« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 7: CONSUMERS
Almost everything we use in our homes will eventually end up being thrown away. From everyday items such as packaging and food waste to bulkier items like furniture and white goods, each household produces over 1.1 tonnes of waste every year. While there is widespread consumer support for recycling, waste prevention behaviour - as opposed to recycling behaviour - is harder for consumers. The introduction of extra collections for garden waste, paper and glass, and the provision of home composters or wormeries in some local authority areas means that some waste is now being diverted from landfill. Charities also play a role in accepting surplus household goods and clothes for re-use. In order that more waste can be diverted from the general stream, consumer habits need to change so that recycling or re-use become the automatic consumer action when disposing of waste or unwanted items.
Within the consumer sub-group only 1 response was received. Their response dealt solely with plastic bag issues at questions 19 and 20 and so will be reported alongside other responses on this issue in chapter 8. Where comments from the sub-group of individuals are markedly different these have been highlighted.
7.1 CONSUMER POWER
Consumer demand influences the decisions made by retailers and service providers and consumer feedback could be more widely used to the same effect. The consultation document acknowledged that "traditionally, the UK consumer has not been skilled at making effective complaints". Companies too need to improve on the way they respond to feedback and complaints. Negative feedback or complaints about waste issues from consumers could play an effective role in helping to reduce waste; especially from excessive packaging.
The consultation asked "Do consultees consider that further action should be taken to make it easier for consumers to raise environmental and waste issues with retailers and other providers of goods and services? Possible actions could include the provision of further information by Government, consumer bodies and retailers on how to complain about excessive packaging and waste."
Fifty-six respondents commented at question 17 and, of these, 30 voiced their support for further action, with 2 adding the need to tackle excessive consumerism. Only 6 respondents disagreed; citing the fact that schemes and initiatives are already underway in this area or that they do not consider this a Government function. Two respondents wanted to see any action linked to existing initiatives.
Consumer education was mentioned by 9 respondents; this, they felt, would help to raise awareness of the issues. One local authority commented "Most consumers are probably not aware that they can complain to companies about excessive packaging so more promotion and information is necessary to raise awareness and make it easier for consumers to make complaints." Eight respondents felt that a packaging or consumer watchdog should be tasked with carrying the proposals and four others felt that Environment Direct would serve this function. One respondent, however, stressed that there was no need for a new quango. Four respondents wanted to see more information for consumers on how to complain, while 3 wanted to see a simple, easily accessible, perhaps on-line, feedback or complaints mechanism. Four respondents felt that naming and shaming or, alternatively, rewards for good practice, may work well.
Consumers are entitled to leave any excess packaging with retailers; 6 respondents felt that this should be more widely publicised or that stores should provide sites for excess packaging to be deposited for recycling.
Those attending focus groups, noted that disposable lifestyles were deemed to generate large amounts of waste. Many indicated that as consumers they were directed via advertising and marketing to buy more, and new, rather than to repair or reuse. Disposable lifestyle was directly linked to convenience buying, the lifespan of products, where it was cheaper to buy new than to repair, and that the availability of repair outlets was limited. Within the groups smaller electrical items were the primary products identified e.g. toasters, kettles mobile phones etc. In addition advances in technology often negated repair e.g. advancement in digital television sets. However this perception was different amongst the attendees in relation to white goods.
The attendees felt that manufacturers had a responsibility to ensure that quality products were produced to lengthen product lifespan. It was also discussed that there should be extended product guarantees, and that extended warrantees should not be prohibitively expensive. There was greater consumer awareness and behaviour towards repair and reuse for non-electrical household items. Charity shops and social enterprise schemes were commonly identified as outlets where these items could be repaired and reused.
7.2 LOYALTY CARDS
Loyalty cards are traditionally associated with retail chains but these could also be used to reward consumers for making environmentally friendly purchases. Similar schemes already operate in other parts of the world.
Question 18 asked , "Do consultees consider that environmental loyalty cards should be run in Scotland? It is likely that any such cards would have to be run by retail outlets. Is there any role here for the Scottish Executive and/or SEPA?"
Twenty-one of the 50 respondents, including 9 local authorities, who answered question 18 thought this was a good idea while 12 did not (this included 3 of the 9 individuals commenting here). Six respondents felt they did not have sufficient information to comment. One respondent from the packaging sub-group commented "We agree that this is a good idea and are aware of similar initiatives set up for users of bring banks." Five local authorities and 1 individual agreed that the Scottish Executive or SEPA could have a role to play. One respondent felt that this was not a function of government.
There was concern that the scheme may prove costly and 5 respondents felt it could be bureaucratic and hard to administer. Four respondents highlighted the need to ensure it was based on sound, accurate information and statistics. One respondent from the academic / professional sub-group noted that "If environmental loyalty cards were introduced we would have to ensure that the information was accurate. We would not want to see a return to the 1980s where we had a plethora of claims, such as environmentally friendly, ozone friendly (when no aerosols contained CFCs), biodegradable (when all washing powders were) etc." This comment was also endorsed by one local authority respondent.
Loyalty card schemes are run by many retail chains and 4 respondents thought the new scheme could be tied into these. Two respondents disagreed with this view in that they did not feel it appropriate for retailers to be involved. Three respondents thought that the choice should be left to retailers to decide whether to become involved.
