Interesting results. What I'm missing is affective component of the attitudes. The problem is that on cognitive component of attitudes there is no problem (and the survey was about cognitive part as far as I can see). Yet when people would come to store and see their products without packaging, they might feel it is dirty, unhealthy and so on.

And the affective component takes a big part in the decision making process.

I have an example - at our office, we are constantly sorting the waste and since there is no nearby place to dispose them, we occasionaly take them with us to the proper place. We have therefore convince the manager of the building to get some appropriate coffer. Everyone was happy about the new thing from other companies as well. We were all environment friendly. Until the new bill came with some 10% more charge for the separate coffer. Wow, it was wanished almost the same day.

So yes, on cognitive and emotional component there's no problem to environment friendly behavior. The problem comes on the behavioral component, which needs to be managed better.

So to make effect, we need to use POP tools I think?

Ted,

I think Dusan makes point. We have been recycling for nearly 30 years, 20 in Seattle and 10 in Conn. But doing so was and is made easy and cost-effective in both places.

I'm a bit surprised that a $10 fee in Dusan's example stopped the recycling effort. However, additional fees will make the numbers you provide from Nielson irrelevant, especially in this economy in which most of us are trying to cut costs, even at the expense of doing good.

Dusan,

You make some excellent points, as always. Cost is going to be a factor, not only in the removal of packaging waste in our efforts to recycle, either. If we have to add substantially to overall product cost to make packaging greener and cleaner, consumers may likewise balk at that, as well.

You're also right about this important point: what consumers say in a survey and what they'll actually do when facing the retail shelf may be two different things. Convenient packaging, even if less environmentally friendly, may still win out over greener options, given home time starved we all are. Great insights, Dusan, and I thank you for weighing in.

Lewis,

Agreed. In light of rising consumer costs in every aspect of our lives: energy, utilities, food and other necessities, etc, one has to wonder how much additional cost the consumer would be willing to bear. You put it very well, Lewis: ". . .especially in this economy in which most of us are trying to cut costs, even at the expense of doing good."

Thanks for weighing in, as always.

Lewis, for me it was a total knock-out. How can few € be important to a company? I'm such an environment-aware person that it was really shocking. Yet the thinking behind was: "Why should I pay to this company that is already earning money from this waste?"

Ted, thxs for the post and response. :-) I just hope we find some way to make environment friendly convenient as well. There is actually no other way we have on a long run (like 3 years)?

Right, Dusan. If we want people to recycle or engage in other environmentally sound activities, we need to think things through. As you said: "Why should I pay to this company that is already earning money from this waste?" Exactly. Many people would take issue with this idea. Not just you. Thanks, Dusan, for pointing out something that could be detrimental to our long-term efforts to recycle.

Just to play devil's advocate, a company's primary function is to make money. Being socially responsible is important to some companies, but which companies will sacrifice their employee's homes for social responsibility?

A waste company has every right to make money off waste and if economies of scale are in favor of "traditional" waste, waste companies have every right to charge more for socially responsible waste management.

Responsible means different things to different people. I personally believe companies have the responsibilty to leave as small a footprint as possible on the environment. But that doesn't mean everyone feels the same way.

Ted,
To answer your questions:

• Would you, as a consumer, be willing to give up certain aspects of packaging to save our material and energy resources? If so, what would you be willing to give up?

Absolutely! The first thing I'd be willing to give up are the tamper-resistant wrappings around CDs and DVDs. Man, those are a pain! :-) I'll actually give you an example of something I gave up. I drink tons of water. For a while I refused to buy bottled water for a million different reasons. Eventually convenience won out. Now I just have one reusable bottle that I fill up probably 3 times a day. Figure it holds 20 oz. times thrice daily times 5 days a week I save a good 1200 twelve ounce bottles per year.

• Do the findings surprise you in any way? Are we doing better than you thought we were, or worse?

The findings don't surprise me. If people were really making that much of a push towards less packaging, we'd see less in stores. Consumers get what they demand.

• What else do you think we can do to conserve and recycle besides the initiatives illustrated in the Nielsen findings?

Greatly reduce the number of single-use products for sale. Also, I'm a firm believer that local governments should give incentives for recycling. In every park there should be a recycling bin next to a trash can. I like the idea of selling garbage bags at an inflated cost and giving away recycling services (the bags increase recycling and support the cost of it), too.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses, Michael. I can tell you that some companies are reducing the amount of packaging they are using. Many are not adding additional information sheets or extra packaging inside of boxes, for example. Others have reduced the overall footprint of packaging. Plastic water bottles have gotten smaller in size and weight, and I expect that to continue.

Some concerned consumers are doing as you do, Michael, and using reusable, refillable bottles. More of us should entertain the idea of doing it. I also like the concept of putting recycling bins next to trash cans in public venues.

The single serve issue that you've raised is an interesting one. Due to the fact so many people either live alone or in small two person households, there has been great demand for single serve products. I don't expect to see any change in that regard, but wonder how CPG companies might react in regard to making the packaging for those products as minimal and environmentally friendly as possible.

Lastly, you're right in saying that the concept of social responsibility and environmental consciousness means different things to different people. However people interpret these things, if we can all do a few things to conserve, recycle and cut down on waste, the overall impact will be a huge and positive one. Thanks for adding a lot to the conversation, Michael. I appreciate it.

