PREFACE
Is compostable packaging really a win-win for the environment and convenience?
In this report we dig into the steamy world of compostable packaging, looking at what ingredients are needed for it to be effectively collected and composted in the UK. Using rich insight unearthed from three behaviour change trials, existing research and conversations with experts in the field, we set out our recommendations on how to improve people’s understanding of using and disposing of compostable packaging and what needs to be considered when looking at the environmental impact of this packaging more generally.
The problems of single-use packaging and the importance of the waste hierarchy are widely recognised and accepted - prioritising reduction and reuse before turning to recycling, recovery and lastly disposal. But what about compostable packaging? It offers a solution to conventional single-use with all the benefits of convenience but with less environmental impact, right? Well, that’s not the whole story. But it is one that many people have bought into, with some businesses choosing to spend more on compostable packaging in an attempt to reduce their environmental impact and appeal to eco-conscious customers.
However, without a clear understanding among the public of how compostable packaging should be disposed of, and limited access to the right waste stream, there’s a low likelihood of it actually being composted. Which then means it starts to look and feel suspiciously like traditional single-use packaging.
But what if compostable packaging actually does get composted, that’s all good right? Well, even if it does what it’s intended to, it doesn’t automatically mean compostable packaging is environmentally a better option than conventional packaging - there’s more nuance to it. It’s difficult to compare to conventional packaging, as there are many factors between the two types of materials that aren’t directly comparable or well understood - such as microplastics, toxicity, land use, biodiversity, soil, water and human health impacts. What we do know is that, based on current research, compostable packaging isn’t always the easy environmental win it’s often marketed as; for example, a lot of compostable plastic still contains fossil-based sources.
So, what does this mean for the future of packaging? We believe that, in many cases, using compostable packaging can create more confusion and distract from actions that are higher up the waste hierarchy, such as choosing reuse or the removal of packaging altogether. If these options aren’t possible, sticking with conventional packaging that can be recycled effectively is often better than switching to compostable packaging, which requires a whole new waste stream, and therefore a different consumer behaviour.
However, there may be scenarios where compostable packaging is the right material to use. For example, if it enables food waste that would otherwise end up incinerated or in landfill, to be composted - like a bag of wilted salad. This is because the food waste is likely to have a bigger environmental impact than the packaging itself.
The challenge though is that most compostable packaging has been designed to look exactly like its conventional counterpart, which makes it difficult for people to identify and understand how to dispose of it. This requires people to re-learn what they intuitively know about disposing of (and recycling) packaging based on how it looks and feels, which is a big ask.
Inconsistencies in how compostable packaging should be disposed of adds to the confusionhome compost, council food waste, or a specific compostables bin? In scenarios where it’s the right material to use, there needs to be a consistent, clear method for disposing of compostable packaging so it’s easy for people to do the right thing. However, this might require kerbside, business and high street collections to be able to collect compostable packaging at the point of disposal.
The challenges with identifying and correctly disposing of compostable packaging can also cause problems for waste management, by adding contamination in both organic and dry recycling streams. This can increase processing costs and reduce the quality of the recycled material, although updates in materials recycling facilities to identify and separate compostable plastics may be possible in future.
Overall, it’s a complex and nuanced picture with lots of variables influencing whether compostable packaging can be better for the environment than conventional materials.
Our hope is that the recommendations laid out in this report for communicating about compostable packaging can improve peoples’ ability to identify and correctly dispose of it, if it is the chosen option. However, we strongly urge businesses to consider the full range of options available before selecting compostable packaging, as there may be ways to more effectively reduce the environmental impact of packaging through reduction, reuse or recycling. WRAP’s report ‘Considerations for Compostable Packaging’ is a great resource to help with these decisions.
