JKR

The fifteen million bulky plastic milk bottles sold today in the UK will have decomposed in landfill by 2511. ASDA are to stock nationwide a ‘papier mache’ alternative, which can be easily flattened, recycled up to seven times or composted in weeks. Even with a plastic inner lining, independent analysis suggests a carbon footprint down 48% on a regular bottle.

One might think that it should be a case of ‘hats off’ to both ASDA and inventor / hero Martin Myerscough. Apparently not so if one goes by comments posted in relation to the news on the Daily Mail website…

“We already have 100% recyclable plastic and glass bottles. Why do we need one that isn’t 100% recyclable?”

“We have been recycling our plastic milk bottles for years, we are now being told that they are NOT being recycled? How do they end up in Landfill? Are we all wasting our time sorting our waste?”

“Surely this is increasing waste? It has both a cardboard layer – and a plastic one. You can buy milk in a thin plastic bag from Sainsbury’s – which can be recycled.”

Beyond ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ what do these reactions tell us about the realities of pioneering greener designs and packaging for the general public? Firstly, there is much confusion and if one is launching an initiative which one assumes is basically good news, always consider the downside. I am guessing that unlike much new innovation, green initiatives are not researched deeply for consumer feedback because we assume ‘who would have a problem with this?’

Secondly, consumers are lazy but high maintenance folk. They want magic bullet solutions, but are quick to pounce on any potential issue. Yes, we have had thin plastic milk bags for years, but hardly anybody uses them because they are less convenient – ASDA’s solution is imperfect, but it addresses imperfect consumer behaviour. It’s in the real world.

Thirdly, if you are a pioneer be VERY clear that you are launching ‘mark one’ of a solution. Asda & co. are already working on a version of the package without a plastic lining, but this endeavour is lost deep within the reporting of the story. The journey can be as engaging as the destination if explained well.

And fourthly, if you are expecting thanks, forget it. This negativity is why I believe many sustainability programmes from brands are floundering – because while the consumer wants the solutions offered up on a plate, genuine breakthroughs are often reacted to as “about time – I can’t believe you have been such a toxic brand for so many years previously”. And so, deflated, brands might question ‘why bother?’ Which circles back on my first point…

I would suggest that the efforts invested in developing greener packaging need to have equal marketing support and effort to frame them effectively. Do the good readers of the Daily Mail with their grumpy response offer evidence of the need for a bit of positive spin? There is much dismissive talk of ‘greenwash’ around corporate responsibility. But perhaps a bit more judicious support will keep the substance of sustainability programmes on course in the hearts and minds of both consumers and CEOs.

Final question – as a designer working in London (e.g. I buy sun-dried tomatoes and read The Guardian) I see the new pack’s sub-strate as potentially looking more premium, natural and ‘authentic’ than the plastic equivalent. But am I misguided? Do others see it as a bit cheaper/dirtier than a glossy plastic pack? Let’s hope not, or another (great) green initiative will be spiked by consumers who seem incapable of making even fractional personal compromises on green issues.