­

SO, my daughters' school (I won't name names, for perhaps obvious reasons), have recently announced - in a blaze of eco-friendly publicity - that they have banned single-use plastic bottles in school. Or perhaps more accurately I think banned selling them. This was apparently voted for, by the students, almost unanimously.

Now, on the face of it, I fully back this decision. However, I do have issues. Issue number 1 is prior to the ban, no recycling bins for such plastics were in place in the school canteen. Therefore, the pupils were never given the opportunity to diligently recycle their bottles, or encouraged to put them in the right bin. They are, after all, a product which can actually be recycled. There's debate, obviously, about how many actually are ever recycled, but they can be. So appropriate recycling facilities might have been an appropriate first step? Most of them, after all, are made of PET - polyethylene terephthalate for the purists or those aiming for the big Scrabble score. And this is easily recyclable. Most councils collect it.

So the question is, has the right lesson been learnt? This is a school, after all. Lessons must be learnt. 

Issue number 2 is this. They are still allowing (to the best of my knowledge) single-use plastic cutlery. This is surely a far-worse evil? Because these are pretty much land-fill fodder.... So as I see it, the lesson learnt is this. Plastic bottles are bad, really bad. Plastic cutlery, yes, that's okay.... yet exhibit A is easily recyclable, and always should be, and exhibit B is perhaps technically recycyclable, but probably won't be. Which means the school is sending out very mixed messages. 

I'm awaiting an update on what they have replaced the plastic-water bottles with. The school was anxious to point out, after all, the rehydration is important, and that water fountains of some sort would be available. Now from what I have read, some of the water fountains with the massive plastic barrels are not great, as the barrels are only used a handful of times. And many of them come with plastic cups? Or am I just being silly thinking that they might have leapt out of the frying pan, and into the fire with this. 

There are undoubtedly some people out there who would say yes, this is a brilliant decision by the school. And to be honest, I am not against it, it probably is. But I am not sure it was made for the right reasons, and I am not sure the pupils were necessarily given the facts to allow them to make an educated decision.

MARK LINGARD, MARKETING 

 

SO, one story in the news this week (courtesy of the i newspaper) that caught my attention was the news that Iceland has abandoned a trial to sell loose fruit and veg in supermarkets after experiencing a 30 per cent drop in sales.

It was Iceland, of course, who blew the packaging-world wide open a few years ago with their announcement – following on from Blue Planet – that they would go ‘plastic-free’ for their own label. It’s fair to say that a lot has happened since.

According to the i, managing director Richard Walker said the company is committed to removing its packaging, but it has proven hard to change shoppers' habits around buying fresh produce and the company will need to find affordable changes for its customers.

"We're on a bold, ambitious journey here to remove all packaging by the end of 2023," he said.

So why did this story in particular catch my eye?

Well, customers are very good in surveys at saying they want something. Would you buy loose fruit and vegetables? Yes. Would you pay a little bit extra for plastic-free packaging? Yes.

But as Iceland has found here, the public are, its fair to say, not always truthful. Recent opinion polls for General Elections have shown that the public are very good at saying one thing and doing another. This is a classic case of yes, I would in theory like that, but the reality is I don’t have the time. I can’t be bothered. I just want to pick up my peppers and go… or is it?

Iceland said customers still want efficiency and practicality, and many were not willing to front the additional cost brought about by the move. They are looking for a ‘cost neutral solution’.

Mr Walker said: “What people want is pre-packaged convenience. Lots of people pop in and spend small amounts of money. We need to keep prices low and the trial cost us more in the end.”

But there are a few extra bits of information in there which are quite intriguing.

Reading on…. “We chose one of our everyday stores in a working-class suburb of Liverpool. We want to democratise these issues and try to ensure everyone can have an impact.

“This can't be about virtue signalling - this isn't just about the middle classes, it's for everyone. And we need to work out how to make changes without adding to shoppers' spending.”

He said that Waitrose, which under its “Unpacked” scheme sells loose fruit and veg in a number of stores, has customers who can afford to spend more on their food.

“Our customers do care, Waitrose shoppers have the luxury of being able to spend more money. We need to find cost-effective initiatives that work for everyone,” he said.

Waitrose’s “Unpacked” scheme is, according to their own website, “designed to test how customers might shop in the future, with features including a dedicated refillable zone and frozen pick and mix”. It’s not just fruit and veg, it’s rice, pastas, pulses, seeds – even beer and wine.

Now, here’s where it gets interesting for me. Iceland ran their trial in a ‘working-class’ suburb of Liverpool. Waitrose is running its trials in Oxford, Cheltenham, Wallingford and Abingdon.

The Grocer magazine ran a feature on the Oxford store, in which they suggested that Waitrose had needed to employ extra staff, some perhaps only short-term while customers got used to it, to fill up the re-fill stations, help customers, and keep everything clean and tidy.

So Iceland’s MD may well be correct when he says that Waitrose shoppers have the luxury of being able to spend more money. I obviously don’t know the figures but would assume shoppers in Abingdon have more disposable income on average than in a working-class suburb of Liverpool.

Yet interestingly, Waitrose claimed at the time their “Unpacked” goods were cheaper. Couscous was £1.68 per kg instead of £1.98, long grain rice £0.97 instead of £1.25 and fusilli £1.07 compared to £1.26. On average, they claimed that their “Unpacked” goods were 15% cheaper.

This was presumably despite the increased costs associated with the extra staffing levels required.

But for me the most striking thing here is the suggestion from Iceland that working-class people can’t afford to pay the extra – or won’t pay it. Because if eco-friendly packaging solutions become available only to the wealthy, they will surely only scratch the surface of the problem. So did they refuse, or were they just more canny in their purchasing?

It would be interesting to know what else Iceland managed to glean about why sales dropped by 30%. Is it because, again using peppers as the example, that the customers only wanted one, rather than the 3 that were in the packs? Could it be that their customers threw out less food during the trial? Have Iceland, or indeed Waitrose, been asking these questions?

There’s been a long-held belief that buy-one-get-one-free offers, and pre-packaged fruit and veg, contributes to the food waste problem, as people end up with food they just didn’t need.

If sales dropped by 30%, but food waste dropped by 25%, is that a price worth paying?

https://inews.co.uk/news/consumer/iceland-loose-fruit-veg-trial-packaging-sales-1331510

MARK LINGARD, MARKETING

Find us at...

CFIA

CFIA

  • RENNES
  • MAY 26-28, 2020
  • STAND E21
RosUpack

RosUpack

  • MOSCOW
  • JUNE 8-11, 2020
  • PAVILION 3, HALL 15
Plastic Free World

Plastic Free World

  • COLOGNE
  • JUNE 16-17, 2020
  • STAND PF32
Fruit Focus

Fruit Focus

  • KENT, UK
  • JULY 8, 2020
  • STAND 505

Sign up for our newsletter

Buy now

Follow us on LinkedIn...

Find us globally...

  • UK (Global)

  • Sirane Australia

  • Mexico

  • Poland

  • Russia

  • South Africa

­