INTRODUCTION
In May 2022, Hubbub joined the Compostable Coalition UK - a two-year, multi-stakeholder initiative funded by UK Research and Innovation - as an independent environmental behaviour change partner. The project explored how compostable packaging can be effectively collected and composted in the UK and focused on three types of ‘hard-to-recycle’ plastic packaging, identified by WRAP, which could potentially be replaced with compostable packaging:
↘ Flexible plastics, such as crisp packets and fresh produce bags, which can be hard to recycle due to food contamination, multi-layer materials and a lack of widespread recycling infrastructure.
↘ Small formats, such as sweet wrappers, coffee pods and tea bags, which can be hard to recycle due to their small size or since they often contain food waste.
↘ Single-use food-service packaging, such as coffee cups and takeaway boxes, which can be hard to recycle due to food contamination and the presence of a plastic lining.
The project investigated areas across the whole system of producing, using and disposing of compostable packaging, including lifecycle analysis, cost-benefit analysis, sortation and degradation tests.
Hubbub, along with psychologists from the University of Sheffield, led on the consumer behaviour part of this project to investigate how well people can identify and dispose of compostable packaging.
With insights from three trials - closed-loop office canteens, households, and a retailer take-back scheme - this report reveals how we can make it easier for people to do the right thing with compostable packaging and explores the wider considerations for using these materials.
For communicating about compostable packaging: OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
↘ Front-of-pack messaging matters: Compostable packaging producers should include a clear, stand-out message that the packaging is compostable on the front of the pack so people can easily identify it.
↘ Include a disposal label: A standardised consumer-facing label is needed on all certified compostable packaging to clearly instruct people on how to dispose of it. The label should use a unique, distinctive symbol for recognition, and specific disposal instructions that are accurate for the context it’s being disposed in. The label should be mandatory and its use regulated, aligning with OPRL recycling labels in the UK.
↘ Use a consistent colour: Using a colour theme across compostable packaging labelling and communications will help it to be easily recognised from other materials and make identifying and disposing of it more automatic. Preferably a bright, bold colour such as pink, so that the labelling stands out from conventional packaging, and use the same colour to match corresponding bin signage or other communications. We recommend avoiding green, which people tend to associate with recycling and could increase contamination issues.
↘ Differentiate compostable packaging design: Alongside on-pack messages and labelling, making compostable packaging visibly different in design to its conventional counterpart helps; for example, using a visually different material, texture or shape, may make it easier for people to identify. During waste collection and sortation processes, this may also make it easier to spot contamination.
↘ Increase transparency: Clearer communication from compostable packaging producers on what their packaging is made from and its environmental impact compared to other packaging options would make it easier for businesses and consumers to understand when to use and how to dispose of these materials, as phrases such as ‘made from plants’ can be misleading.
↘ Improve public understanding: To further improve people’s ability to correctly identify and dispose of compostable packaging, we recommend businesses using or collecting compostable packaging should highlight that:
∙ Compostable packaging can look just like conventional materials.
∙ People need to check packaging labels for disposal instructions.
∙ Be clear on how to dispose of compostable packaging.
∙ Briefly explain what happens to the packaging during the industrial composting process in a simple, understandable way, to motivate correct disposal.
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
For using compostable packaging:
↘ Prioritise environmental impact and the waste hierarchy: Only use compostable packaging where there’s clear evidence that it’s the right choice for its use based on robust lifecycle analysis. In terms of the waste hierarchy, prioritise removing packaging or using reusable packaging over single-use where possible - consider this option first in environments where it’s most effective, such as using crockery or reusable packaging in closed-loop spaces.
↘ Only use if the waste infrastructure exists: Only use compostable packaging in environments where the right waste collections are available at the point of disposal, such as at home, on high streets, within business premises or closed-loop locations. If it’s unlikely to be composted, we recommend not using it (unless there’s clear evidence it has a lower environmental impact than conventional materials), otherwise it may contaminate recycling streams, be incinerated or landfilled.
