Examination of Witnesses (Questions 500-519)
Ms Jane Bickerstaffe, Mr Stephen Carter, Dr Robert
Chilton and Dr Forbes McDougall
4 MARCH 2008
Q500 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
From a consumer point of view there is a considerable resistance
to incineration.
Dr McDougall: I do agree.
Q501 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
It is not a straightforward issue. If I look at what goes into
my dustbin, it is very largely plastic packaging from the supermarket—meat
packaging, the odd yoghurt pot and the like—which you know
is not recyclable at the moment.
Mr Carter: Can I just make a comment on the
Courtauld Commitment? Certainly my corporation supports the Courtauld
Commitment, but one of the areas that the Courtauld Commitment
does not focus on is the transit packaging, the packaging that
is there for distribution and shelf presentation. It focuses on
what the consumer buys. That is an area that I think needs development,
because we need to look at packaging as a whole system. You can
get into a situation where you so lightweight the individual consumer
package that you have to bolster the transit package, because
it has no strength. The consumer package has no strength on its
own. Again, it is important not to look at individual elements
of the whole product chain in isolation; you need to make sure
that you tie them together and find the optimum.
Q502 Lord Howie of Troon: Ms Bickerstaffe
mentioned excessive packaging. Who decides when the packaging
is excessive?
Ms Bickerstaffe: That is a very good question.
It will always be subjective to some extent. Looking at the letters
we get at INCPEN, people do not tend to criticise the regular
weekly groceries. I think that people accept that those are fairly
minimally packed. We get some little concerns about fresh produce—fruit
and vegetables—and why can they not be loose. Take cucumbers
for example. After three days, a cucumber really is not saleable.
People do not pick it up because it has lost moisture; it looks
dull compared to the ones next to it. You put 1.5 grammes of plastic
wrapping on it and people say, "Why do I need that?"
but if you do that, you will extend the shelf life to 14 days
and you still have a saleable product. When you look at the energy
and resources that you have invested in growing fruit and vegetables,
we reckon that it is a justifiable use of material.
Q503 Lord Lewis of Newnham: Not coconuts?
Ms Bickerstaffe: No. I do not know anybody who
has ever bought a coconut, wrapped or unwrapped—but it is
the one that is always raised!
Q504 Baroness Platt of Writtle: INCPEN
has suggested that a "packaging watchdog" should be
established, involving industry, local government and non-governmental
organisations, to address the problem of excess packaging. What
role do you envisage such a watchdog playing? What resources would
it need to do this, and how beneficial do you think it would be
for consumers? Would it in some way perhaps duplicate some of
the aims of the Courtauld Commitment?
Ms Bickerstaffe: We have suggested this because,
in the early 1990s, before the Essential Requirement Regulations
made it a law for companies to use a sensible amount of packaging,
we ran a body like that, and it was effective. Consumers could
write in to us; we were a multi-stakeholder group; we had local
government people from the waste management side and the trading
standards side; we had people in the supply chain; we had environmental
groups and consumer groups. People could write in if they had
concerns about packaging and we would then take those complaints
up with the company concerned. If the response came back and we
thought it was not justified, we thought that the packaging could
be improved, we could offer technical advice to the companies
to do that. If they came back and said, "We package it like
this for X, Y and Z reasons" then we could pass that information
back to the consumer. It worked as a very good conduit between
the consumer and the supply chain, and it did lead to some real
improvements. Probably something like that is not appropriate
today because we have the legal requirement and trading standards
police it, but we still think there is room for a body that could
identify this difficult area of what is excessive and what needs
improving; could offer technical advice—and there are sources
of Government-funded advice like Envirowise and WRAP that they
could be pointed at to support it. We think that it is such a
high-profile thing for such a tiny problem that some body ought
to be set up to address that specifically.
Q505 Baroness Platt of Writtle: You
cannot do it yourselves as INCPEN?
Ms Bickerstaffe: As INCPEN we did fund it ourselves
in the 1990s and we got criticism for that because it was 100
per cent industry-funded and we were accused of speaking for industry,
even though I am quite convinced that we were not. Lord Clinton-Davis
was the first chairman of it. He was completely impartial and
not anybody's spokesperson. I think that now it would have to
be different. It would make it more transparent if it was part-funded
by industry, part-funded by Government.
Q506 Baroness Platt of Writtle: Would
large companies like Proctor & Gamble and Unilever be willing
to play a role in such a forum?
Dr McDougall: We have been involved with INCPEN
and the European body, EUROPEN, since formation. We have always
been actively involved in this particular industry association.
