemes more widely promoted. One retailer commented on their practice "Yes. In order to minimise food wastage, the respondent sells unsold food products to our employees at a discounted price, use some in our own catering and donates to charities such as FareShare (all food is still within its use-by date). The Scottish Executive could consider ways of promoting and supporting the activities of groups such as FareShare." However, 2 respondents commented on the costs involved. Three respondents would like to see legislation to ensure collection of surplus food and 1 respondent felt retailers may need incentives to participate. The need for retailers and organisations to work together was voiced by 4 respondents.

Five respondents noted that smarter procurement practices would lead to less waste. One respondent felt there should be financial penalties for over-stocking. Two respondents suggested that discounted prices for employees could remove some of the surplus food.

Health and safety issues surrounding food waste were mentioned as paramount by 3 respondents.

Possible problems highlighted included the practicalities of collecting the surplus (mentioned by 5 respondents) and problems caused by the Animal By-products regulations (also mentioned by 5 respondents).

Composting was seen, by 13 respondents, as the ideal way to dispose of unusable food and 4 respondents saw a role for community recycling groups in the collection and processing of this waste. One respondent saw a role for SEPA in actively encouraging the collection and treatment of surplus food.

Two respondents felt more information was needed as to the amount of surplus food being landfilled and to identify which stage produces most waste.

6.3.3 Surplus food - consumers

For a variety of reasons, consumers may be left with a surplus of food in the home and this waste is normally thrown away. Question 10 of the consultation asked, " Do consultees consider that action should be taken to reduce food waste in the home? If yes, what action should be taken? One possibility might be to produce guidelines on retail promotions and their waste implications. Legislation in this area might be timeconsuming, disproportionate and, in any event, more suitable at UK rather than Scottish level. Another option could be increased use of re-sealable packaging, to help food keep fresh for longer."

Fifty-seven respondents commented at question 10 and the majority (32) saw the need to educate consumers on a variety of issues including food preparation, nutrition and storage as well as waste awareness. This could include; clearer guidance on "use by" and other dates (mentioned by 3 respondents), implementation of toolkits to reduce household waste (1 respondent), publicising Wastewatch (1 respondent), encouraging purchases of fresh food (3 respondents) and health and safety issues (1 respondent).

"Encouragement of using home storage (but not disposable cling film!) that seals, and information on the best way to keep different food fresh (temperatures, light/dark etc) would be more useful."
Individual

Five respondents saw the need for more responsibility to be placed with consumers and 1 respondent suggested a charge for household waste collections. Home composting was seen as a possible solution and 6 respondents felt this should be promoted.

Retailers use a variety of promotional tools including "buy one, get one free offers" and 14 respondents felt that these contributed to household waste and that they could be restricted or replaced with half price offers for single items. Seven respondents, including 3 retailers, felt that retailers should decide their sales policies and there should be no action on these offers. Three respondents commented that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that "buy one, get one free" offers do increase waste. Three respondents mentioned that it is not in the interests of retailers to undertake irresponsible promotions. Two respondents felt action would be more suitable at a UK level.

The possibility of producing guidelines for retailers on the waste implications of promotions was raised by 4 respondents. Four respondents mentioned the need to reduce multi-packaging and 2 respondents felt retailers should be provided with information on shopping patterns or small-household purchasing. Three respondents would like to see unpackaged goods more widely available while 2 respondents saw the need for a faster supply chain to increase availability of fresh food.

Research, including that carried out by WRAP, to provide greater understanding of why food is wasted in the home was mentioned by 7 respondents.

Packaging issues were covered in relation to household food waste, with 5 respondents wishing to see an increase in the use of re-sealable packaging. However, the same number of respondents felt that re-sealable bags are not required as they are expensive or bulky.

Some individuals attending the consultation event noted that "buy one, get one free offers" ( BOGOF) often generate waste, especially products with fresh or short sell-buy dates with lifestyle choices being driven by value. There were suggestions for this to be identified as an effective area to educate consumers, with a recommendation to consumers to purchase BOGOF offers for dried or canned foods only. Some individuals suggested that retailers should be encouraged to use food indicators instead of use-buy dates and noted that these are popular in the US. It was also noted that school and home economics should cover wastage of food and discourage the use of ready meals and other over-packaged items.

It was also noted that retailers could do much more to highlight packaging issues in their stores and suggestions were for:

• Minimal packaged areas in the store (similar to organic foods);
• Convince retailers that innovations in packaging will get customer loyalty (example of a lettuce growing live in the packaging);
• Encourage the use of farmers markets inside stores.