↘ Ensure consistent collections: In line with consistency for recycling collections, disposal methods for compostable packaging should be consistent for people across the country and clearly promoted to minimise confusion. Currently most local authority food waste collections don’t accept compostable packaging due to the difficulty of identifying contamination, or because it goes to anaerobic digestion (AD), which isn’t set up to accept compostable packaging. These factors present significant barriers to consistent collections.
↘ Stick to industrial composting: Stick to using and promoting industrial composting as the disposal method, as home composting is only accessible to a minority of people and has varying results. In UCL’s Big Compost Experiment, 60% of packaging certified as ‘home compostable’ didn’t fully disintegrate after six months in home composting conditions.
↘ Focus on food waste: There are clear opportunities for compostable materials to replace single-use materials that will end up in food waste bins, such as in tea bags, coffee pods, fruit stickers and caddy liners. There is also an opportunity to use compostable materials for packaging that is heavily food contaminated, can’t be easily cleaned for recycling, and where the right waste stream for compostable packaging is provided. Example locations could include festivals or food markets - although these environments also present opportunities for reusable packaging.
INVESTIGATING CONSUMER BEHAVIOURS WITH COMPOSTABLE PACKAGING
To understand how well people can identify and correctly dispose of compostable packaging, Hubbub and psychologists from the University of Sheffield conducted trials in three different settings:
1
2
3
A closed-loop trial with three offices in central London that use compostable packaging in their canteens.
A local authority trial with Medway Council, who accepted compostable packaging in their food and garden waste bins during a six-week trial with 120 residents across four streets, who received food boxes containing compostable packaging.
A take-back trial with Riverford Organic Farmers, who provide some of their fresh produce in compostable packaging and allow customers to return the packaging to Riverford with their next delivery.
Throughout these trials, the University of Sheffield led the research, using behavioural science to identify the key barriers that affected how likely people were to correctly identify and dispose of compostable packaging in each environment. Hubbub then used these insights to design and implement a range of interventions and communications to improve the target behaviours, before the University of Sheffield measured the impact of the interventions, compared to a pre-intervention phase or control group, to understand their effectiveness.
This section sets out the insights, approach and impact from these three trials along with our recommendations for each context.
CLOSED-LOOP TRIAL IN OFFICE CANTEENS
To find out how well people can identify and correctly dispose of compostable packaging in a closed-loop environment, we ran a trial in May - July 2023 with three offices in London which use Vegware compostable packaging in their canteens and have a dedicated waste stream in place for compostable packaging, collected by waste management company Recorra. However, the offices typically had a low level of compostable packaging ending up in the right bin, with the compostables bins across the three sites containing on average only 32% compostable packaging.
Digging into the issue
Research was conducted at the offices by the University of Sheffield and Hubbub, which informed the development of interventions to increase the amount of compostable packaging ending up in the correct bin. The impact of the interventions was measured through waste audits conducted by Recorra and employee surveying by the University of Sheffield.
Observations and focus groups with employees at the offices revealed three key barriers:
Difficulty identifying compostable packaging, as there was a range of suppliers with varying packaging designs and messages, along with non-compostable packaging also used on-site. This created confusion for employees as there wasn’t a consistent or obvious way to easily identify the compostable packaging, especially for formats that look very similar to conventional packaging such as plastic.
Unclear bin signage, which differed between each site, lacked specific information and made it difficult for employees to know what should go in which bin.
Lack of awareness of the composting process meant that employees didn’t understand the consequences of whether they correctly disposed of compostable packaging or not, but they suggested that knowing this could motivate them to do the right thing.
What we tested
Packaging label
A compostable sticker was applied to all compostable packaging in the canteens, to test how a standardised label for all compostable packaging could be integrated into the packaging design. The intention was that once people understood what the label signified, it would be quick and easy for them to identify compostable packaging and know how to dispose of it.
↘ Pink was chosen as a distinctive colour that’s not commonly associated with composting or recycling, so people wouldn’t automatically assume which waste stream it relates to.