Mr Carter: Yes, from my perspective also. One
of the frustrations of corporations like Unilever and Proctor
& Gamble is that we try very hard to comply with the essential
requirements. We make great efforts, and sometimes we actually
choose not to launch particular packs because we feel that they
do not comply. It is very frustrating for us to see people we
would regard as freeloaders taking advantage of the fact that
they do not have the same standards as we do.
Q507 Lord Howie of Troon: Under the
EU Directive on Packaging, I am told that large retailers have
to buy Packaging Recovery Notes to meet their obligations. How
successful have these notes been?
Ms Bickerstaffe: Could I first make the point
that it is not just retailers who buy these Packaging Recovery
Notes; our packaging recovery system obliges raw material suppliers,
converters, brands and retailers all to contribute towards it.
The system has been successful. The European Commission set down
targets to meet recycling recovery targets by 2008. We are very
likely to meet those targets. We have done it by spending just
over £1 billion of industry funding since 1998, when the
regulations came in. There has therefore been a significant financial
contribution from industry, all parts of industry, to achieve
this. We have got to the targets. The European Commission has
now said that they think these levels of recycling are environmentally
sensible. They think that the cost-benefit analysis they did on
it in 2004 still stands. They are therefore recommending to all
European countries that they do not move the targets further in
the short term. In the UK we have a slightly different situation
developing compared to other countries. We still have consumers
saying that they would like to recycle more material; so we have
to address that. We do have this issue of consumers thinking that
there is too much packaging out there. It is really a switch now.
We have come as far as 2008 under the EU rulings and we have achieved
what we set out to do. Now we need to look at what additional
issues we need to address.
Q508 Lord Howie of Troon: Have there
been difficulties in implementing this system?
Ms Bickerstaffe: I suppose so, but the view
that we took back in 1998 was to focus on getting the most resource-efficient
packaging recovery system in place; so we focused predominantly
on getting material out of the commercial/industrial waste streams,
where it is cleaner and it is more homogenous, and so it is easier
to get at and, financially and environmentally, sensible to go
for. We have put less effort in on the household waste side. However,
having said that, all the glass bottles and the metal cans tend
to end up in the household waste stream; so we have had to have
some focus on that. It is really what additional effort needs
to go into that area now.
Mr Carter: I worked in the UK when the PRN system
was introduced. I think that the whole packaging chain, from raw
material manufacturers to retailers, really felt the pressure
of gathering the data and putting the systems in place to gather
the data. But that is all done now. Each corporation and retailer
has data management systems that are efficient and they work.
We put the pain and resource in in 1998 when the system was introduced,
and now it is a system that everyone has learned to work with.
I think that, relatively, it works very efficiently compared with
many other countries in the world.
Q509 Lord Lewis of Newnham: This
is not the question I was going to ask, but can I comment that
I do think this business of recognising recycling from commercial
bodies is very much more attractive to the bulk of recycling groups,
because very often they are dealing with a single commodity all
the time and so it does lead to it. What I am not clear about
is the percentage of recycling that is commercial, as opposed
to the amount of domestic. I have a feeling that it must be a
large amount recycled commercially. The question I wanted to address
myself to, however, is related to this. You have made the point,
both Unilever and Proctor & Gamble, that you are governed
by what is a world type of market, not by a local market. Here
we are discussing the European implication. Have you found that
in point of fact your directives from Europe are as strong or
weaker than in other parts of the world? In other words, are there
certain things or procedures you are carrying out which are not
governed by the European Union but by other parts of the world,
which have stricter types of environmental legislation?
Dr McDougall: Essentially what we see is that
the most stringent legislation is being driven out of the EU,
and that is across the board from operating/manufacturing sites
to how we manage our residual packaging waste streams. To be honest,
when you get into the nuts and bolts of much of that legislation,
it is very similar in North America and Canada and in some of
the countries with developed economies. Therefore our operating
standards are very North American and Europe-centric, and we bring
these operating standards into our Latin American operations and
our Asian operations. We tend to have very well trained people
in all these jobs, to make sure that we deliver the same quality
at all our manufacturing facilities.
Q510 Baroness Platt of Writtle: You
talked about a data system and that it is now in place and people
can work with it. It works for large companies like Unilever and
Proctor & Gamble, but I seriously wonder what it does to small
firms who do not have the extra staff to do that kind of thing.
Ms Bickerstaffe: It was definitely onerous at
the beginning, collecting the data; but once the system is in
place, even for small companies, it is then more of a turnover
situation. I think that our system has delivered. We are ten years
in operation now and we have got where we needed to be.