Ted,
I've actually lived alone or in a two person household for the past 8 years, so I know exactly what you mean.

I still try to buy less packaging when possible. I buy the huge box of Cheerios and my ground beef in 6 lb packages regardless of price difference. Even if people don't care about the environment, surely they care about making less trips to the store--time is money to the average person.

I used to teach environmental science and biology to high school kids. In addition to the environmental benefits of green options, I would continually remind students of savings in time or money or anything else they value.

I certainly have not cut out all individually packaged products, but every little bit helps. Just replacing paper with real plates 1 out of 3 meals a day makes a big difference! That's a 33% reduction--over 100 plates per person per year. I do really like the statement you made,

"if we can all do a few things to conserve, recycle and cut down on waste, the overall impact will be a huge and positive one"

While, I'm skeptical about 1 person being able to make a difference in most things, I do believe 1 person can make a difference in the environment.

You're a smart guy Ted. Shoot me an email sometime. If my address doesn't show up for you, it's in my About page on my blog.

Back at you, Michael: you're a smart guy yourself. No doubt you made a difference as a teacher in your students' lives. Teaching kids about using their time and resources wisely is a great idea. Hopefully, a decent number of parents are still doing that, also. This really does boil down to educating people about making sound choices in their lives. Once people start getting into the habit of thinking things through, they make better decisions. Thanks for the kind words, Michael, and I will look you up at some point between client projects.

Michael, to back you up on 1 person can make a difference... for this new year our gifts to the clients were waste baskets for separate waste collection. With a clear message - you can change things.

Kainoto is change (in old greek language) and that is our mission. So I really think we can make a difference. Even tough this post got only 4 of us discussing for now. :-)

Good idea for a client gift, Dusan. I like the message that went with it. Whether the readers of this post all comment or not, I hope this gives the post and our conversation gives them ideas. Thanks, Dusan.

I come late to this thread but I have to say that I find excessive packaging annoying and cumbersome.

I see proof on the shelves that it is possible to produce attractive, minimalist packaging that does the job and is not annoying and cumbersome. I hate it when it is a task in itself to get at your newly purchased item.

I'm all in favor of protecting medicines and food from tampering but there is a lot of packaging that is flat out useless and redundant.

Many companies have indeed cut back on packaging. Doing so saves on energy and raw materials, and cuts costs which are inevitably passed on to consumers. And you make another good point, Neil: many consumers do find it annoying when confronted with too much packaging. There are ways to make products tamper-resistant without adding layers of additional packaging. Smart companies are doing just that. Thanks for your input as always, Neil.

This year WalMart began requiring its 60,000 suppliers to reduce packaging by 5%. It seems a small first step, except that this step is being taken by the King Kong of retailers. This will not only reduce tons of waste, but also make a difference in what people consider 'normal' packaging.

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/news_third.cfm?NewsID=34054

I'm amazed that 1 in 10 people won't give up anything to benefit the environment. A few years ago a lady told me the Earth didn't matter because "life is short and it's all about getting into heaven for eternity."

I'd like to know more about the 30-70% who won't give up this or that packaging option to benefit the environment. Is it religion? Politics? Selfishness? Ignorance? Is it the language - "Are you willing give up X to help the Earth?"

It seems to me that this kind of question highlights deprivation, and is even less of a motivator because "helping the Earth" is too big and general. I wonder if the results would be better if the questions went something like "Are you willing to change your habits to minimize related environmental damage such as extreme weather, crop failures, polluted water, and mass extinctions?"

Thank you for making some strong points in your comments, Terre. You also ask some provocative questions. From recent surveys, it seems that more and more people are aware of the need to conserve energy and raw materials; to recycle and reuse current materials, as well. I'm not sure that a large number of people don't care about this; some may not realize the impact of making small changes in our habits. It's largely a matter of educating the public, in my view. You can't force people to change; you have to convince them of the need to do so. Then they will opt to make changes for the better. Thanks for your articulate comments, Terre. I appreciate it.

Terre, if God created the earth and humans, animals, and plants, then why would that woman dismiss helping the earth so out of hand?

It is a very self-centered and self-absorbed attitude.

Ted,
Thank you for posting this information. It has certainly generated a good bit of discussion not only here, but in my office as well. We recently took on a client who specializes in conservative commerical packaging. As important as the issue is to some consumers, I think we'll see the real effects of reducing, reusing and recycling when more companies become involved in the conservation effort. As important as our individual and small business recycling programs are, global corporate conservation is the key.

Jessica,

One of the good things about the plethora of magazine articles in the general and business press, as well as posts in the blogosphere on green issues, is that it is generating a lot of thought and discussion. It's pretty simple: if consumers, small businesses and large corporations take some responsibility and enact policies to conserve, reuse, recycle and use renewable resources, we'll all benefit in the long run. Thanks for adding to the conversation, Jessica, and keep finding ways to do these things in your own company. It sounds as though your co-workers are receptive to making changes for the better.

The only way we can make a rapid progress is when we will shift our intentions from the econimics of packaging to trend shifting.

Harry

http://www.abc-packaging.com/sections/Type_70.asp