↘ The symbol, selected through online user testing with 200 people, combined elements of a cup and a plant pot to represent the words ‘compostable packaging’ in an identifiable design.
↘ ‘Put in compostables bin’ gave a clear disposal instruction and matched the wording used on the bin signage.
↘ ‘Do not recycle’ aligned with proposed UK legislation for compostable packaging to be labelled with this wording, and the label was developed with advice from OPRL (a UK organisation specialising in packaging recyclability and labelling) to create a viable design.
Clear bin signage
To make it easier to choose the right bin for compostable packaging and reduce contamination, new signs were installed around the compostable packaging bins in the offices.
↘ The symbol and pink colour matched the packaging label, to make choosing the right bin become easier and more automatic.
↘ The ‘Compostables bin’ name wasn’t specific to Vegware packaging, so it was relevant for all compostable packaging used on site. It made a distinction from the separate food waste bins (used on two sites), and matched the wording used on the packaging label.
↘ The food waste message made clear whether food waste should be included in the bin (at one site) or disposed of separately (at two sites).
↘ The images on the signage were adapted to match the packaging used on each site, to provide a clear, visual reference.
Motivational video
Vegware created a video, with input from Hubbub and the University of Sheffield, to be shared on screens and through internal channels at the offices. The video raised awareness of the composting process and its outputs to motivate people to correctly dispose of the packaging.
Office presentation
As the offices hadn’t previously used the communications provided by Vegware, the University of Sheffield psychologists delivered a presentation for office managers to highlight the importance of implementing communications on how to identify and dispose of compostable packaging.
Additional bins
Two compostable packaging bins were added to the canteen area at one of the sites. These were previously only available on the office floors, as crockery was used in the canteen and there was an assumption that compostable packaging was only used for takeaway food consumed on the office floors. However, observations revealed that many people were using and disposing of compostable packaging within the canteen area.
The impact
Three waste audits at each site, pre-intervention surveying with 85 employees and post-intervention surveying with 97 employees revealed that:
Across the three offices, the proportion (kg) of compostable packaging in the compostables bins increased from 32% pre-intervention to 77% two months after the interventions were introduced.
The amount of contamination in the compostables bins had decreased across all sites two months post-intervention, decreasing from 51% to 12% at one site and from 71% to 14% at another.
Waste audits at two sites six months post-intervention (when the labels were no longer being used) showed improvements remained, but the size of the improvements had declined. At one site, the increase in the amount of compostable packaging in the compostables bins compared to preintervention levels reduced from 50% two months post-intervention to 5% six months post-intervention. At another site, the increase reduced from 39% two months post-intervention to 22% six months post-intervention.
In the surveys, there were no significant changes in employees’ overall capability, opportunity and motivation to correctly identify and dispose of compostable packaging. However, there were significant changes for some specific statements:
↘ The number of people agreeing that the compostable packaging was clearly labelled increased from 42% to 57%
↘ The number of people agreeing that there were sufficient reminders in the canteen to prompt them to correctly dispose of compostable packaging increased from 57% to 72%
↘ The number of people agreeing that something useful is done with compostable packaging increased from 51% to 63%
65% of survey respondents had noticed the labels and 67% noticed the bin signage, but only 14% reported watching the video.
86% survey respondents selected the packaging labels and/or bin signage as the most effective interventions for helping them put packaging in the compostables bin.
Positive feedback was received from site management teams, highlighting the labels as the most useful intervention and the use of pink colour-coding as particularly effective to disrupt automatic behaviours when disposing of waste.
Feedback from office on the label
Our recommendations
↘ Ensure the right bins are available in locations where people are disposing of compostable packaging.
↘ Use a bright, eye-catching colour, that isn’t commonly associated with composting or recycling, to colourcode packaging labels and bin signage. This will disrupt current behaviours and help make it easier and more automatic to identify and correctly dispose of compostable packaging.