Attendees at focus groups also raised concern over the number of promotions that encouraged the consumer to buy more than they required. For example "2 for 1" or "buy one, get one half price" offers were deemed responsible for more waste being generated.

6.4 PACKAGING

The Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 2003

Producers and manufacturers are required by the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 2003 to minimise the amount of packaging on their products. The regulations are enforced by Local Authority Trading Standards officers, although the consultation document acknowledges that there have been no prosecutions in Scotland under these regulations. The consultation asked "Do you think the Packaging ( Essential Requirements) Regulations 2003 are working? If not, why not? What action could be taken to improve their operation?"

Twenty-one of the 54 respondents commenting on question 11 felt that the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 2003 are not working and the main reason given for this view was a perception of over-packaging (especially at Easter and Christmas). Seventeen respondents commented that they felt this was still widespread.

The lack of prosecutions mentioned in the consultation document was echoed by 16 respondents who felt that this indicated the regulations were not being enforced and 9 respondents called for more resources or support for enforcement. A further 8 respondents felt consistent enforcement should happen at EU level or even globally.

There was a general feeling of a lack of awareness about the existence or substance of the regulations (cited by 14 respondents). Comments on the substance of the regulations were that there are many areas which remain unclear, with 9 respondents suggesting that there were a number of grey areas causing confusion in the wording or intent. Specific wording was mentioned with 4 respondents commenting that "placing" was likely to happen outwith the UK'. Four respondents felt problems were caused by the use of the words "extensive packaging" and felt this should be clarified. Two respondents felt there was confusion over performance criteria and 3 respondents felt that the time limits given in the regulations were too long. One local authority stated "there are difficulties in the enforcement of the Regulations due to their drafting. Two main issues are placing on the market' and time limits."

The use of penalties in enforcement was raised by 7 respondents, while 6 felt that an alternative regulator may be needed. There were 3 comments on the problems faced by local authorities in "taking on" multi-national companies; one Environment NGO commented "it is pretty improbable that a local authority is going make much headway in a legal challenge against big businesses like the supermarkets".

The need for responsibility to be placed with retailers and manufacturers was stressed by 5 respondents, although 3 respondents were concerned that some products may be unfairly penalised, for example where packaging extends shelf-life.

Research into packaging or consumer perceptions of packaging was identified as important by 6 respondents and 2 others felt that we could learn from systems operating overseas. All 3 of the retailers commenting at this question saw the need for research.

Some respondents, however , felt that the regulations were working and 14 respondents were happy with the current system. This included 4 of the 6 respondents from the packaging sub-group who commented at this question.

6.4.1 Minimising household waste from packaging

Alongside The Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 2003, both WRAP and The Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment ( INCPEN) are conducting non-statutory work on minimising waste, or the environmental impact of waste, from packaging. Schemes aimed at minimising waste from packaging include refill packs or containers; similar systems are currently in use in Europe and North America.

Question 12 asked, "Could any further action be taken in Scotland to minimise household waste from packaging? If so, what? Options could include:

• (Option 1): Better information for consumers on the role packaging plays, how its environmental impact can be minimised, and what action they can take. This may be a role for Environment Direct.
• (Option 2): Better information for consumers on how much of the retail price of a product relates to the packaging, rather than the product. Again, this may be a role for Environment Direct.
• (Option 3): More work to mainstream product refill systems in Scotland (eg a feasibility study)?"

As shown in table 6.3, there was broad support for all of the options mentioned in the consultation document with 19 out of the 59 commenting supporting these actions. Smaller numbers of those commenting referred to option 3 specifically (13 respondents), option 1 specifically (11 respondents) or option 2 specifically (10 respondents).

Some respondents did not state a preference while others chose more than one option.

Table 6.1
Preference for options given at question 12

Other suggestions given by those responding to this question included the need for penalties or incentives to change behaviour (7 respondents) .

Packaging standards were identified as important by 6 respondents while 4 respondents saw the need to extend regulation to retailers and 4 respondents noted that the implementation of the suggested options would need support from major retailers.

An increase in the number of collections schemes and recycling sites was identified by 4 respondents, while 3 felt there was a need for further education on recycling and 3 other respondents felt that the cost of waste should be included on labelling. At the consultation event, it was suggested that information on recycling be provided in-store and that 'money off' vouchers for recycling may be a useful initiative. Trials of this type of scheme are currently underway in England.

Two retailers voiced their opposition to option 2 as they felt this may not be meaningful and they had concerns over accuracy. Two respondents, including 1 retailer, felt that option 3 may be difficult to implement.

