Three of the world’s biggest consumer goods brands, Unilever, P&G and Kraft Heinz, have been criticised by recycling campaigners after failing to use a recycling label on all their products.
An estimated 2.26m tonnes of plastic packaging is produced every year in the UK, of which three-fifths (61%) ends up being dumped. Plastic bottles are one of the worst culprits, with 15m being binned every day. Meanwhile, the recycling rate for plastic film is just 3%.
Although a simple on-pack labelling system was agreed by the retail industry back in 2009, many of the UK’s most popular brands fail to consistently carry it on their products. The on-pack recycling label advises what types of packaging can be recycled and includes categories such as “widely recycled” or “check local recycling”.
Simon Ellin, chief executive at the Recycling Association, describes the oversight by multinational companies as “scandalous” and calls on the UK government to make the labelling scheme compulsory.
“For these massive multinational entities, it’s just not at the top of their agenda. They just decided not to do it and that’s completely and utterly wrong,” he says.
The foot-dragging of big brands stands in sharp contrast to the UK’s major supermarkets, all of which (bar Lidl) use the recycling label for their own-brand products. In total, over 75,000 product lines in the UK now carry the label.
A key reason brands are failing to include the information on their packaging is space, says Jane Bevis, chair of OPRL, the non-profit group that oversees the on-pack recycling label. Unlike the UK, countries such as Germany and France oblige companies to include on-pack recycling information. This creates a shortage of packaging space for brands that sell products into multiple European markets, observes Bevis.
Yet where there’s a will, there’s a way, she suggests. Pharmacy chain Boots, for instance, prints “UK only” above the on-pack recycling label to avoid EU consumers getting confused. Meanwhile, multinational manufacturers such as Unilever and P&G are embracing nationally-specific schemes in Australia and the US, she notes.
“Getting the big multinationals on board would make a big difference because by their very nature they are the brands that we are all using every day,” Bevis says. “If they are able to do it in their US market, perhaps we can persuade them to do it in their UK market as well”.
Companies respond
In response, Unilever argues that on-pack guidance is not the “sole solution” as there is “not one simple, consistent message” to guide all consumers. That said, the company says it will ensure all recyclable packaging is “clearly labelled as such” when packaging designs are updated.
Louis Lindenberg, sustainability director of global packaging at Unilever, states: “In the UK, we have the added complexity of recycling collection having been devolved to local authorities, rather than being controlled by government. This creates a lack of consistency from county to county, and borough to borough which, in turn, leads to consumer confusion.”
Kraft Heinz insists that it has “always supported the consumer’s right to know” and says the on-pack recycling label is a “great way” to increase recycling rates.
“In some instances label space is very limited whilst still being fully compliant with food labelling legislation. But as a member of the scheme we include the recycling message on as many packs as we can,” says Nigel Dickie, spokesman for Heinz Kraft. P&G did not respond to requests to comment.
Bad habits and confusion
There is no question that, when asked, people want things to be recycled, says Giles Gibbons, chief executive of Good Business, a London-based consultancy firm specialising in sustainability communications. “There’s not an ‘anti-behaviour’ norm against recycling. It’s more down to circumstance and habit – people need to be nudged in the right direction,” he adds.
A report by the group Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP)(pdf) backs up this idea of consumer willingness. Occasionally “situational barriers” that lie out of householders’ hands, such as unreliable collections or not enough recycling bins, can act as barriers and prevent them recycling. But other common obstacles – bad habits, negative attitudes and confusion about how it all works – all fall within consumers’ and companies’ capacity to change.
Nudging consumers has consequently become a central theme in companies’ recycling efforts over recent years. Striking the right tone is tricky, however. Take Pret. For several years now, a message on its napkins has warned about staff getting “all serviette-ish” and urged customers to give its napkin-pushing employees “the evil eye”. The company insists it works a treat; others find the messaging “hectoring” and “greener-than-thou”.
If prodding consciences doesn’t work, then appealing to self-interest might. That’s the tactic adopted by the likes of The North Face and H&M, which exchange old clothes for redeemable vouchers. Marks and Spencer’s “shwopping” scheme is based on a similar premise, with donations to Oxfam rewarded with a £5 voucher. The initiative has so far resulted in over 24m garments being reused or recycled.
Incentivise consumers too much, however, and there’s danger their consumption might leap – thus counteracting the efficient use of raw materials that brands supposedly desire. A recent study found that people used two to three times as much gift paper when wrapping a present if they knew the paper was going to be recycled compared to those who didn’t know.