↘ Closed-loop spaces should display signs with clear, simple messaging and images of the specific packaging used on site to help people understand which items belong in the compostables bin.
↘ Compostable packaging should be labelled by producers with a standardised, consumer-facing label, using a distinctive symbol and clear messaging, to help people identify and know how to dispose of it.
↘ Provide reminders over time about the use of compostable packaging on site, especially for new visitors or employees, to maintain correct disposal behaviours.
Wider
considerations
↘ Closed-loop locations such as office canteens are prime environments for reusable packaging or traditional crockery, which would reduce waste and have the potential to create a lower environmental impact than single-use packaging.
LOCAL AUTHORITY TRIAL WITH HOUSEHOLDS
Hubbub and the University of Sheffield teamed up with Medway Council in Kent to investigate residents’ ability to identify and dispose of compostable packaging in their co-mingled food and garden waste bins - a new behaviour for them as part of this trial.
120 households across four streets signed up to participate in the six week trial in OctoberNovember 2023. The streets were selected based on being demographically representative of the Medway borough and all houses having access to a food and garden waste bin. The trial consisted of:
↘ A food and drink hamper delivery every two weeks, containing fresh produce, snacks, tea bags and coffee pods, packaged in both compostable and non-compostable materials,
Digging into the issue
to provide households with a supply of compostable packaging.
↘ Surveys shared with participants to complete after each hamper delivery.
↘ Weekly collections of food and garden waste, plus dry recycling, by Countrystyle Recycling, which was analysed on a weekly basis by RECOUP at Envar’s industrial composting facility.
The trial was initially promoted to households as a ‘packaging trial’ and didn’t specifically mention compostable packaging, to avoid influencing behaviours during the research and preintervention phase.
Focus groups with 22 Medway residents revealed the following key barriers:
Difficulty identifying compostable packaging due to similarities in its look and feel compared to other types of conventional packaging, such as flexible plastics.
Confusion about which bin to use - during a sorting task, focus group participants showed mixed understanding of where they should be disposing of all waste, not just compostable packaging.
Scepticism about what happens to packaging when collected, as there was uncertainty around how and if packaging is actually recycled.
Lack of awareness of the composting process and the output and impact of this.
Positioning of the food and garden waste bin, as many focus group participants said they kept the bin at the end of their garden and used it more for garden waste than food waste, as it often wasn’t easily accessible from their kitchens.
Insufficient storage space for compostable packaging in the home before disposing of it in their food and garden waste bin.
What we tested
A communications theme was developed to tie the interventions together. Inspired by the insight that compostable packaging is hard to identify, we created a comic book theme, playing on the idea that compostables are like normal packaging in disguise.
Pre-intervention phase
(Weeks 1-2)
The first hamper was delivered during the preintervention phase, to understand participants’ ability to correctly dispose of compostable packaging without any additional interventions. A simple leaflet was included, informing people that compostable packaging could now go in the food and garden waste bin, along with other waste and recycling guidance, to avoid revealing that the trial was focussed on compostable packaging.
Intervention phase
(Week 3-6)
To help identify compostable packaging and inform how to dispose of it, we added front and back-ofpack labels, in the form of compostable stickers, to all items delivered in the second and third hampers.
↘ Front-of-pack label to highlight that the packaging was compostable and direct participants to check the back of the pack for disposal instructions. The sticker tested messaging that could be included in future packaging designs.
↘ Back-of-pack label to provide clear disposal instructions, the label for compostable packaging featured a simple brown symbol of a ‘C’ going into a bin, selected through user testing with 200 people and colour-coded to match the brown food and garden waste bins. This was accompanied with the ‘Do Not Recycle’ message, relating to the proposed UK legislation for compostable packaging, and designed with advice from OPRL. The stickers tested how a standardised label for compostable packaging could be integrated into the packaging design in future. Backof-pack labels with the correct disposal instructions were also applied to the items in non-compostable packaging for consistency.