"Refillable systems are not appropriate in the UK as the infrastructure to be able to make it work does not exist unlike in other countries. The reliance on importing of products also makes this concept impractical. (Work has already taken place by the Advisory Committee on Packaging on returnable systems)"
Packaging

There were a number of comments made by smaller numbers of respondents and these included:

• The need to encourage more local suppliers or deliveries (2 respondents);
• Problems with a refill system in relation to the elderly or those without transport (1 respondent);
• A packaging consumer watch-dog (1 respondent);
• Extra charge for packaging (1 respondent);
• Regulations to compel recycling (1 respondent);
• Recycling point in-store (1 respondent);
• Low-cost refill bags (1 respondent);
• Standard container sizes - including those from overseas) (1 respondent).

Excess packaging was the main theme to emerge from the four focus groups. In general, attendees felt that waste reduction could be achieved via a reduction in packaging and that manufacturers and retailers should ultimately be responsible for affecting this change. It was also perceived that some supermarkets are already trying to address this issue. Some individuals noted a perception that there is an overuse of plastic and plastic film in packaging and some others noted that retailers could provide in store information on the amount of packaging associated with different products. Some of these individuals noted that they would choose a product with less packaging provided that the quality and cost of the product were comparable and not compromised.

Across the four focus groups it was perceived that buying food from local shops would also reduce the amount of excess packaging purchased. The perception was that if the public used local retailers (including farmers markets) that there were greater opportunities to buy food loose and to buy in bulk, and as a consequence of this there would be a reduction in packaging. However it was also noted that local shops tended to be more expensive and that it was in general more convenient to use supermarkets. A link was also made with healthy eating and waste reduction, several group members felt that people should be encouraged to cook from fresh. It was perceived that people currently were more likely to use ready meals and other convenience foods and, as a direct consequence of this, more waste was generated.

Some of the attendees indicated that they could choose to buy products packaged in recyclable materials, or that they could buy recycled products and that there should be greater consumer purchasing choices in relation to these.

There were also suggestions for the introduction of refill schemes in supermarkets as being a method by which excess packaging could be reduced. This also led to further discussion on the operation of these systems. There was a general consensus that refill systems had operated in the past but were largely unavailable now as a result of the convenience led lifestyle. It was felt that the reintroduction of such schemes might be successful, but only in relation to specific products namely cleaning, personal hygiene and a limited range of food products e.g. cereals. Any such systems would have to be easy to use, address safety and hygiene concerns and be cheaper than packaged alternatives.

There were also some suggestions from focus group attendees for direct action that consumers could take to reduce packaging, although awareness as to what direct action they could take to reduce excess packaging was limited. The focus group participants were not aware of the 'Consumer Direct' web-site as a mechanism to allow them to take direct action. The most common response given was to contact the retailers direct either at the individual store level or at head office. Other mechanisms identified by the attendees were to contact their local councillors or MSP's to lobby the manufacturers and retailers on their behalf.

6.5 PACKAGING RE-USE

While deposit and return schemes were common in the past, and are still common in other parts of the world, they are not now largely used here. Reverse vending schemes, although being piloted in England by WRAP, are not yet used in Scotland.

The consultation asked "Do consultees consider more could be done to encourage re-use either through deposit and return schemes or more generally? Options could include "reverse vending" trials in Scotland or trials of deposit and return schemes."

The main comment at question 13 concerned existing initiatives, with 23 respondents of the 62 commenting perceiving a need to look at what was happening elsewhere in the UK or overseas. In particular, the issue of sustainability was mentioned and 3 respondents saw the need for further research in this area.

There was broad support for the options of reverse vending or deposit and return trials and 18 respondents felt both options should be trialled. Fifteen respondents specifically expressed a preference for reverse vending, while 13 wanted to see deposit and return schemes piloted. Only two respondents stated that they were wary of these approaches. One manufacturer noted "They are rarely based upon sound environmental reasoning, and more often than not, are a means of protecting local production interests rather than reducing environmental impacts."

While there was broad support for these schemes, some concerns were raised over the practicalities of these types of schemes. Eight respondents (including 2 retailers and 3 from the packaging sub-group), felt deposit and return schemes might prove expensive, be hard to implement or consume too much space. The same concerns were raised over the implementation of reverse vending schemes by 6 respondents (this included 3 out of the 4 retailers commenting on this question). Health & Safety issues were of concern to 4 respondents; a manufacturer commented "that re-use is a viable option for some products, glass, plastics etc, but the measurement of the health and safety risks, the environmental impact of cleaning and sterilizing and the transportation costs must be borne in mind when comparing to one trip packaging that can be recycled within the home or locally.".