Loyalty card points can induce a "feel-good" factor; 3 respondents worried that this scheme could actually increase purchasing and so lead to waste.
Given that results from this analysis will also help to provide evidence to the Environment and Rural Development Committee on the Member's Bill proposing a levy on plastic bags, questions 19 and 20 that deal specifically with the issue of plastic bags are dealt with in the next chapter (chapter 8).
7.3 UNWANTED MAIL
There are some measures already in place to reduce the amount of unwanted "junk" mail that is delivered and the Mail Preference Service run by the Direct Marketing Association is probably the best known. Question 21 of the consultation asked "Do consultees consider that further action should be taken in relation to unwanted mail and leaflets? If so, what?"
Nineteen of the 53 responses to question 21 stressed the need for the Mail Preference Service to be more widely promoted, with 2 commenting that they would like to see this service made more straightforward and accessible. Eight respondents wanted to see an increase in the use of the Royal Mail opt-out of unaddressed mail service and 6 respondents felt that the system should be opt-in rather than opt-out. Existing agreements were seen as sufficient by some respondents, and 4 out of the 8 respondents making this point were local authorities.
Further actions in relation to unwanted mail included the suggestion, from 8 respondents, that all unaddressed mail should be banned; this included 4 of the 10 individuals commenting on this question. For example, 1 individual commented "All unwanted mail should be stopped and companies who continue to distribute junk mail should be heavily fined."
Nine respondents wanted to see tighter restrictions and perhaps a levy on unaddressed mail but 3 respondents felt that voluntary agreements should be tried first. Three respondents suggested that companies who send out mailshots should need the consent of the householder before sending mail to them. Three respondents suggested an increase in the use of email to send promotional and other information.
The use of window envelopes, which have to be deconstructed for recycling, was commented on by 4 respondents who would like to see printed rather than window envelopes used. One respondent felt that all unaddressed mail should be fully recyclable.
Information or education for consumers on how to avoid their names or addresses being placed on mailing lists was suggested by 2 respondents.
Specific items of mail that respondents would like to see reduced included flyers in newspapers or magazines (mentioned by 2 respondents) and political mail at election time (2 respondents).
Unwanted mail was perceived as a problem by most of those attending focus groups but without prompting was not directly linked to waste prevention. Once prompted, a small number of attendees indicated that they were using the Mailing Preference Service, although the majority were unaware of this as a resource to reduce unwanted mail. It was recommended that the public should be made aware of this and other related services to encourage their engagement in Household Waste Prevention.
7.4 HOME COMPOSTING
Household waste that is compostable is estimated at a level of 30% of the total waste from households. Three options for dealing with compostable waste are home composting bins, food digesters or wormeries. Question 22 of the consultation asked "Do consultees consider that further action could and should be taken to promote home composting, food digesters or wormeries in Scotland? If so, what?"
There were only 48 responses to question 22 and almost half (23) of these wanted to see more composting initiatives, or wide(r) publicity for existing ones. In addition, 18 respondents voiced support for further action being taken to promote home composting and wormeries. Only 3 respondents felt that no further action was needed and 1 respondent felt that legislation would be required.
Eighteen respondents felt that low cost or free home composters should be made available to the public. In addition, more publicity and information should be utilised to encourage use, with 12 respondents commenting that householders would need access to a variety of information including cost benefits. In addition to home composters, 11 respondents suggested similar schemes for food digesters and 10 respondents wanted to see the use of wormeries more widely promoted. As one Individual noted,
"All homes with gardens should be offered free or subsidised compost bins, digesters or wormeries, along with community training to make the most of them. Should someone not want compost, then a digester would suit. Those who don't want any facility to home compost should perhaps have to accept they should pay for the uplift of their compostable waste, unless there were over-riding good reasons why they cannot compost."
There could be positive benefits for local authorities, with 9 respondents commenting that these measures would help to meet targets.
Financial issues were raised by 11 respondents who felt that funding would be required and 5 respondents who specifically suggested charges for green waste uplift to promote home composting.
In order to measure the success of these schemes, 4 respondents felt that targets should be set. However, 2 respondents felt that the suggested schemes would not work in all areas, for example high density housing areas.
Education in schools or information for consumers was seen by 5 respondents as essential to promote the use of home composters.
One respondent commented on the need to recycle rather than compost corrugated paper and another felt home composters should be a requirement in all new-build housing.
At three of the focus groups, home composting was recognised as a way to reduce household waste and it was recognised by respondents that both garden and fruit and vegetable waste could be composted. However, one concern raised in relation to composting was the perceived problem associated with rodents foraging for food.
In summary,
- There was majority support for further action to be taken to make it easier for consumers to raise environmental and waste issues with retailers and other providers of goods and services. That said, there were also suggestions that consumers need to be educated to raise their awareness of the issues or how they can complain about excessive packaging. There were also suggestions of a need for a change in consumer attitudes to create less of a "disposable goods" lifestyle.
- There was a level of support for some form of environmental loyalty card, although there were some concerns about how such a scheme would operate.
- In terms of unwanted mail specifically, a number of respondents noted the need for an increased awareness and promotion of the Mail Preference Service.
- There were calls for more composting initiatives and for wider publicity for existing initiatives.
« Previous | Contents | Next »