The second hamper also came with:
↘ A leaflet to help residents identify and dispose of compostable packaging, to encourage the use of a food caddy, and to share tips on where to position their caddy and garden waste bin.
↘ A mask to wrap around their food caddy, inkeeping with the comic book theme, to provide a visual reminder to check the packaging labels and put compostable packaging in their food caddy.
↘ A tag for their food and garden waste bin, to also provide a visual reminder to use this bin for compostable packaging, and have a social norming effect by indicating which households were part of the trial.
Accompanying the second hamper was a bag of compost and an infographic leaflet outlining the composting cycle, to increase awareness of the composting process and its output in a tangible way.
Food waste caddies were also delivered to any households that wanted them, to enable them to collect food and compostable packaging in the home before emptying it into their outdoor food and garden waste bin.
The impact
Analysis of results from weekly waste audits of 120 households*, survey data from 86 participants and post-intervention focus groups with 10 residents revealed that:
The weight of compostable packaging disposed of per household in their food and garden waste bins increased by 76% between the pre-intervention and post-intervention phases of the trial. The contamination rate decreased from 8% to 6%, however there were increases in contamination from paper, card and glass.
There was a significant increase in the residents’ self-reported capability, opportunity and motivation to correctly identify and dispose of compostable packaging between the pre-intervention and post-intervention surveys. Comparing the pre-intervention survey to the follow-up survey at the end of the trial:
↘ The number of people agreeing they don’t find it difficult to identify if packaging is compostable increased from 27% to 36%
↘ The number of people agreeing that compostable packaging is clearly labelled as compostable increased from 52% to 60%
↘ The number of people agreeing they don’t know what to do with compostable packaging after using it decreased from 21% to 5%
↘ The number of people agreeing they can easily tell which bin compostable packaging goes in just by looking at the packaging increased from 36% to 61%
The front-of-pack label is what made me check, and then the-back-of-pack label is what gave me the info
- Quote from participant
↘ The number of people agreeing that something useful is done with compostable packaging that is put in the food and garden waste bin increased from 58% to 76%
↘ The number of people agreeing that they understand how compostable packaging is composted increased from 36% to 59%
As part of a waste-sorting task in the surveys, the number of items participants selected the correct bin for compostable packaging increased from 54% to 72%.
In the survey, the front-of-pack labels were chosen as most effective at helping to identify compostable packaging and put it in the food and garden waste bin, closely followed by the back-of-pack labels. This was backed up by the focus groups, with participants highlighting the front-of-pack labels as particularly useful as they may not have thought to look at the back of the pack otherwise.
The eye mask and bin tag were not deemed to be very effective, as only 28% of people reported using the eye mask on their food caddy, and only 45% reported using the tag on their food and garden waste bin.
Average weekly set-out rate for the food and garden waste bins collected for the waste audits was 50% (60 households).
The amount of compostable packaging disposed of has been calculated on a per household basis to take into account the fluctuating number of households that put their bin out for collection each week.
Our recommendations
↘ Organisations using or collecting compostable packaging should provide information on the composting process and the outputs of this to increase motivation and help people understand why the packaging needs to be disposed of correctly, in a specific bin, to be industrially composted.
↘ Compostable packaging producers should have a stand-out message on the front of their packaging to make clear it’s compostable, and direct people on where to find disposal information.
↘ Compostable packaging producers should include a standardised, consumer-facing label on all their packaging to help people know how to dispose of it. This should use a distinctive symbol and clear disposal instruction. Colour matching this to the colour of the bin or relevant communications where possible will help make the correct behaviour easier and more automatic.
↘ If a local authority decides to begin collecting compostable packaging, a large-scale communications campaign would be needed to inform and motivate people to correctly identify and dispose of compostable packaging, and address existing assumptions about how to dispose of plastic packaging. We’d recommend using multiple communication channels for this, such as leaflets and digital ads.