Loyalty cards and tax incentives were suggested by 10 respondents who felt that there would need to be some form of incentive to encourage participation, while 2 respondents felt legislation may be needed. The possibility of kerbside collections of re-useable packaging was mentioned by 5 respondents (including 2 in the packaging sub-group), while the need to promote and recognise work done in this field by voluntary organisations was mentioned by 2 respondents from the community sector.

Five respondents expressed the view that recycling is more effective than refilling, while 5 respondents (4 of whom were local authorities) stated their preference for re-use over recycling.

A large number of points were raised by 1 or two respondents and these included:

• The need to promote localisation (2 respondents);
• The need for trials to include education and promotion (2 respondents);
• Consideration of special status for charity shop waste (2 respondents);
• The feeling that schemes have NOT been successful in other countries (2 respondents);
• Problems of access to the schemes for disabled people, the elderly or those without transport (2 respondents);
• The need for more information to be given to consumers on the cost of product packaging and its disposal (1 respondent);
• The need for more information and support for retailers (1 respondent);
• The perception that schemes such as those suggested are barriers to trade (1 respondent);
• The need for standardised bottle designs (1 respondent);
• The need to investigate why deposit schemes fell out of fashion (1 respondent);
• The need to engage retailers (1 respondent);
• Balancing the gains against energy costs (1 respondent);
• Concern that these schemes may reduce local authority recycling rates (1 respondent).

6.6 REDUCING WASTE FROM THE RETAILING OF PRODUCTS

In some instances retailers are able to return unsold goods to the wholesaler and this is standard practice with newspapers and allows the wholesaler to put in place arrangements for centralised recycling. New technology is also giving retailers the opportunity to reduce waste by making products available electronically. Leasing arrangements can also help minimise waste from retailing by encouraging retailers to produce longer life products.

Question 14 of the consultation asked, "Could more action be taken to reduce waste from the retailing of products? Possible actions include:

• (Option 1): Measures to encourage more unsold products to be returned to the wholesaler.
• (Option 2): Pilot projects on new IT technologies or new ways of providing services which reduce waste."

As shown in table 6.4, the greatest level of support (16 of the 51 respondents commenting at question 14) felt that both options had merit. An equal number of respondents (6) supported each individual option; some respondents did not state a preference.

Table 6.2
Preference for options given at question 14

The need for legislation to be placed on manufacturers and consumers was identified by 6 respondents, although 5 respondents commented that many retailers are already trying to reduce waste as this has an impact on their costs and 4 respondents felt that this was not an area where government should intervene.

There were suggestions from 5 respondents that unsold goods could be donated to charity or voluntary organisations and that this should be promoted. One respondents from the community sector suggested "A further option to be considered (which is already happening to some extent) is for incentives for more end of lines and 'seconds' to be donated to the charity retail sector so that the items can be sold and used in this way rather than either destroyed, thrown away or wasted."

Three respondents commented that returning goods to wholesalers would only serve to move the waste from one location to another.

Procurement policies were mentioned by 3 respondents who felt that the problem of overstocking needed to be addressed. Three respondents wanted to see retail waste tackled as part of a life-cycle approach rather than independently. Leasing or hiring arrangements were supported by 3 respondents.

Again, a variety of comments were made by one or two respondents including:

• The need for more research (2 respondents);
• Concerns over problems of retail / supplier agreements (2 respondents);
• Need to take in considerations of older or disabled people (1 respondent);
• Projects seen as a good idea but not always practical (1 respondent);
• The need to reduce specific waste - created by Christmas and Easter or paper receipts (1 respondent);
• Work should be done at EU level (1 respondent);
• Work should be at national level (1 respondent);
• Option 2 may not reduce waste (1 respondent);
• Investigate possible waste reduction via internet purchasing (1 respondent);
• Tackle packaging on "luxury" goods (1 respondent);
• The possibility of an electronic waste forum (1 respondent).

At one focus group, discussions on packaging reduction showed that there was little awareness of what consumers could do to complain about excess packaging.

Individuals attending the consultation event discussed recycling "bring-sites" and other facilities that could be offered at supermarkets and views were that this needs to be fully integrated into planning. Some noted that deposit recycling schemes successfully work in Europe, albeit that they are really only effective where the recycling loop has been closed. Specific suggestions made included:

• Provide more information in store about where customers can recycle;
• Trial MRF facilities at front end of supermarkets and industrial estates;
• Money-off vouchers for customers for recycling (being trialled with Tesco and Sainsbury's in England).

6.7 PROVISION OF INFORMATION

Retailers and manufacturers have a variety of opportunities to provide consumers with information on waste issues. This can be done via advertising, in-store using announcements or displays, on web-sites or through leaflets. However this could lead to information overload for consumers. The consultation asked "Do consultees consider that retailers and manufacturers could provide more and better information on waste issues to their consumers? If so, what do consultees consider should be done?"