Q511 Baroness Platt of Writtle: How
aware are consumers of the relative amounts of waste produced
during the production, packaging, distribution and recycling stages
of a product's life cycle, and what evidence is there to show
that they are concerned about this?
Dr McDougall: With the greatest respect to our
consumers, I think that their understanding of the whole life
cycle is not very complete. They really do focus on what they
see as the packaging or the waste from each product; they are
very aware of this and very familiar with it—mothers in
the kitchen who see it every day when putting the rubbish out,
et cetera. They really do focus on the packaging as waste, rather
than even the packaging playing a role in getting that product
to them. I think that the quality of the product, the protection
of the product, the anti-tampering—all the benefits that
the packaging brings—even they are missed, let alone any
of the environmental burdens caused at earlier stages in the product's
manufacture. What we see with consumers, when they are questioned
about their shopping habits and preferences, is that now lots
of people say that they would pay more for green products or they
would buy green products or environmentally friendly products;
what we actually see in the marketplace is that it is a combination
of the lowest price and the best performance that closes the deal.
It is not necessarily across the board for every single product,
but I would say that it is a fairly accurate generalisation.
Q512 Baroness Platt of Writtle: You
talk about packaging, but of course there is the whole product
itself anyway. This is what we are discussing. How it is produced,
what they use in the life cycle, and then what happens at the
end. Are they affected by that?
Dr McDougall: I do not think so. It really is
product performance. If the product does not work, it gets bought
once and then never again. It is a combination of product performance
and price.
Mr Carter: There is a huge problem from our
perspective as manufacturers about the level of understanding
by the consumer. Recently there was an article published on the
internet from Cadbury's, who were saying that 75 per cent of their
consumers think that the biggest thing Cadbury can do to reduce
the environmental impact of their product is to reduce their packaging.
Actually, if you look at a Cadbury's chocolate bar, it is about
1 per cent of the total carbon emissions through the life cycle
of the chocolate. That is one of the problems we have. Consumers
do not understand that packaging is responsible for about 3 per
cent of the emissions of a shampoo: it is all the hot water that
they heat to wash their hair. Asking them to turn the shower off
while they lather their hair is far more effective than us trying
to take 10 per cent weight out of the packaging.
Q513 Baroness Platt of Writtle: A
lot of education has to be done before this could be part of the
selling process, is what you are saying?
Mr Carter: Yes.
Q514 Chairman: The consumers' champion—Dr
Chilton?
Dr Chilton: Thank you for the opportunity. I
agree with much of what Forbes has said. The system is complex;
consumers do not understand the whole delivery system and, when
they get into the shop, they are overwhelmed with information
and choice. Your typical supermarket has 26,000 products in it.
To choose amongst those products, they may be thinking about Fairtrade
issues, organic issues, recycling issues. In practice, most of
us just deal with brand, price and convenience, even though if
we were interrogated we would say, "Yes, these other things
are important to me". What is the answer, therefore? Clearly
one would never resist more information to consumers, but expecting
that alone to achieve substantial behavioural change is extremely
optimistic. They need to be able to choose between products that
are sustainable, not between a sustainable product and an unsustainable
product. I will give an example. We have had eco-labelling of
fridges since 1995. The A-rated fridges represented 3 per cent
of the purchase market. Only when poor-performing fridges were
taken out of the market did we see a 50 per cent improvement in
the market of energy-efficient fridges. In other words, a degree
of choice editing. There is still choice in the market for consumers,
but it is not a choice to choose unsustainable solutions to their
consumer needs.
Q515 Lord May of Oxford: Of course
much of what you say is true, but I would say that it is greatly
oversimplified. Take the growth of the organic product market,
which is a complicated issue because the organic food in some
ways is grown in a more environmentally friendly way, which is
a plus, but a lot of people are buying it because they think they
get extra benefits, which they are not. That is an example of
something which, I would say, for many of the motives of people
who spend extra money to do this, falls in the general category
of sympathy for the environment. They have used that to trump
the other things. You say people go into the supermarket and they
think this, this and this. If I am typical, most people go into
the supermarket and they buy the sorts of things that they are
in the habit of buying, and you just make step changes in habit.
Organic farming is one. A real commitment—not just marginal
things which are a mixture of profit advantage anyhow—to
minimising packaging and thinking very seriously about it, properly
marketed, engaging things like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth,
has a chance to step-change habits. We are not talking about that
here. You seem to dismiss that as if it is not a factor, whereas
in the sale of organic produce it is demonstrably a factor.