Wider considerations
↘ We recommend only using compostable packaging for applications where there’s evidence it has a lower environmental impact than conventional packaging, the packaging can’t be removed or reused, it diverts food waste to be recycled and replaces conventional packaging that can’t be effectively recycled. In our opinion, some of the food products included in this trial didn’t fall into these categories, such as multi-pack fruit bags, many of which could be removed, and crisp packets and snack wrappers, which while difficult to recycle are unlikely to be heavily food contaminated.
↘ To simplify and reduce confusion, there should be consistency between local authorities across the country when deciding if and how to collect compostable packaging.
↘ There are challenges for local authorities and waste management companies in collecting compostable packaging. This includes the difficulty of identifying contamination in both organic and dry recycling streams, and the fact that compostable packaging can’t currently be processed in anaerobic digestion facilities, which many local authorities use for their food waste collections.
↘ Increasing levels of recycling of flexible plastics and mandatory kerbside collections by 2027 mean there may be a greater risk of contamination issues between compostable flexible plastics and conventional plastics, although updates in materials recycling facilities to identify and separate compostable plastics may be possible in future.
↘ If compostable packaging is the right material to use on a wide scale, such as in supermarkets, this may also require business and on-street infrastructure to ensure it gets collected for composting at the point of disposal.
TAKE-BACK TRIAL WITH RIVERFORD CUSTOMERS
In this trial, Hubbub and the University of Sheffield worked with Riverford Organic Farmers, an online grocery retailer who provide some of their fresh produce in compostable packaging. Riverford already had a scheme in place which allows customers to return packaging to them to be reused, recycled or composted, when their next order is delivered.
The trial encouraged participants to return their compostable packaging to Riverford and consisted of:
↘ An intervention added to all medium-sized Riverford veg boxes which were delivered to all customers from one depot on two delivery days, for three consecutive weeks.
↘ Pre- and post-intervention surveying completed by 68 customers who received the intervention and 150 customers who didn’t receive the intervention.
↘ Survey results were analysed by the University of Sheffield to indicate whether the intervention was effective at encouraging customers to return their compostable packaging to Riverford to be composted.
Digging into the issue
A significant proportion of Riverford’s customers have home compost bins, and the main message on Riverford’s compostable packaging directs customers to home compost the packaging. Other on-pack messaging and communications tell customers they can dispose of the packaging in council food and garden waste bins (if their local council accepts it), or by returning it to Riverford. Since the aim of this trial was to investigate how well people can identify and dispose of compostable packaging within a take-back scheme, we therefore restricted the surveys to customers who:
∙ Usually receive a box from Riverford each week, so they’d be likely to receive the intervention during the three week trial.
∙ Live in an area that did not have a council food and garden waste collection service.
∙ Don’t have access to composting facilities at home.
Focus groups with 21 Riverford customers identified barriers which prevented them from returning their compostable packaging to Riverford. These included:
Lack of awareness that compostable packaging can be returned to Riverford.
Lack of knowledge of what happens to the compostable packaging when returned to Riverford, with the key question being: is it composted, reused or neither?
Uncertainty as to whether Riverford actually want the packaging returned to them.
Concerns over space at home to store the packaging before collection day and how to return the packaging on collection day.
What we tested
Based on these insights:
↘ A paper liner was designed and included in the bottom of every medium-sized veg box delivered to the intervention group during the trial period. A liner was chosen due to:
∙ It providing the right information in the right place and at the right time, when customers had unpacked their delivery, used the produce and were ready to dispose of the packaging.
∙ It being permanently included in the box, unlike a leaflet or flyer which may typically be included ad-hoc.
∙ Differentiating it from the other information that customers receive in their boxes as leaflets and flyers.
∙ Being unable to make changes to box design, on-pack messaging or apply labels to the compostable packaging.