Almost half (27) of the 61 respondents who answered question 15 agreed that retailers and manufacturers could provide more and better information on waste issues to consumers.

The way in which information was presented was mentioned by 23 respondents who felt it should be clear, meaningful, useful and accessible. If presented incorrectly, too much information could prove counterproductive and 17 respondents agreed that it would need to be well thought through. At the consultation event the Co-op's red dot scheme was highlighted as a good example of efficient labelling.

"Much clearer information is required on what is repairable, what is recyclable and what has been made from recycled materials. For example, the repairability of shoes could be identified at the point of sale."
Academic / Professional

Labelling was seen as a possible medium for informing consumers; 15 respondents felt that using consistent labelling with, perhaps, an environmental rating could be a positive step. Six respondents felt that disposal information should be included on labelling or packaging. Providing consumers with life-cycle or whole product information was preferred by 11 respondents, some of whom suggested using environmental profiles.

Six respondents felt that retailers and manufacturers should publish their waste policies and also make their waste costs public.

More advertising or encouragement to recycle was seen as useful and 16 respondents wanted to see more "where" or "how" to recycle information for consumers.

Other suggestions included:

• That action should be promoted by government or by a national body (3 respondents);
• The view that actions should be targeted on those products causing most waste (2 respondents);
• The need to make consumers aware of possible savings and benefits (2 respondents);
• There could be cost implications for charity shops or second hand retailers (1 respondent).

6.8 WASTE AWARE SCOTLAND AWARD FOR THE RETAIL SECTOR

The consultation document suggests the possibility of an award to celebrate the success of retailers in reducing waste and the consultation asked " Do consultees consider that an annual Waste Aware Scotland award for the retail sector would be useful? If so, what form should this take?"

This concept was supported by half (26) of the respondents answering question 16 and this included 2 of the 4 retailers commenting here.

Twelve respondents did not see the need for such an award while 9 felt that it could be built into existing awards or schemes.

If an award was to be introduced, 7 respondents stressed that in order to be successful it would have to be seen as prestigious and creditable and 2 respondents felt such an award would be more effective at UK level. Five respondents mentioned the benefit that publicity would bring to award winners and 2 felt that it could act as an incentive. The process for nominating companies was mentioned by 2 respondents who felt that consumers should be allowed to suggest nominees.

"while awards can be a successful means to engage retailers, badly founded schemes are ineffective and poor value for money. Effective awards schemes need a good level of press and therefore public interest and genuine interest from the target sector."
Other public body / publicly-funded body

Three respondents felt such a scheme would produce waste and excess paper work and be costly to run.

The following comments were made by single respondents:

• Difficult to implement as control over retailing is largely under the control of the supermarket giants;
• Regulations would be more effective;
• Awards for different categories - perhaps by size of business;
• Award for reduction / collection of household waste / reduction of packaging;
• Have a wooden spoon for worst cases;
• Local heats / regional heats;
• Cash award;
• The award could be sponsored by business.

In summary,

• There was broad agreement for a need for guidance and support for retailers to build waste considerations into their procurement process, and some suggestions that legislation is needed to back this up.
• Many consultees also voiced the need for further training for retailers and their employees. However, views were split as to what organisations should have responsibility for its delivery and there were comments that training needs to be tailored to different sectors and / or products.
• In terms of food waste specifically, there was a need for retailers to provide information to consumers, and that information relating to health and hygiene issues specifically should take priority over any packaging issues.
• There was general agreement that more could be done to collect and use surplus food from wholesalers, retailers, caterers and other outlets, along with support for greater promotion of schemes in relation to this.
• A majority of consultees perceived a need to educate consumers on issues in relation to food waste, although there were suggestions that retailers also need to consider actions they can undertake to help reduce levels of consumer food waste.
• Views were relatively split as to whether the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 2003 are working. Some consultees noted that there is a lack of awareness on the part of some of these regulations and others commented on a lack of enforcement.
• While views were split over which specific options could be utilised to minimise household waste from packaging, a majority of consultees supported some form of action. Other comments included suggestions for an increase in the number of collection schemes or recycling sites.
• While there was support for re-use through deposit and return schemes, concerns were raised over their practicality and implementation or the type(s) of products best suited to these schemes.
• There was broad support for more action to be taken to reduce waste from the retailing of products, although views on how this could be brought about varied.
• Almost half of the consultees perceived a need for retailers to provide consumers with information and noted the importance of any information being clear, meaningful, useful and accessible.
• Offering a Waste Aware Scotland Award was perceived to be a positive move by around half the consultees.

« Previous | Contents | Next »