Dr Chilton: I think that we could end up violently
agreeing with each other! This is a complex problem; there is
no single, simple solution. It requires an alignment of incentives
and behaviours. One of the key reports that the National Consumer
Council has produced is I Will if You Will. It requires
collective behaviour amongst consumers, so that you do not feel
you are standing out by taking a step in this direction; you are
not by-standing. It is also a partnership with providers: that
they are responding to the collective messages of consumers and
facilitating green choices. Clearly there are NGOs that provide
some thought leadership and some navigation skills in this, to
which consumers and packagers can be receptive.
Ms Bickerstaffe: One of the reasons that major
companies belong to INCPEN is to support our education programme.
We have had a schools education programme since 1988 and the level
of interest in it in the last five years has soared enormously.
At that level, children are wanting to understand the environment
better and we can capitalise on that by explaining things more
simply. People are confused about what is important environmentally
and what is not. MORI does regular surveys saying to people, "What
do you think is the most important single step you can take to
improve your own environmental impact?" and they tend to
put recycling at the top. Recycling helps but it is actually tiny
compared to things like turning down the home thermostat, using
your car less or buying a more efficient car. We did one bit of
research that showed that if, rather than buying an SUV or a gas-guzzling
car, you bought a regular family saloon car, the energy you would
save in one year is equivalent to recycling all your glass bottles
for 400 years.
Q516 Lord May of Oxford: There was
a fascinating MORI poll which asked the people who were polled
to rank ten actions that would save energy and then it asked climate
change experts, and there is essentially no correlation.
Ms Bickerstaffe: That is something we need to
help consumers understand.
Q517 Chairman: On the other hand,
Ms Bickerstaffe, your education would probably have been one of
the major informants or drivers in the rejection, certainly by
junior consumers, of the amount of packaging that Cadbury's have
on the things that they eat; for example, Easter eggs. They have
now bowed to that. With respect to your dismissal of the packaging
in chocolate, where you get specific campaigns relating to things
like Easter eggs, you cannot tell us that the packaging there
is nothing other than a means of trying to persuade consumers
to purchase one egg against another. Mr Carter, it was you who
used the Cadbury example.
Mr Carter: One of the difficult areas that we
get into is gift and luxury goods packaging. Easter eggs are bought
as a gift. If you consider other things that are bought as a gift,
in society there is an expectation that gifts are elaborately
packaged; and, again, if you look at fine fragrances. One of the
challenges we have as a society is in making gifts look minimalist.
Certainly Cadbury's are addressing this, because one of the things
that they are trying to do at the moment is to make the chocolate
thicker, so that they do not have to protect it as much; so that
they do not have to have such an elaborate box.
Q518 Chairman: Do you think they
will be doing it for the same price, or do you think the cost
of chocolate will increase?
Mr Carter: Unfortunately, I do not know the
commercial drivers of chocolate manufacture, so I cannot answer
that question!
Chairman: Maybe we should ask them.
Lord Howie of Troon: This is all very reminiscent
of the problems that politicians have in explaining politics to
the voter!
Q519 Lord Lewis of Newnham: We have
been concerned primarily with packaging. Can we talk a little
bit about what is inside the package? We have been told that industry
can only achieve a certain amount of reduction in waste and that
the complexities of consumer behaviour—the throw-away society
aspect—also needs to be addressed. How can consumers be
encouraged to value durable products above cheap and disposable
items?
Dr Chilton: Information is necessary but not
sufficient. It is behavioural change. There are other examples.
The Health Select Committee has examined how to persuade people
to stop smoking or to eat better, et cetera? There is a whole
series of behavioural approaches which help to shepherd people
into making good choices, and provide them with information; but
also collective behaviour and incentives to do so. You are probably
looking at something that involves subsidy, regulation, taxation,
information, and celebration of the good things that are going
on, so that people feel that they are conforming. I was in a supermarket
last night and I had to work quite hard to stop that plastic bag
coming across the counter, because everybody else was getting
plastic bags. I had to stand out. That should not be the case;
it should have been the other way round. Interestingly, Waitrose
are now dedicating some of their cash rows to non-plastic-bag
people. They are starting to make it easier. I do not think that
they have reached the point of processing you more quickly—that
would be a wonderful incentive!—but building those sorts
of practices right through the delivery chain. We do see, and
have seen on certain issues in society, that people's behaviour
progresses on a journey and will achieve the result that we all
actually want.
| 