The liner design followed Riverford’s brand guidelines and aimed to increase the amount of compostable packaging returned to Riverford by raising awareness of:
∙ What we wanted people to do: Return compostable packaging to Riverford.
∙ Why they should do it: So it will be composted at Riverford’s farm and the compost will be used to grow more veg.
∙ How to do it: Put the compostable packaging back in the box and return it to Riverford on their next delivery day.
The impact
The results from surveying with 68 customers in the intervention group and 150 customers in the control group revealed that:
The intervention increased customers’ intentions and motivation to return compostable packaging to Riverford.
The number of customers agreeing they know they can return compostable packaging to Riverford increased from 62% to 93% in the intervention group, significantly more than in the control group.
The number of customers self-reporting that they’d returned compostable packaging to Riverford increased from 29% to 66% in the intervention group, compared to a small increase in the control group.
There was an increase from 75% to 91% in the number of customers in the intervention group agreeing that something useful is done with compostable packaging that’s returned to Riverford, compared to a small increase in the control group.
There was an increase from 35% to 63% in the number of customers in the intervention group agreeing that they’ve developed a habit of returning compostable packaging to Riverford, significantly more than in the control group.
The Riverford team anecdotally reported seeing an increase in the amount of compostable packaging returned and received positive feedback from customers on the liners.
Our recommendations
↘ Organisations running a return scheme should use clear communications that are permanently included on or within the return vessel (and/or on the packaging itself), to raise awareness of the returns systems, how it works, and what the impact is from returning packaging to be composted.
↘ Returning compostable packaging to the retailer would provide more visibility and knowledge of how much packaging is being composted if the business is control of its disposal. If customers don’t return the packaging, it’s unclear how it’s being disposed of and whether it’s being composted or if it’s contaminating recycling streams, being landfilled or incinerated.
↘ Prioritise instructing customers to return the packaging rather than home compost it, as home composting isn’t available to all customers and due to varying home composting skills and conditions, the packaging may not properly break down.
Wider considerations
↘ Compostable packaging is still single-use and should be reduced wherever possible.
↘ Doorstep delivery and collection of packaging makes a reusable packaging system very convenient for customers: this should be considered for any appropriate products.
↘ Due to the nature of Riverford’s business model and brand values, their customers are likely to not be representative of the UK population and to be more environmentally engaged and motivated, which may have affected the success of this trial.
↘ In focus groups conducted after the trial ended with customers who were part of the intervention group, multiple people said that completing the surveys had increased
their awareness of the return scheme for compostable packaging and their motivation to return this packaging to Riverford. Therefore, the surveys themselves may have had an impact on customers’ behaviours, which aligns with the smaller, positive changes between the control group’s pre and post-intervention survey results.
↘ A high proportion of Riverford customers own a compost bin, and customers have shared positive feedback of composting the packaging themselves at home, but they may be better experienced at doing this than the average UK citizen.
↘ A take-back scheme may work well in specific circumstances such as with online retailers, but isn’t a wide-scale or consistent solution for people to dispose of compostable packaging across the UK.
THANK YOU
Thank you to our project partners for their collaboration, support and expertise throughout this project:
• University of Sheffield
• Recorra
• Vegware
• Tipa
• Medway Council
• Recoup
• Key Promotions
• Countrystyle Recycling
• Riverford Organic Farmers
• Futamura
• Envar
• REA
• Biome Bioplastics
• OPRL
• Innovate UK
• PNO
Reports we’ve read to inform our opinion on the use, collection and environmental impact of compostable packaging:
↗ UCL Big Compost Experiment
↗ UCL Compostable Plastics
↗ Don’t scrap the waste
↗ Environmental impact of biodegradable food packaging when considering food waste
↗ WRAP Considerations for Compostable Plastic Packaging
↗ Life cycle assessment of bio-based and fossilbased plastic: A review, by S. Walker and R. Rothman
↗ Ellen MacArthur Foundation - Substitution to compostable flexibles: Design and circulation
July 2024