Comment
TOM GIDDINGS, executive director of ALUPRO, shares his views on a recent survey that found that the majority of consumers in the UK have a limited understanding of terms frequently used in connection with the climate crisis, sustainability and policies to reduce waste.
Why understanding climate language is key to reducing waste
Less than 25% of Britons understood the term ‘green’, while only a handful could correctly describe what ‘sustainable’ meant. Widely used phrases including ‘environmentally friendly’ and ‘locally grown’ were also considered unclear and confusing, with just 47% of consumers able to confidently define ‘single-use plastics’. The poll also shows that younger age groups have a better grasp of sustainability related terms compared with older people. Carried out by the insights company Trajectory and the communications agency Fleet Street, the survey was published in January.
THE GREAT DISCONNECT The obvious disconnect between what some brands consider
perfectly standard terminology, and a clear lack of consumer understanding, is a real cause for concern, especially when considering that almost 50% of consumers believe that brands have the biggest responsibility to deliver measurable action on the climate crisis. While it’s disappointing to hear that many widely used
environmental terms are misunderstood by consumers, I can’t say I’m at all surprised by the findings of this survey. After all, there is little continuity in their usage among NGOs, governments, brands and their value chains, making the terms often quite generic and sometimes even meaningless. Of course, they sound the part – especially when used to promote
a product or service – but I’m not sure that consumers can always clearly distinguish between correct and incorrect use. With these generic terms, it’s often left to the reader to personally interpret what they mean, which presents a significant margin for error or greenwashing. What’s more, it’s not always made clear which terms are more pertinent to tackling the climate crisis than others. This is a significant issue that we face in the packaging sector, where controversies over plastic pollution and waste export, among other things, has seen the use (and misuse) of green phrases rise quickly up the agenda. But while consumer confusion is clearly impacting the cut-
through of terminology, I believe that it’s absolutely one of the most important elements in our armoury to reduce waste. After all, consumers need to understand the implications of their actions – whether that’s embracing circular economy thinking to retain resources within the value chain, or choosing a product based on the sustainability credentials of the packaging that it comes in. As such, we, as a sector, have a responsibility to educate them.
31
metalpackager.com
THE GROWING CHALLENGE OF GREENWASHING
To overcome misuse and misunderstanding, we need a single vocabulary – possibly even a digital dictionary – of terms that are centrally held and independently verified. Each term needs a clear definition and parameters around its correct use, as well as a strategy to ensure widespread consumer understanding. Of course, numerous authoritative organisations have already generated their own definitions of these terms, but often (and somewhat unhelpfully) these contradict each other, or at the very least are different enough to leave room for arguments. So, while we don’t need to ‘reinvent the wheel’, what we need to do is make a decision on which definitions have primacy and, most crucially, consistently apply them. This’ll obviously take time, and funding, but it’s the only way to guarantee that these phrases really begin to resonate. As well as clarity, however, we also need effective policing and
serious punishments for misrepresentation – this will prove pivotal in cracking down on the growing challenge of greenwashing. After all, I think that the biggest challenge we face here is tackling the companies who exploit these phrases as a cheap marketing tool to improve their sales figures and create differentiation for their brand. This misappropriation is damaging a hugely positive movement, contributing to the established trends of public cynicism and mistrust of conventional ‘good things’ like recycling their metal packaging! But clarity of terminology is something that the recycling
sector does really quite well. Terms like highly recycled and widely recycled are considered simple and easy to understand. The difference between recyclable and recycled is also pretty straightforward. It’s a fair suggestion to say that we should have our own
centralised vocabulary, and that’s something I’d wholeheartedly support. Good, simple, accurate narrative should be based on fact. Metal recycling messages deliver upon this. We want people to do the right thing – transparency and accessibility is key to achieving the best possible results. So, while tackling the national challenge of lacking consumer
understanding when it comes to green terminology is a massive task, there’s a clear and effective route forward. But this isn’t something that can be reversed by an individual, a business, a trade association or even a government on their own. Collaboration and cooperation, across the entire supply chain, is key.
www.alupro.org.uk.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
